Im moving on...
You are making the above statement, then make the below assertions? Please elaborateÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
I contend before the assembled Jury, that
Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.
That is totally dependent upon whether or not you are attempting to promulgate Macro from Micro.
If you are simply saying that microevolution (which is merely adaptation) biology, then we can find common ground. But I would further submit, why then would you call it Evolutionary biology? Why not just call it adaptive biology? Why add all the unproven stigma of macroevolution to it? Why pile more upon a hypothesis or model than needs be (see the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Succinctness)?
As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.
Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?
You can believe in the Falsifiability/ Un-Falsifiability doctrine of thought if that is your wish, but I would further submit that your thesis doesnt follow at all; or at least doesnt follow in most all circumstances; unless you are of the mind that the following statement (by another respondent in this thread) is true? And if so, as the OP asks for, can you back up your statements with facts!
It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.
In which case we have an even deeper evolutionary theological discussion to dig into.
Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?
HeyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If you cannot deal with that which corresponds with reality you may not want to get into this debate. Because reality has a tendency to rip the roof off of hypothesis, and expose its underlying intent. AND, adherence to the OP, its questions and its requirements are in play hereÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.
The fallacious Argumentum ad Populum is never a good tactÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ There was a time when the vast majority believed that African Americans were a sub-species, and we see how that turned out didnt we (there are also many-many other examples of the majority rules falling flat on its collective face)? You further exacerbate your difficulties with the fallacious and prejudicial term evolutionary research, and promulgate the single common ancestor hypothesis (which, by the way, via the evolutionary model, is a must), when this OP is about SCIENCE in general, and the evolutionists tendency to insert relativistic terminology as its back-up.
You can complain all you want about De_Skudds Overtures Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment, but the fact that it is empirical science, and it IS (per its parameters) un-falsifiable! Therefore it dismantles your attempt at a falsifiability doctrine. And any (and all) attempts to wriggle out of this tight logic have only been met with squirming by the relativists.
So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.
If the above were true, then absolutely NO evolutionist would (or could) claim that evolution predicts this or evolution predicts that; but we see this ALL THE TIME, do we not? Further, we can, in fact, determine a great many predictions with confidence, because of inductive empirical science, and what we have learnt from the past. If you dont believe me, simply complete De_Skudds Overtures Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment, and youll soon find where you are totally wrong!
The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.
Or, how it is irrelevant to science when it comes to truthÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
Let the white swan counting begin.