[supercat]

There is no experiment that can produce a vertebrate from an invertebrate.

And even if such a result could be proven experimentally, that would not prove that vertibrates were produced from invertebrates by the same means as was used in the experiment.

To use an archaeological analogy, there are various theories as to how the pyramids were built. The supporters of some of these theories have attempted to produce blocks similar to those in the pyramids, using materials that would have been available at the time the pyramids were constructed. Some of these supporters, from what I understand, have succeeded pretty well.

Nonetheless, the most these people can really hope to do is show that the pyramids could have been constructed via the method they suggest. They can not prove that the pyramids were in fact constructed that way.

[Petrosius]

And even if such a result could be proven experimentally, that would not prove that vertibrates were produced from invertebrates by the same means as was used in the experiment.

Point well taken.

[Dimensio]

Nonetheless, the most these people can really hope to do is show that the pyramids could have been constructed via the method they suggest. They can not prove that the pyramids were in fact constructed that way.

This is the second time that I have seen the argument that evolution is not science because nothing can be truly "proven" about past events. This misses a fundamental point: science isn't about proving a damn thing. Science is about coming up with the most plausable explanation for observed natural phenomena through a specific method of observation and experimentation, with the fundamental underlying assumptions that no supernatural forces intervened (because such forces would not be testable to any extent) and that the physical properties of the universe itself have not changed over time. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to historical sciences as valid science; if it weren't, then forensic science wouldn't be worth a damn.

Science isn't about "proving" things. I can't "prove" that the universe wasn't really created Last Thursday, but all available physical evidence suggests that the universe is in fact much older than last Thursday, so it is not scientific to state that there is no reason to believe that the universe was created Last Thursday.