evolution-creation predictions

[John Grehan]

Thomas Schlemmermeyer wrote

>There, a nice host-parasite phylogenetic tree is drawn with some termites and
>the associated staphylinid beetles, culminating in the prediction that the
>soldier caste of the neotropical termite genus Anoplotermes is still to be
>detected. Yet, now one knows for sure that this genus is definitely
>soldierless, may there be whatever genus of staphylinid beetles associated with
>them.

I would agree with Thomas that predictions per se do not provide any added
support for evolution over creation. Creationists can make predictions based
on the theory of a creation plan or design that is made apparent by the
study of characters. Darwin's prediction abou the existence of a sphinx
moth with a 12-inch tongue that would pollinate the Christmas Island Orchid
could be made simply from the general prediction that morphological designs
between interacting organisms are going to be compatible in some way. For
an orchid has a long dubular nectary it does not take only an evolutionist to
appreciate that if the flower is host to a moth that it would have a long
mouthpart if it were to utilize the nectary directly (as opposed to some
bees that cut their way to the nectary base).

Doug Yanega wrote

>>Similar predictions based on natural history are actually quite easy to
>>make, and it's a good thing, too. Want to find the plant/animal host of an
>>organism? Start by considering what it's nearest relative uses as a host,
>>and you'll rarely go wrong. That qualifies as being prediction based on
>>evolutionary theory.

Or a creationist might just say look to the organisms with the closest design
plan so the precition is not unique to evolutionary theory as far as I can see.

Interestingly, when one asks an evolutinist what a feather is, or what a
leaf is,
the answer is often couched in functionality, so the knolwedge about the
structure appears often to be no different from what a creationist would say.

John Grehan