The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

"Actually you said attack AND Propose. I was simply stating that I am under no obligation to propose an alternative. It was merely a clarification if either you or the audience was misled." --> I meant two things. Either you can attack the merit of ND, or propose another synthesis that was better than ND. Simply put, you went with the first and most common one. I'm sure we agree on this, and this whole thing was just a miscommunication on our parts. I never intended for this to be an argument, but just a clarification for us. Since my opponent has broken the rest of his round as 2 5-series arguments/rebuttals/questions, I will follow along this same format for the ease of the voters and my opponent/ ~First Set of Counterarguments~ 1. My opponent's conception of a "historical model" isn't so much an argument against ND, because this type of "predictive power" is what I like to refer to as "retro-diction". Using conclusions and inferences we have gained with the ND theory now, we can infer things that happened in the PAST. I will explain later in my argument. 2. Yes, you will find in astronomy that they can predict the position of orbiting planets quite accurately, but with small bodies being present, their calculations are always off to a certain degree. This isn't to say that their calculations are way off the chart, but it shows that theories can not account for all extraneous factors. [1] You will find that for many theories, the area of the study they are in will have a different "type" of prediction, if you will. Archaeology for example, is all about "retro-diction". Using theories and evidence we have now, we can discover things in the PAST . This is what lead to my argument about using homologies from African apes to conclude that the first humans arose from Africa. A fine example of predictive power is when Charles Darwin predicted that because there existed a plant (Angraecum) with a long spur in its flowers, a complementary animal with a 30 cm proboscis must also exist to feed on and pollinate it. About twenty years after Charles Darwin's death, they found that animal; it was a form of a hawk moth. [2] The predictive power of a theory does two things: it allows for practical application of the theory, and for greater possibility of falsification. ND fulfills both. My opponent's argument refutation of how bacteria becoming more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics is true, it happens because of Horizontal gene transfer. However, we can actually use the SAME source he linked and show how ND plays a role in this. Because gene transferring plays a role in phylogenetic trees for evolution, we can come to the conclusion that there was no single most recent common ancestor, because of the "mosaic-like" way of gene transfer, and subsequent phylogenetic trees. [3] While it's true that we used horizontal gene transfer as evidence for evolution (which speaks more for my side in some ways), we can use this confounding factor to INFER and "RETRO-DICT" conclusions for other things, as I have shown. "New DNA being generated would be a more accurate example – but I know of no such examples to provide. Do you?" --> Like with any other theory, ND still has holes and unanswered questions. However, two very viable explanations for how point mutations can lead to lengthening the strand of DNA and the adding of chromosomes are transposons and polyploidy. [4] Transposons are elements that can lead to creating new genes, , and polyploidy can double the total number of chromosomes , or a single chromosome can duplicate itself. There is predictive power in this because scientists are able to learn TONS of things about DNA, and infer/predict new conclusions about DNA. "Actually no. These are not predictions at all. That is why I put the parentheses around predictions. A confirmation of inferences that is not empirically testable is not a predictive model, it is a historical one." --> As I've shown, "retro-diction" is a viable means of predictive power. ND has both predictive power in the sense my opponent is thinking, and retro-dictive power. "You are only confirming the sort of backtesting that I'm talking about. Bacteria mutating, like I said before, is a fascinating phenomenon, but it does not support the evolution of ND. No new genes, no addition to the gene pool." --> I've shown how new genes form. I've shown how "retro-diction" is a viable means of predicting, since we can come to new conclusions/inferences. Inferring that humans arose in Africa IS A VIABLE PREDICTION, even though it's a conclusion based on something in the past. Finally, my opponent has failed to refute my example of the predictive power of ND that fits his view of "prediction". I've shown how ND involved the discovery of DNA. 3. I stated that some theories are better at predicting than others in your conventional thinking. I've shown how "retro-diction" is a viable form of predicting, even though these shouldn't be two terms separated, as they are the same. But for the context of this debate, I will use them as such. A good prediction in science is learning something we wouldn't have previously learned. ND does a good job of this. 4. I've proven how ND is a reliably predictive model with my previous arguments. This really shouldn't be a point/argument, since it's more like a recap. 5. Two flaws with your argument. First of all, even if it was true that you could take a mouse and in 20 years it be an elephant, that's naively assuming that ND will make a mouse into an elephant as we know it today. As I've stated long ago with my astronomy analogy, it's impractical to account for mutations and the traits that survive, so we can't accurately figure out what species will arise from evolving from the mouse. The more serious flaw is that your argument about the mice IS NOT IN THE SOURCE. The source talks about darwins, a unit used primarily for paleontology [5]. It basically argues that if modern observed rates of evolution were unable to account for the rates found in the fossil record, the theory of common descent would be extremely difficult to justify. This is one out of many criteria to FALSIFY ND, another testimony to it being a reliably predictive model. ~Second Set of Counterarguments~ 1. I have shown why your split of these two terms is useless and vague. A prediction in science does not always have to be for future use, it's learning anything we wouldn't have known otherwise if the theory didn't exist. 2. Exactly what do you mean by "how we can trust a theory that admits it can be wrong at any given point." You mean it's high degree of falsifiability? In science, THIS IS GOOD. [6] 3. I have shown how it's predictions are accurate and reliable. 4. You're source has yet to show where such mouse-elephant tests are possible. You're argument is a flawed understanding of how we can make a mouse evolve into what we conceive of as an elephant. Your source helps my side, as it shows how ND can be falsifiable, yet again a testimony to it's predictive power. ~Conclusion~ I have to be brief, due to low character limit. I thank my opponent for taking this interesting debate. I have shown how ND has strong predictive power, and it's falsifiability is unquestioned. Vote for PRO! ---References--- 1. http://epoxi.umd.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(unit) 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...