BWV
- 1,592
- 1,952
"Our entire discussion over whether or not macroevolution is 'true' is moot if that information can't be used to make verifiable predictions about what is likely to occur next."
thats a red herring and the general problem with people pontificating outside their area of expertise. Climatology cannot tell us whether it will rain next week, but that does not make it invalid. Evolution makes testable predictions about what one expects to find in nature - for example a large number of new species in an ecosystem that has been isolated for a long period of time (i.e. Australia or the Galapagos islands). The very concept of a discrete species is a relic of Platonism and the reality is much more complex. Talkorgins has a long list of speciation events, which you are free to discount to your liking:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Evolution is an entirely adequate theory to understand biology even if all its mechanisms are not fully understood (and perhaps ultimately unknowable).
thats a red herring and the general problem with people pontificating outside their area of expertise. Climatology cannot tell us whether it will rain next week, but that does not make it invalid. Evolution makes testable predictions about what one expects to find in nature - for example a large number of new species in an ecosystem that has been isolated for a long period of time (i.e. Australia or the Galapagos islands). The very concept of a discrete species is a relic of Platonism and the reality is much more complex. Talkorgins has a long list of speciation events, which you are free to discount to your liking:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Evolution is an entirely adequate theory to understand biology even if all its mechanisms are not fully understood (and perhaps ultimately unknowable).