Talk:Evolution doesn't make predictions (Talk.Origins)

Proposed Arguments Against Evolutionary Predictions

I have many suggestions for this page, but I won't add them yet because of the policy about not making new edits for a few days after a page is created. The page's creator is free to incorporate and expound on these, or I can add them after a couple of days.

• Evolutionists insist the mark of a good theory is one that can be used to make predictions. (Their argument against creation is that it does not make predictions.) However, new research often overturns crucial elements of evolutionary belief. When this happens, evolutionists applaud the "progress," billing the constant adding, revising, overturning and updating as productive additions to account for new finds.

• How effective are evolutionist predictions? For example, evolutionists have argued that creationists are not hired in operational fields such as geology surveyors, or employed by businesses such as oil companies, because evolutionary theory predicts geologic layers and creationists don't. But is this claim true? The comparison can be made between "dog years" and "human years." The tradition holds that a dog year is worth seven years in human reckoning. It can be argued that evolution's old-earth assumptions are "dog year" assumptions, but old-earth beliefs are no more accurate than young-earth beliefs in accounting for the geologic record, because they each refer to the same geologic structures in different scales of time.

• Is there a page of evolutionary predictions? It would be helpful to compile a list of:
  • Failed evolutionary predictions (Such as the fact that survival of the fittest does not always occur[1] or that humans do not always act in their own best interest (altruism).)
  • Currently unproven evolutionary predictions
  • Examples of "successful" evolutionary predictions (Retroactively applied included.)

Also, the page should link to creationist predictions.