Johnuniq and Quietmark, 

This is my last response. I do not have a problem with how you handled the discussion page and I appreciate the polite responses. I brought up my PhD in statistics because a contributor thought it would be appropriate to just delete my discussion, so I wanted to know why they felt that was within their purview. Do they hold some higher degree or happen to be an expert in evolutionary theory to whom I should defer? I am not a creationist trying to tear apart evolution, but a scientist trying to scientifically discuss the article. As such, my comments should not be quickly dismissed, but should be answered. 

I made the suggestion that there are many verified methods of falsifiability, which have been in either peer-reviewed journal articles or stated by Darwin himself (I believe this post was deleted, but I can provide them and their references to help out this section, btw I can find at least four or five, which is more than are currently listed, but are actually correct). This article listed none of these methods of falsifiability in the section labeled falsifiability.  

I don’t want creationism taught in school. One of the methods of falsifiability this article mentions requires a deity. This opens up Pandora’s box.  How easily could a creationist say “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?” If a deity can be used for falsifiability (the cornerstone of a scientific theory), then obviously it is allowed into science.  If it is allowed into science, then keeping creationism and ID out is not justifiable. Do not give creationists such an easy target.  

Other methods mentioned in the article, I easily disputed using only the definition of falsifiability found at wiki, among other places.  While you (in general) have dismissed my claims as being SYN, you could not break the logic used nor provide an argument as to why I might be wrong. This is like shooting fish in a barrel and you are giving creationists the ammo to do so.  How much ammo do you want to give them?  

Royboy, first the definition of chimera they are using has change from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) so the definition has already changed, because these exist.  Beyond that, evolution does not inherently predict that there are no chimeras as long as the lineage can be traced back and it was advantageous to have say a lion’s head and a horse’s body.  And as for the genetic variation being easily verified, how would this be done?  Our knowledge of genetic coding is very limited, and is certainly not to the point of finding the small changes that would appear relatively quickly in a population as you are suggesting. The number of microarrays involved would be cost prohibitive and lead large error rates that would only find very large genetic anomalies.  Beyond that, reason would dictate that mankind as been relatively the same for a million years, thus these are very slow processes.  In fact, I think you could be the first evolutionist I have ever heard, that is suggesting that these are quick processes. 

I am playing devil’s advocate, because I have found that it is the best way to truly test the validity of what is being stated and this is the scientific way. Look again at my previous posts (at least the posts that have not been deleted), not only do I say what section needs to be changed and why, but I have “quoted reliable sources that throw doubt on some aspects of the article”.  I have no peer-reviewed journal article stating that these methods of falsifiability are wrong because nobody has a peer-reviewed journal article stating that they are correct, so why would anybody argue against a point that hasn’t been made? I may be able to find some creationist webpage, but I don’t want that in the article either.  You may be right that I am committing SYN, but these are relatively simple arguments that can easily be made by others.  I’m not trying to denigrate evolution, so there would be no point to making an article called “Are objections to evolution valid”.  I just want science to prevail.  Make arguments strong and scientifically justifiable or they will be used as weapons to attack evolution. 

I believe that the section on falsifiability needs to be overhauled and carefully reconsidered, this is the wiki wringer you are mentioning Quietmark, my posts are part of that. I’m not asking it to be overhauled right now, but I think it does need to happen. This, however, I leave to your (collective) judgment.  If you would like me to review or help out, I am willing to do so, but only by email or talk.  I will not be editing this site or discussion page again.  It is my opinion that fair scientific discussion is not prevailing here, as nearly all of my material have been deleted or archived. Sorry it took so long to post this response, a user within this article had me blocked.