The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

"With due respect, and for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that in this debate I am under no obligation to present an alternative. Neo-Darwinism must stand or fall on its own merits. It is a basic illogical fallacy to assume the truth of something merely because of one's ignorance of an alternative." --> My opponent seems to have misunderstand what I stated. 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. ND is really just a synthesis of several biology specialties that account for evolution. From his arguments, it's clear that he is attacking the validity of ND as a theory, and it will be my job to refute his points, and show why NS is a reliably predictive model. ~Counterarguments~ 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. 2. You see, many theories in science are simplifications., and thus they try not to account for many outside variables. 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. Some theories are better at predicting than others. Evolution is about initial conditions, mechanisms, and perhaps outside factors that lead to diversity in life; predicting which mutations will happen and which traits will survive is impractical. Evolution has made some base predictions: we can predict that bacteria will get more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics. "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. Using homologies from African apes, that the first humans arose from Africa. We have also found that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have high mutation rates, such as bacteria in the lung.[1] There are many more, but the point is that ND has predictive power, and practical use. We have used NS for drug discovery and avoidance of resistance pests. A fine example of ND's predictive power was it's role involving DNA. Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[2] 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. 4. I have shown with my previous arguments how NS was used as an accurate and reliably predictive model. 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. ---References--- 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...