It is an explanation that you disagree with
No. Wether I agree with it or not, doesn't change the fact that it's just a claim and not an
explanation. Explanations
explain, they don't just assert. Claims assert.
which like Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis and Macro Evolution is NOT scientific but unlike these claims an alternate authority to make up the deficit.
The entire scientific community disagrees.
The best gardeners and horse breeders in the world do not give a whiff of Darwins dirty underpants about evolution and it makes no difference whatsoever to their ability to do their jobs.
Whatever you say. This doesn't change the fact, that they wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for the existing process of evolution, since then
selective breeding wouldn't accomplish anything at all.
Banana cultivation has been around a lot longer than any evolutionary theory
has has the cultivation of various seed crops. It makes no difference at all.
If the process of evolution didn't exist, then chiquita banana's wouldn't exist.
Then banana's would still look like this:
The same goes for broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc, which were all cultivated (evolved) from the same wild gabbage plant ancestor.
If it wasn't for the evolutionary process, then cultivation wouldn't result in completely new types of vegetables, fruits, etc by selective breeding.
A scientific prediction is something like the sun will rise at …
That would be a prediction based on a theory of heliocentrism and the orbital paths of the various celestial bodies contained therein. This indeed allows for predicting / tracking sunsets and sunrises. But also solar eclipses and the position of any celestial body (the moon, saturn, the other planets,... even stars way out there) relative to the earth at any one time.
Scientific prediction is NOT about predicting "future events". It's about predicting data in general. It's about "what should we see/find" and "what should we NOT see/find" if the theory upon which the predictions are based, is accurate.
An explanatory theory that simply uses its broad model of categorisations to predict more of the same in one particular area and then has that confirmed by a find is not a predictive model. It is just an explanation with a degree of descriptive integrity.
Dude........ Tiktaalik was a previously unknown species. Paleontologists took the theory of evolution and said, if fish evolved into tetrapods in the Devonian, then we should be able to find
transitional fish/tetrapod species in Devonian rock. So they took a geological map, looked for a spot of exposed devonian rock that back in those days would have been an area favourable for fossilisation, went there, started digging and lo and behold, found EXACTLY that which they expected to find. Tiktaalik. A fish with tetrapod features. Or a tetrapod with fish features, if you wish.
They predicted the locality, the age as well as the anatomical feature set. And actually found exactly that.
How can that be, if evolution theory isn't accurate?
This is exactly the equivalent of taking the heliocentric model of the solar system and predict the exact timing of a solar eclipse.
BB, Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution are theories that are not scientific
False.
, cannot be verified by normal scientific methodology and make no future predictions which we can test.
I just gave you one. Twice. Tiktaalik. Found by prediction.
And that's just one example. There are thousands of such.
How do you think that paleontologists decide where to go look for what?
Did you think that they get grants just to go and start digging in random spots, hoping to find something?
Think again.
Overall they explain nothing , add intellectual burden but yield no distinctive practical benefit whatsoever
lol
Customers of my previous employer surely think that optimization modules that use Genetic Algoritms, give them practical benefit. They wouldn't be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for development of such software if they didn't.
But continue sticking your head in the sand.
