Darwin’s Predictions: A New Website Surveys Evolution’s Main Predictions

I've often wondered what Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker blether was about, although the virtually oxymoronic sense of the term did not promise to be illuminating. And sure enough, now that I've seen what was presumably Dawkins' inspiration for the term, a remark by Crick (below), I'm stunned that he's been able to get away with such a childishly disingenuous non sequitur: 'Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Far from evolution's precluding design, ON THE CONTRARY, it would encompass a dynamic designing, a four-dimensional designing! Doh! It is simply seeking to abolish teleology by sleight of tongue, moving the mood from active to passive! 'Evolving'/'evolution' means 'being developed'; things don't develop themselves. They don't even APPEAR TO develop themselves - even if the OOL and developer do not appear! Really, it is an appeal to magic, isn't it? Better to leave the question of the creator/developer open than invoke MAGIC, like some pre-industrial tribesman might, on seeing a plane overhead. Axel

It's a shame this post became "unstuck". So much useful science on the website referred to. Hope my trollish posts didn't contribute to the sticky removal. ppolish

Congratulations on the new site Dr Hunter Upright BiPed

Sure, sure - Lizard poisons Spock. But lizard poison is just another example of Convergent Evolution. Design wins in the end. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101012/full/news.2010.534.html ppolish

Spock vaporizes Rock, Velikovsky. Smart guy that Spock. ID is logical. ppolish

ppolish: The Rock makes sense from a Theological viewpoint… “now I say to you that you are Peter(which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it” Rock breaks scissors , so if the scissors are design... velikovskys

Mapou: It’s almost as if human brains have been invaded and taken over by maleficent alien entities. Are we witnessing the invasion of the mind snatchers? :-( Perhaps the designers are back to collect the rent. velikovskys

The Rock makes sense from a Theological viewpoint... "now I say to you that you are Peter(which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it" Makes (more?) sense from a Teleological viewpoint too. Something in Nature is foundational and guiding, against the "powers of hell". Could call it a Peter ie Rock. Good over Evil. Might help explain altruism naturally. ppolish

ppolish:

But who works the scissors?

The Rock? Phinehas

Rock, Paper, Scissors. Darwinism is the paper that covers the rocks. Design is the scissor that cuts Darwinism to pieces. But who works the scissors? Nature/Teleology? SuperNature/God? Or did the scissors just happen to fall off the table and snip snip? Mathematics tells us it is either Teleology or Theology. Math is cool. ppolish

In a normal world, molecular convergence should and would have been the final nail in the coffin of this abomination called Darwinism. But the whole world seems to have gone mad and stupid. It's almost as if human brains have been invaded and taken over by maleficent alien entities. Are we witnessing the invasion of the mind snatchers? :-( Mapou

How long before someone complains that these were not actual predictions made by Darwin? Bets? Mung

Convergence is the rule. Every animal of the same species converges during development. Twice. Mung

Molecular Convergence is so plentiful. It's a rule, not an exception. It proves that Evo is guided. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091851 How is Evo guided? How do dogs and cats and humans all develop dementia? There is a molecular Design Rule in there somewhere. ppolish

JDD, Putting your rant about Darwin to one side, do you have a citation for these "rational-probability-defying" molecular convergences? And how to you estimate the probabilites for that matter. Before you waste time on that splashy Nature paper on bats and dolphins, check this out (short story: the method in the Nature paper doesn't explicitedly look at convergent substitutions, probably over-estimates convergence in realistic situations). wd400

Ah yes but let us not forget Darwin predicted convergence due to evolution! Therefore it does not matter that Darwin knew nothing of the complexities of molecular genetics and how molecular convergence defies rational probabilities (especially when it is seen not once, not twice, but 10s of times), all that matters is he predicted it therefore it is of no consequence how irrational the probabilities are of two++ independent species arising at the same molecular solution completely separately, no, that does not matter. All that matters is "Darwin said it." Dr JDD

And that is why Cornelius Hunter's new website is so important. It documents the many failed predictions of Darwinism and falsifies Darwinism from, basically, the only avenue of falsification available since Darwin's theory has no rigid mathematical basis to test against, as other overarching theories of science have, so as to rigidly falsify it by experiment. Here are a few related quotes from, and an interview with, Dr. Hunter:

"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html Darwin's (Failed) Predictions: An Interview with Cornelius Hunter, Part I and II http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an021311.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an_1021321.html

and Here is the new, revamped, website that documents the failed predictions of Darwinism:

Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 Excerpt: This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

bornagain77

A few related notes on the importance of Dr. Hunter's new, revamped, website on Darwin's failed predictions:

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

The main reason why neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science, instead of a proper science, is that it has no rigid mathematical basis, as other overarching theories of science have, to test against so as to potentially falsify it:

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor (Dembski, Marks), and invites attempts to falsify its claim experimentally, (i.e. the claim that only intelligence can create non-trivial information):

The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have demarcation criteria to test against so as to potentially falsify its claims,,,

A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm

Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria so as to separate it from pseudo-science, he was honest enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:

Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Here’s the audio: Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio lecture http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3

Yet, even when the mathematical requirement of demarcation, so as to separate Darwinism from a pseudo-science, is dropped, and Darwinism is examined merely to see if it can make successful predictions without resorting to ad hoc epicycle theories (i.e. 'just so stories'), it is found that Darwinism fails in that regards as well:

In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that: “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

bornagain77