Evolution makes testable predictions

2008 May 19
more by

Podcast: Download

By David Annis
Article ID: 1226

In the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace introduced the world to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis that describes how species descended from a common ancestor, diversifying to produce the myriad species that we see today.

All scientific theories make testable predictions. For example, the theory of gravitation predicts that water will flow downhill and that the earth will orbit the sun, instead of flying out of our solar system in a straight line. Just like other scientific theories, the theory of evolution makes a number of predictions. The reason that the theory of evolution is so widely accepted by scientists is because its predictions can be observed to be true in the real world.  In this article we’ll look at three of the theory of evolution’s most important and easily understood predictions and the evidence that these predictions are born out.

The mechanism of evolution – How does evolution work?

In order for the theory of evolution to work we need to have a mechanism that passes traits from one generation to another.  That mechanism must make imperfect copies of the parents, not identical copies.  Generational differences will inevitably confer a reproductive advantage, so those traits will be favored in future generations via natural selection.

When the theory of evolution was introduced, it was obvious that offspring are not exact copies of their parents.  However, the mechanism by which traits were passed from one generation to another without creating exact clones was unknown.  Since then, Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, how it is copied, and that it is the blueprint on which every organism is built. (Actually, that’s every organism except retroviruses, which are arguably alive.)

As the theory of evolution predicts, the copying process is imperfect.  When DNA is copied, there can be point mutations, substitutions, deletions, duplications and crossover between chromosome pairs in diploid organisms.  This basic mechanism of reproduction was accurately predicted by evolution.

Microevolution

Evolution of new species (called macroevolution) takes place over millions of years with trillions of repeated events in which one trait has a tiny reproductive advantage over another. We don’t expect to see a new species over our lifetimes.  However, changing environmental conditions exert new evolutionary pressures. Here, the theory of evolution predicts that we will see the small changes that over many lifetimes may add up to the evolution of a new species.

The real world provides a number of examples of microevolution.  We see bacteria becoming antibiotic-resistant in hospitals, cave-dwelling fish that lose their ability to see, dogs that separate into breeds as distinct as Great Danes, Greyhounds, and Poodles, and fish that mature younger as humans do more fishing (2).  As predicted by the theory of evolution, we can see traits changing in populations so that they can adapt to their environment.

As an interesting aside, since cave-dwelling fish lose their eyesight because of mutations in different genes, if you breed related fish from different caves, sight can be restored.  The further apart the caves are, the more likely that the “blinding” mutations occurred in different genes and the more likely that hybrids will have some ability to see. Just as the theory of evolution predicts.

Fossils of Extinct Species

Evolution creates winners, the species that we see today, and losers, species that once lived but are now extinct.  If evolution really occurs, there should be evidence of species that were adapted for their environment at one time, but that do not survive today.  Indeed, we can find evidence in the fossil record of animals ranging from dinosaurs to trilobites.  The theory of evolution accurately predicts that we will find evidence of species that once existed but that are now extinct.

Unlike the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design makes no big predictions that are testable in the real world. In fact, one could say Intelligent Design predicts a fossil record with no extinct species, since a designer intelligent enough to design life would not have gotten it so wrong.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Biology, Evolution, Science

6 Comments
2008 June 6
Will permalink

Many of the things u say makes no since. U say we will see no macro-evolution in are life time.. how do u know when humans will go exitinct to never see it? It’s an assumption.

The theory of evolution accurately predicts that we will find evidence of species that once existed but that are now extinct

This makes no sense either.. I exist, right now.. evolution predicts what that I will be exictint someday? Based on what.. the coelcanth was suppose to be exitinct, but i have heard excuses that its a new type of species, that looks just like the fossil record? Please, it’s a contradiction, and u assume we will be exitinct without ever really knowing that.

Fish loosing there eyesite, isn’t something to say it’s a survival of the fittest, ever think they were made that way? And no evolutionist likes to explain why they would go blind, to make it harder to hunt, or how they manage to survive until they develop new hunting techniques.. sorry, but evolution (macro) doesn’t happen…

2008 June 8
David permalink

Will – evolution does not predict that any particular animal will go extinct, just that some species will be out-competed by others. We see that dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, and saber tooth tigers no longer exist. In human history we’ve watched dodos and passenger pigeons bite the dust, out competed by us. Perhaps Homo sapiens will never go extinct, but we certainly see other species in the Genus Homo from which we evolved that are now extinct in the fossil record.

Fish that live in caves where there is no light lose their site because the ones that have random mutations which cause blindness are not selected against. The fact that different proteins are knocked out in different populations of fish confirms that the process is random.

2009 May 27
Qazinix permalink

Hello I can predict things.
I predict that some species will go extinct…
That’s not saying much my great grandfather could do that too and he did’t know evolution.
Nor is saying that the animal will adapt to its enviroment.
I don’t want to sound mean, so sorry if I do.

2009 May 27
Andy Kaiser permalink

Hello I can predict things.
I predict that some species will go extinct…

Well done. But as David already said, that’s not what evolution predicts.

Nor is saying that the animal will adapt to its enviroment.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Can you please clarify?

I don’t want to sound mean, so sorry if I do.

We’re here to talk and debate. As long as you’re not flat-out insulting anyone, no problem.

Andy

2009 May 27
Will permalink

I find it very ad hoc evolution. Not one evolutionist stops to think that when they find animals that look identical to what is in the fossil record, that should falsefy it. But the evolutionist is a great story teller. They can explain it away… yada yada… When they found something alive that looks like something in the fossil record when they preached for years that things in the record went extinct then when something that looks identical, well.. it’s not a big deal.. that’s a problem. I’m not that gulible. Secondly, evolutinist don’t think… look at the type of mutations we have for example in humans, the diease, the decay! They dont’ stop to think that if humans have been around as long as they say if you measure the rate of mutation and diease and decay in humans over the past several hundred years, imagine this, we shouldn’t be here at all! But the evolutionist, I”m sure they will have another story to tell.

2009 May 27
Will permalink

David,

I hate to tell you, but it’s not surprise that some animals survive and some don’t. Evolution, I don’t need that to see that animals live and die, evolution doesn’t predict that, it’s life in a fallen world.

It’s common sense that there are animals that live and some don’t and it’s a fact that some animals we think should go exiinct and don’t. LOL, we as humans are depleting animals with are bad habits of destroying environments, evolutionist has nothing to do with it for example. We can wipe out all the fish in the oceans if we choose to poison them, what evoluition says they will die! LOL, it’s commno sense that they have to die if we posion them, evolution doesn’t predict it, it’s common sense, and I don’t need some scientist that believes in evolution telling me that. And I got news for you. There are animals that are very weak and shouldn’t exist, but they do, why because they are someone or somethings else food. There is a balance, predotors have things they hunt and eat and vice versa. Symbiotic realtionships, that are there, that evolution has nothing to do with unless u are looking for another ad hoc to explain the 100′s of thousands of those relationships and evolutionist love to story tell it as if it’s all that easy. Male/female relationships forming opposites all at the perfect time in 100′s of different animals.. give me a break. Bees and polination and honey, oh my, like they can explain every relationship just happens to evole at the right time and place.. I”m not buying it.. Andny no offense but you can keep that theory.

Comments are closed for this entry.