Need help - please give examples of predictive power of evolution

dogjones · 25th April 2008, 06:52 AM

Appreciate there may have been threads on this before, but my search tool isn't working. Am debating an IDer. Please can you give me very specific examples of using evolutionary biology to predict a biological outcome?

Predictions along the lines of "we expect to find this sort of evidence if evolution is correct" are cool, but not as helpful, because this IDer thinks they are not really predictions!

I need biological equivalent of say, calculating the trajectory of a cannon ball in physics.

Many thanks in advance

Dog

Lucifuge Rofocale · 25th April 2008, 07:06 AM

Junk DNA presence in related specia?

Jimbo07 · 25th April 2008, 07:37 AM

According to the wiki article on Nylonase, creationists don't accept Nylonase as evidence of evolution.

Why even bother debating with someone when they claim that not only is the sky not blue, not even pink, but rather a red-and-black plaid!

chulbert · 25th April 2008, 07:42 AM

It sounds like you want something such as, "Evolutionary biology predicts zebras will become venomous in response to the selective pressure put upon them by predators." But that's not how evolution works. One cannot predict specific evolutionary outcomes because they are a function of selective pressure and random mutations. Perhaps they'll grow longer legs to run faster, or better camouflage, or improve visual and olfactory acuity to better perceive lions. There's no way to know for sure.

ben m · 25th April 2008, 07:51 AM

Neil Shubin looked at the evolutionary record of four-legged animals ("tetrapods") and fish. If evolution was responsible for some fish lineage evolving into a land animal, there had to be some sort of intermediate stage where some fish developed semi-useful legs---and, more specifically, this fish had to have lived 375 million years ago (just before the first fossil tetrapods). Shubin went digging in a 375 MY old riverbed and turned up Tiktaalik fossils---a fish with semi-supportive bony pectoral fins.

It's not just what evolution predicted ("some sort of bony-finned fish") but also where and when (shallow water, 375 Mya).

That's my favorite example, and the fish itself is a real beauty. Hello, grandpa!

CurtC · 25th April 2008, 08:06 AM

Humans have 23 pair of chromosomes while our ape cousins have 24. According to the idea that we share a common ancestor, we should be able to find in our chromosomes a place where two ape chromosomes were merged into one. This was predicted and found.

Careyp74 · 25th April 2008, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by chulbert

It sounds like you want something such as, "Evolutionary biology predicts zebras will become venomous in response to the selective pressure put upon them by predators." But that's not how evolution works. One cannot predict specific evolutionary outcomes because they are a function of selective pressure and random mutations. Perhaps they'll grow longer legs to run faster, or better camouflage, or improve visual and olfactory acuity to better perceive lions. There's no way to know for sure.

To add to this, what is thought to happen is, a species will mutate, for no reason, not caused by outside forces like predators or climate, and the mutated species will either die off, or survive. The original species will also either die off or survive. There is no way to predict a) what the mutations will be, or b) whether this mutation will help or hinder the species.

Bikewer · 25th April 2008, 08:30 AM

In Stephen Jay Gould's books, he always described evolution as "quirky" and "based on contingencies". Unrepeatable.

As Cthulbert and Caryip say, variations occur and either prosper or not.

blutoski · 25th April 2008, 08:39 AM

A recent one is that the fossil record suggests modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. It follows that dinosaur biochemistry would be most closely matched with Avians over other classes. But until recently, we didn't have remains to analyze.

Fortunately, there were recent findings of dinosaur remains that contained fragments of organic material. Of all living classes, these proteins are closest to those of Aves.

blutoski · 25th April 2008, 08:40 AM

Another good one is the prediction that the endogenous retroviruses will map to clades. This is the case.

Dr Adequate · 25th April 2008, 08:50 AM

Molecular Phylogeny^SW.

dogjones · 25th April 2008, 08:54 AM

Actually, the debate is on Vox Day's blog. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/vox...156392#2039046

Anyone else care to join? Would like to unleash the might of the JREF on this.

dogjones · 25th April 2008, 08:56 AM

Here's the original article http://voxday.blogspot.com/

JCL · 25th April 2008, 09:07 AM

While they may not understand any of the above suggestions, plus they don't trust scientists (they are evil and they lie).

How about the Flu vaccine, the theory of evolution is used to predict what strains of flue we will need to be protected against in the following year. I am sure they will have a canned response but at least it may be something they can relate to.

blutoski · 25th April 2008, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by JCL

While they may not understand any of the above suggestions, plus they don't trust scientists (they are evil and they lie).

Sounds like my gravitational lensing guy: if he doesn't like the data, he just says it's a lie. Don't have high expectations of winning an argument against somebody who has decided you cannot possibly present him with information that might change his mind.

I always suggest: debate for the audience.

Originally Posted by JCL

How about the Flu vaccine, the theory of evolution is used to predict what strains of flue we will need to be protected against in the following year. I am sure they will have a canned response but at least it may be something they can relate to.

Actually, I don't think the flu vaccines are predicted with any special use of evolutionary theory: they are predicting what strains will hit the world, based on the dominant strains in southeast Asia before the season begins. The pattern for influenza is that the new strains usually come out of rural Asia.

ben m · 25th April 2008, 10:35 AM

Oh, wait, we're trying to convince Vox Day readers? I suspect that examples-from-biology aren't going to do the trick. My impression of Vox Day suggests that the following argument might work:

In 2015, a horde of Al-Qaeda sleeper agents will emerge from their deep cover as (a) Mexican immigrant atheist gun-control advocates on welfare (b) feminist IRS/ATF agents with maternity leave, and (c) African-American communist abortion clinic defense attorneys. Their mission: turn everyone gay. They can be stopped only by paintball guns, blog posts about homemade nunchaku, and an unshakeable trust in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Who will save America? Who will dare? The Vox Day commentariat may be the only ones brave and skilled enough---unless misunderstanding of Darwin proves to be their fatal weakness. Only time will tell.

That might be the only way to get through to them---less logic, more bigotry.

dogjones · 25th April 2008, 11:37 AM

Ben,

You are da man.

Gravy · 25th April 2008, 12:33 PM

I recommend the TalkOrigins page on evolution predictions. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

However, I predict that Vox Day readers will not evolve the capacity to understand your arguments in less than a million years.

Dr Adequate · 25th April 2008, 04:08 PM

Chromosome 2^SW. Just written, may contain typos. Or how about Intermediate Forms^SW?

rjh01 · 26th April 2008, 01:09 AM

I say cats to this. When cats were worshiped by the Egyptians they was only one or two breeds of domestic cat in the world. Now there are heaps of breeds. Where they came from is all documented.

When the first European crashed in Australia they released many cats. These cats are now different from domestic cats in that they are bigger. Something has happened to allow this to happen. Answer evolution. If left to themselves they will be another species in a few thousand years.

If you want to go further back in history there are several animals that are closely related and are all types of cats. Lions, chetahs, tigers, domestic cat, wild cats etc. They all have many features in common. This would happen if evolution was true.

sol invictus · 26th April 2008, 01:03 PM

There are lots of examples of fast-breeding organisms evolving predictably in response to specific pressures. E.g. expose one petri dish of bacteria to antibiotic A, wait, observe the population which results. Now you have a prediction for how the bacteria in petri dish B will evolve in the same situation. This has been done; it works.

Pipirr · 26th April 2008, 01:18 PM

Darwin predicted the existence of a moth with a 12in tongue, after seeing the comet orchid with its 12in nectar spur. And just recently, the moth geneus simmonus was found, proving him right.

video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVN1EWxfAU
discussion here: http://reddit.com/info/6h5lz/comments/

Dr Adequate · 26th April 2008, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pipirr

Darwin predicted the existence of a moth with a 12in tongue, after seeing the comet orchid with its 12in nectar spur. And just recently, the moth geneus simmonus was found, proving him right.

video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVN1EWxfAU
discussion here: http://reddit.com/info/6h5lz/comments/

Y ... e ... s ... but ...

The idea that the world was made by God by magic makes the same prediction, based on the orchid, of the existence of the moth. In fact, this is my favorite example of a case where there is no difference between the predictions of biology and of creationism.

Pipirr · 26th April 2008, 07:43 PM

Alright, the predictive power of Charles Darwin, then...

JJM · 27th April 2008, 01:28 AM

Whales were thought to have evolved from land mammals

The Mammals That Conquered , By: Wong, Kate, Scientific American, Mar 2004 Special Edition, Vol. 14, Issue 2

UnrepentantSinner · 27th April 2008, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Pipirr

Alright, the predictive power of Charles Darwin, then...

Good point. While the science has long passed Darwin by, his predictions have proven to be amazingly on target. In each of the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution essays, there is a prediction based on Darwin's writings, followed by the evidence and a potential falsification. (Many of them have been noted above already.)

I have yet to see 1 compelling prediction/evidence/potential falsification set from IDers.

Matteo Martini · 27th April 2008, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

Appreciate there may have been threads on this before, but my search tool isn't working. Am debating an IDer. Please can you give me very specific examples of using evolutionary biology to predict a biological outcome?

Predictions along the lines of "we expect to find this sort of evidence if evolution is correct" are cool, but not as helpful, because this IDer thinks they are not really predictions!

I need biological equivalent of say, calculating the trajectory of a cannon ball in physics.

Many thanks in advance

Dog

I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available:

1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence;
2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example)

Gravy · 27th April 2008, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available:

1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence;
2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example)

Of what importance is the distinction?

sol invictus · 27th April 2008, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available:

1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence;
2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example)

There are plenty of examples of evolution making successful predictions of both types.

It should be noted that if we could ignore bias and other human failings there would be no difference between those two or between a prediction and an explanation of some already observed phenomenon. It is obvious that it should not matter to the evaluation of a theory whether or not some particular experiment has already been done. The theory either describes the world or not; its truth value does not depend on whether someone has done a particular experiment or made a discovery at any given point in time.

Careyp74 · 27th April 2008, 12:14 PM

Some posters here already touched on the idea that even though many occurrences can be explained by evolution, the subjects of the OP would still say that it can be explained by ID. This is a non-winning argument against creationists. God could still be around, creating new species. The only benefit here is defensive.

On another note, God could have a hand in controlling all cannon balls, and the extent to which a belief in the supernatural will cover is limitless. Dogjones, I don't see you getting too far with those people no matter what. Good luck.

Matteo Martini · 28th April 2008, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

There are plenty of examples of evolution making successful predictions of both types.

It should be noted that if we could ignore bias and other human failings there would be no difference between those two or between a prediction and an explanation of some already observed phenomenon. It is obvious that it should not matter to the evaluation of a theory whether or not some particular experiment has already been done. The theory either describes the world or not; its truth value does not depend on whether someone has done a particular experiment or made a discovery at any given point in time.

While I am aware that there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and very little - not to sat no evidence at all supporting competing theories), I have yet to see examples of quantitative predictions of the outcome of experiments made up by the theory of evolution.

Your sentence "The theory either describes the world or not.." looks like pretty obscure to me.

Dancing David · 28th April 2008, 08:44 AM

The genetic diversity highest in bacteria, what we thinl of as life, plants, animals, fungi comprise only 10% of the genetic diversity.

blutoski · 28th April 2008, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Of what importance is the distinction?

Agreed. A dig is a future event even if the fossil has been there for years. The cannonball trajectory is a future event even though gravity has been there for years. The cannonball is testing the theory that was built to explain both past observations about other cannonballs and should also predict and explain ongoing events.

And the distinction becomes practically meaningless for astronomy. Astronomy is a fossil dig in space - that stuff happened a long, long, time ago.

blutoski · 28th April 2008, 10:32 AM

Another one: Darwin actually reasoned that for selection to work, inheritence needed to be granular and discreet - the prevailing belief was that inheritence was liquid.

Just to give illustration: people noticed that couples composed of somebody with black hair marrying somebody who was blonde had children with hair somewhere in the middle. This was explained at the time by describing inheritance factors as a liquid that 'mixed'. I believe one term was 'gene plasm'.

However, this explanation was inadequate to support the natural selection model, and an alternative was proposed: inheritence is composed of granular and discreet elements, and traits are composed of one or more of these elements.

Mendel's independent work verified that inheritence was indeed granular elements, and biochemistry later described the detailed nature of these elements that today we call alleles and genes.

sol invictus · 28th April 2008, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

While I am aware that there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and very little - not to sat no evidence at all supporting competing theories), I have yet to see examples of quantitative predictions of the outcome of experiments made up by the theory of evolution.

I posted several examples in an earlier thread. Unfortunately the search function on this forum is so crippled I can't find it.

Basically, you expose a fast-breeding population to a pressure and observe the results. That gives a prediction for the results of doing the experiment again (expose an identical population to the same pressure). The prediction works, at least for some things.

Quote:

Your sentence "The theory either describes the world or not.." looks like pretty obscure to me.

I don't know why - it looks perfectly clear to me.

dogjones · 28th April 2008, 12:29 PM

Thanks all, will be putting all this together and posting it shortly. Not that it will achieve anything. I linked to the molecular phylogeny on Friday and was accused of posting nonsense - very amusing - their definition of 'nonsense' seems to be 'that which I can't, or won't, understand.'

Dr. A, your skeptic wiki stuff is fantastic! Very clearly written and lots of content, perfect for a layman (that is to say, me).

dogjones · 28th April 2008, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I posted several examples in an earlier thread. Unfortunately the search function on this forum is so crippled I can't find it.

Basically, you expose a fast-breeding population to a pressure and observe the results. That gives a prediction for the results of doing the experiment again (expose an identical population to the same pressure). The prediction works, at least for some things.

I don't know why - it looks perfectly clear to me.

Sol, that's wicked - have you any links to papers/sources at all? Sorry to be a pest.

Wowbagger · 28th April 2008, 02:38 PM

I wish to reiterate the 29 Evidences site. Not sure if it was emphasized enough, but it describes lots of predictions, and cites its sources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is also this concise summary of Evolution's predictive powers: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
Some of its references have links on the Internet.

UnrepentantSinner · 28th April 2008, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available:

1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence;
2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example)

Did you not bother to check the 29 Evidences link I provided right before you made your post? Every prediction in it is based on Darwin's writing in "Origin" and has been evidenced over the last 150 years - plus the Tiktaalik example. That completely satisfies your 1 definition.

Do you also realize that evolutionary theory... wait a minute, I know you don't, you're just trolling.

But for the lurkers, evolution is not the same as physics and cannot predict future directions evolution might take because we have no way of predicting what mutations might occur and what environment might select for which mutations.

Nice try, but 2 is tangental and off topic.

Clownshoes · 28th April 2008, 09:47 PM

How about species of cave creatures who no longer use their eyes? For example, I know there is a species of fish that is now blind and without eyes but the eye sockets and supporting tissue of where they once were are still present and clearly evident that the eyes used to be there.

25th April 2008, 06:52 AM	#1
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Need help - please give examples of predictive power of evolution Appreciate there may have been threads on this before, but my search tool isn't working. Am debating an IDer. Please can you give me very specific examples of using evolutionary biology to predict a biological outcome? Predictions along the lines of "we expect to find this sort of evidence if evolution is correct" are cool, but not as helpful, because this IDer thinks they are not really predictions! I need biological equivalent of say, calculating the trajectory of a cannon ball in physics. Many thanks in advance Dog
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

25th April 2008, 07:37 AM	#3
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	According to the wiki article on Nylonase, creationists don't accept Nylonase as evidence of evolution. Why even bother debating with someone when they claim that not only is the sky not blue, not even pink, but rather a red-and-black plaid!
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key Last edited by Jimbo07; 25th April 2008 at 07:40 AM.

25th April 2008, 07:51 AM	#5
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658	Neil Shubin looked at the evolutionary record of four-legged animals ("tetrapods") and fish. If evolution was responsible for some fish lineage evolving into a land animal, there had to be some sort of intermediate stage where some fish developed semi-useful legs---and, more specifically, this fish had to have lived 375 million years ago (just before the first fossil tetrapods). Shubin went digging in a 375 MY old riverbed and turned up Tiktaalik fossils---a fish with semi-supportive bony pectoral fins. It's not just what evolution predicted ("some sort of bony-finned fish") but also where and when (shallow water, 375 Mya). That's my favorite example, and the fish itself is a real beauty. Hello, grandpa!
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658

25th April 2008, 08:06 AM	#6
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Humans have 23 pair of chromosomes while our ape cousins have 24. According to the idea that we share a common ancestor, we should be able to find in our chromosomes a place where two ape chromosomes were merged into one. This was predicted and found.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

25th April 2008, 08:39 AM	#9
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,993	A recent one is that the fossil record suggests modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. It follows that dinosaur biochemistry would be most closely matched with Avians over other classes. But until recently, we didn't have remains to analyze. Fortunately, there were recent findings of dinosaur remains that contained fragments of organic material. Of all living classes, these proteins are closest to those of Aves.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th April 2008, 07:06 AM	#2
Lucifuge Rofocale Prime Minister of Hell Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 968	Junk DNA presence in related specia?
	__________________ AGW is the Democrat's war on terror. The "precautionary principle" is a favourite Greenie idea -- but isn't that what George Bush was doing when he invaded Iraq? Wasn't that a precaution against Saddam getting or having any WMDs? So Greenies all agree with the Iraq intervention? If not, why not? -John Ray Help Us to find Waldo! http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1999#comments

25th April 2008, 07:42 AM	#4
chulbert Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 725	It sounds like you want something such as, "Evolutionary biology predicts zebras will become venomous in response to the selective pressure put upon them by predators." But that's not how evolution works. One cannot predict specific evolutionary outcomes because they are a function of selective pressure and random mutations. Perhaps they'll grow longer legs to run faster, or better camouflage, or improve visual and olfactory acuity to better perceive lions. There's no way to know for sure.

25th April 2008, 08:13 AM	#7
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by chulbert It sounds like you want something such as, "Evolutionary biology predicts zebras will become venomous in response to the selective pressure put upon them by predators." But that's not how evolution works. One cannot predict specific evolutionary outcomes because they are a function of selective pressure and random mutations. Perhaps they'll grow longer legs to run faster, or better camouflage, or improve visual and olfactory acuity to better perceive lions. There's no way to know for sure. To add to this, what is thought to happen is, a species will mutate, for no reason, not caused by outside forces like predators or climate, and the mutated species will either die off, or survive. The original species will also either die off or survive. There is no way to predict a) what the mutations will be, or b) whether this mutation will help or hinder the species.

25th April 2008, 08:30 AM	#8
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,540	In Stephen Jay Gould's books, he always described evolution as "quirky" and "based on contingencies". Unrepeatable. As Cthulbert and Caryip say, variations occur and either prosper or not.

25th April 2008, 08:40 AM	#10
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,993	Another good one is the prediction that the endogenous retroviruses will map to clades. This is the case.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th April 2008, 08:50 AM	#11
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Molecular Phylogeny^SW.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 25th April 2008 at 08:52 AM.

25th April 2008, 08:54 AM	#12
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Actually, the debate is on Vox Day's blog. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/vox...156392#2039046 Anyone else care to join? Would like to unleash the might of the JREF on this.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

25th April 2008, 08:56 AM	#13
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Here's the original article http://voxday.blogspot.com/
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

25th April 2008, 09:07 AM	#14
JCL Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 106	While they may not understand any of the above suggestions, plus they don't trust scientists (they are evil and they lie). How about the Flu vaccine, the theory of evolution is used to predict what strains of flue we will need to be protected against in the following year. I am sure they will have a canned response but at least it may be something they can relate to.
JCL Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 106

25th April 2008, 09:18 AM	#15
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,993	Originally Posted by JCL While they may not understand any of the above suggestions, plus they don't trust scientists (they are evil and they lie). Sounds like my gravitational lensing guy: if he doesn't like the data, he just says it's a lie. Don't have high expectations of winning an argument against somebody who has decided you cannot possibly present him with information that might change his mind. I always suggest: debate for the audience. Originally Posted by JCL How about the Flu vaccine, the theory of evolution is used to predict what strains of flue we will need to be protected against in the following year. I am sure they will have a canned response but at least it may be something they can relate to. Actually, I don't think the flu vaccines are predicted with any special use of evolutionary theory: they are predicting what strains will hit the world, based on the dominant strains in southeast Asia before the season begins. The pattern for influenza is that the new strains usually come out of rural Asia.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th April 2008, 10:35 AM	#16
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658	Oh, wait, we're trying to convince Vox Day readers? I suspect that examples-from-biology aren't going to do the trick. My impression of Vox Day suggests that the following argument might work: In 2015, a horde of Al-Qaeda sleeper agents will emerge from their deep cover as (a) Mexican immigrant atheist gun-control advocates on welfare (b) feminist IRS/ATF agents with maternity leave, and (c) African-American communist abortion clinic defense attorneys. Their mission: turn everyone gay. They can be stopped only by paintball guns, blog posts about homemade nunchaku, and an unshakeable trust in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Who will save America? Who will dare? The Vox Day commentariat may be the only ones brave and skilled enough---unless misunderstanding of Darwin proves to be their fatal weakness. Only time will tell. That might be the only way to get through to them---less logic, more bigotry.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658	Last edited by ben m; 25th April 2008 at 10:37 AM.

25th April 2008, 11:37 AM	#17
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Ben, You are da man.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

25th April 2008, 12:33 PM	#18
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	I recommend the TalkOrigins page on evolution predictions. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html However, I predict that Vox Day readers will not evolve the capacity to understand your arguments in less than a million years.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 25th April 2008 at 12:38 PM.

25th April 2008, 04:08 PM	#19
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Chromosome 2^SW. Just written, may contain typos. Or how about Intermediate Forms^SW?
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 25th April 2008 at 04:09 PM.

26th April 2008, 01:09 AM	#20
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,201	I say cats to this. When cats were worshiped by the Egyptians they was only one or two breeds of domestic cat in the world. Now there are heaps of breeds. Where they came from is all documented. When the first European crashed in Australia they released many cats. These cats are now different from domestic cats in that they are bigger. Something has happened to allow this to happen. Answer evolution. If left to themselves they will be another species in a few thousand years. If you want to go further back in history there are several animals that are closely related and are all types of cats. Lions, chetahs, tigers, domestic cat, wild cats etc. They all have many features in common. This would happen if evolution was true.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home Last edited by rjh01; 26th April 2008 at 01:10 AM.

26th April 2008, 01:03 PM	#21
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	There are lots of examples of fast-breeding organisms evolving predictably in response to specific pressures. E.g. expose one petri dish of bacteria to antibiotic A, wait, observe the population which results. Now you have a prediction for how the bacteria in petri dish B will evolve in the same situation. This has been done; it works.

26th April 2008, 01:18 PM	#22
Pipirr Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: North Posts: 1,457	Darwin predicted the existence of a moth with a 12in tongue, after seeing the comet orchid with its 12in nectar spur. And just recently, the moth geneus simmonus was found, proving him right. video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVN1EWxfAU discussion here: http://reddit.com/info/6h5lz/comments/

26th April 2008, 04:04 PM	#23
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Pipirr Darwin predicted the existence of a moth with a 12in tongue, after seeing the comet orchid with its 12in nectar spur. And just recently, the moth geneus simmonus was found, proving him right. video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVN1EWxfAU discussion here: http://reddit.com/info/6h5lz/comments/ Y ... e ... s ... but ... The idea that the world was made by God by magic makes the same prediction, based on the orchid, of the existence of the moth. In fact, this is my favorite example of a case where there is no difference between the predictions of biology and of creationism.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 26th April 2008 at 04:06 PM.

26th April 2008, 07:43 PM	#24
Pipirr Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: North Posts: 1,457	Alright, the predictive power of Charles Darwin, then...

27th April 2008, 01:28 AM	#25
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855	Whales were thought to have evolved from land mammals The Mammals That Conquered , By: Wong, Kate, Scientific American, Mar 2004 Special Edition, Vol. 14, Issue 2
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855

27th April 2008, 02:28 AM	#26
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,363	Originally Posted by Pipirr Alright, the predictive power of Charles Darwin, then... Good point. While the science has long passed Darwin by, his predictions have proven to be amazingly on target. In each of the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution essays, there is a prediction based on Darwin's writings, followed by the evidence and a potential falsification. (Many of them have been noted above already.) I have yet to see 1 compelling prediction/evidence/potential falsification set from IDers.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

27th April 2008, 05:38 AM	#27
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by dogjones Appreciate there may have been threads on this before, but my search tool isn't working. Am debating an IDer. Please can you give me very specific examples of using evolutionary biology to predict a biological outcome? Predictions along the lines of "we expect to find this sort of evidence if evolution is correct" are cool, but not as helpful, because this IDer thinks they are not really predictions! I need biological equivalent of say, calculating the trajectory of a cannon ball in physics. Many thanks in advance Dog I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available: 1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence; 2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example)
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

27th April 2008, 05:52 AM	#28
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available: 1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence; 2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example) Of what importance is the distinction?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

27th April 2008, 06:06 AM	#29
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini I think you should first clarify what you mean by "prediction", as it seems there are two different meanings available: 1) you predict you will make a discovery of a fossil or of any other evidecen related to a past occurrence; 2) you predict the occurrence of a future fact (that is, the trajectory of a cannon ball, for example) There are plenty of examples of evolution making successful predictions of both types. It should be noted that if we could ignore bias and other human failings there would be no difference between those two or between a prediction and an explanation of some already observed phenomenon. It is obvious that it should not matter to the evaluation of a theory whether or not some particular experiment has already been done. The theory either describes the world or not; its truth value does not depend on whether someone has done a particular experiment or made a discovery at any given point in time.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 27th April 2008 at 06:08 AM.

27th April 2008, 12:14 PM	#30
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Some posters here already touched on the idea that even though many occurrences can be explained by evolution, the subjects of the OP would still say that it can be explained by ID. This is a non-winning argument against creationists. God could still be around, creating new species. The only benefit here is defensive. On another note, God could have a hand in controlling all cannon balls, and the extent to which a belief in the supernatural will cover is limitless. Dogjones, I don't see you getting too far with those people no matter what. Good luck.

28th April 2008, 02:19 AM	#31
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by sol invictus There are plenty of examples of evolution making successful predictions of both types. It should be noted that if we could ignore bias and other human failings there would be no difference between those two or between a prediction and an explanation of some already observed phenomenon. It is obvious that it should not matter to the evaluation of a theory whether or not some particular experiment has already been done. The theory either describes the world or not; its truth value does not depend on whether someone has done a particular experiment or made a discovery at any given point in time. While I am aware that there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and very little - not to sat no evidence at all supporting competing theories), I have yet to see examples of quantitative predictions of the outcome of experiments made up by the theory of evolution. Your sentence "The theory either describes the world or not.." looks like pretty obscure to me.
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

28th April 2008, 08:44 AM	#32
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	The genetic diversity highest in bacteria, what we thinl of as life, plants, animals, fungi comprise only 10% of the genetic diversity.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

28th April 2008, 09:44 AM	#33
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,993	Originally Posted by Gravy Of what importance is the distinction? Agreed. A dig is a future event even if the fossil has been there for years. The cannonball trajectory is a future event even though gravity has been there for years. The cannonball is testing the theory that was built to explain both past observations about other cannonballs and should also predict and explain ongoing events. And the distinction becomes practically meaningless for astronomy. Astronomy is a fossil dig in space - that stuff happened a long, long, time ago.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

28th April 2008, 10:32 AM	#34
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,993	Another one: Darwin actually reasoned that for selection to work, inheritence needed to be granular and discreet - the prevailing belief was that inheritence was liquid. Just to give illustration: people noticed that couples composed of somebody with black hair marrying somebody who was blonde had children with hair somewhere in the middle. This was explained at the time by describing inheritance factors as a liquid that 'mixed'. I believe one term was 'gene plasm'. However, this explanation was inadequate to support the natural selection model, and an alternative was proposed: inheritence is composed of granular and discreet elements, and traits are composed of one or more of these elements. Mendel's independent work verified that inheritence was indeed granular elements, and biochemistry later described the detailed nature of these elements that today we call alleles and genes.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

28th April 2008, 10:52 AM	#35
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini While I am aware that there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and very little - not to sat no evidence at all supporting competing theories), I have yet to see examples of quantitative predictions of the outcome of experiments made up by the theory of evolution. I posted several examples in an earlier thread. Unfortunately the search function on this forum is so crippled I can't find it. Basically, you expose a fast-breeding population to a pressure and observe the results. That gives a prediction for the results of doing the experiment again (expose an identical population to the same pressure). The prediction works, at least for some things. Quote: Your sentence "The theory either describes the world or not.." looks like pretty obscure to me. I don't know why - it looks perfectly clear to me.