Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Renee]

I took this point from a fellow contributor to these forums. He denies Big Bang theory as a scientific fact. He wrote: "As to BB theory being testable and falsifiable, well, some of it maybe, but you probably believe macroevolution is testable and falsifiable too. So I remain skeptical."

This is a very interesting and very VALID objection: "Evolutionary process, as a theory, can't be falsified".

This is what I am up against, as I believe that evolution has happened on Earth's biosphere since day one. (A billion years ago, not six thousand years ago, day one being.)

Here's my reply:

Evolution has three tenets (neo-Darwinian evolution): 1. Life forms from parents to children are different due to genetic changes that happen either in a random fashion, or according to the rules of genetics. 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. 3. Genetic differences can genetically distance a lineage of offspring into a new species.

We can falsify the theory of Gravity by observing two masses repelling each other at close distances, due entirely to their masses. That has not been observed yet. So gravity can be falsified, but it has not happened yet.

How can we falsify evolutionary theory? By falsifying any one or more of its three mechanisms.

1. Genetic changes do not alter the life forms of offspring from parent. This would be a falsifier. But it does not happen: if a DNA gets altered, the offspring is not going to take the form of the parent. So this falsifying never occurred yet, so the theory stands.

2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did.

3. A succession of genetic differences will not distance species from the original, or in case of two streams of successions from genetic differences will not distance two species from each other. According to this, man and chimpanzee ought to be able to produce viable, surviving babies. But they are not, so this point has not been falsified, either.

Here were three different ways that the Evolyooshonary theory can be falsified. Validly. But this has not happened, not one of the named falsifications. Therefore the evolutionary theory stands.

[Felix]

Renee, your statement below falsifies the second evolutionary tenet, which was: 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. As you said, the mutants were less apt (in fact unlikely), not more apt, to survive.

"2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did."

Also, tenet #3 requires geographical separation between the newly divergent species, to separate them from the primary gene pool. We can only test this with short lived species such as fruit flies.

[Renee]

Renee, your statement below falsifies the second evolutionary tenet, which was: 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. As you said, the mutants were less apt (in fact unlikely), not more apt, to survive.

"2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did."

Also, tenet #3 requires geographical separation between the newly divergent species, to separate them from the primary gene pool. We can only test this with short lived species such as fruit flies.

Thanks for your reply, Felix. Please note: the instances I gave were instances of proper falsification, not instances of support with compliance. This is very important to notice.

Because we must seek for falsification, not for compliance.

Thus, no. 2 is a falsification of point no. 2. "Better chance to survive" would be falsified if LESS EQUIPPED individuals would survive. But they don't. So the falsification fails. This is the line of logic I wished to present.

3. "Geographical separation is required." I am not sure of this. This may have been part of Darwin's original theory, but it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition.

[Felix]

2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions.

You don't understand, the evolutionary tenet you paraphrased above requires that favorable mutations survive and reproduce, but they do not, as you said. Thus this tenet is falsified.

Geographical separation is indeed a necessary condition of species divergence.

-- Updated Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:34 am to add the following --

To clarify: we have seen no evidence that actual genetic mutations, "favorable" or not, survive and reproduce.

[gimal]

Evolution has been shown to be invalid for four reasons.


gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ection.pdf

Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all. If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless.

[Dolphin42]

It's gimal again. With the "rinse and repeat" posting technique.

[Renee]

2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions.

You don't understand, the evolutionary tenet you paraphrased above requires that favorable mutations survive and reproduce, but they do not, as you said. Thus this tenet is falsified.

Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations: snakes with no heads, people with spina bifida, lungless cats. These are UNfavourable mutations, and I hoped you'd have seen that. But the onus is on me, I guess, to point that out. So these individuals with UNfavourable mutations did die; therefore the falsification failed.

I don't believe you see this yet. Think of it this way: a falsification is successful when the opposite to the tenet happens. When the opposite of the tenet does not happen, falsification fails.

Mark the above carefully, please.

Now consider:

Opposite to the tenet would be the survival of the lungless cats. Falsification fails when the opposite of the tenet does not happen. But the opposite did not happen, because lungless cats don't survive. Therefore falsification fails.

Thus the tenet's falsification failed.

Thanks for forcing me to break down the logic to its elemental particles, because this is clearer this way to a larger number of readers.

-- Updated December 2nd, 2016, 10:32 am to add the following --

It's gimal again. With the "rinse and repeat" posting technique.

Evolution has been shown to be invalid for four reasons.

There is a season for every reason. (Four of both.)

[Felix]

Renee: Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations.

You missed the point: neither favorable nor unfavorable mutations survive, which falsifies your second tenet (that genetic mutations lead to new life forms).

[Renee]

Renee: Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations.

You missed the point: neither favorable nor unfavorable mutations survive, which falsifies your second tenet (that genetic mutations lead to new life forms).

With all due respect, you have got to be the only person on this globe (aside from Fundamental Christian believers) who can't see, or rather, does not want to admit, that a favourable mutation would make the mutant survive.

I can accept that that is your personal opinion, but please, if you think that you can reasonably insist that a person who is twice as smart as the next person to him, and twice as strong, and everything else is being equal, than that person would not survive, then I am sorry, my only way to rationalize your incredulity is... well, there are a number of options, but I shall not take any one of them.

I stay at my bewildering bewunderment that a person of reasonable intelligence, such as I have come to know you to be, can't see that a better individual may survive. So be it. That's how you see it, so be it. I shake my head, because your opinion, in my opinion, goes against all acceptable reason.

[Sy Borg]

Either "macro evolution" is real of God put all beings on planet Earth in a form more or less as is the case today, which is a simply crazy thinking. The term "macro evolution" started cropping up in common internet use after the message started to sink in to devout minds that antibiotic resistance was a proven example natural selection. So they shifted the goal posts to preserve their image of Superman God.

[Renee]

Either "macro evolution" is real of God put all beings on planet Earth in a form more or less as is the case today, which is a simply crazy thinking. The term "macro evolution" started cropping up in common internet use after the message started to sink in to devout minds that antibiotic resistance was a proven example natural selection. So they shifted the goal posts to preserve their image of Superman God.

My fundamentalist Christian landlady (of Baptist persuasion) and I were talking about how genetics are responsible for human traits. I asked her how she explains that Adam was the father of all Black, White, Asian, tall, short, muscular, weak, smart, less smart, etc. etc. men, if there is no mutational influence. She replied, "Adam carried in his genes all the genomes that we see in people today." I said, and I meant it, that that was a brilliant explanation. Not because it made any sense, but because it made all the sense to people who know (by chance or by design?) nothing about DNA, chromosomes and genes.

It was brilliant, because her explanation gave her the power to continue believing her faith.

"Ignorance is Power."

[Felix]

Evolutionary research is not a topic I am current on [ I suspect you'll say "Duh!" to that ], but last I heard the occurrence of what could be considered favorable mutations is so extremely rare and their effects on the organism are so inconsequential that they could not account for macroevolution. Here are quotes from two geneticists that support my position.

"The assumption (that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species) is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the sub-specific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing tightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations." - Dr. Richard Goldschmidt

"The fact that systems (such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

-- Updated Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:50 pm to add the following --

To be clear, I believe that evolution has occurred, but I am agnostic at present about its means. My comments pertain specifically to the evolutionary tenets you stated.

[Sy Borg]

Felix, I suspect that Dr Goldshmidt has not tried performing calculations representing the possibilities over many millions of years.

The Denton quote is based on the incorrect initial assumption that "advanced computers], in every way [are] analogous to living organisms". Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.

[Felix]

I agree that the computer analogy is not convincing but there are better ones....

Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.

I believe he was just saying that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is in "crisis," not the actual idea of evolution.

[Sy Borg]

I agree that the computer analogy is not convincing but there are better ones....

Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.

I believe he was just saying that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is in "crisis," not the actual idea of evolution.

It all gets rather tribal. To me there is just evolution - things change. There are side arguments, such as EO Wilson's and Richard Dawkins's argument about group selection; I agree with Wilson. RD also, understandably, did not seem to anticipate epigenetics, which is another important consideration aside of one's inherited DNA.

Like most humans, he was not always right, although The Selfish Gene remains an enlightening and seminal work. When he's not grappling with theists he is excellent at communicating the wonders of nature.