Evolution doesn't make predictions
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
A true science must make predictions. Evolution only describes what happened in the past, so it is not predictive.
Source
- Stephen E. Jones, Projects: "Problems of Evolution" [1]
Responses
- The argument is non sequitur. Evolution can be predictive, and yet still only describe what happened in the past. We do not have omniscient knowledge of the past, so we can indeed make predictions about what has already occurred.
- Many predictions are possible based on the theory of evolution (e.g., predicting germ/pest resistances to antibiotics/pesticides, predicting general traits/locations of future fossil finds, predicting population responses to selective breeding attempts, etc.)
- Just like meteorology only predicts effectively maybe a week into the future, evolution cannot be used to precisely predict what will happen in the future. It does, however, tell us what kind of changes can be expected to happen.
- There are many predictions concerning the future that can be extrapolated from the theory of evolution even if they are not explicitly stated by Darwin. Here are some examples of predictions that one could argue would be extrapolated from the theory of evolution.
- Species with high reproductive rates will have a better chance of surviving environmental change than species with low reproductive rates.
- Species from a common gene pool separated into group A and group B and isolated for generations over a longer period of time and exposed to different environmental conditions will eventually become unable to reproduce with members of the other group.
- It is possible to predict the outcome of a macro-evolutional experiment, but it's a bit difficult to verify it. However, it is equally possible and valid to predict certain paleontological findings. Some of these are actually verified by now (like some kind of fossils).
- Common descent predicts a positive relation between degrees of homology across species for different proteins. That is, it predicts a close match between phylogenetic trees generated with different sequence analyses.
- Darwinian evolution predicts that all organisms on Earth derive from a common ancestor. This ancestor has not been identified through fossil records (and probably cannot be), but its existence is a necessary consequence of the fundamental genetic unity of all life on Earth.
- Creationists who use this argument fail to realize that there have been no scientific predictions made by Scientific Creationism.
- Evolution requires a huge amount of time to operate and thus effectively predicted that the sun was powered in a far more efficient manner than previously thought - a prediction that was verified by the discovery of nuclear fusion.
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Equivocation (the term "prediction" is defined in another way here than in the term "predictive" for sciences)
- Too Narrow (the term "prediction" is defined too narrowly here)
External Links
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
- Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations [3]
- Theobald, Douglas (1999). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
Further Reading
- Rainey, Paul, 2003 (14 June). Evolution: Five big questions: 4. Is evolution predictable? New Scientist 178(2399): 37-38.
Related claims
- Evolution is only a theory
- Evolution is no strictly scientific theory
- Evolution hasn't been proved
- Evolution can't be falsified
- Evolution is ambiguously defined
- Evolution can't be replicated
- Were you there?
- Creation can't be disproved
- Evolution should be treated as a matter of belief
- Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation
- Ockham's Razor says simplest explanation (creation) is preferred
- Scientific findings are always changing
See Also
Acknowledgments
- 81.245.251.153
- 192.190.75.16
- 24.159.199.19
