The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

Pro has the burden of proof of demonstrating that evolution is not a scientific theory, but made no arguments that it is not. 1. Demonstrability. Pro's definition of evolution covers all cases when the proportion of inherited traits change. This clearly includes traits selected by humans for propagation. This demonstrated, for example, by the evolution of dogs from wolves due to elective breeding under human control. http://www.dog-names.org.uk... There is an interesting case of crabs taken from a lake in Japan, in which the crab was throw back if the carapace looked like samurai face. Once rare, now all the crabs have the samurai face. http://en.wikipedia.org... Crops are selectively bred for dramatic increases in yield. http://en.wikipedia.org... In humans, blue eyes originated about 10,000 years ago, and are now a sustained trait. http://discovermagazine.com... In microbes: "Antibiotic resistance is a type of drug resistance where a micro organism is able to survive exposure to an antibiotic. Genes can be transferred between bacteria in a horizontal fashion by conjugation, transduction, or transformation. Thus a gene for antibiotic resistance which had evolved via natural selection may be shared. Evolutionary stress such as exposure to antibiotics then selects for the antibiotic resistant trait." http://en.wikipedia.org... Experimental evolution has proved the validity of evolution in micro organisms, rodents, and fish. http://en.wikipedia.org... "laboratory studies with rodents have shown that notable adaptations can occur within as few as 10-20 generations and experiments with wild guppies have observed adaptations within comparable numbers of generations" 2. Falsifiabilty. The theory of evolution would be falsified if selective breeding did not work to change the proportion of traits in an organism. However, selective breeding works, and does so with predictable results. A key aspect of falsifiabilty in the natural sciences is whether diverse observations are unified under the theory. "Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions ... can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check." http://en.wikipedia.org... For example, long after evolutionary theory was well established, analysis of mis-named "junk DNA" provided an independent means of tracing evolutionary ancestry. If the results of DNA analysis had contracted evolutionary theory, it would have been a strong argument that the theory was false. However, the DNA analysis supports evolution. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... Evolution could also be falsified by the observation of new species appearing spontaneously, without closely-allied genetic precursors. This has not been observed. 3. Expert opinion. Popular opinion on the validity of evolution is irrelevant, however scientists in the relevant fields have persuasive expertise as to what is and is not valid science. "The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". http://en.wikipedia.org... Evolution meets all the tests of being a scientific theory. It is the near-unanimous consensus of scientists in relevant fields that the theory is valid. The resolution is negated.