I mentioned antibiotic resistant bacteria elsewhere in this thread. You can find plenty of other examples if you look at the scientific literature in this field.

> Not interested in any prediction about things long past as you can modify any theory in any field to match up to such findings.

No, you can't. Evolution makes quite specific predictions about what we will not find in the fossil record--for example, J. B. S. Haldane's famous response when asked what could falsify evolution: "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian". Alternative theories for how the life we see on Earth today came to be make no such predictions--they could "explain" fossil rabbits in the Precambrian as well as anything else.

More generally, evolution predicts that we should find a "tree of life" like the one we find--where we can compare relationships between organisms that we derive using DNA, fossils, anatomy, and other evidence and find that, to within a good approximation, they all agree. Alternative theories for how the life we see on Earth today came to be make no such predictions--they offer no reason why all those different "trees of life" should be the same or even close to each other.

So predicting that you won't find something in the fossil record is it, is it? These kinds of predictions are hollow in the extreme. If the evolutionary model/theory cannot make predictions about what should be seen today then it is of little worth, in the same way that the current crop of climate models cannot make predictions of any worth.

The "tree of life" that evolutionary theory "predicts" has so many problems that it also is not worth much, if anything. So, back to the question at large, what valid definitive predictions is the evolutionary model/theory making today that we can go test in the living organisms of today?

I will say it again, I was and had no problems with the evolutionary model/theory until I started seeing the major dissonance between the experimental results being obtained and the interpretations that the evolutionary biologists were making on those results.

Evolutionary theory and practice today has all the trappings of religious dogma and one becomes anathema to the community if one doesn't subscribe to it tenets. This is not science. It is much like how the Catholic Church operated during the Spanish Inquisition.

There are no silly questions. I have come across many who promote scepticism except in areas in which they are "true believers". Some of these areas include evolutionary theory, climate change, big bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

There is nothing wrong with not subscribing to specific points of view, if you find that those models/theories have problems. You are allowed to ask questions and even be sceptical.

In some ways the dissonance between macro (astrophysics) and micro (quantum mechanics) is another good example where being a sceptic and asking the question "What have they missed in the promoted theories/models?", is a good thing. It is like the battles that go on between string theorists and non-string theorists. There is so much emotional involvement when it's only about some possible theories that may have some possible applicability.

Science is not about "truth" and when it becomes about "truth" it has changed from science to religion/philosophy. The way many of the participants and proponents of various fields and associated theories/models act, they are making it a religious discussion about "truth".

Science is about discovering information about the physical world around us and developing applicable models/theories that we can dispense with if they prove inadequate. It is not about dogmatic adherence to specific theories/models.

I put evolutionary theory on the same par as intelligent design. Neither of these views are science, they are philosophical/religious in nature.

I believe in Jesus Christ as creator of the universe and all that exists. It behooves me to gain an understanding of that universe and how it runs. To understand the rules by which it works, to understand the processes that occur. This means creating models and theories on how it works and when more information to come to light, being able to dispense with flawed ideas and theories. Theories give insight so that we can gain a better understanding of how things work. For me that gives a greater appreciation of how great is my God.

Will I understand the universe in any great detail during my life here. No. But is sure is fun to gain what understanding I can. We know so little and yet we have a propensity towards being dogmatic about what we do know. This is strange attitude, considering that we are continually finding out things that challenge our existing theories and models all the time.

Let's be enthusiastic about learning more about the universe and less about being dogmatic in holding to the very flawed theories and models that are the current "flavour of the day."

The more dogmatic people are towards the "correctness" of their theories and models the longer it will take for advancement in our understanding to occur.

Just an example for you. There is a potential model (actually the merging of two models) that could merge the strong force, electromagnetic and gravity into a single consistent electromagnetic model. Whether or not it has any viability, I cannot at this time see. But it is does have potential. I am having to relearn a lot of the mathematics I did 40 years ago as well as learn how to use Maxima to test if there is any potential viability. For me this is fun and I am enjoying looking at this. It may lead nowhere. So be it. I am not going to get emotionally entwined with the idea. It is just an interesting potential.

Really? What other models make this prediction?

> Nor is this feature of the bacteria a definitive example of evolution as such.

Why not? It's change in the genes of a population in response to selection pressure, that increases its fitness under that selection pressure.

> I was and had no problems with the evolutionary model/theory until I started seeing the major dissonance between the experimental results being obtained and the interpretations that the evolutionary biologists were making on those results.

Can you give some specific examples? From actual peer-reviewed literature, not pop science presentations? I agree that in their pop science books, articles, etc., evolutionists say all kinds of things that they would never get away with in an actual peer-reviewed paper (Dawkins is a particularly egregious offender in this regard). But pop science is not actual science, and you can't judge the actual science by its pop science presentations. The same thing happens in every field. I see pop science presentations of physics all the time, even by Nobel Prize winning physicists, that are full of misstatements and misrepresentations that would never pass in a peer-reviewed paper. But that doesn't make the physics itself wrong.

> There is a potential model (actually the merging of two models) that could merge the strong force, electromagnetic and gravity into a single consistent electromagnetic model.

Do you have a reference?