Falsifying Evolution.

[Furrowed Brow]

As far as evolutionary theory goes Dollo's Law seems to have been disproved. Thus evolution is reversible. A recent article in the Newscientist 13 January 2007, looks at possible examples of atavism.

Atavist examples cited are an hump back whale with a pair of leg-like appendages, web toes in humans, a dolphin with an extra pair of flippers similar to those found in the fossil record of 40 million years ago. Things get even more interesting when it transpires that some traits such as metamorphism (tadpole to adult form) in salamanders has been turning on and off for tens of millions of years.

Thus a trait/characteristics can appear in a population that has not been present for tens of millions of years.

So here is a crazy thought. What conclusion should we reach if fossil skeleton were found in 40 million year old rock that appear to be modern human. Would evolutionary theory as it applies to humans be utterly disproved, or would evolutionist need to look harder at the genetic story. Are their back doors in the theory like atavism that allow the theory not to be falsified. If the latter, is Q1 evolution theory really falsifiable?

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable. I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

[diggnate]

I don’t think natural selection will be discarded. I think that is verging on being a logical truism. I also think naturalism will prevail. And so a naturalistic notion of evolved life of in some form will also probably stick around.

I agree with that. Natural selection is real, and EXTREMELY observable. It isn't, and shouldn't, go anywhere, but it is falsifiable, very easily falsifiable. Therefore, it is very good science.

So what would falsify the basic precept of evolved life? Hmm. Well the only thing that would do that I guess would be proof that there was not enough time for evolutionary processes to have had an affect. So maybe the falsification of evolution will come from outside the theory itself.

Well, my only problem with that is that most good sciences have easily falsifiable claims independent of other theories. For instance, gravity would be easily falsified if you jumped up and continued to float away without assistance. No one who studies physics would claim that the only way to falsify gravity would be to falsify general relativity. The falsification must come from within (or at least it used to have to, before darwinism).

Lets imagine that physicists eventually produce the theory of everything. The new theory explains perfectly gravity and the quantum world. As well as explaining all phenomena, and all anomalies to the previous theories, it provides deep conceptual understanding. This new theory is the bees knees. Except that everything that has gone before has to be completely rewritten. The old quantum theories and theory of gravity now appear to be as relevant as phlogiston. When the physicists look at the theory and their equations, they can only come to one possible conclusion. We live in a young universe. In fact the world can be no more than 6000 years old. That would falsify evolution I think. Kill it stone dead.

Ok lets say the earth can be no more than 100million years old. Again that would stretch evolution’s credibility to breaking point. I guess you will always get some dogmatist who won’t give up on it. But there will be court cases that will be won by anti-evolutionists, stopping a discredited theory being passed off as science in our schools.

If the new theory said the world could be no older than 1 billion years old. Then evolution would be against the wall, but still fighting.

Excellent post. Thanks!

[Jose]

Be serious. There are plenty of non-theists that doubt darwinism as much as I do. It drives people obsessed with good science nuts.

...

Change can mean a lot of things. Wingless beetles have "changed", but that isn't an addition in cumulative features, it is a loss of feature that happens to be environmentally beneficial. Thats regressive adaptation.

Alas, "regressive adaptation" is evolution. Evolution is change--in this case, genetic change, as a result of genetic mutations occurring, and selection sorting among them. If beetles lose wings, or cave fish lose eyes, or elephants on a small island become smaller, it's still evolution. If you could look at the genetic changes, you'd find that it is, indeed, an addition of cumulative features. It may be the addition of genetic features that block development of wings or eyes, but it's the addition of some kind of genetic change to the population, making it different from before.

As for the non-theists who doubt what you call "Darwinism," you might want to check and see if they are biologists who should know the actual data. If they are sociologists or bartenders, or any other of a thousand different occupations that don't have anything to do with the data from which evolutionary theory has been derived, then it's not very helpful to mention them. If you don't know the theory and the data upon which it rests, you're not likely to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. That's fine; I respect it. I don't spend time trying to figure out sociology, or trying to learn the recipes of all the mixed drinks.

The problem comes when you don't know the data, but you still say it's wrong.