The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

"I said he could do two things: either attack the evidence/merit ND is founded on (like every other scientific theory), or propose a different synthesis than ND." 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. "1. I assume you mean to say that evolution only describes the past, but it doesn't In fact, this is perhaps the thesis of your entire argument." I'm saying that the so-called evidence for evolution is mere backtesting that confirms empirically untestable inferences. Let me give you an example. In Jeremiah 39:3, Jeremiah makes an astonishing "prediction" over 2600 years ago. He claims that Nebo-Sarsekim was with the Babylonian King Nebuchanezzar II at the siege of Jerusalem. Well it turns out that the British Museum recently displayed a clay tablet that confirms this and the Biblical timeline.(1) The timeline is the inference, and the tablet stands as confirmation. If this sort of confirmation of inferences is reliable, then you should also affirm the reliably of the Bibles historical timeline. All this notwithstanding, it would still only be a historical model – not at all a reliably predictive one. 2. "You can predict the position of an orbiting planet, but you'll still be off since you can not account for smaller bodies in the system and their gravitational effect." And it is a reliably predictive model? "Some theories are better at predicting than others." Quite so, and this is what makes them reliable. "Evolution has made some base predictions: we can predict that bacteria will get more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics." Of course bacteria becoming more and more resistant is merely an example of gene transfer and not the evolution that ND proposes.(2) This mechanism of exchanging DNA is necessary for bacteria to survive. While fascinating, it is not an example of evolution in action. New DNA being generated would be a more accurate example – but I know of no such examples to provide. Do you? ""Predictions of the past", of things in the past we didn't know of yet are also a use of NS as a predictive and reliable model." 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. "There are many more, but the point is that ND has predictive power, and practical use." 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. "3. Exactly what do you mean this boast by evolutionary science to be "self-correcting"? Science as a WHOLE boasts to be self-correcting; it's not a monopoly solely held by evolution. We all know the principles of falsification and such; these ideas help tarnish and solidify our theories we have now." Indeed it is the boast of all science, but how much more for the science with such a high margin of error. You said it yourself that "some theories are better at predicting than others." This is an essence the admission that some are less reliable. "4. I have shown with my previous arguments how NS was used as an accurate and reliably predictive model." No you have not. You have shown that ND is used as a historical model that uses backtesting to confirm inferences. You need to show how it can stand up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. Demonstrating the addition of information to genome should be tested and replicated. But it is not. Observation trumps scientific backtesting and inferences – we do not observe nor has ND made any reliable predictions concerning speciation resulting in a change of kind. "5. Would you mind giving a link, or a source to this claim? It's quite hard to pinpoint your argument if I've never heard about it before, and there is no source." I gave you the source. Douglas Theobald's, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org... If you go to section 5.7 you will find where I gathered the information. It takes a rate 400 darwins a year to transform a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. Since a rate of 200,000 thousand darwins has already been seen in the lab, then it could theoretically take only 20 years to produce an elephant from a mouse. Why have no such tests been observed? A reliably predictive model would get better results, and not just retarded fruit flies. ----------------------------------------- 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 answered the question of how we can trust a theory that admits it can be wrong at any given point. 3. 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. 4. You have also not established why such mouse-elephant tests, if are apparently so reasonably possible, have not been demonstrated. I would like to thank my opponent for his responses and I look forward to his answers and evidence. Sources: 1. http://dsc.discovery.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.talkorigins.org...