What is the predictive power of the evolution theory if the failed prediction of divergence is called Convergence, if the failed ....?

Question

...prediction of nice branching pattern is called Incomplete Lineage Sorting, if the failed prediction of reproductive fitness is called Red Queen's Hypothesis, if the failed prediction of fossil record is called Punctuated Equilibrium...

In science, one of the most important things a hypothesis can do is make predictions that can be verified by experiment or observation. If a hypothesis makes predictions that are then confirmed by experiment or observation, its scientific value is high. The more confirmed predictions it makes, the more likely it is to be a good, scientific explanation for whatever phenomenon it is describing. However, if the evolution theory, failed predictions are simply given a fancy name - Convergence, Incomplete Lineage Sorting, Red Queen, Punctuated Equilibrium and then, whatever the discovery - evolution did it! How is that related to the testability and predictive power on which scientific theories must be based upon?

Answer 1

Well, actually, the Theory of Evolution PREDICTS conversion (homologous features in evolutionary distinct life forms). The ideal response to the given conditions is the same without regard to how the life form developed previously. In detail, the exact form of the seemingly identical feature reflects hysteresis but the gross form is essentially the same without regard to the past. A paddle shape is a paddle shape without regard to what it is composed from.

Answer 2

You misunderstand evolutionary theory.



Convergent evolution is the independent acquisition of similar traits for similar purposes. For example, insect wings and birds wings are an example of convergent evolution. The direct ancestor of insects had no wings, and neither did the direct ancestor of birds (a reptile). But both lineages evolved wings in order to fly. Insects and birds last shared a common ancestor before the Cambrian Explosion, or more than half a billion years ago. They did diverge from one another. There is no "failure prediction of divergence."



Incomplete lineage sorting does not mean nice branching pattern. It means some lineages that share a common ancestor may lose some ancestral traits and retain others in a mosaic pattern. Take for example, humans, gorillas and orangutans. Humans last shared an ancestor with gorillas about 6-7 million years ago and humans last shard an ancestor with orangutans about 10 million years ago. Normally, we expect a trait that is found in the orangutan and humans will also be found in the gorilla. If there is incomplete lineage sorting, the gorilla may not have that particular trait because it lost that trait after we last shared an ancestor with the gorilla. In cases like that it sometimes misleads us into thinking that we are more closely related to the orangutan than to the gorilla. Incomplete lineage sorting therefore is anything but "nice."



The red queen hypothesis claims that organisms have to keep evolving just to be able to survive. In contrast, the alternative theory is that organisms evolve to be more and more perfect. The red queen has to keep running just to stay in the same place, and some biologists are arguing the same, they claim that organisms are on an evolutionary treadmill. Again you simply misunderstood the hypothesis.



Any of these hypothesis can be falsified. If they are falsified, they will be tossed into the trash bin. Punctuated Equilibrium in fact was proposed because the fossil record did not match Darwin's theory that organisms evolve gradually over long periods of time until they become new species. The fossil records shows that organisms do not change much over their entire life time, but new and clearly closely related species may appear in the fossil record without an infinite series of intermediate stages between an ancestor and a descendant species. Phyletic gradualism therefore was the original hypothesis proposed by Darwin, and it has largely been abandoned since its prediction of gradually evolving species has been falsified by the fossil record. Phyletic gradualsim has not been renamed Punctuated Equilibrium. The two are different hypothesis. and most biologists, except a few die hard gradualists, accept Punctuated Equilibrium since it is supported by a lot of evidence. Your claim that falsified theories are given fancy new names is demonstrably false. Your claim has been falsified by the available evidence.



Certainly there are many examples of scientists who do not act scientifically and they continue to hold onto falsified theories. For example, many scientists still claim that birds evolved from a dinosaur even though there si a mountain of evidence that opposes that claim. The reason is that scientists are human, and humans have to make a living. Scientists who have been going around telling other people that birds evolved from a dinosaur will suffer career damage and they may even be demoted or fired if they admit they have been wrong all these years. How embarrassing is it for the head of a museum to admit that the feathers they have been putting on dinosaurs for the past 20 years or so are as real as mouse feathers or the emperor's new clothes. So, just like the emperor who pretends that he is fully clad, some scientists will keep on insisting that they are right even though they have been proven wrong by data. Their behavior is not accepted scientific practice, contrary to your unsubstantiated claim.



In contrast to the case of the dinosaurian origin of birds, most scientists have abandoned the once popular theory that volcanism caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. That theory was widely held in the 1980s. Gradually, however, the Alvarez team of father and son, physicist and geologist, have gathered a lot of data that a giant meteor struck the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. Most scientists now accept the theory that meteor impact is responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, although there are few nuts who claim that the dinosaurs were "on their way out" even if there was no meteor falling to earth. Even these nuts no longer claim that volcanism caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. In fact, there is new data that shows the meteor impact may have caused the volcanism. No one has renamed the volcanic theory as the impact theory, again contradicting your claim.

Answer 3

WHY EVOLUTION IS A FACT, IT REALLY HAPPEBED

The thing is, evolution works so damn well to accurately describe how b biology works. So well that:



The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.



Put another way: If you wanted to be a medical researcher, what college or university would you attend that had a Biology Program based on Creationism?



Some "evolutionist" scientific achievements since 1955 –



Salk Polio Vaccine 1955

1961 Crick, Brenner et al discover that three nucleotide bases are needed to code for amino acids, confirming a suggestion by nuclear physicist George Gamow.

Sabin Polio Vaccine 1962

1963 Effective measles vaccine.

About 1964 Har Gobind Khorana and others work out the genetic code.

1969 Arber and Meselson confirm that restriction enzymes cleave DNA.

1969 Rubella vaccine.

1971 Measles, mumps, rubella combination vaccine.

1972 Berg produces the first artificial recombinant DNA molecules.

1973 Boyer and Cohen make the first transgenic organism.

1978 Riggs and Itakura make the first genetically engineered insulin.

1978 Fred. Sanger et al publish the dideoxy chain termination analysis of DNA.

1980 Frank Fenner oversees the eradication of smallpox.

1980 Robert Gallo et al identify the first human retrovirus.

1983 Recombinant insulin placed on market.

1988 Kary Mullis et al publish the polymerase chain reaction.

1988 Richard Lenski begins long term Escherichia coli experiment.

2000 Craig Venter et al publish a rough draft of human genome.

2005 Rough draft of chimpanzee genome published.

2006 Final draft of first human genome project completed.

2007 Horse genome completed.

2007 Anti-herpes vaccine.

2012 Richard Lenski's long term experiment continues, having demonstrated evolution of citrate metabolism in E. coli.

2013 James E. Rothman, Randy W. Schekman and Thomas C. Südhoffor Discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic, a major transport system in our cells

2014 John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser

Discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain

2015 William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura

Discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites

Youyou Tu

Discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria

2016 Yoshinori Ohsumi

Discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy

2017 Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young

Discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm



Thousands of patents in various forms of biotechnology outlining useful or potentially useful inventions.



What have Creationists done that matches that impressive record of achievement?



REF UPDATE 3: That is the point. Evolution is the most successful theory in all science in predicting what we will observe. Nothing else comes close, certainly not Creationism, which predicts nothing.



The question remains: What have the Creationists done that matches the success of the biologists and medical researchers that are "evolutionists?" Come on, show us you guys success and contribution to humanity?

Answer 4

You'll find that in science, unlike politics, simply declaring that something has "failed" carries no weight whatsoever. Until and unless you can produce any actual EVIDENCE to support your idiotic and ludicrous assertions, you will be quite rightly ignored.



To the incredibly extensive list we have so far compiled of concepts you utterly fail to understand, we can now also add the observation that you are unable to learn from your own experience that simply vomiting up complicated "science-y" sounding words does nothing more than expose your own complete inadequacy.

Answer 5

Referring back to Darwin, he had many great predictions regarding evolution before he even published about it. The concept of "failed prediction" is new to me. Like the Red Queen hypothesis - it simply refers to a "biological arms race" in which species that compete try to get ahead but ultimately wind up at the same standstill they were act before evolving - nothing to do about failed reproductive fitness directly. But yes, the theory of evolution has the power to predict many as-yet unseen relationships and responses in the living world. If you're curious how well the theory can be tested, I recently started reading "The Beak of the Finch" which does a great job explaining and narrating just that.

Answer 6

Wow,all that scientific nomenclature and not one bit of sense to it.