You don't need to prove the the timespan left for a species in order to prove that the species is better at surviving, assuming better at surviving means surviving for more years.
In regards to Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals you just have to wait until Homo Sapiens goes extinct or has been around for a number of years that exceeds that of Neanderthals. Then you can conclude which species was better at surviving.
That's my original point. You can't say whether Neandethals are better or worse at surviving until 10-400k years in the future.
Also, I don't agree that a conjecture has to be experimentally proven during your personal lifetime in oder to be falsifiable. E.g. that would make gravity waves unfalsifiable, since they were predicted by Einstein in 1916 but weren't observed until 2016; 61 years after his death.
I just observed that they are extinct and we are not, despite coexisting for a substantial period. Their overall adaptation couldn't be that much better than ours.
Einstein's theories were falsifiable in multiple ways, with earliest confirming experiments in 1920s. Still, 61 years is within a lifetime. 10k years requires a time machine and makes your proposition pointless. As good as waiting for second coming to see if Bible's right.
> They didn't survive, so not sure what that says.
It says nothing because we cannot yet conclude that Homo Sapiens will survive for longer.
> Still, 61 years is within a lifetime. 10k years requires a time machine and makes your proposition pointless.
Interesting! So when does an experiment become pointless? When it takes a 100 years to prove? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years?
> As good as waiting for second coming to see if Bible's right.
That's not the same. The second coming might never happen, Homo Sapiens will go extinct. In a million years, you can conclude which species survived the longest, but you'd probably still by waiting for the second coming.
