I stand corrected.

fifth monarchy man: Could you provide a link to a paper written before the discovery detailing the prediction?

Of course, we would start with Darwin's Origin of Species. His Theory of Common Descent implied that all organisms, extinct or extant, would fit the nested hierarchy. And indeed, over the last century and a half, thousands of new species have been discovered, and all fit the pattern. Furthermore, because this nested hierarchy applies across time and geography, we can predict the existence of heretofore unknown intermediate species, and what strata they might be found in.

The overall historical evidence points to the bony fish to land vertebrate transition occurring about 375 million years ago over a period of about 15 million years. The relationship between bony fishes and land vertebrate was well-established before this expedition.

Shubin, Carroll, Tabin. Fossils, genes, and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 1997

Daeschler, Shubin. Fish with Fingers? Nature 1998

Daeschler. Early tetrapod jaws from the Late Devonian of Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Paleontology 2000

Shubin, Daeschler, Coates. The early evolution of the tetrapod humerus. Science. 2004

Just as the predicted return of Halley's Comet on Christmas 1758 was convincing evidence of the validity of the Theory of Gravity, the discovery of Tiktaalik is a profound confirmation of the Theory of Evolution.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society and conducted with the permission of the Government of Nunavut.

From the Theory of Common Descent and historical data, we posit that land vertebrates evolved about 375 million years ago, probably in tropical streams.

Could you provide a link to a paper written before the discovery detailing the prediction? And perhaps detailing what falsification would look like.

I would like to understand better exactly what a specific distinguishing prediction would look like.

Peace

Zachriel: lucky guess?

kornbelt888: No. Educated guess.

Quite a guess. Spend years exploring an arctic wasteland to pull out a predicted fossil organism in 325 million year old rocks. What an adventure!

kornbelt888: The theory works. Except when it doesn't.

Not as established as gravity.

You seem to be confusing fact and theory.

Gravity is a fact. There are many ways to observe its manifestations. There are a variety of simple systems that are easy to predict, but when the number of parameters increases, then often the system becomes chaotic, and at best, we can make statistical predictions. We don't even know if the Earth is in a stable orbit!

Evolution is a fact. There are many ways to observe its manifestations. There are a variety of simple systems that are easy to predict, but when the number of parameters increases, then often the system becomes chaotic, and at best, we can make statistical predictions. We don't even know if a killer influenza will become epidemic in the next few years!

The Theory of Gravity is a powerful explanatory framework of gravity, but it has been modified significantly since Newton, whose own theory already had significant anomalies. There are indications that the Theory of Gravity is due for another major overhaul.

The Theory of Evolution is a powerful explanatory framework of evolution, but it has been modified significantly since Darwin, whose original theory already had significant anomalies. There are indications that the Theory of Evolution is due for another major overhaul.

The history of gravitational objects is a difficult matter to unravel. The further back in time, the more uncertain our knowledge; e.g., the origin of the Moon, the formation of the asteroid belt. But modern gravitational simulations are helping to resolve these issues.

The history of biological organisms is a difficult matter to unravel. The further back in time, the more uncertain our knowledge; e.g., the exact order of branching in early eukaryote evolution, the origin of multicellularity. But modern bioinformatics is helping resolve these issues.

Zachriel: That's not an empirical observation.

Perception of difficultly level is not empirical. Oh, OK.

Zachriel: lucky guess?

No. Educated guess.

The theory works. Except when it doesn't.

Not as established as gravity.

kornbelt888: Here's a distinguishing prediction: the more we learn about intra-cellular mechanisms and processes the more it will mimic human technological understanding, and the more difficult it will be to explain them from a-telic processes alone.

That's not an empirical observation. This is an empirical observation. It can be seen, touched, measured, compared. And it is the result of a hypothesis.

From the Theory of Common Descent and historical data, we posit that land vertebrates evolved about 375 million years ago, probably in tropical streams. In order to test this hypothesis, scientists located Devonian strata associated with tropical streams. Due to geological forces, today this happens to be in the Arctic.

So, based on this hypothesis, an expedition was mounted. Several seasons were spent looking for fossils. These fossils were then transported thousands of miles to a lab for examination.

The published result was a remarkable fossil organism, Tiktaalik, with many features of bony fishes (jaw, fin rays, palate) and features of tetrapods (neck, wrist, ear).

Lucky guess?

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they be happy the people are conducting 'fruitless' exploration?

Simple the tiniest dose of humility would suggest to them that their opinion could possibly be wrong!

Like I said many fruitless searches in the past have turned out fruitful.

Zach even you have the grace to allow me unhindered exploration - thankyou

Now how about the rest?

willo: How about answering my second question that rose from the first, if teleology was genuinely on the table wouldn't Dawkins and others of influence be happy to see exploration in this possibility? Even if their personal opinion was that it would be fruitless.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they be happy the people are conducting 'fruitless' exploration?

willo: So the majority think otherwise, so what? If the majority ruled we'd be back in the dark ages would we not?

As I said, you are more than welcome to conduct whatever research you feel is warranted. Let us know when you find something of merit.

Zachriel: So which of cat, dog, chicken, snail, is in the outgroup?

kornbelt888: It depends on the (subjective) criteria one is using.

Well, that should decide it for most readers, who should have no difficulty objectively determining which one is not like the others,

or which group together.

R...E.
V...E.
SHCA..
SHCAK.

No point considering the rest of your comment.

What the trees really represent are groupings of intuitive notions of "similarity". Isn't it intuitive matching that engineers and MikeGenes of the world do when they look at intra-cellular mechanisms and think them to be the productions of intelligence?

You want a prediction based on that? OK, all cells examined on earth will exhibit these features. Naturalistic theories predict that also, so it's not distinguishing. Here's a distinguishing prediction: the more we learn about intra-cellular mechanisms and processes the more it will mimic human technological understanding, and the more difficult it will be to explain them from a-telic processes alone. Naturalistic theories flatly contradict the latter part of that prediction, obviously, so it is distinguishing.

Does this mean ID is now science?