And your example. Google "baraminology" - I am sure you will be surprised.
False. By its very nature as a well-supported and well-tested scientific theory, it has already shown the ability to make predictions. You just don't want to acknowledge that. There have been several recent threads about a find where both the nature of the fossil and its likely location were predicted--and then found.
And your example. Google "baraminology" - I am sure you will be surprised.
I was surprised. I have rarely seen such a vapid cluster of words masquerading as a pseudoscience.
Hmmm. Let's say that a genetic marker is found in both cows and pigs, but not in horses. According to the ToE, it will also be found in sheep, deeer, giraffes, hippos, dolphins and whales.
Please explain how "baraminology" accounts for this fact.
Are the species in a "baramin" either all "clean" or all "unclean"?
Well, these facts were predicted, and the theory of common descent was used to make the prediction.
I think what you're trying to say is that we don't know how to predict the future of species; eg. is the "flying" squirrel a transitional to a truly flying rodent.
I'll tell you what - you tell me the environment for the next 500,000 years, and I'll make a pretty good guess as to what traits will be selected for. Ice Age - hairier; drought - more efficient kidneys; harsh winters - hibernation
Guidelines In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information [bolding added]. Source.
This is not science!
This is a real clue as to the methods:
Scripture claims ... This has priority over all other considerations.
Baraminology is apologetics, pure and simple. It is religion trying to masquerade as pseudoscience hoping to be passed off as real science. While the article claims, "ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information," it comes up with the same answers! And they are far from those arrived at by the scientific method. Hmmmmm.
For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal. Source.
At last! Something I can agree with!