Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 2

message: Prediction: "The macroevolutionary prediction of a unique, historical universal phylogenetic tree is the most important, powerful, and basic conclusion from the hypothesis of universal common descent."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Prediction: "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes."  (see above website for verification information.)
Prediction: If evolution occurs, then life must evolve as a a nested hierarchy of species. (see above website for verification information.)
Prediction "If there is one historical historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance." (see above website for verification information.)
Prediction "If there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods." (see above website for verification information.)
Prediction: "Fossilized intermediates should appear in the correct general chronological order based on the standard tree." (see above website for verification information.)
Prediction: If evolution has taken place, then we would expect to find many anatomical vestiges.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
Prediction: Vestigial organs can sometimes be functional. (see above website for verification information.)
And the list of verified predictions of evolutionary theory goes on an on. The idea that one cannot make and verify predictions about evolution is a falsehood being spread in the intelligent design, as well as creationist, community. RK 21:54, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verified predictions that evolution makes 

message: I think the NPOV of this article is lacking at some locations - look at these snippets:
*"For example, they claim that all the major types of animals appeared at the same time in the fossil record with no evidence of common ancestry (Alas, they do not!)" - wouldn't "they do not" suffice? It seems to me that this is a case of ironical pity (or how you'd call it), like "Oh, I'm soooo sorry!" with a tone of "I'm not a bit!". We should stick to facts.
*"The eye is an especially embarrassing example for ID; Michael Behe resorted to saying it might be deliberately flawed!" - "embarassing" is clearly a personal judgement. My proposal: "The eye is now known to be suboptimal (the nerve fibers extend towards the inside of the eye, which causes an unneccessary blind spot), which evolutionists see as evidence against its intelligent design. In response, Michael Behe reasoned that the eye may be deliberately flawed." - whether this "deliberate flaw" hypothesis makes sense is then left up to the reader, probably to most, it doesn't.
*", that one would expect any reasonably intelligent designer to have done a much better job!" - ok, I may be oversensitive, but a full stop seems more neutral, the exlamation mark gives the impression of the author being enthusiastic about this opinion. It should be clear that this is the view of many or most evolutionists, and the sentence is not meant to ridicule ID or creationism on behalf of Wikipedia.
*"Engaging just a little hyperbole, one could say that ID is making monkeys of creationists." - I'd suggest to remove that or use it as a quote (of a scientist or celebrity who actually said so, if there is one).
Also, it would be neat to actually provide at least one hypothesis on the eye's evolution (but in a seperate article). I recently ran across one on the net, but I lost the link and failed to "google" it up again, and I can't remember the exact details. :-(
As a good example how not to do things the NPOV way, take a look at The Evilution of Sex. This level of "debate" (read: distortion and absurd "extrapolation" to ridicule) should be left to others. Now don't get me wrong, of course this article here is in no way that bad!!!, but methinks it's best to avoid any semblance with that rubbish!
Best regards,
Aragorn2 16:11, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?