Talk:Evolution doesn't make predictions
From EvoWiki
I think the strongest point on this page is #3.
What we need out in the battlefield is links to specific examples (I know, there are hundreds, thousands, but...) of paleontology predictions that were made, and then met.
For example: Something where they saw one fossil that said X, and then another that said Z, and they said, "We predict that we will find a Y." (And then it was later discovered.)
I know that gaps are noted and filled in at later dates; I just want some specific examples for ammunition.
Re-ordered reponses to reflect this. I also removed one:
- A true science need not make predictions. That is just one method of demonstrating that the theory in question conforms to fact. It is not the only method, nor necessarily the preferable method. It can be demonstrated that Darwinism conforms to fact by other methods which are reasonable in the context of their emergence.
I'm not sure that this is the case, so I removed it until it can be verified. --Doddy 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with removing that response. Sciences need to make predictions - testable predictions. Success in explaining something you already knew when you invented the explanation is cheap. You need to be able to explain things you don't know yet. --tk [[User_talk:Thomas_Kettenring|(t)]] 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
