The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

I will start with the points my opponent most certainly did not answer. "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…The more serious flaw is that your argument about the mice IS NOT IN THE SOURCE." I find this to be unfair. My opponent has completely dodged the argument, twice, by claiming that I have supplied insufficient data. Let me quote the source that I supplied my opponent: "Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years."(1) My point still stands without refute. This prediction is a testable one that has not been tried (although similar ones HAVE been tried with faster breeding animals and they failed to fulfill evolutionary predictions). Whether it looks like the elephants we know today is completely irrelevant, that fact of the matter is we have not observed ONE of these shifts in kind (referring to kind of species). "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." My opponent has failed to acknowledge the difference between a historical model and a predictive one. A predictive model is, by definition, a model used to predict future events (2). This retrodiction that he so fondly speaks of is a perfect example of a historical model. It can be used to confirm inferences of past events, but it is not the scientific method of a testable hypothesis with replicable observation. Let me give another example of this "retrodiction" in action. The Bible states that the wall of Jericho was surrounded by men with trumpets who eventually were able to make it crumble using just their trumpets and voices. We should therefore find the wall of Jericho to have crumbled upon itself and not inward or outward as if besieged. Well what do you know, we find just that (3). Therefore, this retrodiction confirms the inference and supports the validity of the Bible. Are you as willing to except the Bible by the merits of your supposed model? "2… 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"… 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…. 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." My opponent is comparing Neo-Darwinism to archeology. That only helps in emphasizing my point that ND is not a reliably predictive model. He uses yet another example – talking about Darwin's prediction – of backtesting. This is certainly not a predictive model. The area of gene transfer is completely irrelevant. The point was to show that it does not support the claim of ND because it does not support the evolution that it claims. Merely employing the mechanism of natural selection is not enough. Such variation owes more to mendelian genetics than ND. "Like with any other theory, ND still has holes and unanswered questions…" That's great, but until ND fills those holes, do not expect the masses to blindly believe its validity without evidence. My opponent goes on to give a theory. That is not what we need, we need evidence. These holes are absolutely necessary components for ND to operate as a predictive model. Large scale change from one kind of species to another requires an addition to the gene pool. If ND claims this to be possible, it ought to use the scientific method to prove it – and it has not. Therefore it is not a reliably predictive model. ~His Second Set of Counterarguments~ 1."A prediction in science does not always have to be for future use" Yes, but it does need to be a future prediction in order to be a predictive model. 2."You mean it's high degree of falsifiability?" In order for ND to be falsifiable, it would need to start making use of the scientific method so we can actually test its claims. Given that admittance that it could be wrong at any given point, I can understand the hesitancy to present falsifiable data. 3."I have shown how it's predictions are accurate and reliable." Nope you have shown that ND only uses a form of backtesting that is not the foundation for a reliably predictive model. You have given an example of a historical model. 4."You're source has yet to show where such mouse-elephant tests are possible." This is a lie and an unfair tactic in debating. My source included all the information as shown above. "Your source helps my side, as it shows how ND can be falsifiable, yet again a testimony to it's predictive power." The source helps my side because if gives examples of ways that ND COULD be falsified but it is not. It gives testable examples, yet none of them have been tested. And when it has been tested (with fruit flies) the predictions were not in accordance with the theory. ~Points that have not been refuted~ 1.You have not answered the question of whether or not you understand the difference between a historical model and a predictive one. 2.You have not shown how Neo-Darwinism is capable of standing up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. 3.You have also not established why such mouse-elephant tests, if are apparently so reasonably possible, have not been demonstrated. ~Conclusion~ My opponent has not addressed the most fundamental points necessary in establishing ND as a reliably predictive model. ND would need to make use of the scientific method in order to be falsified. It uses backtesting which is good for testing inferences, but not for predicting future phenomena. If ND is a reliably predictive model then we should see testable evidence of its reliability – and we do not. TheSkeptic expects the reader to believe such claims on faith? Sources: 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com... 3. http://www.watchmanmag.com... http://dsc.discovery.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...