The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

There are two criteria for a theory being scientific: it must be demonstrable and falsifiable. 1. Demonstrability. Pro concedes that individual traits can be observed and thus measured. 2. Falsifiabilty. Falsifiabilty is related to prediction. A theory is falsified if the theory makes a prediction and the prediction is wrong. I gave many examples of the proportion of traits in a population changing over time. Pro argues my analogy with the theory "buildings burn down," saying "One could sit and watch building after building not burn down and the statement would hold because it only notes they could, not that they should and under what conditions (which would make it a theory). ... Is that predictive? Clearly no." Pro is wrong, A theory that houses might burn down predicts that there is a finite probability of it happening. In modern physics, some theories predict that protons decay. So scientists watch a whole bunch of protons to see if one decays. The data now indicates that if they do decay, the half life is greater than 10^33 years. The point is that the proton decay theory is a scientific theory, even though falsification involves something never happening. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro argues that if selective breeding always failed it is possible that some other mechanism could still cause a change in the proportion of traits. Pro has a valid point, although the theory would be disproved with respect to genetics, which is actually the only case about which anyone cares. Evolution as defined here is falsified only if there are no changes in any ratio of any traits in any population. If any trait changes in proportion in any population then the theory is confirmed. This is comparable to the theory that protons decay. None have been observed, but if one ever is, then then the theory is confirmed. The theory of proton decay can only be falsified statistically, which is to say that the probability it is true approaches zero as more protons are observed over longer times. Despite the fact that confirmation is probabilistic, everyone believes the theory is a scientific theory. The only question is whether or not it is true. Similarly, if no population were ever observed to change traits, there would be a theoretical possibility they might in the future. Nonetheless, the ever-diminishing probability makes it a valid scientific theory. There are other examples. Newtonian mechanics clams that the weight of an object does not affect the rate at which it falls under gravity. It's logically possible that some future object might be an exception, yet the theory is universally accepted as both scientific and confirmed. Most physical laws are similar in that they are only confirmed by a finite number of experiments. 3. Expert opinion. I argued that scientists are experts in knowing what is a scientific theory and what is not. 99.9% of scientists believe that Darwinian evolution is a valid scientific theory. I pointed out that the current resolution is necessary to Darwinian theory, because if it is not a scientific theory that population traits can change, then clearly it is not a scientific theory to say they change by natural selection. Pro quoted a source that says that other factors are at work in evolution other than just natural selection. The source says that this further supports Darwinian theory. But supporting Darwinism or not, it is not possible for a scientist to believe that it is a scientific theory that evolution occurs by any combination of mechanisms if the scientist does not believe that it is a scientific theory that populations can change. Consequently, expert opinion of at least 99.9% of scientists believe that the present resolution is false. It is a scientific theory that populations evolve. It's observed. If no population was ever observed to change, the theory would be falsified.