At least Adam Savage does. From an eSkeptic podcast which can be accessed here:
I guess technically it sounds like he wants to confirm natural selection rather than “bust” Creationism but it sounds like an ambitious and worthwhile project for the show. I hope Discovery lets them do it.
It will certainly generate a lot more publicity for the show, but it could also have some negative aspects. I hope they’re prepared to deal with that.
That would be freaking awesome, but they’ll have to design the experiment very carefully so they leave no (or at least as little as possible) room for debate.
Demonstrating natural selection may take more than 42 minutes and demand more in the way of scientific knowledge than their crew has to offer.
I don’t think the goal is possible. There are lots of simple experiments which demonstrate natural selection, sure, but nothing that will convince a creationist. They’ll just label it microevolution and fail to be impressed unless there’s live video of a dog giving birth to a parrot.
Most people, though, are simply agnostic to the issue, with a default answer of “against” since that’s what they’ve been told to say by their family.
This show might regain a little bit of credibility in my eyes if they manage to pull this off. Lately they’ve been light on the science and heavy on the cute chick.
Now that’s reality TV I can support!
Even if they don’t convince any Creationists, it could educate the public a little bit. I’m not sure what they would do, but I could see this as a real public service.
Yes, they really ought to be able to focus on both IMO. 
-FrL-
If by “natural selection” you (or Savage) mean that the individuals that are “fittest” are more likely to survive and reproduce and pass on those characteristics that make them fittest to their offspring, I find this easy to believe, relatively easy to defend on TV, and not necessarily incompatible with creationism. What’s harder to grok is how this results in separate, individual species, instead of a continuous array of individuals between parrot and dog.
I’m not challenging “macorevolution” personally here, just saying it’s a lot less intuitively easy to accept than “microevolution” is.
Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
I mean, they’re not on the same “evolutionary line” and all, but shouldn’t birds come before mammals?
I suspect that Savage might have been joking - using natural selection as an example of the kind of thing that’s almost impossible to demonstrate in a lab experiment.
I sincerely doubt that anything they could possibly do would convince the creationist crowd to change their tune, but I’d still like to see the Mythbusters take this on.
Of course, we’ll end up with “Anti-Mythbusters” protests, and some painstakingly researched TV specials about “Jesus horses” to try and counter the scientific evil that Adam and Jamie are pushing. :rolleyes:
Nope. I think (and Darwin’s Finch, feel free to pop in) that mammals existed with the dinosaurs, just not very successfully; birds came from some dinosaurs. A gross oversimplification, but you get the point.
I kind of get the feeling that Savage is saying they really want to do SOMETHING on EvC, and are working Discovery Channel to let them do it, but understands it would be a difficult challenge to design and execute a bite-sized test for the show. I think they could probably show bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or something but that might not be “sexy” enough for the producers.
I think a fun and feasible idea for a show might be testing out the plausibility of Noah’s Ark. There are innumerable logistic and design problems with the Ark as described in Genesis and the subject would lend itself well to visual presentations of these problems, as well as provide opportunities to inject humor. Jamie and Adam could even try to modify the design and build a scale model of what the Ark would really have to look like in order to house all the animals without killing them and perform as it does in the Bible.
True, this is not technically an EvC subject, but the flood often gets intertwined with that debate and it would be an opportunity to clearly bust a literal Biblical claim, which in itself might open some minds to the possibility that other parts of Genesis don’t have to be read literally either.
I sense…Kirk Cameron…reaching for a banana…
One of the earliest known mammals (or mammal ancestor) – Hadrocodium – dates to about 195 million years ago. Archaeopteryx, generally considered to be the “first bird”, dates to about 150 million or so years ago. So both groups lived alongside dinosaurs, with mammals appearing slightly earlier on the scene than birds (though placental mammals arrived after birds, around 125 million years ago). And yeah, the prevailing thought is that birds are directly descended from a branch of theropod dinsoaurs.
Of course, the point of Gorsnak’s post wasn’t to illustrate any actual or even supposed evolutionary lineage; it was to demonstrate that to creationists, nothing short of one “kind” giving birth to another “kind” will satisfy them. And even then, they would probably just play it off as a miracle or something.
Don’t be ridiculous. Everybody knows a parrot can’t give birth to a dog! 
They could do the experiment in Kari’s butt crack…