False Predictions and Accommodation in Evolutionary Theory

Baker's Yeast / stock.xchng/chrni13

When scientists make predictions based on their theories, it should be good for science. Even false predictions. When the prediction does not work, the theory can be further examined, modified or discarded. On the other hand, our knowledge can be increased if it is correct. Evolution is loaded with false theories and errors. There are too many to honestly call evolution a valid scientific theory. Instead, excuses and accommodations are made.

Recently we reported on a false prediction of evolution and gave some of the details. Evolution predicts that different kinds of genes, each found within a group of species, should tell the same story about evolution. They should produce similar evolutionary trees. Evolutionists have touted this fact of nature, and how it confirms a key prediction of evolution, for years. They call it a consilience of independent evidences. But increasingly, as we look under the hood and examine the details, we find there is more contradiction than consilience. The new study provided yet another, systematic and more in-depth, confirmation of these contradictions, or what are called incongruence. Evolutionists were a bit shocked.
What is interesting is how this false prediction was accommodated. The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene.

You can read the rest of "That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works", in its full context, here.