[Re:] evolution-creation predictions

[Thomas Schlemmermeyer]

I only wanted to make comments about the nature of phylogenetic predictions.
If one agrees with Mike Dallwitz and the late Ernst Mayr and the majority of
the scientific community that predictions may be made about the past as well,
one should still consider that phylogenetic predictions are comparatively weak
predictions as the underlying laws (natural selection and common descent) are
by its nature laws which are not very predictive and which do allow a lot of
chance and unpredictability.

I will now outline why creationist predictions, if there would be any, were
complete nonsense. As God forgot to create Bacteria, we would have an
ever-increasing amount of organic waste on earth, which is not the case.

On (         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:18:30 -0400
),         John Grehan <jrg13 at PSU.EDU> wrote:


>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
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de S?o Paulo
Caixa Postal 42694
CEP 04299-970
S?o Paulo, SP, Brasil

Resid?ncia:
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Caixa Postal 00276
CEP 14001-970
Ribeir?o Preto, SP, Brasil

Fone, Fax: 016 6371999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------