So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Part 3

For any scientific theory to be valid, it must make predictions and be falsifiable. This isn't my rule, it belongs to the scientific community at large and the theory of evolution should be no exception to this rule. It's been my experience, though, that no discovery, no matter how contrary it is our understanding of evolution, seems to be enough to make evolutionists question the theory itself. I read articles with headlines like: “New discovery rewrites the history of human evolution.” Yet I suspect I'll never see an article titled something like, “New discovery casts doubt on the theory of evolution.” They have to admit to being wrong about where, when, and how things evolved but nothing – NOTHING – will ever make some people doubt that things are still evolved. It's very curious.

Out of frustration, creationists have often asked, “If evolution is a valid, scientific theory, what is a way it might be falsified?” Usually, we don't receive an answer beyond bluff and bluster, but they can't duck the question forever. Rational Wiki (RW) has an article titled, Falsifiability of evolution, where they list several ways the theory could be falsified. I examined the first three from their list in my last post and showed how they really weren't serious tests of the theory. I was going to address the next few items from list in this post but [SPOILER ALERT] it's more of the same. I even thought about abandoning this series because, after pointing out the weaknesses in the first 3 items on the list, the similar weaknesses in the other items become rather glaring. I'll touch on the items later but I thought it might be a good idea to back up a minute and address the premise RW used when making these “predictions.”

From the RW article, we read, “[I]t is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles. If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.” [italics in original]

I think it's admirable of RW to want to be “clear” about what evolution is because there seems to be a lot of equivocation over the word. The theory of evolution includes the common descent of all biodiversity from a single ancestor. Evolution also includes fish becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and ape becoming men. “Evolution” includes a lot of things that are in contention but RW claims it wants to be “clear.” //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

Let's take those three principles and apply them to a hypothetical population of black and gray mice. In one particular environment, gray might be a better camouflage than black so predators will tend to eat the black mice more often than the gray. The gray mice, then, will tend to live longer and have more offspring and the black mice will leave less offspring. Over time, the entire population of mice will become mostly gray or totally gray. We can see all three of RW's principles in action. Are you with me so far?

What has happened to the mice fits the technical definition of evolution. It is a change in the frequency of the gray allele in the population. There is no debate over this type of change and if people want to call it “evolution” then you could call me an evolutionist. But how does this type of change show that all life has descended from a common ancestor? How can this type of change add feathers to a dinosaur? It doesn't!

What RW has done is described natural selection and called it evolution. They are taking something we do observe (natural selection) and using it as evidence for something we don't observe (evolution). Therefore, the first six items they present are actually things that might potentially falsify natural selection – not evolution. The problem with this, though, is that natural selection is an observed phenomenon. We watch it happen all the time. You can imagine how difficult it would be to look at something, then try to prove the thing you're looking at doesn't exist. You really can't and that's the challenge RW faces in disproving natural selection. As I said in my last post, RW has resorted to taking things that are already known to occur and saying, “If this didn't occur, evolution wouldn't be possible.” That's sort of like saying, “If a bowling ball weren't round, it wouldn't roll.”

So, having said all that, let's look at 2 of the next 3 items from RW's list:

[A]ny of the following would destroy the theory [of evolution]...

If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Notice how they even use the word, “selection” in their tests? So if “natural selection” didn't favor the better adapted, evolution wouldn't be possible. If rearrangements of already existing traits didn't produce new species, evolution wouldn't be possible. Since they're conflating natural selection with evolution, RW is essentially saying, “If evolution didn't happen, it wouldn't happen.” And if a bowling ball weren't round, it wouldn't be a ball.

Darwin saw the similarities between different species of finches and realized little changes in the environment would favor certain traits. Over time, the more favored traits would become the most common traits in the population and a species would be better adapted to its environment. Over a really long time, the accumulation of small changes could become big changes – like a leg becoming a wing. That's the theory of evolution. Darwin used the little changes he observed to invent his theory. Now, RW is claiming that these observed, little changes are “predictions” of the theory. It's all incredibly circular.

Having said all that, RW did make one claim that is interesting. They said, [It would destroy evolution...]

If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

We've already discussed how mutations are already known to occur in the DNA of any organism. Also, we already know mutations are inherited by its offspring so neither of these could really be said could potentially falsify evolution. However, RW is saying mutations must produce the kinds of changes that drive evolution. Actually, they said, drive natural selection but I've already discussed how they conflate the terms.

Mutations are sometimes “expressed” - that is, they have some, physical affect on the host organism. A beetle might be born without wings; a fish might be born without eyes; an elephant might be born without tusks; etc. We sometimes call these types of expressed mutations, “birth defects.”

In some environments, these types of birth defects may give an organism an advantage. On a windy island, for example, flying beetles have a chance of being blown out to sea so a beetle born without wings may have a better chance of surviving. Natural Selection is the blind judge that determines if a birth defect conveys any advantage and if wingless beetles replace all the flying beetles on the island, some people will say that species has “evolved.”

The problem with this scenario is that beetles being born without wings doesn't explain how wings on beetles evolved in the first place. I've said before that you can't make a molehill into a mountain by removing dirt so beetles loosing their wings doesn't make a very good case for evolution. For evolution to be possible, populations must acquire novel traits. To turn a reptile into a mammal, for example, you would have to add hair. The alleged first living organism didn't have hair – nor scales nor skin nor bones nor blood. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require a billion successive generations of organisms acquiring traits they've never had before.

It's not enough to observe beneficial mutations and call it evolution. If the theory of common descent were true, trait-adding mutations would have to happen fairly regularly. We should have plenty of examples. So where are they? I ask in earnest because, in all the years I've been asking evolutionists, I only ever hear the same 3 or 4 questionable examples. Why? It's because trait-adding mutations are astonishingly scare or non-existent.

The glaring lack of examples of trait-adding mutations, which are virtually demanded by the theory, is strong evidence against the theory. It's a nice try of RW to claim natural selection acting on mutations is evidence for the theory but, on this point, I'm going to have to give evolution a big fail.

Related articles:

Does Natural Selection Create Diversity?

Natural Selection is the Opposite of Evolution!

Mutations Make a Creature More Evolved?

Trait-adding Mutations? I Show You Why More is Sometimes Less

Read this entire series:

Introduction

Part 2

Conclusion

So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Part 2

In my last post, I talked about two traits that are critical to any scientific theory: it must be predictive and falsifiable. Evolution has often been criticized as a scientific theory on the grounds that it isn't falsifiable. No discovery, no matter how contrary it is to our current understanding of evolution, would ever make mainstream scientists question the theory. I'm not exaggerating. It's such a problem that frustrated creationists will simply ask, “what is something that, if found, would falsify evolution?”

Rational Wiki (RW), has an article they titled, “Falsifiability of evolution.” In their own words, they say, [A]ny of the following would destroy the entire theory [of evolution]. Now that's fairly committal of them. Thank you. However, as I look over the list, I can hardly believe they're sincere. You'll see what I mean by this in a minute. In this post, we're going to look at three points to see how well they actually test the theory.

[The theory of evolution would be destroyed] If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where two, sexual creatures would have identical DNA. The first thing that comes to my mind is identical twins. This occurs when a single, fertilized egg splits and each half develops into an embryo. So RW is saying if identical twins weren't identical, evolution would be disproved. They can't be serious. //RKBentley shakes his head// You can see what I meant when I said these hardly seem like sincere tests of the theory. But, OK – let's go with this for a moment.

If you know any identical twins, you've probably noticed they usually don't really look identical. They look similar, of course, but each is distinct enough that they can be told apart. Part of this is because of environmental factors – one twin might have a different diet and so will weigh more, the other might play sports and be more muscular, et cetera. It used to be that the differences between identical twins were always attributed to environmental factors but further studies in genetics has suggested this isn't always the case. One Scientific American headline reads, “Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical. Twins may appear to be cut from the same cloth but their genes reveal a different pattern.” Hmm. That's interesting. From the article we read this: Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.

Well there you have it folks! The differences observed in identical twins aren't necessarily due to environmental factors; sometimes they're genetic differences! Put a fork in it, the theory of evolution is done! But we all know it isn't. This highlights the frustration creationists face. I doubt RW will write a rebuttal to this point but, if they did, they would certainly be walking back how my example really doesn't address what they were looking for and maybe this isn't even a good test of the theory anyway.

The tests of the theory suggested by evolutionists are usually extremely vague and seldom sincere.

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

Another ridiculous suggestion. We already know that mutations occur in the DNA so how could we show they don't occur? Consider this analogy: suppose I have $20,000 in my bank account. I accidentally leave my bank statement open on my desk and my supervisor sees my balance. Not believing I could have legitimately saved that much money, he accuses me of embezzlement. I protest and tell him I've been saving that money for years. He refuses to believe me. Frustrated, I ask him what it would take to convince him I'm innocent? He answers, “Easy, just show me that you don't have $20,000 in the bank!” Do you see the parallel there? We already know that do mutations occur, so to say evolution would be falsified if they didn't occur is disingenuous.

I've seen many so called “tests” of this sort. One person actually told me evolution could be falsified if it could be shown that animals don't reproduce. //RKBentley, still shaking his head//

I believe what these people are trying to say is that evolution wouldn't be possible if mutations do not occur. We'll actually talk about that in a second, but such a point is ridiculously obvious. It's like saying evolution could not have happened if animals didn't reproduce. We don't need evolutionists to point to something that already happens and say, “Evolution couldn't be true if that thing didn't happen.” What we want is someone to say, “If we ever found thing-x, it would prove evolution didn't happen.” Do you have anything like that?

If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

This suffers from the same flaw as the previous suggestion because we already know mutations can be inherited. However, this brings up another problem with the theory – namely, that evolution is poorly defined. Let me explain.

In biological terms, the most preferred definition of evolution is usually something like this: A change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. In other words, if 50% of a group of mice are gray in one generation, then 55% are gray in the next generation, the population has “evolved” by definition. However, this type of “evolution” doesn't even require there to be any mutations. So if evolution can occur without mutations, then whether or not mutations occur or are inherited is irrelevant to the theory! How, then, can they be used to test the theory?!

If these three items are meant to be serious tests of the theory of evolution, then the theory doesn't have much concern about being disproved any time soon. Perhaps that's why the the people at RW chose them.

Stay tuned for more of the same in my next post!

Related articles:

The subtle lie of definition

Read this entire series:

Introduction

Part 3

Conclusion

So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Introduction

From RationalWiki (RW), we read the following:

The falsifiability of evolution is an important part of establishing evolution as a scientific theory on the principles of falsifiability.... A central characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable; this feature of a theory is attributed to Karl Popper, who mentioned it in a criticism of Darwinism. Scientific theories cannot be proven outright – they can only fail to be disproven, and this means pointing out what evidence could disprove the theory. If a theory cannot be disproven, such as with Russell's Teapot, it makes no difference whether it is true either way.

Wow, there's some bad grammar going on there. “Science” is the methodology we use to study something. Surely they don't mean “science” must be falsifiable. What they should say is that “scientific theories” must be falsifiable. Yikes. Anyway, in their own words, a good theory must be falsifiable. Am I misrepresenting anything? Isn't that what they're saying? OK, then on to my next point.

In addition to falsifiability, another characteristic of a good theory is that it must be predictive. A prediction is basically to say that, if a theory is true, then we might expect a certain other thing to be true. I might say, for example, that hair is unique to mammals. If my theory is true, then I could predict that, if there is hair on any creature we ever discover, it will be a mammal. Predictions go hand in hand with falsifiability. If we ever discovered a cold-blooded, egg-laying, gill-breathing creature with hair, my theory would be proven false.

Let me give you an analogy that might demonstrate how important these two things are to a scientific theory. Suppose I wanted to mix paint to make new colors. I would need to know which colors to mix to make the color I want. If there were a “color theory” that predicted yellow and blue together make green, then that's useful information if I wanted to make green paint. If I mix yellow and blue paint and actually get green paint, then I might use that theory to help me with other color combinations. However, if the “color theory” said yellow and blue could make green, red, or any other color, then the theory isn't predictive and isn't useful to me at all.

Now suppose the theory predicted yellow and blue would only make green, but when I mixed yellow and blue, I got red. In that case, I would know the theory doesn't make successful predictions. You could say it has been falsified. The inventor of the “color theory” might try to say that yellow and blue should make green but he can “explain” why it made red. OK, but the next time I mix them, I get brown. He then “explains” why I got brown. If he has an explanation every time I don't get blue, then there's really no way to falsify the theory. We're back to the problem that the theory isn't predictive but neither is it falsifiable. It's a useless theory.

That the theory of evolution is neither predictive nor falsifiable is a complaint often leveled against evolutionists. Creationists have often asked for concrete examples ways to test the theory. What are some specific, useful predictions that it makes and what are some things that, if we found them, would falsify the theory? I've asked this many times of many people and I usually get one of three responses:

• A flat dismissal of my question, sometimes accompanied with elephant hurling – something like, “Evolution is the most tested theory in science and is supported by mountains of evidence!”
• A turn of the tables in an effort to put the creationist on the defense – that is, “Oh yeah, well how would you falsify creation?”
• On very rare occasions, someone will suggest something that they claim – if found – would disprove evolution.

It's that last response that I'm most interested in yet it's the one that I almost never hear. For whatever reason, evolutionists are reluctant to enumerate concrete examples. I suspect it's because they fear that if they commit to some hypothetical example, maybe someday such a thing might someday be found.

The RW article I linked above actually discusses a few examples of things they claim could falsify evolution. I started writing a short response to each point RW raised but my post started to get way too long. Instead, I'm going to make a series. Check back soon for my first response to the first two points.

Related articles:

Failed Predictions of Evolutionary Theories

Evolution is Easy to Falsify

Talk Origins Says Evolution Can Be Falsified

How Unique Does It Have To Be?

Read this entire series:

Part 2

Part 3

Conclusion