Predictability of Evolution

_{December 5, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Essentially, ToE predicts nothing. It explains history after the fact which is a whole lot different than predicting something before it happens. Of what value is a theory with no predictive power? Why do we bother teaching our children a valueless theory of history that more often than not is disbelieved and causes so much strife? Just the facts, ma’am, please.

All life on earth is related through common structures such as the genetic code. That’s a fact. How the relations were established is not a matter of fact but a matter of speculation. Leave the speculation out of primary school. There are more facts surrounding biology than we possibly have time to teach in primary education. That is what we should be teaching. Just the facts, please.

Comments

Tims The only prediction that NDE can make is that there will be genetic change. Then that prediction is wrong because most of the time species go extinct without any further branches. 99.99% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Evolution can't predict which species will die and which will survive, it can't predict which will spawn new species and which will be dead ends. It can't predict anything of the future at all.DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

bFast // Dec 5th 2006 at 1:59 pm writes "The bottom line is simple. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is the nearly undisputed best explanation for biodiversity. Though I am solidly an IDer, one must recognize that the hard evidence supporting ID is minimal. One must also recognize that the neo-Darwinan theory of evolution is a rather time-tested theory. " bFast I wonder if you are understating the evidence for ID and overstating the support for NDE. I can imagine a person who works at a pine desk walking through a pine forest and saying there is no evidence here that there is a relationship between the forest and the desk. It is certainly the case that most evidence used to support NDE can be applied equally to support ID. Unfortunately for NDE though, all of the specified information content of life has to come from ID, there is no tested alternative, only "wishful speculations".idnet.com.au_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

dopderbeck I teach in a business school, and we have a finance department full of Ph.D.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s who do exactly this, and lots of grads on Wall Street who are indeed getting quite rich off of it. Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn't make any of it predictable. If the market was predictable it wouldn't be a market. By the way, I''m certain I've studied the stock market at least as much or more than you have, I made millions in it, and I knew enough to get out of it with my winnings intact because it's all just a matter of luck. A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

cdf How do those Ã¢â‚¬Å“minor adaptationsÃ¢â‚¬Â come about? If we knew we might be able to predict exactly how and when they will happen. Can ID predict what adaptations will occur and when? No. ToE and ID are equals in the predictability department. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an impossible standard. It's a reasonable standard met by all experimental sciences. Chemists and physicists make predictions of how things will change in future given knowledge of the present all the time, for example. If we stick to the facts of evolution in primary school and leave the speculation about exactly how evolution happened for college level study then there'd be far less contention over all this. DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

The only prediction that NDE can make is that there will be genetic change. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s it. To say otherwise is being illogical. Bfast, there is not a ban on ID research there is just no testable research happening. Most of the papers that the Discovery Institute publishes fall into the realms of Theology instead of science, no empirical data or testable hypothesis. NDE has both empirical data and a testable hypothesis when it comes down to genetic change occurring over time and rendering some form of adaptation. How can you test for a designer?Tims_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Re: Dopderbeck:
For example, evolutionary theory predicts that mutations that confer some survival advantage will be retained and perpetuated.
This will land you right in the tautological (useless) aspects of Natural Selection. What mutations confer advantage? Those that allow an organism to better survive and reproduce. So those mutations that allow an organism to better survive will allow it to better survive. Surely this isn't a prediction worth anything.Atom_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

A comment that wasn't worth saving said climatology can't predict where a tornado will land a year from now but climatology is still worth teaching. First of all, predicting where a tornado will land is weather prediction not climatology. There's a difference between climate and weather. Second, both climate and weather studies make many accurate predictions. Evolution makes no accurate predictions and that's the whole point of this. Evolution makes NO predictions.DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Yes, but have you ever heard of the Futures market? People actually put real $$ predicting the future movement of commodity prices. Just imagine if we applied the same risk to making specific, correct predictions to the ToE? ekstasis- i believe that this is a straw man argumentitive fallacy. the futures market is not as risky as one may think. arbitrage and government intervention prevent the predicted forward exchange rates from being too far out of wack with actual observed spot rates. if predictions in evolution contain as much risk as predictions in the futures market, i like the odds for success.piselone_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

"If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know that no virtually no ID proponents contest minor adaptations, commonly termed microevolutionary changes..." How do those "minor adaptations" come about? Can ID predict what adaptations will occur and when? It's an impossible standard.cdf_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

dopderbeck Disease-resistant crops and vaccines are two examples that come to mind This response comes from either dishonesty or ignorance. If you don't know that no virtually no ID proponents contest minor adaptations, commonly termed microevolutionary changes, the your response is born of ignorance. If you did know then it was dishonest. Pick one.DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

If you had a theory that could predict the stockmarket youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s richest man in no time at all. But Dave, this is my point. You can't predict the stock market on a macro scale, but you can make meaningful predictions about the likely movement of stocks. I teach in a business school, and we have a finance department full of Ph.D.'s who do exactly this, and lots of grads on Wall Street who are indeed getting quite rich off of it.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Yes, but have you ever heard of the Futures market? People actually put real $$ predicting the future movement of commodity prices. Just imagine if we applied the same risk to making specific, correct predictions to the ToE? They do, in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industris. Disease-resistant crops and vaccines are two examples that come to mind. Yes, I know, neither of these technologies are based on predicting the specific outcome of evolution broadly speaking. But they are based in part on predicting how populations -- parasites or viruses -- will respond to newly introduced defenses.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Ekstasis --Yes, but have you ever heard of the Futures market? People actually put real $$ predicting the future movement of commodity prices. Just imagine if we applied the same risk to making specific, correct predictions to the ToE? Great point, LOLtribune7_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Dopderbeck I could also say the stock market may go up tomorrow, or it may go down, or it may stay the same Very good. Now you're homing in on the truth and there wasn't even much kicking and screaming as I dragged you to it. If you had a theory that could predict the stockmarket you'd be the world's richest man in no time at all. And if you had a theory of evolution that could predict the course of evolution for species you'd be the world's most famous scientist.DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Dopderbeck: More to the point, within the Christian community, which probably is the community most interested in ID, theories about geology also are widely contested and cause significant strife. IMHO the community most interested in ID would the community that A) Doesn't accept YEC and B) Doesn't accept the materialistic alternative, ie sheer-dumb-luck- REGARDLESS of religious affiliation. And I would go even further to say that people who are religious are so inclined due to the overwhelming evidence of design throughout the physical world.
Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the CreatorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. -Louis Pasteur from "Louis PasteurÃ¢â‚¬â€Founder of Modern Medicine".
Joseph_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

dopderbeck, Yes, but have you ever heard of the Futures market? People actually put real $$ predicting the future movement of commodity prices. Just imagine if we applied the same risk to making specific, correct predictions to the ToE?Ekstasis_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

I so rarely get a chance to LOL here. Oh, horse-hockey. What I said was substantive. Ã¢â‚¬Å“BZZZZT. WrongÃ¢â‚¬Â is grade-school stuff. "BZZZZT. Wrong" was followed by substance. "Horse-hockey" and "BZZZZT. Wrong" say the exact same thing - in any graade.Charlie_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re saying evolution predicts that things will change quickly unless they change slowly. Add in the *fact* that sometimes they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change at all and weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be in perfect agreement about what evolution predicts - little change, big change, or no change. Well, yeah, depending on the nature of the competitive and environmental pressures. Why is that a problem? I could also say the stock market may go up tomorrow, or it may go down, or it may stay the same -- depending on the environmental and competitive pressures facing the companies offering shares in the market. A theory isn't empty simply because outcomes can differ based on variables encompassed by the theory.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

dopderbeck IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve studied all this, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m quite sure, as much or more than you have. I find your presumption childish and offensive. So there. There is both gradual and abrupt development in the history of life, which is not surprising, because the environment to which life adapts sometimes changes abruptly and sometimes doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Perfect. You're saying evolution predicts that things will change quickly unless they change slowly. Add in the *fact* that sometimes they don't change at all and we'll be in perfect agreement about what evolution predicts - little change, big change, or no change. Now put your money where your mouth is and make a substantial prediction of the future course of evolution based upon everything you studied. Good luck. P.S. Stay on topic. DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

If you are concerned about snarky responses you should likely concern yourself first with yours. Oh, horse-hockey. What I said was substantive. "BZZZZT. Wrong" is grade-school stuff.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Well, Sociology and Economics certainly have a predictive component. The only body of structured data that exceeds the models that Economists build to predict the future is the human genetic code in action. The economic models almost invariably turn out to be incorrect, but I never hear anyone claim that they are not designed with intelligence, of sorts. But, good point, science is not limited to its utilitarian value. We want to know because we are naturally explorers. Of course, we can make all sorts of predictions in reference to NDE, because NDE is predictable in its application. Oh yes, we can predict that every new discovery of biological form and function will be heralded as further evidence for NDE. And practically every nature show or book promoted publically will credit Darwinian evolution. And every human capability and desire will be easily explained by evolutionary psychology, particularly the ones that are contradictory in nature, such as selfishness and altruism. Yep, all very predictable. In fact, we could open a new frontier in Artificial Intelligence by building a model that consistently predicts the response from NDE adherents to any new discovery made in biology or psychology. Shouldn't really be that difficult to design. A lot easier to predict than climatic change, or the direction of the dollar or Euro, that's for sure!!Ekstasis_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make predictions of ANY grain. The source of change in evolution is purportedly random mutation. Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur. or what effect they will have. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s without predictive value. The fact that you can't predict exactly which mutations will occur doesn't mean the theory lacks any predictive power at all. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that mutations that confer some survival advantage will be retained and perpetuated. You don't have to identify a specific mutation to make that sort of general prediction. If that exacting level of granularity is required, we should reject standard physics as well, since quantum physics tells us that randomness precludes precise predictions with respect to the motions of particles as well. Moreover, not all theory-predictions need be predictions about what will hapen in the future. Evolutionary theory predicts what we will find as we examine the past as well. I'm not convinced that all of evolution's predictions have held up in this regard, but some have -- and the point is, the theory makes predictions here as well.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Dopderbeck, Your first comment included: 3. dopderbeck// Dec 5th 2006 at 11:19 am This is the kind of argument that drives thoughtful people who question Darwinist orthodoxy nuts. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s another thing entirely to try to make education policy based on a facile distinction between historical and predictive science. Comment by dopderbeck Ã¢â‚¬â€ December 5, 2006 @ 11:19 am If you are concerned about snarky responses you should likely concern yourself first with yours.Charlie_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

dopderbeck Forget the stuff about whether gravity or evolution makes finer grained predictions, and forget what level of granularity of prediction is required to teach a theory in school. Evolution doesn't make predictions of ANY grain. The source of change in evolution is purportedly random mutation. Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur, or what effect they will have. It's without predictive value. If you buy the theory of evolution having predictive power you probably also believe that someone who has predictive power puts the lottery numbers on the slips of paper found in Chinese fortune cookies. DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

The knee jerk reaction evolved when cave men who kicked while sleeping killed their non-kicking weakling brothers who were sleeping next to them. Naturally their genes were the only ones passed on, because once Suzy, the Cave woman awoke, she just had to have the victor of the knee jerk wars, that hunk of almost-but-not-quite manhood.Collin_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong. The history of the vast majority of species that ever lived is one of abrupt appearance, a long period of no change, then extinction. Those are the facts. Perhaps if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d only been taught the facts I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have had to give them to you now. Listen, Dave, a little good-natured argument is fine, but this frankly is offensive, and the buzzer thing is just childish. I've studied all this, I'm quite sure, as much or more than you have. Your account of the history of life here is absurdly reductionistic. There is both gradual and abrupt development in the history of life, which is not surprising, because the environment to which life adapts sometimes changes abruptly and sometimes doesn't. But you're not really contesting that environmental and competitive pressures produce changes in populations, are you?dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

None of those are widely disbelieved and cause strife. Maybe if you read past the point where your knee jerked you would have caught those qualifiers in my article. And yet more snark. Why do these conversations always become snarkfests? The truth is, sociological, historical, econmic, etc. theories are indeed widely contested and cause significant strife. Ask the hundred million or so people who died under the historical/economic theory of communism. More to the point, within the Christian community, which probably is the community most interested in ID, theories about geology also are widely contested and cause significant strife. The YEC side, of course, makes exactly the same noise about geology as a historical science as you are making here about biology. Do you accept the standard account of geological processes as generally uniformitarian? If so, you're doing with geology just what you're saying can't be done with biology. What's the difference?dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Mr Flood said: He simply said that you can make far reaching, precise predictions about gravity and you cannot with ToE. But of course you know that. Sheesh, why the snark? The thing is, when you really dig into it, there are a limited set of predictions you can make using the theory of gravity (actually its Newton's laws of motion and gravity, not just gravity), and over the long term those predictions really aren't that precise. I think bFast is exactly right here. Forget the stuff about whether gravity or evolution makes finer grained predictions, and forget what level of granularity of prediction is required to teach a theory in school. Instead, develop a broad, compelling alternative that stands on its own merits.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

dopderbeck Why should a theoryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ability to predict the future determine whether it gets taught? What about other historical natural sciences that canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make sure predictions about the future Ã¢â‚¬â€ say, geology, or cosmology? What about social sciences that are largely historical in nature, say, sociology and economics? What about historical liberal arts, say literature, or history itself? Why is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â less important or Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â simply because it is Ã¢â‚¬Å“historicalÃ¢â‚¬Â rather than Ã¢â‚¬Å“predictive?Ã¢â‚¬Â None of those are widely disbelieved and cause strife. Maybe if you read past the point where your knee jerked you would have caught those qualifiers in my article. Anyway, evolutionary theory does make predictions about the future. It predicts, for example, that organisms will continue to change as they adapt to their environments. BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong. The history of the vast majority of species that ever lived is one of abrupt appearance, a long period of no change, then extinction. Those are the facts. Perhaps if you'd only been taught the facts I wouldn't have had to give them to you now. DaveScot_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

bFast: Though I am solidly an IDer, one must recognize that the hard evidence supporting ID is minimal. Here is where we can agree to disagree for I am hard-pressed not see evidence for ID. And the only evidence I see for NDE are the random effects that cause diseases, oddities and malfunctions.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.Ã¢â‚¬Â-- Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.Ã¢â‚¬Â-- Sherlock Holmes

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.Ã¢â‚¬Â --Unknown
Common descent, that being that all of lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of Ã¢â‚¬Å“true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestorÃ¢â‚¬Â. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.Ã¢â‚¬Â --Michael Denton

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.Ã¢â‚¬Â-- Sir Alistor Hardy
I should write a book on the alleged evolutionary evidence- it will be titled "How to make a Mole-Hill out of a Mountain". Fossil record: CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell us anything about a mechanism. CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change. CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution. CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell us anything about how the species originated.Joseph_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply