(Laughing). Probably the most significant and impactful theory in history, the basis of virtually all modern science, one with an enormous impact on modern thought, giving us a whole new perspective on life and providing us with possible answers to where we come from, is unimpressive to you (at times) because it can't predict future evolutionary paths? Good Lord.ant wrote:
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)
It's not my test. it's science's definition of "theory"
I would say you are tripping yourself up in overly broad definitions. Cosmologists can make very precise predictions related to the motions of planets and stars. But as the definitions I provided suggest, evolutionary theory attempts to explain what has happened in the past. And though you fall back on some general definition of a scientific theory, can you point to any legitimate criticism of evolution's lack of predictability?
In your opinion, does the theory of Pangea also suffer from lack of future predictability?