So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Conclusion

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:

Introduction

Part 2

Part 3