a scientific prediction does not necessarily mean "to predict a future event". If you dreamed a meteoroid will crash into the White House on New Year's day, that's a prophecy, not a scientific prediction.
you're misunderstanding what a scientific prediction is like most people are misunderstanding what a Theory is in Science.
it's like when Peter Higgs predicted the Higgs Boson and which physicists at CERN's LHC confirmed, paleontologists discovered fossils that evolution predicted.
A prediction relates to the future, that's why it's called a "prediction." From "pre" (
prae, before) and "dict" (
dicere, to say), meaning, "to say before it happens."
In the same manner, predictability in science also relates to the future, because it relates to reproducibility; in other words, testability.
For an experiment to be accepted as scientific evidence, the experiment must be reproducible and repeatable by others working independently. If the experiment produces a result different from the prediction, the theory is false; if it consistently produces the same result, the theory is confirmed.
When will confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. Thus, the prediction relates to the future confirmatory event.
For example, I say hot air is heavier than cold air, and I predict that hot air rises, while cold air falls. The prediction will be confirmed by the results of my experiment, and by the similar results of similar experiments performed by other independent persons.
When did confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. In other words, the confirmation is a future event in relation to the time the prediction was made.
The Higgs boson started as a prediction, which was later believed to have been confirmed by the LHC results. When did confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. In other words, a future event.
Predictability is related to reproducibility, which means that it is testable by others. Other independent scientists can repeat the experiment and produce evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions.
Now compare that to evolutionism.
You said, "Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found." That is not a prediction that supports evolutionism.
Finding pre-Cambrian fossils proves only that pre-Cambrian life forms existed on earth; it does not prove that they evolved into Cambrian life forms. Therefore, the "prediction" only showed past existence, but it did not show a confirmation of the evolutionary theory of common ancestry.
Here's an example of a scientific prediction concerning evolution --- If they predict that random mutation can increase the information in the genome, and perform a reproducible fruit fly experiment that demonstrates it, then that will be reasonable confirmation of a scientific prediction. When will the confirmation come? In the future, when the experimental result confirms the prediction.
creationists like you don't count it as evidence. actual scientists do.
also, you're a lawyer. do you not encounter circumstantial evidences in your field of work?
from a definition of circumstantial evidence:
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out."
these evidences that you so happily disregard are so many ways like that. each fossil record discovered corroborates claims made my evolution. they may be incomplete but they are overwhelmingly enough to support the theory.
The basis of circumstantial evidence is the inference that can be reasonably connected to a conclusion of fact. If there is no reasonable inference that can be connected to the conclusion of fact, then that is not circumstantial evidence; in fact, that is not evidence at all.
To prove that Mr. X was at the scene of the crime, a witness who saw him there is presented ---- that is direct evidence. His palm print on the wall at the scene is presented --- that is circumstantial evidence. A book that happened to be written by his favorite author is found therein --- that is not evidence at all.
To prove common ancestry, a witness who personally observed evolution is presented --- that is direct evidence. Proof that random mutations can increase information in the genome is presented --- that is circumstantial evidence. Fossils with similarities are presented ---- that is not evidence at all.
No conclusion of ancestry can be inferred from mere morphological similarity. Since no inference can be made, then the same cannot be considered circumstantial evidence.
so what sir docelmo was trying to before about falsifying evolution with the "whale" argument doesn't count?
No, of course not.
Debunk all existing transitional whale fossil candidates, and evolutionism is still not falsified.
Why not? Because evolutionists say that the fossil evidence is not yet complete. Just wait and a true transitional fossil will be eventually discovered.
So, until 100% of all fossils are discovered by excavating every inch of the earth, the theory is unfalsifiable.
