What you seem to be suggesting is that evolutionary theory suffers from the inability to predict what humans will look like in ten thousand years. Sorry to say, this is appallingly simplistic. As Interbane has already stated (many times I think) it's like trying to predict what the Grand Canyon will look like in ten thousand years. And, yet, we do not question our understanding of erosion, do we?

"suffer"??

Only live creatures can experience suffering, Geo. Theories can not "suffer"
Or have you humanized the theory of evolution?
Sounds unusual, but you've clearly implied that someone is trying to create suffering in a theory.


Anyway, back to our discussion.

We are talking about the development of LIFE, not the erosion of inorganic matter.

What is it about evolution that's mathematically based?
Isn't the book of nature written in mathematics?
Isn't theory strengthened by the predictions it makes, which are mathematical?

Go ahead and google "HELP" on this one.
This is painfully obvious.

By the way - where have you been?
you came back to defend Darwin here?

Taylor wrote:

Mind you this is just hypothesis born of a brain that was not qualified for Mensa status(though I tried) but of of a brain accustomed to LSD in its youth.

Why does Mensa believe it may be presumptuous to assume evolution is a fact, but for the sake of the question it should be assumed it is a fact, so that we can speculate what the next step in our evolution is?

Evolution IS a fact because its a scientific theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

- wiki
(emphasis mine)

So, the predictive power of the theory of evolution should be able to predict what our next step will be.

What's the prediction? Anyone?

Geo wrote:

G

eologists can predict what fossils will be found within a certain rock strata. And, more recently, geneticists have come up with ways of calculating the percentages of shared genetic material between two closely related species which, in turn, can be used to predict where and when the older, now extinct species lived

That explains a past event - retrodiction.
I know all this, Geo.

Did you read the definition of a scientific theory? it has the word "predictive" contained in it.
Here's what the word means:

pre·dic·tive
prəˈdiktiv/
adjective
relating to or having the effect of predicting an event or result.

Now for the definition of the word "predict"

pre·dict
prəˈdikt/
verb
gerund or present participle: predicting
say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE

HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

IN THE FUTURE.

Here's what you said, Ant.

[Evolution] is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.

This is very clearly a statement that evolution is not a good theory. Are you really going to continue to deny it?

I mentioned the widowbird because it's a well-known example of sexual selection and has been widely studied. I wouldn't assume that we know everything there is to know about sexual selection because the natural world is always complex, isn't it? But as far as I know, sexual selection is pretty well supported by the evidence. Are you suggesting that it is not? Do you want me to come up with more examples of sexual selection?

It's like you are trying to miss the point on purpose. You have not responded to the main thrust of my previous argument. Nor have you responded to DWill's or Interbane's recent points about predictability in evolution. Why is that?

Edit: No, well it looks like you're sticking with the idea that we should be able to predict what humans will look like in ten thousand years. Wow. There's really nothing to say to that.

geo wrote:Here's what you said, Ant.

[Evolution] is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.

This is very clearly a statement that evolution is not a good theory. Are you really going to continue to deny it?

I mentioned the widowbird because it's a well-known example of sexual selection and has been widely studied. I wouldn't assume that we know everything there is to know about sexual selection because the natural world is always complex, isn't it? But as far as I know, sexual selection is pretty well supported by the evidence. Are you suggesting that it is not? Do you want me to come up with more examples of sexual selection?

It's like you are trying to miss the point on purpose. You have not responded to the main thrust of my previous argument. Nor have you responded to DWill's or Interbane's recent points about predictability in evolution. Why is that?

Hilarious that you're continuing to both accuse me of wanting the theory of evolution to "suffer" because it's "bad" and continue to ignore what's being placed in front of you, namely, the scientific definition of what a theory actually is.

Sexual selection within species is self evident, Geo. No one has disputed that. You are creating a strawman to argue with.
What I've question is how selection is established. In the Nature mag link I provided that discusses the peacock's colorful and elaborate tail, it was determined that sometimes it is a selection criteria used by potential mates and sometimes it isn't. Are you suggesting that a 'hit and miss" explanation by a theory in this case is good enough to label it as an accurate explanation?


You may continue to scold me for implying evolution is a bad theory, rather than directly address what I've broached.
I'm well aware by discussing this theory I am on holy ground.

No, well it looks like you're sticking with the idea that we should be able to predict what humans will look like in ten thousand years. Wow. There's really nothing to say to that.

No, we can't say what the next step in human evolution will be because evolution is more retrodictive than predictive.
Can we predict what species will inhabit the Sahara in 1 thousand years from now?
That's a lot less than 10 thousand years.
Shall we consult the predictive power of the fossil record?

Let's look at an explanation of predictive power (which is a key aspect of a scientific theory)

wiki

The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testable predictions.[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.

Scientific ideas that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience". Because they cannot be tested in any way, there is no way to determine whether they are true or false, and so they do not gain the status of "scientific theory". Theories whose "predictive power" presupposes technologies that are not currently possible constitute something of a grey area. For example, certain aspects of string theory[which?] have been labeled as predictive,[by whom?] but only through the use of machines that have not yet been built and in some cases may never be possible.[examples needed] Whether or not this sort of theory can or should be considered truly predictive is a matter of scientific and philosophical debate.

Questions/points to cosider:

1) Does the theory of evolution (TOE) generate testable PREdictions? If it did, would we be able to make a testable prediction related to what the next step in our evolution might be?
When has this been done?

2) the explanatory and descriptive power of TOE is not being questioned here. That is why i previously stated it is descriptive more than predictive (good fossil records)

3) if we are guessing what the next step in our evolution is going to be, then we are conjecturing because TOE can not provide predictions in this case.

4) what future technologies do we anticipate assisting TOE enhancing its predictive power?
anything in the works yet?

5) what this actually is, is a philosophical debate about a theory that clearly can not predict nearly as well as it can retrodict.

thanks

ant wrote:

geo wrote:
Sexual selection within species is self evident, Geo. No one has disputed that. You are creating a strawman to argue with.
What I've question is how selection is established. In the Nature mag link I provided that discusses the peacock's colorful and elaborate tail, it was determined that sometimes it is a selection criteria used by potential mates and sometimes it isn't. Are you suggesting that a 'hit and miss" explanation by a theory in this case is good enough to label it as an accurate explanation?


You may continue to scold me for implying evolution is a bad theory, rather than directly address what I've broached.
I'm well aware by discussing this theory I am on holy ground.

The fact that elaborate plumage is not always selected by the female indicates to me only that we don't understand everything there is know about sexual selection (as already stated). The real world defies such simplistic renderings. It's also beside the point—which is that there's plenty of predictability within evolutionary theory. In fact, if you place a few critters on an island, you can predict that that they will get bigger over thousands of years. But it's also a fact that predicting future events is not in the scope of evolutionary theory any more than predicting what the Grand Canyon will look like in ten thousand years is in the scope of geology. These two sciences are explanatory of past events. You seem to be implying that this represents a problem, but I'm beyond caring any more.

The fact that elaborate plumage is not always selected by the female indicates to me only that we don't understand everything there is know about sexual selection (as already stated). The real world defies such simplistic renderings

.

Yes. Clearly the theory in question simply has told us "we don't understand everything there is know about sexual selection"

A scientific theory attempts to explain the "real world" with accuracy by generating testable hypotheses.
If we've tested the sexual selection behaviors/habits of species like the peacock and got back data that indicated "sometimes it selects this and sometimes it doesn't" then what's been described is something is not that very informative if you happen to have the time on your hands to sit and watch several amorous peacocks hunting for a mate.
Nothing revalatory has actually taken place, has it? What powerful prediction has taken place here?

. In fact, if you place a few critters on an island, you can predict that that they will get bigger over thousands of years.

No. Actually some species decreased their size. The "Hobbit" is perhaps one of many such examples.
So again, the prediction actually is "sometimes it'll get big and sometimes it'll get small"
Presto! There's my prediction!

But it's also a fact that predicting future events is not in the scope of evolutionary theory any more than predicting what the Grand Canyon will look like in ten thousand years is in the scope of geology.

Really..?
So predictability is not in the scope of this theory??
By definition is it a THEORY then??

Erosion is a scientific theory?
Just like evolution?
REALLY??

'The Theory of Evolution"

"The Theory of Erosion"

Wow! all these horrendous comparisons!

Erosion is the act in which earth is worn away, often by water, wind, or ice. A similar process, weathering, breaks down or dissolves rock, weakening it or turning it into tiny fragments. No rock is hard enough to resist the forces of weathering and erosion. Together, they shaped the sharp peaks of the Himalaya Mountains in Asia and sculpted the spectacular forest of rock towers of Bryce Canyon, in the U.S. state of Utah.

http://education.nationalgeographic.com ... on/?ar_a=1

ant wrote:A scientific theory attempts to explain the "real world" with accuracy by generating testable hypotheses.

There are myriads of examples of testable hypotheses in evolution. You are trying hard to ignore this obvious fact.

Let's go to a couple of definitions of evolution:

Merriam-Webster
1 : a process of change in a certain direction <tumor evolution and progression—I. J. Fidler et al> 2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

Wikipedia
Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[2] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.

Dictionary.com
1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

So, in fact, prediction of future events is not the primary scope of evolutionary theory (although there are plenty of predictions that have been made). The problem with predicting future evolutionary paths is made difficult by the fact that random mutations and genetic drift can alter the path of an organism's evolution. If we ran the clock back to six million years ago, there's a good chance that humans wouldn't look like they do today. And quite possible they might not even exist.

Clearly evolution fails an important litmus test for you (although biologists don't seem bothered by this perceived lack of predictability). What's your next best theory to explain the diversity of life on our planet?

So, in fact, prediction of future events is not the primary scope of evolutionary theory (although there are plenty of predictions that have been made).

But it is a primary attribute of a scientific theory.

The problem with predicting future evolutionary paths is made difficult by the fact that random mutations and genetic drift can alter the path of an organism's evolution

Yes, that's a problem the theory in question has. It mostly predicts randomness will occur at some point because mutation and the environment are likely unpredictable.

It's power of predictability is both limited and at times unimpressive.
Unless of course you care about the color of a moth's wings and have a practical need for that information.
(I'd imagine moth collectors would be jazzed about such predictions)


EDITED

Clearly evolution fails an important litmus test for you

It's not my test. it's science's definition of "theory"