connectthedots said "To be a theory, it must be testable. Evolution is not testable. Since it is not testable, evolution fits much better within the definition of a scientific model than a theory."
How is evolution not testable? The main pretext of evolution is that every once in a while, a genetic strain will appear that is more suitable to survival. Gregor Mendel, that underappreciated monk, proved without a doubt that certain genetic traits can be passed on from pea plant to pea plant, thereby loosely proving that advantageous genetic traits will be passed on to offspring. This passing on will, in turn, give the offspring with the genetic advantage a better cahnce for survival, or the tools to outcompete plants of inferior genentic makeup. Survival of the fittest at its most basic.
SotF is the primary precept behind the concept of evolution, yet you state that evolution is "untestable" and go so far as to belittle someone else? Fantastic.
Explain to me how, exactly, you consider evolution to be "untestable".
You should have used the word 'why' rather than 'how'.
Evolution is untestable, because no one has ever duplicated it. If you can demonstrate even a one cell organism 'evolving' into a two-cell organism, you'd win a Nobel Prize. It hasn't been demonstrated. if it were testable, don't you think it wopuld have been done by now?
Please refer to post 142. If an ERV were in the same position in the genome of a gorilla and a chimp, but not a person, evolution would be in **big** trouble.
The cliche falsification is a Precambrian rabbit fossil
TalkOrigins has a ton of potential falsifications.