Reply #83: Alright, let me tighten it up a bit

[devarsi]

The scientific process, with which, I am sure, you are familar, begins with an observation. From that observation, a hypothesis is formed. In other words, you see something in nature, and try to explain it.

After forming your hypothesis, you must test it to determine its validity. Testing requires a series of experiments, using a control group and an experimental group. Any differences in the effect of the experiment between the two groups is attributed to the presence of, or lack of, the hypothetical cause for the original behavior as observed.

The results of the experiments will either support or contradict your hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported it is considered valid, until further evidence arises which adds new information to the equation. If the hypothesis is not supported, then the scientist revises the hypothesis and begins the process once again.

The problem with evolution as a hypothesis, is to devise an reliable and legitimate experiment for testing purposes. No one, to my knowledge, has ever done so. Therefore, evolution remains an untested, and perhaps untestable, hypothesis, and only one possible explanation for the original observed phenomenon.

Is that what you wanted?