http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life ... ion/where/

Maybe regarding location.
size is not known

Thanks for the link. My questions about the fusion of C went a different direction I believe

ant wrote:where is the evidence for why the fusion in humans is logically predictable within the theory?

There are many things like this that are not only not predictable, but not expected to be predicted. The path evolution has taken and still takes is essentially random. To ask why one particular path was taken, but not another, exposes a major misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. Predicting which path a species will take in it's evolution is severely limited. This type of prediction is not the type that gives evolution it's strength. It does not make the theory any weaker either. It is an accepted, central tenet of the theory, that evolutionary pathways are random.

What is the current estimated population size now? 7.2 billion? I'm making a quick post before going to watch a movie with my family, so I haven't had a chance to digest the latest posts to the thread, but I saw something about population growth and location.

N="Interbane"]

ant wrote:where is the evidence for why the fusion in humans is logically predictable within the theory?

There are many things like this that are not only not predictable, but not expected to be predicted. The path evolution has taken and still takes is essentially random. To ask why one particular path was taken, but not another, exposes a major misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. Predicting which path a species will take in it's evolution is severely limited. This type of prediction is not the type that gives evolution it's strength. It does not make the theory any weaker either. It is an accepted, central tenet of the theory, that evolutionary pathways are random.[/quote]

nah, not at all. The clue to the theory's system of operation is in it's name. Hard to miss it when it's in the title.

Evolution up to human intelligence is a stroke of luck or inevitable luck - call it what you wish - based on the theory actually not being a law because if you rewind the clock, different pathways most certainly would have occurred.
But we have had this discussion before. It was when you " explained" that evolution is not a law but an algorithm. You werent very helpful in explaining the algorithm itself - its "just an algorithm that happened"
Fine - you BELIEVE that.

There is no denying that a major part of what distinguishes a theory from being "just a theory" is its predictive power.
what distinguishes this particular theory is that it is more retrodictive than predictive.
No one is shooting it down for that, or be because it offers no observational evidence for other aspects hypothesized regarding the transition from hominid to human..
the fusion is also a major indicator about of difference between the two.
"It just happeNed"

Ps
The first person who claims I am saying that evolution is just a theory based on my last post to interbane does not get a xmas present from me this year

The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testablepredictions.[citation needed] Theories with strong predictive power are highly valued because they have practical applications.[citation needed] The concept of predictive power differs from explanatory and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

before you start posting some examples of predictability, my point is once again simply that to my knowledge, the leap from hominid to "intelligence" is not predictable. Nor has it been identified retrodictively.

I dont know.. has it? Youre the expert here, Interbane.

what will humans be in another 1000 years?
Homo sapiens are still in the process of evolving, are they not.
Or are we pretty much done?

ant wrote:Ps
The first person who claims I am saying that evolution is just a theory based on my last post to interbane does not get a xmas present from me this year

I wouldn't say that you said evolution's just a theory from the last post, but the things you stated overall leads me to believe you lean towards creationism...

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... HKjTdb4vJ4

See in particular,
Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... HKitdb4vJ4

Thanks but did you read what I wrote?
I didnt say it wasnt

ant wrote:Thanks but did you read what I wrote?
I didnt say it wasnt

Your point is that evolutionary theory can't make predictions about the future path of evolution or explain why certain paths occurred in the past? And?

That's the nature of complex systems, at least for long time scales

http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140717- ... recasting/