[LegibleCrimson3]

Depends on how pedantic you want to be about "speciation". Humans have tons of adaptation just across ethnicities that likely originate in random mutations, sickle-cell anemia being an obvious one. If you're asking for full species change in a laboratory environment (ignoring the fact that what constitutes a "species" is somewhat arbitrary), there have been many studies on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_sp...

Claiming that the science is bad because the time scales are large is to discount any hypotheses on large time scales. That blows away nearly all of astronomy and huge potions of geology. That's ridiculous. We can clearly learn about things that have happened in the past by piecing together the mountains of evidence that are available.

[jdthedisciple]

The problem with hypotheses on large time scales is that they are not falsifiable.

The even bigger problem is to, despite that, make them into de-facto doctrinal tenants such that any critic is automatically labelled a pseudo-scientific nutcase.

The additional problem with the hypothesis at hand (speciation-by-random-mutation) is that it has never been observed and thus confirmed.

Now what I just stated are simple objective facts that nobody who understands reasoning from first principles AND is academically honest should have any qualms with.

[zamadatix]

Falsifiable != directly observable. E.g. if a hypothesis makes a claim the Indian subcontinent came from being pushed out of the earth at the Himalayas instead of rammed up into it one can make measurements today showing the opposite movement, the wrong types of rock at the top of the mountains, the wrong types of behaviors in the sea floor of the Indian Ocean, and so on that this theory predicts the opposite of. All this despite the process occurring over millions of years and is lacking a time machine.

A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable and make new testable predictions but does not have to be directly observed in its entirety to be replaced or supported by new evidence. Taking plate tectonics again as an example it's relatively new but predicted all sorts of testable things in regards to earthquakes, deposits, volcanos, and current movement that have all matched better than any other proposed explanation predicts. If a set of new predictions by an alternate theory is found that predicts not only these findings but different ones plate tectonics does not then plate tectonics would be falsified and thrown to the side.

[jdthedisciple]

> Falsifiable != directly observable

Fully agreed.

> A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable

Yes exactly which is what I'm saying. Speciation-by-random-mutation is in my understanding not a falsifiable hypothesis, or do I see that wrong in your view and why?

[zamadatix]

There are several ways I can think of to falsify "speciation-by-random-mutation":

- Show the average mutation rate the theory claimed is not as high as was needed to drive the amount of speciation we see (this particular experiment could have added data against that instead of in support of it).

- Show that the rate of needed mutation rate to see the observed speciation amount would drive too much detriment for "workable" mutations to propagate. I.e. "if you need x mutations per generation to get y useful ones and we've seen at least z of y then the amount of bad x mutations would have overwhelmed the population".

- Run these types of long run experiments several times with animals with extremely low lifespans (i.e. days like fruit flies) and show the population's DNA is extremely stable over many years with no mutations occuring, casting doubt into the assumption mutations are occuring often enough to drive changes needed for speciation to occur so often. You'd also have to convincingly explain why the error has been in most all of the previous experiments rather than yours e.g. some listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_spec...

- Find significant quantities of speciation which don't appear to be well explained by speciation-by-random-mutation and propose a different testable and falsifiable theory which explains not only those better but the others just as well as speciation-by-random-mutation did.

- And of course, the Bingo "free space": reproducibly demonstrate alternative means of speciation directly.

Really you can bundle "experiments attempting to support the speciation-by-random-mutation concept" (of which we've attempted many) into the same bucket as "experiments attempting to falsify the speciation-by-random-mutation concept". The only difference between which bucket they end up in is whether the outcome of the experiment agreed with the current theory or not.

[sethammons]

By the same reasoning, have you talked yourself out of plate tectonics?

[jdthedisciple]

What makes you assume I had talked myself into it before, or even have a stance on it at all?

I hope you don't think that was some kind of genius gotcha question on your part ...

[FrustratedMonky]

It was completely the same.

The same reasoning against Evolution, can be used for Plate Tectonics. So the question is valid, why do you believe one and not the other?

Many in this thread are creationist that believe the world was created 6000 years ago. The argument that at that time god kicked off Evolution and Plate Tectonics at same time. The arguments are valid for both.

But of course at the point you are using mysticism to just make up creation myths, of course you could reason about anything.