A Fundamental Philosophical Error within Theories of Evolution.

[essentialsaltes]

Can someone summarize the main point of the OP for me?

I hesitate to attempt it. my comments in ().

Evolution produces a numerically greater number of biological forms at a later time from a numerically lesser number of biological forms at an earlier time.

(This of course, is belied by the great extinction events, which are also part and parcel of evolutionary history.)

'Potency' is the potential for these forms to become more numerous.

"The fundamental principle of evolutionism is - Potency actualises itself and is not actualised by another."

(This is clearly not the fundamental principle of evolution, since evolution requires time and circumstance (interaction with the environment) rather than some sort of self-actualized life potential.)

(So it's a bunch of weirdly used words that doesn't bear much likeness to evolution. And I haven't actually gotten to the argument yet. But why bother?)

 

[AirPo]

... OP ...

JM

Is this original or just a cut and paste?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Is this original or just a cut and paste?

I Googled several phrases within the text and the only hit returned was this forum post. It appears to be a wholly original work of fiction.

 

[AirPo]

I Googled several phrases within the text and the only hit returned was this forum post. It appears to be a wholly original work of fiction.

Well done then.

 

[Colter]

The theory of biological Evolution is defined as





The theory of biological evolution may be reduced to one single fundamental principle, which is stated as –


The fundamental Principle of Evolutionism is - The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism, may be derived from the above definitions of evolution. For evolution is defined as a process whereby evolution is defined as -





Where “cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms” assumes a chronologically prior starting population that has less biological forms than the final population. The chronologically prior starting population has less forms, and is then the lesser principle of the greater biological population. Or, stated in another way, the chronologically latter population has more biological forms and is therefore the end product of the evolutionary process, whereby the latter population has the greater forms.


Hence according to the theory of biological evolution, the population of less forms becomes the population of the greater forms. As the population with greater biological forms is caused by a biological cause called mutation, then the greater biological forms are essentially caused by a biological cause within the population of lesser biological forms. As the lesser population is a group of biological forms, and the greater population is another, greater group of biological forms, then the essential cause of the process from lesser to greater is a biological mechanism, for what is of the essence of a cause (biology) is of the essence of both the lesser (biology) and the greater (biology).


Hence from the definition of biological evolution, the fundamental principle of reason which underlies the theory of biological evolution, is -


The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.


This principle is common to all theories of evolution which posit a greater from the lesser.


Thesis – To demonstrate that the fundamental principle of reason that undergirds the theory of evolution is false. Once demonstrated, several consequences of the falsity of evolutionary theory will be exposed. The fundamental principle of evolutionary theory will be reduced to that of a principle stated in terms of being. Then the statement made in terms of being will be demonstrated to be false. Once the principle is shown to be false, the principle of evolutionary theory is then shown to be false through implication.


Reduction of The Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism to That of Being.


In Defense of the Method Employed.


Any principle of reason may be reduced to a principle of being. For reason is being had in intellect in accord with the real. Therefore, if a principle is in accord with the real, then the principle in mind is sound and therefore true. If, however the principle had in mind is not in accord with the real, then the principle in mind is unsound and therefore false.


For example – the fact that ‘a tree is itself’ is a true statement concerning the reality of a tree. This example may be reduced to the statement of ‘the tree is the tree’. This statement is a reality which may be reduced to a principle of thought which is A (tree) is A (itself). In turn, the principle may be restated in terms of being as – act is act.


Or another example, the car is not the tree. The realities of car and tree in relation to each other may be reduced to that of A (car) is not B (tree). Or when reduced to terms of being, to the statement - act is not potency.


The above two examples show how the principles of thought are known to correspond to the real, when those principles are reduced to being. Hence the reduction of the fundamental principle of evolutionism to that of being is a valid method for attaining the truth value of the principle. Correspondingly, an example may also be given to show the reduction of a principle to the terms of being to show a false principle to be false. For example, as tree is not itself is purportedly a fact of the real. This purported fact is stated as a principle as A (tree) is not A (tree). This statement is further reduced to being, whereby 'being is not being'. As this statement is contradictory, then the purported fact and corresponding principle are also false.


Method Employed


Reduction of the Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism to that of a Principle of Being.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism which says the greater is essentially caused by the lesser, infers that which has more form (act) is caused by that which has less form (act). But cause (act) and form (act) are reducible to being (potency and act). Hence the fundamental principle of evolutionism may be restated in terms of being, which is –


That which has more being is caused by that which has less being.


Or restated


The fundamental principle of evolutionism is - Being in act (does be) is caused by being in potency (can be).


Or restated again in terms of the two fundamental modes of being, which are potency and act, defined as -


Act is ‘does be’.

Potency is ‘can be’.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism is - Potency actualises itself and is not actualised by another.


Demonstration of the Falsity of the Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism when Stated in Terms of Being.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism has been reduced to the fundamental principle in terms of being. As being is common to all things, then if a principle that is defined in terms of being is false, then the principle itself is false. And if the fundamental principle of Evolutionism is false, then because the principle is fundamental to biological evolution, then the theory of biological evolution is also false.


Argument Proposed


Principle Stated - Potency actualises itself and is not actualised by another.

But potency is ‘can be’ and act is ‘does be’.

But what ‘can be’ is from itself ‘can be’ and not ‘does be’.

For ‘can be’ is only a cause of change and limit of act**.

As change is not an act, and limit of an act is not an act, the ‘can be’ does not cause ‘does be’.

Therefore, potency does not from itself cause ‘does be’ (act).

Hence potency does not become an act from potency alone.

But potency becomes an act from a being other than potency, which is act.

Hence potency is actualised by another act and not from itself as potency.

And hence potency does not actualise itself.

And hence potency is then actualised by another.

Hence because the above two statements contradict the principle on line 1 above, the fundamental principle of evolutionism as stated in terms of being is false.

Hence consequently, the fundamental principle of evolutionism of the greater is essentially caused by the lesser is also false.

Hence all theories of evolution that use the fundamental principle of evolutionism are also false.

Hence the theory of biological evolution is false.


**Change is the potency to receive a new form. As change is a potency, then potency is the cause of change. Also, limit is the can be of an act. Hence potency is the cause of limit of an act. Note well – thorough arguments can be proposed to prove potency is the cause of both limit and of change. Some of those arguments may be proposed in the thread if required.


Some Consequences of the Falsity of Evolutionism


Evolution Based Science Theory is False All sciences theories that are derived from the principle of evolutionism are false. Consequently, theories such as the big bang, and biological evolution which require the greater to be caused by the lesser are false.


No Evidence in the Fossil Record for Evolution The claims of historical evidence for evolution in the fossil record is false. For no amount of apparent evidence within the fossil record can be used to support a false principle.


No Support for Evolutionary Theory from any other Science Furthermore, any science associated with evolutionary theory that purports to support the theory of biological evolution are also false. This does not mean the science itself is false. But only that the science cannot be used to support a false theory. Therefore, contrary to modern science claims, there is no science evidence in any science that supports evolutionary theory. For any true science cannot be used to support a false theory which is based upon a false principle.


Natural Selection and Mutations are an Inadequate Cause of Evolution Natural selection along with mutations are causes within biological evolutionary theory that do not act to cause the biological modifications as required by evolutionary theory. For natural selection and mutations, like any other cause, cannot be posted as a cause of a theory which is based upon a false principle. For no cause, or collection of causes can be evidence for a false principle within a theory. The inadequacy of natural selection within evolutionary theory does not mean natural selection is not real, but only that natural selection does not act to cause in accord with a false principle, as the theory of evolution proposes.


Evolution is Never Real, but only ever a Metaphor that Implies Design or Creation Every claim to a thing having evolved is only a metaphor or an error which actually means something else. For example, the company evolved means the company was developed by men. The tree evolved, means the tree was designed by a designer, or was created by a creator, or changed accidentally and not essentially (say in size).


No Experimental Evidence for Evolutionary Theory Any breeding experiments are not evidence for biological evolution. For no experiment can be evidence for a false principle, or a false theory.


The Common Ancestor Does Not Exist Any purported evidence within the biological sciences for a common ancestor is not evidence at all. For a common ancestor within the theory of evolution requires the use of the same, false principle exposed above. Typically, any biological evidence for a common ancestor is attained by implication by working backwards from the current biological evidence to a posited, past ancestor. However, by working backwards, the same false principle of evolutionism is used to arrive at a false conclusion of a common ancestor that in principle could not ever have existed. As the principle is false, then any purported evidence for a common ancestor is really evidence for another cause. Perhaps a design, or creation event, with a common designer/creator.


Evolutionism Based Worldviews are all False All worldviews associated with evolutionism may also be false. For example, pantheism says only natural causes have caused all biological life. As the evolutionary theory associated with biological life within pantheism is false, then positing only natural causes within the universe may also be false. Hence pantheism may also be false. In fact, from other arguments pantheism can be proven to be false. Such proofs correspond well with the proof of the falsity of the principle of evolutionary theory.



JM

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I agree with your fundamental point of the complex evolving unassisted from the simple.

In 1955 The Urantia Book said it like this:

"To science God is a possibility, to psychology a desirability, to philosophy a probability, to religion a certainty, an actuality of religious experience. Reason demands that a philosophy which cannot find the God of probability should be very respectful of that religious faith which can and does find the God of certitude. Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man's intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling.

The facts of evolution must not be arrayed against the truth of the reality of the certainty of the spiritual experience of the religious living of the God-knowing mortal. Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact. Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator.

Organic evolution is a fact; purposive or progressive evolution is a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. The higher any scientist progresses in his chosen science, the more will he abandon the theories of materialistic fact in favor of the cosmic truth of the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Materialism cheapens human life; the gospel of Jesus tremendously enhances and supernally exalts every mortal. Mortal existence must be visualized as consisting in the intriguing and fascinating experience of the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divine and saving downreach." UB 1955

 

[Colter]

6. EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES OF LIFE

"It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm. The chemist can elucidate the chemistry of dead protoplasm, but he cannot discern either the physical organization or the dynamic performance of living protoplasm. Ever will the scientist come nearer and nearer the secrets of life, but never will he find them and for no other reason than that he must kill protoplasm in order to analyze it. Dead protoplasm weighs the same as living protoplasm, but it is not the same.

There is original endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism—material or spiritual—there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization. These interminable efforts of all living things evidence the existence within them of an innate striving for perfection." UB 1955

 

[HitchSlap]

The theory of biological Evolution is defined as





The theory of biological evolution may be reduced to one single fundamental principle, which is stated as –


The fundamental Principle of Evolutionism is - The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism, may be derived from the above definitions of evolution. For evolution is defined as a process whereby evolution is defined as -





Where “cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms” assumes a chronologically prior starting population that has less biological forms than the final population. The chronologically prior starting population has less forms, and is then the lesser principle of the greater biological population. Or, stated in another way, the chronologically latter population has more biological forms and is therefore the end product of the evolutionary process, whereby the latter population has the greater forms.


Hence according to the theory of biological evolution, the population of less forms becomes the population of the greater forms. As the population with greater biological forms is caused by a biological cause called mutation, then the greater biological forms are essentially caused by a biological cause within the population of lesser biological forms. As the lesser population is a group of biological forms, and the greater population is another, greater group of biological forms, then the essential cause of the process from lesser to greater is a biological mechanism, for what is of the essence of a cause (biology) is of the essence of both the lesser (biology) and the greater (biology).


Hence from the definition of biological evolution, the fundamental principle of reason which underlies the theory of biological evolution, is -


The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.


This principle is common to all theories of evolution which posit a greater from the lesser.


Thesis – To demonstrate that the fundamental principle of reason that undergirds the theory of evolution is false. Once demonstrated, several consequences of the falsity of evolutionary theory will be exposed. The fundamental principle of evolutionary theory will be reduced to that of a principle stated in terms of being. Then the statement made in terms of being will be demonstrated to be false. Once the principle is shown to be false, the principle of evolutionary theory is then shown to be false through implication.


Reduction of The Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism to That of Being.


In Defense of the Method Employed.


Any principle of reason may be reduced to a principle of being. For reason is being had in intellect in accord with the real. Therefore, if a principle is in accord with the real, then the principle in mind is sound and therefore true. If, however the principle had in mind is not in accord with the real, then the principle in mind is unsound and therefore false.


For example – the fact that ‘a tree is itself’ is a true statement concerning the reality of a tree. This example may be reduced to the statement of ‘the tree is the tree’. This statement is a reality which may be reduced to a principle of thought which is A (tree) is A (itself). In turn, the principle may be restated in terms of being as – act is act.


Or another example, the car is not the tree. The realities of car and tree in relation to each other may be reduced to that of A (car) is not B (tree). Or when reduced to terms of being, to the statement - act is not potency.


The above two examples show how the principles of thought are known to correspond to the real, when those principles are reduced to being. Hence the reduction of the fundamental principle of evolutionism to that of being is a valid method for attaining the truth value of the principle. Correspondingly, an example may also be given to show the reduction of a principle to the terms of being to show a false principle to be false. For example, as tree is not itself is purportedly a fact of the real. This purported fact is stated as a principle as A (tree) is not A (tree). This statement is further reduced to being, whereby 'being is not being'. As this statement is contradictory, then the purported fact and corresponding principle are also false.


Method Employed


Reduction of the Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism to that of a Principle of Being.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism which says the greater is essentially caused by the lesser, infers that which has more form (act) is caused by that which has less form (act). But cause (act) and form (act) are reducible to being (potency and act). Hence the fundamental principle of evolutionism may be restated in terms of being, which is –


That which has more being is caused by that which has less being.


Or restated


The fundamental principle of evolutionism is - Being in act (does be) is caused by being in potency (can be).


Or restated again in terms of the two fundamental modes of being, which are potency and act, defined as -


Act is ‘does be’.

Potency is ‘can be’.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism is - Potency actualises itself and is not actualised by another.


Demonstration of the Falsity of the Fundamental Principle of Evolutionism when Stated in Terms of Being.


The fundamental principle of evolutionism has been reduced to the fundamental principle in terms of being. As being is common to all things, then if a principle that is defined in terms of being is false, then the principle itself is false. And if the fundamental principle of Evolutionism is false, then because the principle is fundamental to biological evolution, then the theory of biological evolution is also false.


Argument Proposed


Principle Stated - Potency actualises itself and is not actualised by another.

But potency is ‘can be’ and act is ‘does be’.

But what ‘can be’ is from itself ‘can be’ and not ‘does be’.

For ‘can be’ is only a cause of change and limit of act**.

As change is not an act, and limit of an act is not an act, the ‘can be’ does not cause ‘does be’.

Therefore, potency does not from itself cause ‘does be’ (act).

Hence potency does not become an act from potency alone.

But potency becomes an act from a being other than potency, which is act.

Hence potency is actualised by another act and not from itself as potency.

And hence potency does not actualise itself.

And hence potency is then actualised by another.

Hence because the above two statements contradict the principle on line 1 above, the fundamental principle of evolutionism as stated in terms of being is false.

Hence consequently, the fundamental principle of evolutionism of the greater is essentially caused by the lesser is also false.

Hence all theories of evolution that use the fundamental principle of evolutionism are also false.

Hence the theory of biological evolution is false.


**Change is the potency to receive a new form. As change is a potency, then potency is the cause of change. Also, limit is the can be of an act. Hence potency is the cause of limit of an act. Note well – thorough arguments can be proposed to prove potency is the cause of both limit and of change. Some of those arguments may be proposed in the thread if required.


Some Consequences of the Falsity of Evolutionism


Evolution Based Science Theory is False All sciences theories that are derived from the principle of evolutionism are false. Consequently, theories such as the big bang, and biological evolution which require the greater to be caused by the lesser are false.


No Evidence in the Fossil Record for Evolution The claims of historical evidence for evolution in the fossil record is false. For no amount of apparent evidence within the fossil record can be used to support a false principle.


No Support for Evolutionary Theory from any other Science Furthermore, any science associated with evolutionary theory that purports to support the theory of biological evolution are also false. This does not mean the science itself is false. But only that the science cannot be used to support a false theory. Therefore, contrary to modern science claims, there is no science evidence in any science that supports evolutionary theory. For any true science cannot be used to support a false theory which is based upon a false principle.


Natural Selection and Mutations are an Inadequate Cause of Evolution Natural selection along with mutations are causes within biological evolutionary theory that do not act to cause the biological modifications as required by evolutionary theory. For natural selection and mutations, like any other cause, cannot be posted as a cause of a theory which is based upon a false principle. For no cause, or collection of causes can be evidence for a false principle within a theory. The inadequacy of natural selection within evolutionary theory does not mean natural selection is not real, but only that natural selection does not act to cause in accord with a false principle, as the theory of evolution proposes.


Evolution is Never Real, but only ever a Metaphor that Implies Design or Creation Every claim to a thing having evolved is only a metaphor or an error which actually means something else. For example, the company evolved means the company was developed by men. The tree evolved, means the tree was designed by a designer, or was created by a creator, or changed accidentally and not essentially (say in size).


No Experimental Evidence for Evolutionary Theory Any breeding experiments are not evidence for biological evolution. For no experiment can be evidence for a false principle, or a false theory.


The Common Ancestor Does Not Exist Any purported evidence within the biological sciences for a common ancestor is not evidence at all. For a common ancestor within the theory of evolution requires the use of the same, false principle exposed above. Typically, any biological evidence for a common ancestor is attained by implication by working backwards from the current biological evidence to a posited, past ancestor. However, by working backwards, the same false principle of evolutionism is used to arrive at a false conclusion of a common ancestor that in principle could not ever have existed. As the principle is false, then any purported evidence for a common ancestor is really evidence for another cause. Perhaps a design, or creation event, with a common designer/creator.


Evolutionism Based Worldviews are all False All worldviews associated with evolutionism may also be false. For example, pantheism says only natural causes have caused all biological life. As the evolutionary theory associated with biological life within pantheism is false, then positing only natural causes within the universe may also be false. Hence pantheism may also be false. In fact, from other arguments pantheism can be proven to be false. Such proofs correspond well with the proof of the falsity of the principle of evolutionary theory.



JM

I wonder how many biologists named Steve know about this.

 

[Motherofkittens]

A content-free response that does not answer the problem.

JM

Aren't you the one making the statement? By the way, where is this nonsense full of pseudo-intellect in scientific literature? If this garbage stood up to reality, there would be a Nobel Prize in biology and even in physics if proven true from a thermodynamic perspective. Any scientist would be world famous and get millions in grant money for their future research (in addition to the million for the Nobel Prize, which goes directly to the winner personally). I would call that a good motive for publishing such a simple refutation of a long-standing theory.

And yet it isn't there.

 

[driewerf]

Scientists rely upon a world view and principles to propose theories. If a principle is false as shown above, then the theory is in principle false. TE is false in principle, even if many think the theory has predictive value.

JM

False.
Scientists rely on data -- observations -- gathered through careful observations, measurements and/or experiments to accept or reject a theory. Since your OP doesn't contain any of these, it is worthless in terms of science.

 

[driewerf]

I understand. More from less is a false principle that is not in accord with the nature of being. More from less as used as a principle in TE is false and consequently, there is no real evidence for evolution in any science field. Any purported evidence is really only a misinterpretation of the evidence. All evidence must be understood without using any false principles, such as more from less.

JM

False.
From the Middle Ages (and even earlier) with very limited technology and economy we have seen an industrial, scientific and economic growth. From the earliest working places driven by human or animal power we saw early factories driven by steam, later by oil and nuclear power.

More from less. The economic, scientific and industrial growth prove your entire point -- irrelevant from the start -- wrong.

 

[quatona]

The fundamental Principle of Evolutionism is - The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.

No. (I stopped reading here)

 

[dmmesdale]

Your post does not address a fundamental reality.

That is more of an assertion in the form of a useless indictment. It says more about your dogmatism than it does about the argument.

The theory of evolution enables us to predict new empirical data.

Like what? What is in the future (predictions) of Giraffes and polar bears based on the empirical evidence? Or can we assume evolution is unscientific because it can make no predictions of Giraffes and Polar Bears? Can you squeeze out a prediction for us?

Your philosophical argument does not enable you or anyone else to predict new empirical data.

How do you know that? One prediction we can make based on the data is evolution will be in the trash bin of history.

For scientists, therefore, your argument is of no interest.

And you just happen to speak for all scientists. What would they do without you?

 

[dmmesdale]

The theory of biological Evolution is defined as
The theory of biological evolution may be reduced to one single fundamental principle, which is stated as –
The fundamental Principle of Evolutionism is - The greater is essentially caused by the lesser.

Well done John, but as they say in Japan, it is Kobans to cats around here.

 

[sfs]

Like what?

Like the transition-transversion ratio when comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. Like the relative number of differences at CpG sites in the same comparison. Like the same quantities when comparing any other two similar species. Like the within-family divergence of endogenous retroviruses, based on their phylogenetic distribution. Like the ratio of within-family divergences for all transposons on the X and on the Y chromosomes.

You know -- the kind of scientific data that scientists actually care about.

How do you know that?

I know that because I've been talking to and reading creationists for several decades, and I've never yet seen one who could predict any data we haven't already seen. Go ahead and surprise me: predict some quantifiable aspect of genetic data that we haven't examined yet.

And you just happen to speak for all scientists. What would they do without you?

Very nearly all biologists would say the same thing -- only many of them would be less polite about it. How many biologists have you discussed evolution with?

 

[dmmesdale]

Like the transition-transversion ratio when comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. Like the relative number of differences at CpG sites in the same comparison. Like the same quantities when comparing any other two similar species. Like the within-family divergence of endogenous retroviruses, based on their phylogenetic distribution. Like the ratio of within-family divergences for all transposons on the X and on the Y chromosomes.
You know -- the kind of scientific data that scientists actually care about.

They do not care about the future of Giraffes and Polar bears?

I know that because I've been talking to and reading creationists for several decades,

Not reflected in your posts.

and I've never yet seen one who could predict any data we haven't already seen.

Are you asserting creationists never made a prediction? All you have to do is google ''predictions by creationists'' to address that. How hard can it be? Your assertions are not demonstrated by your posts since you continually post inaccurate information about Creationists. Anybody can fact check your assertions against the actual writings by using Google. The articles are there and calls into question your credibility and puts the damper on your claims you do your homework when you clearly do not. You can't get past your own prejudices to accurately reflect the information. No professionalism there. There is a deep divide here, and you would not be a reliable source since Creationists is the equivalent of the N word for blacks in your camp and don't deny it. You despise them in spite of their education credentials. Here is an example.
Does the Creation Model Make Predictions? Absolutely! | Answers in Genesis
''Second, the creation model, unlike evolutionary models, is very tightly constrained by Scripture that must be accounted for without wiggle room. Ken Ham outlined some of these in his opening statement. Some constraints include:

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them took place in 6 normal, 24 hour days roughly 6,000 years ago based on the genealogies in Scripture.
2. All humans are descended from 2 individuals . . . Adam and Eve.
3. There was a worldwide, globe covering flood at the time of Noah.
4. God made the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 after there were already plants on the earth.

These constraints on the creation model are highly detailed, leave no room for change and are impossible to get around. We have a defined timeline for which all of the different kinds of animals were made. Evolutionists are not so constrained. To demonstrate, a fun exercise is to do a google search for the term “fossil” with “older than previous.” Such a search turns up millions of websites (many of these are duplicates) describing numerous fossils that are found “millions of years” earlier “than previously thought.” So when evolutionists find a fossil in strata that they didn’t expect, they can just revise the date range.''

Go ahead and surprise me: predict some quantifiable aspect of genetic data that we haven't examined yet.

You wrote the article makes no predictions, and I proved you wrong. One should reasonably be able to produce five predictions based on the available data in the article. If you can't then that shows incompetence. If you can't connect the dots??? It could be a test question. Produce five predictions based on this data.
How bout this; Giraffes and Polar Bears will not change throughout the future. The only possible change is extinction. Polar bears will not develop sonar via natural means nor will they evolve into a different species. There is a prediction based on current data from the present.

Very nearly all biologists would say the same thing -- only many of them would be less polite about it.

This is coming from a guy whose first sentence is this.
'''Your post does not address a fundamental reality.'''

How many biologists have you discussed evolution with?

None. Doubtful that has changed discussing biology with you. John Martin took all that time and energy to type out a thoughtful post, and all he gets from you is hand-waving dismissals. I don't have to think about it because of some trumped up rule according to you. So don't talk to me about polite. Martin did not do anything different then Darwin did with Origins. They both made cases and came to different conclusions. The difference being nobody dismissed Darwin's work with a hand-wave dismissal based on not making predictions. Predictions are not the problem in the first place. It is the excuse which says nothing about whether the position is reasonable or not. You simply do not want to discuss it. Your open mind slams shut.

Theories are proposed statements about physical reality.

So they start with their conclusion.

A statement can easily be true even if belief in the statement was reached by false reasoning.

Provide a couple of exoteric examples. Then the alternative being a statement can easily be false even if the belief in the statement was reached by true reasoning. Faulty premises lead to inaccurate conclusions. It seems they would follow the evidence and not depend on blunders or the stopped clock analogy being right at least two times a day. Assumptions about historical reality are either advanced or rejected based on an investigation. Evolution makes a host of really far out claims relative to historical reality. We have fish in our lineage for one. Nature caused sonar in whales from sources which did not have sonar is another. I would like to see the empirical corroborating data from nonbiological sources for assuming nature can do such things absent the intervention of an intelligent source. Because you know what, there are none.

 

[sfs]

They do not care about the future of Giraffes and Polar bears?

I take it from your (non)response that you don't care about the real predictions that real scientists make based on evolution. That's something you should be interested in if you actually care about whether evolution is scientific or not.

Are you asserting creationists never made a prediction?

Yes. I am asserting that they are unable to make predictions about data they haven't already seen. At least I've never seen one who was able to. Take this one:

Here is an example.
Does the Creation Model Make Predictions? Absolutely! | Answers in Genesis

In it he predicts that Neanderthals and modern humans will be found to have shared a recent common origin, much more recent than the proposed ~500,000 year split between them. He notes various things, none of which actually contradict the original finding -- and then kind of neglects to tell the reader that the recent Neanderthal results (which he mentions) confirm in spades that we do indeed share a common ancestor with Neanderthals about half a million years ago.

So yes, you are right, I should reformulate my statement: I have yet to encounter a creationist who could make accurate predictions about unseen data.

Provide a couple of exoteric examples.

Joe thinks it's raining because he hears water splashing. It turns out it's just his wife in the shower. By coincidence, though, it actually is raining. Bob thinks Fred is bluffing at poker because his eye is twitching, so he calls. Turns out a bit of sand had gotten into Fred's eye, and the twitch had nothing to do with Fred's hand. But he happened to be bluffing anyway.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

More from less is a false principle

You have failed to demonstrate this in any way. In fact you haven't even defined more "what" from less "what". It appears you're saying that you can't get a larger population from a smaller one. Perhaps a quick lesson about the birds and bees is in order? Skipping over the sexual shenanigans of my parents, I can assure you that from 1 mother and 1 father came 3 children. That's 3 humans from 2 predecessors. Do you see how that demonstrates "more from less" to be entirely plausible? How many children in your family?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More from less is a false principle. As Theory of Evolution (TE) uses a false principle, all of the consequences documented above follow.

JM

I think it's hilarious how you think that word games like that will somehow change the facts of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like what? What is in the future (predictions) of Giraffes and polar bears based on the empirical evidence?

You seem to be confusing "scientific predictions" with "telling the future".

Or can we assume evolution is unscientific because it can make no predictions of Giraffes and Polar Bears?

Evolution theory, like any other theory, is a testable description of reality and it makes predictions about what kind of data we should and shouldn't find. A scientific theory is not some kind of "prophecy".

Can you squeeze out a prediction for us?

If evolution is true, then all living things fits in a nested hierarchical tree. A family tree.
From that simple concept, you can make a near infinite amount of predictions.

For example:
- no non-primate will share more ERV's with humans then actual primates
- no amphibian will have hair building genes
- no reptile will have mammary glands
- no reptile will have inner ear bones
- no mammal will have feathers
- etc

And those are just the high-level phynotype stuff. Go ask a geneticist who predictions the theory makes at the molecular level. I think you'll be amazed at the level of detail that this simple idea is testable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ken Ham outlined some of these in his opening statement.

Great source, you got there

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them took place in 6 normal, 24 hour days roughly 6,000 years ago based on the genealogies in Scripture.

Demonstrably false in geology, physics, astronomy, biology,..

1. All humans are descended from 2 individuals . . . Adam and Eve.

Demonstrably false through genetics

1. There was a worldwide, globe covering flood at the time of Noah.

Demonstrably false through geology, physics, biology,...

1. God made the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 after there were already plants on the earth.

Does it really need explaining how absurd it is to have life that uses photosynthesis, before there are any photons being bombarded on them?

These constraints on the creation model are highly detailed, leave no room for change and are impossible to get around.

Great. In that case, we can safely discard that model on the grounds that all its predictions fail miserably in the worst way possible.

In fact, we already knew how these predictions fail for quite some time. Several centuries, actually.