What Predictions can be made using Evol Theory? (Darwin, doom)

[Autodidact]

Some examples that come to mind:
If any new flying invertebrate is discovered, it will have 3 body parts and 6 legs.
If any new warm-blooded creature is found, it will give birth to live young and nurse them with milk.
If any new creature whatsoever is found, it will use DNA to reproduce its genetic code.
Any creature found will have features that more nearly resemble its nearest relations than other creatures that fill the same ecological niche, and this resemblance will be exactly reflected in the similarity of its DNA.
All fossils discovered will be able to be placed on the nested hierarchy/tree of life. This will continue to be the only objective and coherent way to categorize every living thing, including those not yet discovered. For example, if the creature has feathers, it will also lay eggs and have a bone structure similar to dinoaurs, and so forth.
All living species will eventually become extinct.
New species will continue to arise.
All new species discovered will be distributed geographically so that they more closely resemble creatures that are geographically near more closely than creatures from far away that seem to fill the same function. For example, if we find a new mammal on Madagascar, no matter how much it may look and function like a dog, cat or bear, it will turn out to be a lemur.

Well, I could do this all day, but you get the idea.

I guess the biggest is that we're never going to find any living thing that fails to resemble other living things, like a 10 foot long fly with 9 legs, one eye, no DNA and warm blood. There are a million predictions about what we won't find, because we know where the tree of life branched off in the past, and whatever we find will be on a twig of one of those branches. We know this is impossible:

[Mr Spinkles]

For example....

As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.
The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.

For more examples, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

[logician]

Originally Posted by 3.14

well it is highly likely that animals will develop stronger immune systems to cope with the destruction of the eco systeem and the weaker species will die out because they can't handel the polution
also since man is ever encrothing on animals domain animals will alter there instincts around humans either becoming more domestic or more aggresive

They've been doing that for decades, the problems now are many, including massive loss of habitat, increasing ocean temps(this has done in many, many species), increasing pollution, continuing release of toxins in the environement. It takes time for species to adapt, and a few decades is not enough, the above simplistic answer certainly will not save life on earth.

[Random]

Thanks to all for contributing here to this thread, I've learnt a thing or two I didn't know.

[painted wolf]

Darwin also predicted a rather improbable looking moth to pollinate a particular orchid. The members of this type of night orchids are co-evolved with their moth pollinators. Therefore for evolution to be true, there would have to be a moth with a tongue a foot long!
The moth was finally discovered 40 years after his death.
Darwin | American Museum of Natural History

Modern predictions include... finding dinosaurs with feathers. (lots of these have been found in the past few years).
Finding transitional forms between other groups. (a great example would be Tiktaalik)

Genetic studies have confirmed the predicted relationships between many groups. (humans and the great apes)

Others have touched on disease resistance but disease origins, predictions and treatments also use evolutionary methods. (along with a host of other genetic based sciences.)

wa:do

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Darwin also predicted a rather improbable looking moth to pollinate a particular orchid. The members of this type of night orchids are co-evolved with their moth pollinators. Therefore for evolution to be true, there would have to be a moth with a tongue a foot long!
The moth was finally discovered 40 years after his death.
Darwin | American Museum of Natural History

That was great. Thanks!

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Darwin also predicted a rather improbable looking moth to pollinate a particular orchid. The members of this type of night orchids are co-evolved with their moth pollinators. Therefore for evolution to be true, there would have to be a moth with a tongue a foot long!
The moth was finally discovered 40 years after his death.
Darwin | American Museum of Natural History

Modern predictions include... finding dinosaurs with feathers. (lots of these have been found in the past few years).
Finding transitional forms between other groups. (a great example would be Tiktaalik)

Genetic studies have confirmed the predicted relationships between many groups. (humans and the great apes)

Others have touched on disease resistance but disease origins, predictions and treatments also use evolutionary methods. (along with a host of other genetic based sciences.)

wa:do

Tiktaalik is a wonderful example because it was such a specific prediction. They had a hypothesis that tetrapods first evolved in river deltas. So they went to where there is a rock formation that they knew resulted from a prehistoric river delta and looked. It happens to be located in the arctic, so it's not very convenient. And looked. And came back next year and looked again. And looked some more. And then they found exactly what their hypothesis predicted: a new tetrapod species, and it's a doozy.

This is the kind of hard science that ID needs to do, successfully, to get accepted. Instead they do PR. I think it's because they know they're wrong--there is no scientific support for their position, which cannot be verified because it makes no specific predictions.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Random

Well?

If Evolution has been observed, hypothesised, tested, publicised and verified en route to being a widely accepted Theory, then what Predictions can be made about the future of nature and the world with it?

The only prediction about the future that evolution can make is that species will change over time, and that the more time that passes the greater the observed changes will be.
You can't make any specific predictions about those future changes though because of the element of chance introduced by random mutation, but having said that, you can make educated guesses based on the environment a species currently lives in and the selective pressures that species is subject too.
For example, if we had a species of rat living in a cave, it would be a good guess that given enough time the species would eventually become blind.

Originally Posted by Random

As an adjacent question, what predictive models can result from Evolutionary theory as opposed to Creationist ideas?

That given enough time a species can change so much that it could be placed in a different class - like Amphibia to Reptilia. Creationism typically states that life was created as is, and that it cannot evolve too much beyond it's God-given form or "kind".