Whales are a tremendous pool of evidence for Evolutionary theory …
"The smoking gun for tooth loss in Mysticetes turned out to be exactly what was predicted: a fourth gene, necessary for enamel production, and mutated with the same inactivating mutation in all modern toothless whales. The gene in question, named enamelysin, was destroyed when a mobile genetic element called a SINE transposon inserted into it, breaking it into two halves and removing its function: . . .
“The fact that the same SINE insertion mutation at an identical location is found in all modern Mysticete species indicates that this mutation happened once in a common ancestor and then was inherited by the entire group. Since this must have occurred early in the evolution of toothless whales in order to happen in the common ancestor of the entire group, the picture from the genetics and the fossil record match.”
" Once again, findings in one discipline (in this case, paleontology) can be used to make very detailed predictions about what another, unrelated discipline (comparative genomics) should reveal. These results are also entirely consistent with the observation, made in the 1920s, that toothless whales form tooth buds during embryogenesis that are later reabsorbed prior to the point when the deposition of enamel would begin. As with the hind limb story in whale evolution, lines of evidence from genetics, paleontology and embryology converge to support the hypothesis that modern toothless whales descend, through modification, from toothed ancestors."
Somebody needs to substitute! Just say, “Not really, this paper shows that what you said is false.” Then link to something that doesn’t say anything pertinent to the topic.
I am not strictly speaking, an ID proponent. But that won’t stop me from making at least one prediction on behalf of ID thinking. ID is a conclusion drawn from observation, based on our reaction to our observations, ie. if it looks intelligently designed, it probably is. This is not a prediction but rather the basis for ID. Included in this are the more detailed arguments that probability theory would not allow mere randomness to account for the variability, nor for the usefulness of what we see in nature, as well as particularly in the genetic codes.
But, as to predictions, I would think that ID would predict that it would be unusual (not impossible but unusual) to see useless genomes, appendages, organs, compared to the number and amount of useful and functional organs, appendages, organisms, and genomes, and genetic material.
Ok that’s not actually the form that scientific predictions make. You need something more like this.
Hypothesis about a current unknown.
Statement of evidence which would substantiate the hypothesis.
Statement of evidence which would falsify the hypothesis.
Description of a procedure which would test the hypothesis.
Description of why this is a more efficient explanation of the evidence than alternative explanations.
In this case your statement is not about a current unknown. Additionally, you haven’t described how this would be a more efficient explanation than alternative explanations. Like, you know, evolution.
.