[freeztar]

HydrogenBond said:

One doesn't have to predict to the future to be called science

I'm glad you agree.

Quote

but science would have to be rational to be able to predict the future. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. In the case of evolution, a has a finite probability of being b, and b has finite probability of being c, therefore the odds of a=c is getting worse. They may be equal, but there is also a chance they won't. Anyone with rational skills would think this sounds like it is coming from an irrational person.

Anyone with rational skills might notice this as a syllogism.

It seems to me that you are discounting the vast amount of research (phenotypes, genotypes, fossil records, etc.) regarding evolutionary theory.

Quote

Yet this is considered valid science? Nobody even tries to predict because it would make the system look at lame as it is. As long as the current theory can avoid a test of credibility, it can pretend all is well with this approach.

Here's a prediction for the theory of evolution.
I predict that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Can I test this?
Yes.
I can test bird bones against dinosaur bones and look for similarities and differences in the coding.
Hence, evolutionary theory allows for testable predictions. It is science.

Evolution discussions are kept in the appropriate forum: Biology.
A potentially viable theory that suggests an alternative explanation for evolution, which allows for testable predictions, belongs in the Alternative Theories forum.
A theory that speculates alien-guided evolution, without any way to prove this, belongs in the strange claims forum.