“What does Darwinian evolution predict?

Strictly speaking, nothing.”

Actually, Darwinian evolution was successfully used to predict where and when animal life made the tarnsition from sea to land. That is why researchers trekked all the way up to the far north of the beautiful country of Canada to look for the relevant fossils. And they succeeded – the fossil is Tiktaalik.

I don’t think any advocate of evolution considers it to ne an intelligent process. What makes you think it is?

I would expect whatever might be wrong with the expression she used it is due to writing too quickly.

Quick writing is her métier.

You can fuss all you want but it is over a pimple on an elephants rear end. All I think Denyse is saying is that Darwinian processes by definition do not predict anything which is true but if it they were teleological it would. Is all this about being a little bit more precise on an obvious example. Why bother. She has written a ton of stuff on evolution and has never denied the obvious so I would expect whatever might be wrong with the expression she used it is due to writing too quickly.

Why don’t you try wording it correctly and ask Denyse, if this is what she meant. You can get her email address on her website.

In fact Darwinian process do not predict any specific thing but in general predict what will be expected over time. It will predict there will be changes and give some overall description of the changes to be expected but never say what the specific changes will be. If it was teleological then one may get more precise with the changes expected but never as close as with the laws of physics.

Anyway, predictions, predictions. What does Darwinian evolution predict?

Strictly speaking, nothing. By definition, it is the one form of evolution that banished purpose (teleology) from nature. That was supposed to be its big advantage, right? So by definition, it makes no predictions. Not that you’d know, from Darwinist huffing.

So, she says
1. Darwinian evolution doesn’t predict anything.
2. Darwinian evolution has by definition banished teleology.
3. Therefore by definition it does not make predictions.

The only way I can see this being a logical argument is if Denyse is making that assumption that only teleological processes can be predicted. How else can one make a logical inference from 2 to 3?

I would still like to see Denyse explain what she was trying to say, so this can be sorted out.

Bob

your said

“that processes have to be teleological to be predictive.”

I cannot believe anyone ever held such a position let alone Denyse. I still cannot find it in what she said. All one has to do is predict the sun will rise tomorrow as a counter example. I have no idea what your game is or what you are trying to prove or say but so far I can find no content in it.

Haysoos Martinez! Must you be so anal retentive in order to make a lame point? All O’Leary was saying is that ID predicts the existence of a designer, i.e., a prime mover, whereas Darwinian evolution does not. Neo-Darwinism is the only “scientific” hypothesis that assumes that a process can be intelligent without being anticipatory. Try explaining this “revolutionary” type of intelligence to an expert in behavioral intelligence and you’ll be ridiculed back to the primordial ooze.

If you applied the same anal retentiveness to Darwinism, you’d soon find yourself expelled or denied tenure or refused a grant or something of that nature. LOL.

I believed Denyse used the word “evolution” in the sentence. So I still can not see why invoking gravity is worthy of a counter example.

Sorry, I can’t follow your logic. I’m using gravity as a counter-example to the claim that processes have to be teleological to be predictive. Denyse states that evolution is non-teleological (and I agree), and hence is not predictive (here I don’t agree). I was looking for another process that was non-teleological, but could be predictive.

I actually see Darwinian processes as predicting many things and these have been born out in nature.

That’s fine.

I’d like to hear Denyse respond – she knows better what she was trying to communicate.

Bob

I believed Denyse used the word “evolution” in the sentence. So I still can not see why invoking gravity is worthy of a counter example. It is not even a “Gotcha.”

I actually see Darwinian processes as predicting many things and these have been born out in nature. Namely, that changes will be trivial and/or be in the direction of narrowing the gene pool. This is what Darwin observed on his trip on the Beagle and what every evolutionary biologist uses to justify the grand scheme of Darwinian evolution.

The Darwinian processes are very successful at both narrowing the gene pool and producing trivial changes to the gene pool through mutations but are utter failures at generating anything complex.

So I personally would not get upset with taking an oath that said Darwinian processes are limited to trivial examples.

By definition, it is the one form of evolution that banished purpose (teleology) from nature. That was supposed to be its big advantage, right? So by definition, it makes no predictions.

The only way I can interpret this is that Denyse is saying that anything that is not teleological cannot make predictions. Ergo, if Newtonian mechanics is predictive, it must be teleological.

Bob