Predictions and the Theory of Evolution
With the exceptions of change and stasis, does the theory of evolution make any real predictions?
And if the theory can only predict that populations will change or remain the same, is it of any value at all?
(now watch as the responses will generally ignore the OP and instead focus on something else- but who knows maybe I will get lucky and someone will actually provide something of substance)
And if the theory can only predict that populations will change or remain the same, is it of any value at all?
(now watch as the responses will generally ignore the OP and instead focus on something else- but who knows maybe I will get lucky and someone will actually provide something of substance)
posted by Joe G @ 12:04 PM
13 Comments:
At 4:07 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
How about these?
Now, in return, please provide the real predcitions that design theory makes that would actually be falsifiable by someone with less than a NASA budget (as mentioned in a previous post). And, please add their usefulness.
At 8:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Predictions for the extremely gullible:
Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between African apes and humans.
Also seeing ID is OK with Common Descent (ask Behe), that could also be a prediction of ID as it says NOTHING about a mechanism. And in a debate about the mechanism that is important.
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Change- just like I said.
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
But that is nothing more than variations within a Kind.
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Speciation is nothing but minor changes.
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
No way to verify the "prediction" or the mechanism.
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Common Design predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees.
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface.
Scientifically undemonstrateable.
Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
Umm that does not mean insects had an ancestor from the sea or a non-insect ancestor.
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human. This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus:
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- [b]those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells[/b]. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro
Now what predictions can be made of genetic accidents?
"I think the mistake that many people make about natural selection is thinking that since it's inexorable without exception, that it leaves no room for randomness, for chaos to come in and upset the directions that it's taken so far.
In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected.
But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process".- Daniel Dennett
At 4:35 AM,
blipey said…
JoeG: But that is nothing more than variations within a Kind.
Can you define "kind", please?
At 4:37 AM,
blipey said…
JoeG: There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between African apes and humans.
Also seeing ID is OK with Common Descent (ask Behe), that could also be a prediction of ID as it says NOTHING about a mechanism. And in a debate about the mechanism that is important.
Translation: There is no such thing as common descent. But if there is, I predicted it.
Nice.
At 4:38 AM,
blipey said…
Which mechanism is at work in common design?
At 4:42 AM,
blipey said…
Do you even know what Dennett is saying?
That paragraph you cited states that even though the very specific mutations, deaths, and environmental conditions cannot be predicted--EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE PREDICTED--here's the thing, Joe:
A detailed picture of the tree of life CAN BE USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS.
Once again, please cite something that makes your case; else you just look stupid.
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
JoeG: But that is nothing more than variations within a Kind.
Can you define "kind", please?
I did in another thread you are participating in.
I take it you still can't follow along.
Which mechanism is at work in common design?
Design.
Do you even know what Dennett is saying?
Yes I do, but obviously you don't.
What Dennett is saying and what he stated on the PBS series "Evolution" is there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
A detailed picture of the tree of life CAN BE USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS.
Nice assertion. However I notice it hasn't helped us fight AIDS and we are still afraid of mosquitos.
JoeG: There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between African apes and humans.
Also seeing ID is OK with Common Descent (ask Behe), that could also be a prediction of ID as it says NOTHING about a mechanism. And in a debate about the mechanism that is important.
Translation: There is no such thing as common descent. But if there is, I predicted it.
Translation of blipey's translation: I am nothing but a stupid clown who couldn't follow along if my life depended on it.
Ya see Dr Behe, an IDist, accepts Common Descent. The debate is all about the mechanism of descent- by design or via culled genetic accidents. Therefore the mechanism is very importatnt. That is to people who really understand the debtae, which leaves out most anti-IDists.
At 11:09 PM,
Hawks said…
There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between African apes and humans.
Also seeing ID is OK with Common Descent (ask Behe), that could also be a prediction of ID as it says NOTHING about a mechanism. And in a debate about the mechanism that is important.
Tut, tut. You asked for a prediction, you got one. One that was based on humans and african apes sharing common ancestry. The exact mechanism behind the change between the species' isn't important (the only requirement is that it is fairly gradual).
For the record, "the theory of evolution" did not predict this. It was a specific hypothesis put forth that made certain assumptions. I.e. assuming that humans and apes share ancestry and the fact that great apes are present in Africa the prediction was that.....
I know that ID is OK with CD. The problem is that ID assumes nothing about the designer more than that it designs certain things that "law and chance" can't design. "Beheism" might make the same prediction that Darwin did, ID doesn't.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between African apes and humans.
Also seeing ID is OK with Common Descent (ask Behe), that could also be a prediction of ID as it says NOTHING about a mechanism. And in a debate about the mechanism that is important.
Tut, tut. You asked for a prediction, you got one.
It isn't really a prediction because it isn't based on any specific mechanism.
It isn't a valid prediction becvause it cannot be verified.
And the same data can be used as a prediction for other models.
One that was based on humans and african apes sharing common ancestry. The exact mechanism behind the change between the species' isn't important (the only requirement is that it is fairly gradual).
The exact mechanism is importatnt because mechanisms are part, if not most, of the debate.
And as I stated earlier that same data can be used for other competing models.
For the record, "the theory of evolution" did not predict this. It was a specific hypothesis put forth that made certain assumptions. I.e. assuming that humans and apes share ancestry and the fact that great apes are present in Africa the prediction was that.....
For the recoord- I know the ToE didn't predict it. I also know that no one can verify the prediction and the same data can be used for other models and their predictions.
I know that ID is OK with CD.
Only if it has scientific merit. So far it does not.
The problem is that ID assumes nothing about the designer more than that it designs certain things that "law and chance" can't design.
ID is about the design. And reality demonstrates that we don't have to know anything about the designer in order to detect and study the design.
As a matter of fact, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design in question.
IOW far from being a "problem" it is a virtue. The designer and the process are separate questions. Just like the origin of life is kept separate from its subsequent evolution even though how life arose directly impacts how it evolved.
At 3:42 AM,
blipey said…
Right. So what mechanism do I use when I design a lighting plot for a show? If you say I use the mechanism of design to create a design, that's a bit silly.
JoeG: Nice assertion. However I notice it hasn't helped us fight AIDS and we are still afraid of mosquitos.
Helped us fight AIDS in what way? Cured it? No. Developed drugs such as T-Cell inhibitors? Yes.
As for being afraid of mosquitoes? I can't help you with personal problems; you'll have to face that fear on your own.
JoeG on Dennett: What Dennett is saying and what he stated on the PBS series "Evolution" is there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
Yes. Do you know what this means? Please answer the following questions:
1. What are the odds that a specific base pair will mutate?
2. What are the odds that a specific mutation will be selected for?
3. What are the odds that any mutation that occurs will be selected for?
4. Does our knowing what mutations may be selected for in advance help or hinder the selection process, or does it matter?
At 9:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Right. So what mechanism do I use when I design a lighting plot for a show?.
You use whatever design mechanism works. Duh.
However you could just hang the lights willy-nilly. Your choice.
JoeG: Nice assertion. However I notice it hasn't helped us fight AIDS and we are still afraid of mosquitos.
Helped us fight AIDS in what way? Cured it? No. Developed drugs such as T-Cell inhibitors? Yes.
Seeing that the virus is still a virus we didn't need the theory of evolution to do so.
As for being afraid of mosquitoes? I can't help you with personal problems; you'll have to face that fear on your own.
Nice display of ignorance blipey. Mosquitos carry malaria, EEE and west nile.
All can have devastating effects on humans.
JoeG on Dennett: What Dennett is saying and what he stated on the PBS series "Evolution" is there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
Yes.
Alrighty then.
Do you know what this means?
Yes, do you?
Please answer the following questions:
1. What are the odds that a specific base pair will mutate?
2. What are the odds that a specific mutation will be selected for?
3. What are the odds that any mutation that occurs will be selected for?
4. Does our knowing what mutations may be selected for in advance help or hinder the selection process, or does it matter?
First tell me how any of those questions are relevant. I don't see any relevance at all.
My point is we don't know what will mutate and we don't know what will be selected for.
And we sure as hell don't know what mutations caused what transformations along the way or even if any amount of mutations can cause the changes required.
At 1:39 PM,
Joe G said…
My point is we don't know what will mutate and we don't know what will be selected for.
IOW the alleged "predictions" are nothing more than post-hoc accomodations.
The ToE doesn't have any predictive power beyond simple change or stasis.
At 2:27 PM,
Gary H. said…
I just love your in-yer-face answers JoeG. Keep up the good work, maybe someday some Darwiners will actually understand the difference between evidence and speculative just-so stories.
Unfortunately, "Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).
The Darwinian meme (or mental illness caused by persistent cognitive dissonance) may be harder to heal than we thought though. ;-) Logic sure doesn't mean anything to most of them.
+ After reading Cornell geneticist, John Sanford's "Genetic Entropy" it's pretty obvious that it's only a question of time before the whole Darwinian edifice falls apart in view of all as the most embarrassing pseudo-scientific blunder of all time.
Post a Comment
<< Home