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