Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution Professors: There Will be Anatomical Similarities Among Related Organisms

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What exactly is a scientific prediction? Philosophers have long since pointed out that many so-called scientific predictions do not qualify. For instance, sometimes a prediction is made after the fact. Other times the prediction is too broad or vague. In some cases a failure of the prediction can be too easily accommodated, using minor adjustments to the theory. In fact sometimes the prediction is not even required by the theory. It is simply used to make the theory look good. These textbook examples from the philosophy of science can be found in abundance in evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner who, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, state that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” It is a typical example of how evolutionists commit even obvious fallacies in their apologetics.  Read more

Comments
champignon: Why do you state that? Nested hierarchy are simply natural in designed common descent, slatational or not. They are common in human design, and that's certainly not because human designers want to mimic evolution. They are perfectly natural, especially in Object Oriented Programming. So, could you explain better your point?gpuccio
January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
True, but "designed saltational common descent" doesn't predict the nested hierarchy (unless you add the gratuitous assumption that the designer always acts in a way that mimics evolution).champignon
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
The problen is that similarities are not compelling evidence for darwinian evolution. Designed saltational common descent scenarios also predict anatomical similarities among related organisms.felipe
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
OT: Has anyone ever debated this guy about evolution? The Atheist Doctor - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FRQzQpnYhKIbornagain77
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the 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 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 Many more instances are found in Dr. Hunter's blog: Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ further note: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience Theism compared to Materialism within the Scientific Method https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNWZ3ejQyZGc5&hl=en_USbornagain77
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
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 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 is the evidence that shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 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 How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from '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.abstractbornagain77
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
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 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 is the evidence that shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 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 How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from '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 How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the 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 The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID - Casey Luskin - Audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00bornagain77
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
"evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” Well, it does. What exactly is the problem? I would agree that "predict" can be used in a number of different senses, but I don't see why this usage is fallacious.Elizabeth Liddle
January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply