Does evolution have a low power to make predictions?

[Seymour Flops]

Or would you say that evolution has a high power to make predictions?

 

[abu afak]

Or would you say that evolution has a high power to make predictions?

Having been Busted his Other (Near Identical) Prediction thread below, Dishonest 'Design' guy tries a fresh start
So Sorry Clown
Busted II.
Same answer:
From my thread Thread/Linked below on the page

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American

.."..The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.".."

`

 

[alang1216]

Or would you say that evolution has a high power to make predictions?

You mean compared to creationism? I'd have to say much higher since I've never seen a creationist prediction. In fact that "creationist prediction" is an oxymoron since if you God did it and we don't know the mind of God, how can you predict anything?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Having been Busted his Other (Near Identical) Prediction thread below, Dishonest 'Design' guy tries a fresh start
So Sorry Clown
Busted II.
Same answer:
From my thread Thread/Linked below on the page

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American

.."..The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.".."

`

Isn't reposting the same cut and paste on multiple threads just spam?

 

[abu afak]

Isn't reposting the same cut and paste on multiple threads just spam?

Isn't creating multiple 'Evolution Prediction' threads the same day spam?
Definitely intentional trolling.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Isn't creating multiple 'Prediction' threads in a few hours spam?
Definitely intentional trolling.
`

no the second thread references a link that another poster provided.

That is far different from multiple copies of identical spam on other posters' threads.

With are you doing that?

 

[abu afak]

no the second thread references a link that another poster provided.

That is far different from multiple copies of identical spam on other posters' threads.

With are you doing that?

BOTH threads are questioning Evo's ability to make "predictions."
They are as identical as one could be without using the same words.

I busted you with the same post in the first, so you dropped it and started this one hoping for better result: no reply/refutation from me.
Didn't work.
You are a Troll.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

BOTH threads are questioning Evo's ability to make "predictions."
They are as identical as one could be without using the same words.

I busted you with the same post in the first, so you dropped it and started this one hoping for better result: no reply/refutation from me.
Didn't work.
You are a Troll.
`

You didn't "bust" me by posting the same spam you have posted on numerous threads. That is absurd.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are a Troll.

Indeed...an old troll with a new account, looking for attention.

 

[jwoodie]

Definitely intentional trolling.

Apparently, you are the only two biting.