Is Darwinian Evolution Theory successful at making predictions?

[Seymour Flops]

I've asked a number of you to make a prediction based on Darwin's theories, or to cite a prediction made by experts on Darwinism that has come true *AFTER* they made the prediction.

If you make a prediction based on Darwinian theory, that would be evidence in favor of Darwinian theory. If it comes true, that is. So far, I've gotten either complete silence, a quick change of subject, or examples of Darwinian experts first finding something and then saying, "Oh, yes. Darwinian theory predicted that!"

Here's the definition of "predict:"

say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

So, get it? You can't make a valid prediction after something happens.

 

[Ringtone]

No.

 

[MisterBeale]

The theory is predicated on "random mutations."

As such, there can be no "predictions."

Both environmental factors, and genetic indicators are too random to make any solid predictions.

 

[Mac1958]

No. There's no way to predict the course or speed of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

I've asked a number of you to make a prediction based on Darwin's theories, or to cite a prediction made by experts on Darwinism that has come true *AFTER* they made the prediction.

If you make a prediction based on Darwinian theory, that would be evidence in favor of Darwinian theory. If it comes true, that is. So far, I've gotten either complete silence, a quick change of subject, or examples of Darwinian experts first finding something and then saying, "Oh, yes. Darwinian theory predicted that!"

Here's the definition of "predict:"

say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

So, get it? You can't make a valid prediction after something happens.

Actually, yes. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. You can refer to examples provided to you earlier.

Does religionism still imprison and torture mathematicians for predicting lunar eclipses?

 

[Hollie]

The theory is predicated on "random mutations."

As such, there can be no "predictions."

Both environmental factors, and genetic indicators are too random to make any solid predictions.

The theory is not predicted on random mutations.

 

[Ringtone]

The theory is predicated on "random mutations."

As such, there can be no "predictions."

Both environmental factors, and genetic indicators are too random to make any solid predictions.

More essentially, evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

 

[Hollie]

More essentially, evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

Learn the definitions of terms you use. There is nothing metaphysical about the natural world.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The theory is predicated on "random mutations."

As such, there can be no "predictions."

Both environmental factors, and genetic indicators are too random to make any solid predictions.

Hey MisterBeale! I used to see you on another forum years ago. I think it was the libertarian forum that shut down. I had several different logins, though. I wasn't into poker yet.

Anyway, I agree. Darwinian evolution cannot predict anything. If an area turns cold suddenly, you would think Darwinian theorists would be setting up shop in that area to predict that all the animals would grow thick fur, short limbs, large deposits of body fat, or would migrate south. Then they could cackle in triumph when their prediction came true.

Never seems to happen.

So, it is not a "science" in any but an uninformed layman's colloquial use of the word.

 

[Seymour Flops]

More essentially, evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

Very well put. My take may be slightly different from yours, but that is a good point.

I do believe that scientists, and also Darwinists, should take a naturalistic view of the universe. Let them keep trying to prove that the enormous variety of life on Earth came about with no intelligent guidance. Even if they fail to prove that this is even possible, they will likely add to the wealth of knowledge of biology. Just as biologists did when the overwhelming majority of them thought biology was created by a designer.*

But taking a naturalistic approach is different from declaring the natural interpretation to be factual, not just theoretical. That is a metaphysical belief whether everyone understands why it is metaphysical or not.

I am not hostile to Darwinian thought, and I think it must be taught in public schools. As long as it is not presented as the only acceptable answer. I am very hostile to Darwinists' attempt to convince skeptics though fraud and bullying.

*Those biologists add to the knowledge so long as they don't turn a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts their naturalistic or non-naturalistic approach.

 

[Hollie]

Hey MisterBeale! I used to see you on another forum years ago. I think it was the libertarian forum that shut down. I had several different logins, though. I wasn't into poker yet.

Anyway, I agree. Darwinian evolution cannot predict anything. If an area turns cold suddenly, you would think Darwinian theorists would be setting up shop in that area to predict that all the animals would grow thick fur, short limbs, large deposits of body fat, or would migrate south. Then they could cackle in triumph when their prediction came true.

Never seems to happen.

So, it is not a "science" in any but an uninformed layman's colloquial use of the word.

Religionism tends to breed uninformed, knowledge loathing types.

On the other hand, others can present facts and evidence.

CA210: Evolution predictions

www.talkorigins.org

Not surprisingly, the uninformed and colloquial anti-science flailing comes from the most notorious of the crank fundie ministries.

 

[jwoodie]

Darwin's theory was developed before there was any scientific way to differentiate between species adaptation and species evolution. Many of his acolytes still have trouble with these concepts. Random mutation does not produce new species, but genetic engineering might.

Would this be considered intelligent design?

 

[Hollie]

Very well put. My take may be slightly different from yours, but that is a good point.

I do believe that scientists, and also Darwinists, should take a naturalistic view of the universe. Let them keep trying to prove that the enormous variety of life on Earth came about with no intelligent guidance. Even if they fail to prove that this is even possible, they will likely add to the wealth of knowledge of biology. Just as biologists did when the overwhelming majority of them thought biology was created by a designer.*

But taking a naturalistic approach is different from declaring the natural interpretation to be factual, not just theoretical. That is a metaphysical belief whether everyone understands why it is metaphysical or not.

I am not hostile to Darwinian thought, and I think it must be taught in public schools. As long as it is not presented as the only acceptable answer. I am very hostile to Darwinists' attempt to convince skeptics though fraud and bullying.

*Those biologists add to the knowledge so long as they don't turn a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts their naturalistic or non-naturalistic approach.

Be sure to thank your designer* gods as their designer* blueprint for the cancer cell is pure designer* genius.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually, yes. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. You can refer to examples provided to you earlier.

Well, you keep saying that, but I don't remember any predictions, using the standard definition of the word, that Darwinian theory has successfully made. How about giving me the one best example?

Does religionism still imprison and torture mathematicians for predicting lunar eclipses?

I don't believe so. The only religion still resorting to such barbarism is Islam and five hundred years ago, they were actually relatively advanced mathematicians and astronomers themselves. Kinda like how the fascists were good at making the trains run on time.

So . . . no . . . the only bullying in reference to evolution currently being perpetrated is by Darwinists who attack to force people to believe that their theory is fact, even though it makes no predictions and presents no evidence.

While you bring up barbaric religions, this might be a good time for you to announce your feeling on Islam's treatment of women, and their goal to wipe out Jews and Americans. I only ask because you are starting to sound a little like a crazy person. Perhaps making a sane-sounding denouncement of the religion of Islam for it's barbarism might make your hysterical sounding denunciation of Christianity seem more reasonable.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Religionism tends to breed uninformed, knowledge loathing types.

On the other hand, others can present facts and evidence.

CA210: Evolution predictions

www.talkorigins.org

Not surprisingly, the uninformed and colloquial anti-science flailing comes from the most notorious of the crank fundie ministries.

Hollie, before I pick apart whatever is in that link, will you affirm that you have read it and agree with it?

I don't want to waste my time proving it wrong, only to have you say, "tell it to them!" or some such dodge.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Be sure to thank your designer* gods as their designer* blueprint for the cancer cell is pure designer* genius.

It would seem that if Darwin were correct, species prone to cancer would have died off and cancer-resistant species taken their place long ago.

 

[Ringtone]

Learn the definitions of terms you use. There is nothing metaphysical about the natural world.

Ahhhhh, shut up, you silly ass. The various forms of naturalism are metaphysical presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. There's not a damn thing you can teach me about the philosophy of science. I've explained the matter to you before, but you remain a slogan-spouting doofus.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science.

 

[Hollie]

Well, you keep saying that, but I don't remember any predictions, using the standard definition of the word, that Darwinian theory has successfully made. How about giving me the one best example?

I don't believe so. The only religion still resorting to such barbarism is Islam and five hundred years ago, they were actually relatively advanced mathematicians and astronomers themselves. Kinda like how the fascists were good at making the trains run on time.

So . . . no . . . the only bullying in reference to evolution currently being perpetrated is by Darwinists who attack to force people to believe that their theory is fact, even though it makes no predictions and presents no evidence.

While you bring up barbaric religions, this might be a good time for you to announce your feeling on Islam's treatment of women, and their goal to wipe out Jews and Americans. I only ask because you are starting to sound a little like a crazy person. Perhaps making a sane-sounding denouncement of the religion of Islam for it's barbarism might make your hysterical sounding denunciation of Christianity seem more reasonable.

It is quite obvious where your uninformed opinions about evilution come from.

I'll post data supported by facts in anticipation of your response being, " Nu Ugh".

CA210: Evolution predictions

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Hollie]

It would seem that if Darwin were correct, species prone to cancer would have died off and cancer-resistant species taken their place long ago.

That display of ignorance is right out of the ID'iot creationer playbook. You might have asked why monkeys are not bipedal and writing Hollywood scripts.

It seems Darwin is correct. The less fit are less able to survive. That appears in these forums.

How cancer shapes evolution, and how evolution shapes cancer

Evolutionary theories are critical for understanding cancer development at the level of species as well as at the level of cells and tissues, and for developing effective therapies. Animals have evolved potent tumor suppressive mechanisms to prevent cancer ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Ringtone]

Very well put. My take may be slightly different from yours, but that is a good point.

I do believe that scientists, and also Darwinists, should take a naturalistic view of the universe. Let them keep trying to prove that the enormous variety of life on Earth came about with no intelligent guidance. Even if they fail to prove that this is even possible, they will likely add to the wealth of knowledge of biology. Just as biologists did when the overwhelming majority of them thought biology was created by a designer.*

But taking a naturalistic approach is different from declaring the natural interpretation to be factual, not just theoretical. That is a metaphysical belief whether everyone understands why it is metaphysical or not.

I am not hostile to Darwinian thought, and I think it must be taught in public schools. As long as it is not presented as the only acceptable answer. I am very hostile to Darwinists' attempt to convince skeptics though fraud and bullying.

*Those biologists add to the knowledge so long as they don't turn a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts their naturalistic or non-naturalistic approach.

To be sure. One should be well-versed in evolutionary theory. But one must also be cognizant of the metaphysics and philosophy of science.