The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

1. Demonstrability. The definition of evolution that Pro asserted for this debate is "the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits." For evolution to be a scientific hypothesis, the proportion of inherited traits must be observable. For example, the trait of human eye color must be observable to tell whether or not the proportion of humans having a certain eye color changes over time. Traits are observable, so the criteria of demonstrability has been met. 2. Falsifiabilty. Consider the hypothesis, "Buildings can catch fire and burn down." Pro's argument on falsifiabilty can be applied. "Burning Buildings Theory cannot be falsified because if a certain building does not burn down, proponents of the Theory will dismiss it as just not having caught fire yet. Moreover, scientists are now being forced to acknowledge that not every building can burn easily, and it seems some cannot burn at all." Pro's argument fails because it is irrelevant whether or not all buildings burn or could burn. Similarly it is irrelevant whether or not whether the proportion of each inherited trait changes or can change. Clearly some do. Pro did not contest any of my examples. Biologists acknowledge that some species arrive at a point of genetic stability wherein few changes occur. For example, horseshoe crabs have shown little change over the past four hundred million years. http://science.jrank.org... Pro incorrectly argued that proponents of evolution would never acknowledge this happening. However, they do acknowledge such cases, and they recognize that it does not invalidate evolutionary theory. Different organisms have different mechanisms for correcting DNA mutations. If an organism is genetically stable, then few mutations are transmitted. The ability to reject mutations is itself an inherited trait. It is beneficial to the survival of the human species to evolve quickly. Not so horseshoe crabs. Pro argues, "There is no constraint in the definition which can be used to exclude divergence, ..." I'm not sure what Pro means, but it is not relevant to the resolution. The resolution is that the proportion of traits in a population can change. That's not contradicted. 3. Expert opinion. Pro first argues that the classic theory of evolution is not the same as the present resolution. The debate definition is that the proportion of traits in a population changes. Darwinian evolution is a stronger statement: not only does the proportions of traits change, but they change in accordance with mutation and natural selection. Hence if 99.9% of scientists agree with the whole theory of evolution, a higher percentage might oppose the current resolution, but not a lower percentage. Pro is correct that expert opinion is not absolute proof. Nonetheless, it is very strong evidence. Our resolution is only whether evolution is a scientific hypothesis. Consider debating whether a certain doctrine is consistent with Catholicism. That 99.9% of Catholic priests claim it consistent is very strong evidence. It is strong evidence regardless of whether the doctrine is true or not. In our case, our 99.9% believes that both evolution is a scientific theory and that it's true. Scientists are authorities on what constitutes science, whether agree with a theory or not. Pro argues that the theory of Darwinian evolution has changed over time. That's irrelevant to the current debate, where the definition is given as a weak subset of the larger theory. Nonetheless, what Pro is pointing to are details in the understanding of how evolution works. Newton proposed a valid theory of how gravity acts; Einstein explained how the mechanism works. That supports, not denies, Newton. Pro's [3] specifically states the mechanisms Pro quoted from that reference support evolution.