Is there a creation theory?

Evolution can not predict anything.

Evolution can not predict anything.

Evolution can not predict anything.

Er, yes, it can.

Please give me an example.

-----

The following is NOT a prediction:

A exists
C exists
So, we predict B "could" exist.
All A, B, C, are past events

A prediction looks like this:

A, B, C, ... so D, or X.
The current time is at C.

A scientific 'prediction' refers to the act of gathering the information, not the time period the information is from. Evolution predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. We might dig these forms up in the future even though they come from animals in the past. The *act* of testing the predictions is what's predicted.

A scientific 'prediction' refers to the act of gathering the information, not the time period the information is from. Evolution predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. We might dig these forms up in the future even though they come from animals in the past. The *act* of testing the predictions is what's predicted.

This is the way I think these "predictions" and their "discoveries" are fed to the public --- and how I think they're "really" done:

The public is made to think evolution works this way:

1. You're out in the field, and you find the letter A.

2. Later, you find the letter Z.

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find the letter L and place it in the line between A and Z.

5. Later, you find the letter F and place it in the line between A and L.

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

But this is the way I think it really works:

1. You're out in the field, and you find a !

2. Later, you find a ¥

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find a Ŧ and place it in the line between ! and ¥

5. Later, you find a Ж and place it in the line between Ŧ and ¥

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

Try doing this for once:

1. Make the prediction before you make the discovery.

2. Find it.

That is why I bothered to define what prediction is in my post. In fact, my version is a more common one. "Predict" a transitional form is meaningless. Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict.

Try doing this for once:

1. Make the prediction before you make the discovery.

2. Find it.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.


So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.