Atheists: got a double standard for proof of evolution, or do you simply not comprehend the word predict??
Ordinarily, predictions are an important part of any successful scientific theory. They are supposed to give you some kind of concrete comprehending of how the world works. For instance, electromagnetic theory can be applied to tell you how a circuit or other arrangement of charges will behave. That’s will behave, not has behaved – it does not create an elaborate post-diction explanation for why last night’s lightning strikes landed where they did, it allows you to harness the comprehending to create technology that operates exactly how it predicts it will.
Apparently, in evolutionary theory, the pre in prediction is mostly decorative. Because the ‘last night’s lightning strikes’ thing is exactly what they do: they look at things that have already happened, like the fossil record or antibiotic resistance, and they retroactively conjure an explanation for it. Man, I need to get into science – it looks like it’s really easy! …as long as you get into a field like evolutionary biology that does not actually adhere to the scientific method, that is.
According to evolutionists, if I record the weather for a year and then recite it back to you, I’m the world’s most successful meteorologist! Problem is, meteorologists seem to have much higher scientific standards than evolutionists – the evolutionists would herald me as a genius, but the meteorologists would tell me to go back to science class.
So tell me, what other sciences only require that you write stories about how what we already know came to be, rather than actually telling us something verifiable about how the world WILL behave?
They are predicting the discoveries, not the events. Evolution can tell us where to find fossils and roughly what they’ll look like BEFORE we discover them – that’s the prediction.
If your car gets stolen, and the law enforcement offer to investigate it, do you reject their detectives as useless, just writing stories about what has already happened? Or is there some value to their ability to determine where they’ll discover your car and who has it?
Do you have to put ignorance of of natural science in a wall of text every time? two paragraphs would be just fine to be ignorant towards biology, but NOOOOO!
You really need to keep up with the latest science or you sound like an idiot.
This was predicted by evolution before it was verified by observation.
I realize that holier than thous pretend to know something about science, since in religion merely by making a claim the claim becomes true. Science is not that way, however. It seems that you are the 1 with a double standard.
Man, I need to get into science… Yes, you do. Start reading it before you begin talk abouting it, is my suggestion.
To use the same simplistic and absurd example you have, we assume 1+1=2 and we predict that yesterday 1+1=2. When we do that enough and it works out the same every time we make another assumption until proven differently.
How ridiculous, not even worth my time, this is too stupid an analogy for words
I am sure someone somewhere told you you were intelligent. Let me be the 1 to break the news to you that you are not.
Evolutionary theory was proposed when there was very scant fossil evidence. It predicted much of what we found later. Here is an example:
Prediction: If you look in exposed rocks from a particular part of the Devonian period, near places where there was water at the time, you will find fossils that are intermediate between lobe-finned fishes and early amphibians.
That prediction was confirmed in 2004, when Tiktaalik was discovered by a team looking for it, exactly where they predicted it would be found.
But that’s just 1 small example. Among other things, evolutionary theory predicted that we would discover a mechanism by which parents pass on traits to their offspring. This was well before we had knowledge about DNA, and Darwin never read Mendel’s papers. See many other examples in the link to talkorigins below.
Evolution has a very high predictive power. Before molecular sequencing was routine, the anatomic phylogenetic tree had been assembled. If common descent was true, molecular sequences should vary in correspondence to the most recent common ancestor. Sequencing has confirmed this prediction, which was not part of the data set, to such a high degree that denying evolution is science is blatantly dishonest.
Forward looking experiments have been performed, and organisms have mutated, increasing the information in their genomes, as evolution would predict.
This is typical creationist BS. Not knowing enough about science can easily lead 1 to false conclusions. How much do you really know about science?
…Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided…As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
You seem to be saying that by using evolutionary theory we should be able to predict the rise of antibiotic resistance before it happens, or the rise of morphological features? Like these:
Our results demonstrate that directed evolution coupled with structural analysis can be used to predict future mutations that lead to increased antibiotic resistance.
Predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance by directed evolution and structural analysis
…a method has been developed for in vitro evolution experiments to help predict how
long it will take antibiotic resistance to arise – potentially allowing informed decisions
about usage to be made.
Predicting the evolution of antibiotic resistance genes
…our work demonstrates how to construct and test developmental rules with evolutionary predictability in natural systems.
Predicting evolutionary patterns of mammalian teeth from development
Or that we should be able to use evolutionary theory to test falsifiable predictions? Like these:
It is clear from the above talk aboution that if I had wished to do so I could’ve truthfully presented every paper as either testing a prediction, presenting evidence needed in the test of a prediction, or presenting a D-N explanation…Since these biologists are working in a period of normal science under the paradigm of the modern synthetic theory of evolution, none of these papers is presented as a test of the modern synthetic theory; but since this theory was used in the derivation of each prediction, each 1 is a test of it as well as of the hypothesis mentioned…prediction testing is not, as philosophers have claimed, at best peripheral to evolutionary biology; it is central to evolutionary biology.
The importance of prediction testing in evolutionary biology
Falsifiable predictions can be, and have been, derived from evolutionary theory; many of them have already been rigorously tested. The ones presented in this paper are merely a sample of those that can be found in the biological literature.
Falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory
Outside of the lab, we have an excellent predictive record using evolution and artificial selection – plant and animal breeding. This has been around for several thousand years, long before evolutionary theory, but now, comprehending evolution allows us to enhance these programs in ways our ancestors could never have imagined.
This research indicated that prediction accuracy of genetic evaluations can be enhanced by incorporating genomic data into breeding programs for a moderate heritability trait
Genome-assisted prediction of a quantitative trait measured in parents and progeny: application to food conversion rate in chickens
…gains in the productivity of most crops may depend almost entirely on genetic improvements…Therefore, plant breeders will need to develop and apply brand new technology (such as marker-assisted selection) at a faster pace to more effectively improve the yield potentials of crop plants for the ever increasing global human population as well as for the changes in consumer preferences.
Synergy of Empirical Breeding, Marker-Assisted Selection, and Genomics to Increase Crop Yield Potential