Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism and climate change: Go on then, make a PREDICTION!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Late Eocene: Brontotheres, with Hyracodon in the foreground/artist: Carl Buell)

From “Over 65 Million Years, North American Mammal Evolution Has Tracked With Climate Change” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 27, 2011), we learn:

What the authors found is six distinct and consecutive groupings of mammal species that shared a common rise, peak, and decline in their numbers. For example, the “Paleocene fauna” had largely given way to the “early-middle Eocene fauna” by about 50 million years ago. Moreover, the authors found that these transfers of dominance correlated with temperature shifts, as reflected in data on past levels of atmospheric oxygen (determined from the isotopes in the fossilized remains of deep sea microorganisms).

To the extent that the study helps clarify scientists’ understanding of evolution amid climate changes, it does not do so to the extent that they can make specific predictions about the future, Janis said. But it seems all the clearer that climate change has repeatedly had meaningful effect over millions of years.

No wonder they say Darwinism predicts nothing. Evolution, in general, predicts nothing.

“Such perturbations, related to anthropogenic climatic change, are currently challenging the fauna of the world today, emphasizing the importance of the fossil record for our understanding of how past events affected the history of faunal diversification and extinction, and hence how future climactic changes may continue to influence life on earth,” the authors wrote in the paper.

But if such studies don’t enable us to predict anything, why are they important for understanding the outcomes of anthropogenic climate change?

Comments
For example, we can use past evidence to predict that if you raise the speed limit in built-up areas, more pedestrians will be injured.
It's called the Darwin Awards.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Hi Elizabeth, What should we observe if living organisms are accumulations of random mutations? And hopefully Darwinists and neo-darwinists take your advice and make a new year's resolution to stop mangling science. Then it will be a Happy New Year indeed.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
To answer your question:
But if such studies don’t enable us to predict anything, why are they important for understanding the outcomes of anthropogenic climate change?
1. They do enable us to predict stuff 2. They are important because, while the predictions maybe probabilistic and non-specific, they tell us that there will be profound effects. For example, we can use past evidence to predict that if you raise the speed limit in built-up areas, more pedestrians will be injured. That doesn't enable us to predict that any one vehicle will injure any one pedestrian with any degree of certainty. Our statistical prediction may nonetheless be highly reliable.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
No wonder they say Darwinism predicts nothing. Evolution, in general, predicts nothing.
Evolutionary theory has given rise to lots of hypotheses that have predicted lots of things, successfully. That doesn't mean that evolution can predict anything (e.g. climate change). It's not an oracle. "Prediction" in science means "what we should observe if our hypothesis is correct". This can include new data, including data from the past. Anyway, a (late) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :) Perhaps a new year's resolution might be to not mangle science articles in news posts?Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
But if such studies don’t enable us to predict anything, why are they important for understanding the outcomes of anthropogenic climate change?
But doesn't this study predict that major changes in mammalian fauna will be associated with a major change in climate? As a corollary, a major change in climate can lead to major changes in the mammalian fauna? In what sense aren't these predictions?Heinrich
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
No Noam, you weren't debating with me. You were just spewing nonsense about CO2 and you refused to deal with soot.
As for you soot keeping temperature even, you’re wrong.
I never said that. You must be irrational to not understand what I said because I said it in plain English. Click on the following and educate yourself- google "soot and global warming"Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Joe, were you the one I was debating with a month ago? In any case, you're being completely irrational. An irrational person is one who does not understand what they need to do in order to keep themselves alive. You personally can most likely keep yourself alive, but if the species as a whole thought like you did, we humans would be irrational. We have to take the necessary steps to ensure that not just our generation survives but that future generations survive. As for you soot keeping temperature even, you're wrong. If what you say is true then you would retrodict that no matter what level CO2 was at it would stay the same. Looking at this chart that is clearly not the case: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=899&bih=523&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZGU2Pnf9DeQpQM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/node3.html&docid=_VdalRab8QNBWM&imgurl=http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif&w=750&h=380&ei=Se_7TsjkIeTt0gH38cS9Ag&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=112&vpy=178&dur=39&hovh=160&hovw=316&tx=161&ty=114&sig=101543601260363593372&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=259&start=0&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0 Now, after looking at that chart are you going to admit that temperature rise and CO2 are correlated or are you going to move the goal post and come up with a new argument?noam_ghish
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Noam, I feel your pain but it is misplaced. CO2 is not the culprit. We need to deal with all the other $h!+ we are doing to this privileged planet. Take a good look at all the ice that is melting- it all has one thing in common-> soot, that is, they are dirty. Dirt traps the heat of the sun and will melt the ice even when the ambient temp is below freezing. With all the crap we are doing to this planet, watching you misguided XXXs froth about CO2, something plants need, plants that we need, makes me sick. Ya see I do not disagree that we are the bad guys. It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy. Now stop hyperventilating and just think about it...Joe
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
We in the ID movement need to embrace the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real and that if we do not act now to stop it then the consequences will be disastrous. We run the risk of damaging our credibility by doubting such solid science as climate change. It is the mark of a serious amount of irrationality when you realize that CO2 levels and temperature have correlated over the last 400K years. CO2 levels vascillated between 180 and 280 for 400k years and now in the last hundred they've shot up to 380. We're dead if we don't acknowledge this horrendous mistake. Also CO2 causes temperature, not the other way around. Temperature is the mean molecular motion. You need a cause for temperature to increase. Molecules just don't start moving faster for no reason. The cause is increase in CO2. Just look at the charts.noam_ghish
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Here is How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the many instances of 'anomalous' genetic evidence:
A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract
Here is How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the the completely incongruent fossil record;
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html 'Punctuated Equilibrium",,,, no reference needed!!! The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID - Casey Luskin - Audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00
This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:
More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html
further note:
Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011 Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".' http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml
bornagain77
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Whereas on the other hand, where we can find no rigid falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism, here is the basic, 'rigid', falsification criteria for Intelligent Design:
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) – Abel – Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, “Yes.”,,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' that must be passed by neo-Darwinism - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248
bornagain77
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Predictions, particularly successful predictions, is the one thing that separates true science from pseudo-science. i.e. separates Intelligent Design from Darwinian materialism:
Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’ "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory
In fact, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following article and audio lecture, Darwinism is found to be a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;
Science and Pseudoscience - Lakatos - article http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.aspx Science and Pseudoscience - Lakatos - audio http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3
The following evidence shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria for prediction and testability;
Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
bornagain77
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Notes:
Not So Fast:,,, Excerpt: The exact cause of these long-term, persistent evolutionary changes is not certain. The scientists said that climate change, in itself, does not appear to be a driving force, because many species have remained substantially unchanged over time periods when climates changed dramatically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822154752.htm The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts - July 2011 Excerpt: Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/pnas-paper-studies-actual-pattern-of-evolution-doesnt-pretend-its-somehow-something-else/
bornagain77
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Climate change theory does make for predictions, wrong ones: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attemptGilDodgen
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
The ONLY prediction either position can make is change or stasis- that is organisms and climate will either change or remain pretty much the same.Joe
December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply