Replies

A bird with boobies would be a bust for evolutionists -- it would falsify evolution. Do you know why it would falsify evolution? This is along the same lines as Vade's query on how we know that T. Rex didn't sport B Cups. If you'd kept abreast of the discussion, you shouldn't be caught like a deer in the headlights -- you should be able to explain why I categorically said that breasts on a bluebird, while titillating, are an impossibility according to evolutionary theory.

I asked for an example of a prediction (i.e. something that is predicted, i.e. to declare or state in advance) made via evolutionary theory and you replied birds don't have mammary glands and frogs don't have feathers. Answers like this are among the things that have caused me to become skeptical of evolution.

Let me try using evolutionary theory to make a prediction: New England will beat St. Louis in Super Bowl XXXVI. On a last second field goal. HEY. IT WORKS.

Let me make another prediction. If a bird with boobs is ever found, evolutionists will declare it to be proof of evolution. And if this bird species was observed to evolve, say in a flock kept in captivity, and it was fertile but was unable to be bred with its relatives, and the species eventually evolved into a bat, I would pretty much accept macro-evolution.

But the objective and undeniable truth is that this has never been observed.

If a bird with boobs is ever found, evolutionists will declare it to be proof of evolution.

Actually something quite similar did happen with archaeopteryx. They declared this dinosaur with feathers the missing link between reptiles and birds. Problem is that archaeopteryx died out tens of millions of years before birds came around. Even evolutionists with all their double-talk could not get past the fact that dead species do not reproduce.

Okay. I'll try to make it a bit simpler. Mammals are descended from mammal-like reptiles and birds are descended from dinosaurs, which are descended from archosaurs. Mammary glands only developed on the mammal-like reptile/mammal line. Evolutionists thus predict that no one will ever discover a species of birds with boobs (the titmouse does not count) because, according to the evolutionary framework, mammary glands never arose on the archosaur/dinosaur/bird line. Regardless of how you spin it, this is a valid prediction, and is based solely upon evolutionary reasoning. I've also given you a potential falsification of evolution -- produce a booby with boobies.

You see, this is what separates science from religion, evolution from ID or creationism. With science, one can build a framework from which one can make predictions (birds will never have mammary glands). By their very nature, these predictions must be falsifiable (if a bird with mammary glands is found, the framework is crap). ID and creationism simply state "God did it the way He did it, and no one is to second guess Him." Under either of the latter there is no way to make any predictions about what one should find in nature because God might have done just about anything that caught His fancy (all those mythical half-this/half-that critters come to mind). And, because there is no way to make any predictions there is no potential falsification -- and a theory MUST be falsifiable.