- Jan 18, 2004
- 1,903
- 204
- 41
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
This is mostly a response to NathanCGreens request here for a convincing piece of physical evidence for evolution, but its 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 thats 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 biologyfor example, I think anyone would agree that the way to know atomic theory is correct is because its 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. Heres 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. Heres an image of Jinfengopteryx, a troodontid:
And this is Sinornithosaurus, a dromaeosaurid. Im 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.
Im 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 its impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty. It isnt 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. Ive 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.
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 thats 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 biologyfor example, I think anyone would agree that the way to know atomic theory is correct is because its 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. Heres 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. Heres an image of Jinfengopteryx, a troodontid:
And this is Sinornithosaurus, a dromaeosaurid. Im 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.
Im 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 its impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty. It isnt 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. Ive 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.
