A challenge for creationists: evolution’s predictive power

This is mostly a response to NathanCGreen’s request here for a convincing piece of physical evidence for evolution, but it’s also something I was wondering what the creationists here would have to say about in general. I posted this challenge at another creationism/evolution forum recently, and none of the creationists there were able to meet it.

One of the most effective ways of knowing whether or not a scientific theory accurately describes the world is whether or not the theory is able to make accurate predictions. It should be pretty obvious why that’s the case: if a theory accurately describes the physical processes of the world, then it will also be able to predict the outcome of those processes. Even creationists tend to use this standard for theories outside of biology—for example, I think anyone would agree that the way to know atomic theory is correct is because it’s the only theory which can accurately predict the results of chemical and nuclear reactions. But this principle also applies to evolution, so much so that paleontologists have occasionally been able to illustrate certain discoveries before they are made.

In the 1980s, the paleontologist Gregory Paul predicted that certain carnivorous dinosaurs would have had primitive feathers. At this point, the only dinosaur skin known from fossils showed nothing but scutes, the scale-like plates found on crocodiles. Since in the 1980s there was no physical evidence whatsoever for feathered dinosaurs, the only reason for Greg Paul to hypothesize this idea was based on his understanding of evolution. Here’s an illustration from his 1988 book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World in which he showed how he predicted the skin of a dromaeosaurid (on the left) and a troodontid (on the right) would have looked.



Note the date on this image next to his signature. Also note the long fringes of feathers resembling wings that Paul drew on their arms, which is something else for which there was no physical evidence at this point. Not yet, anyway.

In the 1990s, a series of fossils found in China showed for the first time what the skin of maniraptorans would have been like; the same group of dinosaurs that Greg Paul hypothesized around ten years earlier would have been feathered. Here’s an image of Jinfengopteryx, a troodontid:



And this is Sinornithosaurus, a dromaeosaurid. I’m just posting a link to this one, since a high-resolution image is necessary in order to see the preserved feathers clearly. Notice that it also has the same long fringes on its arms that Paul drew in his dromaeosaurid illustration a decade earlier.

While Gregory Paul was able to use the theory of evolution to predict what the skin of these animals would have been like around ten years before it was discovered, William Beebe accomplished something that I consider even more impressive. In 1915, he conducted a series of studies on bird embryos that led him to conclude that the ancestors of birds would have included an animal with wings on all four of its limbs. No animal like this had ever been discovered, but Beebe predicted its existence based solely on the theory of evolution, and illustrated it:



And here is the actual fossil of this animal, discovered 88 years later.



I’m not sure whether Nathan will consider this to be an example of what he was asking for, which is “absolute proof of evolution”, since outside of mathematics it’s impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty. It isn’t even possible to prove with 100% certainty that atoms exist. The one thing that can be said about atomic theory, though, is that there is no other theory in existence which is capable of predicting the results of chemical and nuclear reactions before they happen. And since any theory which accurately describes physical processes will be able to predict their results, this means there is no theory in existence that describes these processes as accurately as atomic theory does.

So here is my challenge to creationists, which nobody has yet been able to meet. I’ve just provided two examples of specific anatomical structures whose existence was predicted by evolution and no other theory, and which went on to be discovered. If creationism is a more accurate description of reality than evolution is, then there will be even more examples of discoveries like this which have been predicted by creationism but not by evolution. My challenge is this: can any of the creationists here provide an example of a specific anatomical structure whose existence was predicted by creationism, and no other theory, and which was later discovered?

If evolution is able to predict discoveries like this before they are made, and creationism cannot, then by the standard used for every other scientific theory in existence, evolution is a more accurate description of reality than creationism is.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh boy! Have you ever considered that these fossils are faked? It has been a seemingly common practice for desperate evos without an iota of fact to back them up, to manufacture such frauds... Take a read of this:
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=41

This is certainly not evidence that anything can or has evolved. And so it isn't proof for evolution.

The fantasizing that dinosaurs evolved into birds is highly debatable within evolutionary circles.
Remember Archaeopteryx? They used that bird as an example of a transitional form... how lame.

As for scientific predictions made by creationists, I don't know of any off the top of my head regarding anatomical structure... perhaps that is because what there is within a kind, is not going to dramatically change... at any time. Only in the evo model, do creatures in a 'kind' morph into others... However, predictions have been made in the field of astronomy that have been proven correct based on the creation model only. There are doubtless others, but that is something I would have to look at further.

Most of these were collected in the field rather than bought. And the people doing the faking are desperate farmers, not desperate evos.

Bullcrap. EVERYBODY agrees Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, even those that say birds didn't come from dinosaurs. Said people never put forward any evidence and might as well not exist.

Examples?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Aw come on, do you have such a short memory? Don't you remember this ...

and how badly it turned out for you?

Scientific prediction made by creationist concerning anatomical structure. Crushed into dust. Next?

__________________

Very well, but still used by desperate evos.


Oooohh... what's wrong? Did I upset you? Perhaps everybody in your imagination agrees that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, but Archaeopteryx was found among fossils of other birds... it does not predate anything. Also, what about all creationists?
We certainly argue against anything being a transitional form.

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]


Furthermore, the published work of Larry D. Martin et al., A. D. Walker, J. M. V. Rayner, S. L. Olson, K. N. Whetstone and others (all evolutionists) indicate precisely the opposite of Isaak’s assertion—that is, Archaeopteryx has far more bird-like characteristics than reptile-like characteristics. It should also be mentioned here (especially since it was “overlooked” by both Isaak and Hunt) that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]

And so I'm sure you will now see that not everybody (evos included) believes that Archaeopteryx is/was a transitional specimen.

Perhaps you could read this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i3/physics.asp

Do you have better thing to do instead of spending so much time to put together this triviality?

So, evolution is a science. Fine. Nobody said it is not.

Any more point to make?

No one doubts that there isn't an inherent logic to Darwinism.

It is interesting that you use the word predicitive, since your evolutionist colleagues consistently deny the comparison between looking back at history and looking forward to the future.

All your proposition really means to me is that a certain type of believer was able to take the existing data and explain his worldview and predilections in a way that is consistent with the data. What's the big deal? Have you proven a common, intelligent designer or macroevolution? That is a matter of belief and your data is neutral in showing a preference.

To be falsifiable, you need to see whether in a billion years we are like those big-headed aliens in Star Trek with telepathic powers. And you have to show that we have more than 46 base pairs or some other clear indication of a new genome. Evolution must work by the creation of new genomes, which, at best, takes very long periods of time. Now, that would be "predictive power."

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

The word "predictive" is correct, for although the fossils date from the past and provide evidence from history, it was their discovery that was predicted, before they were discovered.

It is a bit of a grammatical knot to speak about a prediction made of a future discovery of evidence relevant to what must have happened in the past.

Some people prefer the word "retrodiction" for this type of prediction.

But to predict a future fossil discovery based on what the theory of evolution tells us about past events, is clearly a different matter than attempting to predict where the continuing process of evolution will take an extant species in the future.

So the distinction between looking back and looking forward still holds. From evolutionary theory we can evaluate what the history of a species must have been and so predict the discovery of evidence (fossil and/or genetic) relative to that history. What we cannot do is predict what its future must be.

First you need to show that the theory of evolution would require this prediction. Only with a prediction can you falsify the hypothesis.

Ditto


Sure. But the precise way in which the genome will change (change in chromosome number, further expansion of brain size) is not predictable with current data.

__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert

Right.

So, the model is a pretty good model. A model being good doesn't make it truth. But, it is worthy of study.

Other models succeed as well as Darwinism with this data.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

Creationists frequently say that evolution is not science.