[x-posting to talk.origins where this belongs; followup set accordingly]

In article <dockio$49f$[email protected]>,
Stan Pawlukiewicz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rune Allnor wrote:
>> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.

I would add also that what we know as "science" doesn't have to
invoke the supernatural as an explanation.

>So by this criteria string theory is, what?

I don't know much about string theory myself; it seems to be a
mathematical construct devised to explain, describe, or unify other
parts of science. It doesn't invoke the supernatural. I personally
would classify it in the "tool development" subset of science.

>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>verified by experiment?

Gosh, where to begin? Here are a few. You can also look at
http://www.talkorigins.org for more.

================
Prediction: If all organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then
transitional forms must have existed in the past.

Experiment: Excavate fossils and observe.

Finding: Fossil record confirms that transitional forms exist.
Among the examples are many by which, beyond any doubt, a species
or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual
transformation is also exhibited by subfamilies and occasionally for
families.

(The fossil record isn't persuasive to creationists who point at
a gap, and when you fill it, they point at the two gaps on either
side. You can never fill enough gaps for them. But see the next
prediction.)

================
Prediction: Aside from the fossil record, we should be able to find
other corroborating evidence from fields of science unrelated to
paleontology.

Experiment: Look to other fields for corroboration. Some evidence
such as geological distribution was even known to Darwin, but other
evidence has only recently come within reach technologically.
Creationists tend to focus on paleontology in part because Darwin
saw the imperfect geological record as a weakness in his theory - he
devoted a full chapter to it.

Finding: Molecular biology provides some good examples, for
instance, the similarities in DNA of related organisms, or
quantitative variations in cell proteins that confirm genealogical
relationships. Cell proteins such as hemoglobin B, fibrinopeptide
A, or cytochrome C, can take on a bewildering myriad of forms, and
every species has unique forms of these proteins. The degree of
difference in protein forms can be quantified and used to determine
relation distance between two species. For example, a sparrow's
cytochrome C will have more similarity to a parrot's than to the
cytochrome C of an octopus. By analyzing molecular differences
between proteins of different species, we can reconstruct a "tree
of life" showing the genealogical relationships of the Earth's
creatures. You get similar trees using different proteins.

The fact that basing a molecular study on a different protein
results in a closely similar family tree is itself amazing,
considering that over 650 million possible trees can represent the
relationships between just 11 creatures. For twenty creatures, the
number of possible family trees is about 10^22. But what's really
amazing is that the resultant tree also agrees closely with the
fossil record tree from paleontology! This is a beautiful example of
how one science provides independent confirmation of findings from
another unrelated discipline.

There are many instances of independent confirmation from different
areas of science. For example, different methods of dating, using
radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, or corals, all give consistent
results. Such coherence practically requires that a theory be
accepted as fact for all intents and purposes. That's why scientists
accept evolution: when you have such a vast and diverse framework of
corroborating evidence, you don't need faith.

-A