Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

One doesn't have to predict to the future to be called science, but science would have to be rational to be able to predict the future. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. In the case of evolution, a has a finite probability of being b, and b has finite probability of being c, therefore the odds of a=c is getting worse. They may be equal, but there is also a chance they won't. Anyone with rational skills would think this sounds like it is coming from an irrational person. Yet this is considered valid science? Nobody even tries to predict because it would make the system look at lame as it is. As long as the current theory can avoid a test of credibility, it can pretend all is well with this approach.

Again, I am not challenging evolution but its current state. Statistics is very useful to explain complex systems where there are often too many variables and unknowns to be able to reason. What this tells me is there is a need to simplify so there are fewer variables. For example, life will evolve into the environment it lives in. One will not find polar bears at the equator, unless they are in a zoo. But even then, they are kept cold. Instead of worrying about a bunch of random spontaneous genetic mutations, if one knows the environment, one also knows the basic direction the DNA is going to evolve.

For example, the new super bacteria are evolving due to the blood environment. They did not mutate until we altered the blood. The current theory tends to put the cart before the horse so it can't predict. It is using an illogical approach therefore it it stuck using irrational math.