This process also works in so-called ‘historical sciences’ (referenced by @Meerkat_SK5 above) – you make predictions about what pre-existing but as-yet-undiscovered evidence will be uncovered in the future.
Regardless, the “pre” in “prediction” means before, so a prediction must be made before the new evidence is uncovered.
Since that NCSE article discusses at length why there is not a distinction between historical vs observational science, it appears that @Meerkat_SK5 has yet again presented a creationist idea but cited a mainstream source he hasn’t read.
I do enjoy when you claim to know what I am actually trying to show.
Sort of. For instance, the second law must exist in all possible worlds unlike other laws of nature because the operation of the second law of thermodynamics pertains to quantum mechanics as well as general relativity (Abe & Okuyama, 2011).
This suggests that God cannot create a universe without the decaying effects of the second law.
As I told @WalterKloover and @Dan_Eastwood, the main differentiating factor between the two models comes down to which taxonomic groups are created kinds rather than related, as stipulated by common descent.
The common design model predicts that almost all animal groups from the order and family levels are created kinds because natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction, cell differentiation, and consciousness.
More importantly, key innovations would only be crucial to early events in evolution to produce complex animals body plans, which would show that the proximal design objectives were reached:
“The demonstration of the importance of HRT clearly supports the general concept that evolution in the microbial world occurs primarily through exchange of genetic material, which can lead to a substantial innovation in one scoop, rather than point mutations or gene duplication” [emphasis added]
Horizontal transfer beyond genes | PNAS
I have a list of taxa that are considered to be unrelated because there were preliminary test done that yielded positive results. However, we don’t know whether they are truly unrelated yet.
Same goes with these designs that were labeled evil or flawed. We don’t know if these features convey a hidden benefit, only do harm or a product of decay:
I’ll admit it’s a struggle, but isn’t that a problem for you specifically when what you’re trying to show can’t be determined?
Pretending that something you already knew was predicted is not.
Now you’re misrepresenting part of the hypothesis as a prediction.
Which I explained to you why I am not doing this here.
Let me clarify… The universal common designer hypothesis predicts a universal common design.
The common design model predicts certain orders and families are created kinds.
Again, we don’t know if they are truly created kinds.
What can’t be determined?
It’s also a problem for you when you can’t remember from sentence to sentence what we’re talking about.
It’s precisely what you’re doing.
You have clarified that you’re misrepresenting part of the hypothesis as a prediction. That’s also a tautology.
You’re misrepresenting part of the hypothesis as a prediction.
Doesn’t matter. You’re hypothesizing that they are, not predicting.
Scientific prediction: nucleases do not decrease prion infectivity.
Alright, let me change it up……
All currently living animals have a common design (i.e. HRT) that can be traced back to created animal kinds.
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately between families and orders in response to similar needs.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes between families and orders.
(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions between families and orders to better fit the data than species trees.
(D) We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between families and orders.
Hypothesis.
Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory. Numbers and proportions might make it empirical.
Almost, but only if you can define “species trees” empirically. Since it makes no sense, I doubt you can.
Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory.
What makes you say it’s just a hypothesis rather than a theory?
Again, I have a list of taxa that are considered to be created kinds while the common descent model has them as being related. Do you want the source?
According to this source, it is defined as “closely related genomes”:
No, I think he wants you to be able to distinguish between hypotheses and predictions.
It is of no use whatsoever if you have different hypotheses (i.e. Common Design versus Common Descent) if they both result in the same prediction – i.e. " We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between families and orders."
No track record of successful predictions.
No.
That’s not a source, it’s a commentary, and you’re wrong. Maybe you should go to an actual source?
It should also be noted that the citation does not in fact define “species trees” as “closely related genomes”, it in fact merely uses those two phrases in the same paragraph:
As implied by the name proposed for this distinct route of evolution, HRT involves horizontal transfer of noncoding regulatory regions of microbial DNA alone, without the adjacent regulated genes (Fig. 1). The HRT leads to a regulatory switch that modifies and in some cases rewires the regulatory network of the bacterial cell because nonhomologous regulatory regions are typically regulated by different transcription factors. The regulatory regions in microbial genomes that include promoters and transcription regulator-binding sites are much shorter than protein-coding genes and can change faster, because of which confident delineation of the evolutionary histories of these sequence is a nontrivial task. As in many other cases of evolutionary reconstruction, the key to the solution lies in the careful analysis of appropriately selected sets of closely related genomes, and Oren et al. take full advantage of this strategy. Analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provides for a statistically supported comparison of the topologies of the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and the species tree. The results of this comparison strikingly show that evolution of the regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with the species tree. In the majority of these cases, the regulatory region appeared to have been transferred together with the downstream regulated gene(s), but about one third of these events seem to represent bona fide HRT (Fig. 1). Altogether, excluding cases that could be caused by artifacts of phylogenetic analysis, HRT appears to have affected more than 11% of the regulatory regions in E. coli, which is definitely a substantial contribution to the plasticity of the bacterial regulatory network. Using the RNA-seq technique, Oren et al. show that regulatory switching caused by HRT indeed leads to the divergence of transcription start sites and gene expression levels between E. coli strains, confirming the functional relevance of HRT. Furthermore, by experimentally reversing regulatory switching for a single gene, they demonstrate that HRT is adaptive for a uropathogenic strain of E. coli.
As I told @Mercer , the main differentiating factor between the two models comes down to which taxonomic groups are actually created kinds rather than related, as stipulated by common descent.
FYI, the fossil record has revealed for some time now that the observed patterns, which is no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations, match the patterns predicted if common design accounts for life’s history and diversity.
The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts | PNAS
This is because they are optimal, these organisms undergo limited change for the duration of their existence, accounting for stasis. Richard Owen’s universal common archetype theory has predicted this even before Darwin’s common ancestry theory came out 10 years afterwards. So we do have a track record, especially when we include the many instances of functional pseudogenes and ERV’s that have been discovered.
Is there a reason why you would still suggest otherwise?
Ok. That’s fine. But, don’t forget that this is not about how many, but it’s about which taxa groups are a created kinds.
Sorry about that. According to this source, “species tree” is just referring to “vertical inheritance”:
Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS
The null hypothesis of this test is vertical inheritance (as defined by the species tree); therefore, rejection of the null hypothesis is a strong indication of HRT.
He’s getting better. This time they’re in the same sentence.
Unless you have an empirical test to distinguish between those, you don’t actually have a differentiating factor.
FYI, that doesn’t support your claim. Where we don’t have fossils, we have phylogeny from sequences. And no, it’s not explained by common design unless the designer is trying to fool us.
There were two falsehoods, so “those” would have been the correct pronoun.
But as your faux-prediction of “We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between families and orders.” does not differentiate between “taxonomic groups [that] are actually created kinds rather than [ones that are] related” – so it does not differentiate between design and descent. It is thus absolutely worthless as a prediction.
You still show no awareness of why real scientists make real predictions. Which leaves you making malformed Cargo Cult-style imitations.
I have a list of taxa that are considered to be created kinds while the common descent model has them as being related.
Here are the testable predictions that would distinguish the two models:
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately between families and orders in response to similar needs.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes between families and orders.
(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions between families and orders to better fit the data than species trees.
(D) We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between families and orders.
FYI, sudden appearances and stasis fossils are expected from creationists models and many scientists apparently concur:
“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."
Pagel, M. Happy accidents?. Nature 397 , 664–665 (1999). Happy accidents? | Nature
Fossil Record • Darwin, Then and Now (darwinthenandnow.com)
Common design can easily explain the same data as I just shown, which makes this irrelevant.