In
order to bolster the claim that evolution is a valid scientific
theory, Rational
Wiki (RW) posted an article suggesting several ways evolution
might be falsified. In a series of posts, I've already dealt with
the first 6 items on their lists and saw they were rather ridiculous
sounding. They were only slightly more substantive than saying,
“Evolution would be disproved if it could be shown that animals
don't reproduce.” The last two items, however, are serious
tests of the theory. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that these were
made by someone other than RW. This last post in this series will
deal with both of them but it's going to be a longer post than usual.
Let's get right to it:
Charles
Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find
out no such case."
Evolution
is sometimes described as “descent with modification.” A wing is
a modified leg – leg is a modified fin – and so on and so on
backward. Darwin understood that if some structure were ever
discovered that could not have possibly been formed by this series of
successive modifications, it would utterly disprove his theory. I
agree. Keep in mind, this isn't my test. It isn't RW's test. It
isn't any creationist's test. This is Darwin's test. So if
we ever found such a structure, Darwin himself believed it would
“absolutely break down” his
theory.
Michael
Behe is a biochemist who invented the term, “irreducible
complexity.” In his own words it means, “a
single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
To illustrate this, he used the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap
has very few working parts. However, if any part is missing, the
entire trap becomes useless. Since all of the parts have to be
present before a mousetrap has any function, Behe believed the
mousetrap was a good analogy of the type of structure Darwin meant.
In
his research as a biochemist, Behe has examined the flagellum, a
whip-like structure which single-celled creatures use to move
themselves around. The flagellum is very complex and has several
working parts. Behe claims that the flagellum is irreducibly
complex. Since no single part of the flagellum would have any
function at all, Behe claims it could not have evolved in gradual
steps, since it would have no function until all of the parts were
together. Behe claims it qualifies as the type of structure Darwin
said would disprove his theory.
Proponents
of evolution have attacked Behe's arguments from a variety of angles.
From NewScientist,
we read the following:
The
best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40
different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are
common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a
“designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or,
contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable
changes to the machinery without mucking it up. What’s more, of
these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella.
The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other
functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the
components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present
in bacteria before this structure appeared.
Now,
this may be a fair criticism of Behe's claims. People on both sides
of the debate could argue their points – which is how science is
supposed to work. However, in their zeal to protect their theory,
NewScientist overplays its hand and reveals the true attitude of the
folks on their side. They will never accept that any structure is
irreducibly complex. I direct your attention to the last few
paragraphs of the article (bold added):
… [T]he
fact that today’s biologists cannot provide a definitive account of
how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing
about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy,
and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more
complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years
ago will still be limited. Think of a stone archway: hundreds of
years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might
not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to
support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they
levitated the stone blocks into place. In such cases Orgel’s Second
Rule should be kept in mind: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”
In
other words, no structure, no matter how complex, no matter how many
parts have to be present before the structure works, and no matter
that none of the parts could serve in any other function that we can
determine, will ever serve to satisfy this test of the theory. Even
if we cannot imagine how some structure evolved, it has no bearing on
whether it evolved because “evolution” found a way we can't think
of. So, while Darwin and I think this would be a way to potentially
falsify his theory, it's more of an exercise in futility because
evolutionists can resort to “we just don't know how it happened.”
They always have; they always will.
J.B.S.
Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
would disprove evolution - and this has been a talking point in
philosophy of science for some time.
The
Cambrian Period is a geological era believed by scientists to have
occurred around 540 million years ago. Cambrian strata is remarkable
for its abundance of diverse fossils whereas, strata below the
Cambrian - aka “Precambrian” - are largely empty of fossils. The
sudden appearance of fossils representing so many diverse animal
phyla is so startling, many people have used the term “Cambrian
explosion” to describe it.
According
to evolutionary theory, life began as “simple,” single-celled
creatures which gradually became more complex over millions of years.
Rock layers are also laid down gradually, over millions of years,
and so the fossils found in each rock layer create a sort of snap
shot of life on earth at the time the layer was laid down. The
earliest and “simplest” life forms should be lower down in the
geological column. The more recent and more evolved life formed
should be higher up. Precambrian rocks, therefore, should only have
fossils of the earliest and simplest creatures.
When
asked what might falsify evolution, a British-Indian scientist, named
J.B.S. Haldane, famously quipped, “rabbits in the Precambrian.”
His point was that, since rabbits are believed to have evolved
relatively recently, finding rabbit fossils with the earliest life
forms would be problematic for the theory. Richard Dawkins echoed a
similar sentiment when he said, “Evolution
could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the
wrong date order”
(lie
#1 from my list of lies evolutionists tell).
I
agree that such a discovery would be extremely damaging to the theory
of evolution. However, it's somewhat unlikely that such a discovery
will be made. I believe the sequence of fossils better indicates
where a
creature lived/died rather than when.
Think about it. If a deluge of water and mud suddenly buried
everything, here's what I think we'd find: bottom dwelling marine
animals would be buried first, then swimming animals, then amphibious
animals, then reptiles and birds and mammals at the top. Well, that
is sort of what we find. I say “sort of” because even
terrestrial fossils are always found in layers with marine animals.
I would not expect to find rabbits being buried with creatures at the
bottom of the ocean.
Even
though it's not probable that the Flood would bury rabbits with
trilobites, it's not entirely impossible and so, once again, I think
this is a fair test of the theory. Of course, it doesn't just apply
to rabbits; any, grossly “out of order” fossils should be
evidence against evolution. Dawkins said even “a
single fossil” could
disprove the theory if it “turned
up in the wrong date order.”
Unfortunately, he doesn't mean it. We routinely find fossils in
places we didn't think they'd be. Just do a google search on the
term, “fossil rethink evolution” and you'll find plenty of
examples. So even though there have been thousands of out-of-order
fossils found over the past few decades, I haven't seen any headline
that say any one of them have disproved evolution.
Saying
out of order fossils would disprove evolution, when so many have
already been found, shows this isn't a serious test but it mere
posturing. Even RW, in the same paragraph, hedges its bet just in
case something like a Precambrian rabbit is every found. From the
article we read this:
“The
simple truth is that a single strange fossil would probably not make
much difference. In practice, the evidence in the fossil record which
supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil would be
regarded as curious certainly, but compared to the mountain of
evidence in favor of evolution it would probably be regarded as an
anomaly while more data was awaited... However, the existence of
entire groups of anomalous fossils would be a different thing —
Haldane did say rabbits after
all. Again, in practice an effort would initially be made to fit the
new data into the existing framework — this is not cheating but
simply the way science works. But still, in principle some quite
major revisions to the theory may be needed to explain them. Such a
situation would not immediately
and conclusively prove a special creation over a naturalistic
evolution.”
So...
what are you saying, RW? That not even rabbits
in the Precambrian would conclusive disprove evolution? Yeah, that's
what I thought you were saying.
If
you googled the phrase, “new discovery rewrites evolution,” you
would find a mile long list of articles describing times researchers
have found some new thing that causes them to completely change how
they understood some part of evolution. Yet even though they were
shown to be so wrong about something they thought they knew about
evolution, no discovery causes mainstream science to ever question
the theory itself. It's always more like, “We didn't understand
how this thing evolved,” rather than “Now we're not sure if
evolution happened at all.”
Since
failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a theory,
frustrated creationists have asked what type of discovery it would
take to falsify evolution. Any scientific theory should be
predictive and falsifiable but the theory of evolution seems
unaffected by any amount of contrary evidence.
There
you have it, folks. RW's entire list of possible ways evolution
might be falsified is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. There is
nothing predictive or falsifiable about evolution. It is a worthless
theory and not relevant to any other field of science. It is propped
up only by psuedo-science and the willingness of sinful, rebellious
people to believe a lie. I know that no amount of evidence will
persuade them. At the very least, I hope the realization that what
they believe is nothing more than a blind faith might soften their
stubbornness.
Read
the entire series:
