The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

"There are two criteria for a theory being scientific: it must be demonstrable and falsifiable." Theory was defined in the opening, and one of the rules of the debate was to accept the definitions in the opening. "The point is that the proton decay theory is a scientific theory, even though falsification involves something never happening." No, from the actual source quoted : "proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs." Proton decay is not a theory, it is a prediction made from a theory (or rather group of theories). As an example, in the Georgi–Glashow model the proton has a half-life of about 10^36 years and decays into a positron and a neutral pion. Note the theory does not simply state as one of its predictions "may decay", it states the half life and decay products, this allows for prediction and obvious demonstration or falsification. "...although the theory would be disproved with respect to genetics" Again, the theory as stated does not state any explicit connection to genetics at all. "Evolution as defined here is falsified only if there are no changes in any ratio of any traits in any population." No, even that would not falsify it because there is both no mechanism for modeling and no time constraint so even if no change was never observed it could simply be argued that more time is needed. That is the exact problem, it can not be used to predict observations nor can any observation falsify it because there is no longer any mechanism in the theory statement nor even a link to the biological nature of "trait". "99.9% of scientists believe that Darwinian evolution is a valid scientific theory." It was noted without contest that Darwin's statement was a valid theory, it was wrong, but still a scientific theory. "I pointed out that the current resolution is necessary to Darwinian theory ..." True, but simply because something is necessary for a theory does not mean that something is itself a theory, the somethings can be facts or laws or fundamental constructs (dimensional separation, i.e., space/time). To summarize, as I was preparing for another debate I noticed how the current and very recent restatements of evolution had removed allele, this is because it is now known that there are non-DNA sources of inherited traits. However with the mechanism (natural selection) also removed the current synthesis has become too vague to be called a theory. The problem is that there are so many mechanisms and underlying complicated factors that it is difficult to state evolution without ignoring or contradicting one or more of them, and while scientists are trying to produce this new synthesis - they are left with something that is extremely vague. The current statement translated in lay terms reads as follows : "If you were to observe the traits of a population over time they may stay the same or they may change, if they change then they may converge or they may diverge or they may simply oscillate in a random manner." Well yes, that is the sum total of everything that could possibly happen. That is not predictive, anything which is observed satisfies it, and nothing can falsify it. It is not a scientific theory. It is of course true, but simply being true is not how a theory is defined. That statement is so weak it does not even satisfy the lay conditions for a theory, it would be like someone asking you what would your theory on the outcome of the next time your favorite team played and you responded "My theory is that they will either win, or lose, or draw or it will be a no contest." That is the sad condition of the current evolutionary synthesis, it claims win, lose, draw or no-contest, well yes, true, but not tremendously helpful.