Is Evolution falsifiable?

One of the main time-honored (and very reasonable) criteria of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. A theory is falsifiable if it admits of a way that it could possibly be proven wrong.

For example, in Newtonian physics, an object thrown up in the air will follow a parabolic path. If we actually go outside (on the moon, say, so that air resistance is not a factor), throw something up in the air, use a computer and a camcorder to record its flight path, and find that its motion was not parabolic, we have thus disproven Newtonian mechanics.

Falsifiability is an absolutely essential component of worthwhile scientific theories - for if a theory could never, under any practical circumstances, be proven false, it is almost certainly too vaguely worded, too free from potential criticism, to make valid predictions.

Carl Sagan uses the famous example of “there is a Dragon in my garage.” His friend then replies, “oh, I should love to see the dragon!” whereupon he responds, “ah, but this dragon is invisible.” His friend says “well, I can feel the heat of his fire”, but Carl says that the dragon’s fire is exactly room temperature. One can continue with this line of attack and arrive at the conclusion that there is no way, empirically, to disprove this hypothetical dragon. Yet clearly we don’t believe it to exist. The necessity of falsifiability is what allows us to dispose of the dragon theory swiftly.

Indeed, it is the concept of falsifiability that so neatly disposes of the “theory” of Intelligent Design. One can never empirically disprove that we were created by some sort of God. Even if we recreate life in the lab, or go back in time and witness the birth of the first amino acids, that can be explained as happening via the will of God.

But Evolution - biology’s most sacred theory, and one of the most practically useful theories ever to come from science, seems in some sense unfalsifiable. Evolution cannot predict how an organism will evolve, because the principles of natural selection are massively too complex to allow such predictions. Thus evolution is limited mostly to explanations of how things came to pass. So if I wished to disprove evolution, I could go the same route as the creationists, and claim that certain organisms, or certain organs, could never have evolved slowly. The classic example is the eye - the eye is so perfect and useful that it could not have happened “by chance” - nor would an eye without some of its components be useful in the least, and thus could not have evolved, but rather had to appear fully formed.

This particular example, and indeed all the particular examples cited by creationists, are laughably ridiculous. The eye is far from perfect - the vitreous and aqueous humors, the jelly-like substances in the eye, are necessary for the eye to form correctly during gestation and infancy, but in later years have a propensity to harden that is very harmful to the eye. It has long been known that, when in adulthood, saline solution in the eye is entirely preferable to the evolved substances.

Further, the idea that the eye would be useless in anything but a fully formed state is clearly false. The eye almost certainly began as a single light-sensitive cell. It is true that this would confer an almost negligible survival advantage, but it confers one nonetheless. An organism that had awareness of light could detect a quick change in light levels, and flee, assuming a predator or a dangerous environment. Over a few hundred years this wouldn’t amount to much, but over thousands or millions of years, the marginal survival advantage would result in many more organisms with the light-sensitivity, and with many more light-sensitive cells than before.

Nonetheless, even if the eye is a poor attempt to discredit evolution, what of hypothetical examples that pack a greater punch? Consider the factor of the “missing link”. Although the human’s closest living ancestor is the chimpanzee, we did not evolve from chimps per se - rather, both we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. However, there is no record of this ancestor, either living or dead, despite significant efforts to find it. Now, many of you are thinking, “surely this isn’t an objection to evolution. Just because we haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean that we never will.” This is exactly correct, of course. But the fact that one can respond in that manner to every “gap” in the evolutionary record seems to indicate a lack of falsifiability in that sense.

Consider further another “eye” example that also packs a greater punch. We can see how the eye could have evolved from a single light-sensitive cell, and did not need to be created fully-formed. Well, let’s forget about that, and imagine an organism, or an organ, whose evolutionary lineage we can’t explain. If we found such a thing, would it be proof that evolution was wrong? Certainly not, for the same reason as regards the missing link: just because we can’t generate an explanation for it now doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. There are so many strange factors that occur in nature that it would be ridiculous to imagine that we know all of them, or can fully understand their mechanisms. An evolutionary lineage we can’t explain now will almost certainly be explainable at some point in the future when we have a greater understanding of the factors that underlie its organismal history.

This analysis is also correct - there is nothing logically inconsistent about it. But it seems to further render evolution as an unfalsifiable theory.

So is it true that evolution is unfalsifiable? And if so, what does that mean about it as a theory?

It has been discussed here at some length before. Is there anything that thread doesn’t answer?

perfection in practicality.

Since their is a soul. Witch is an energy independent in matter, but has side effects in matter. We see why animals never evolve to the intelligence of humanity. Thus I learned to define the soul by desires to rise above animals.

Ohh ya we have the theory that the presence of humans somehow stops animals to evolving to human intelligence. Yet I say that the presence of humans should pave the way for other animals to evolve.

Xunzian, thanks for the link. I also agree with your original responses in that thread.

Phil27of29… riiiiiight.

do you think you know enough to disregard all parrellel universes?
That would be pretty presumptious of you.
Never assume anything without a core foundation of thought. Then you merely need to expand your thought in order to get a wider perspective, and thus deeper definition.

It must be nice in your protective bubble

One of the best threads I ever had anything to do with on this site. Exactly the one I was going to find when I saw this thread. Like you say, I think we got wherever we’re going to get, so there’s not much to add.

Yeah I’ve thought about this. Evoloution really isn’t a theory in the same sense as the theory of gravity.

I think its more of a Theorem: ‘a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system’. Because if you think about it logically evoloution will happen as long as there is small variations in the spieces when things reproduce. Its just logic like 1+1=2. That doesn’t mean that evoloution is the mechanism that resulted in todays life on earth. At the same time you can’t deny that aleast micro-evoloution is occuring, all be it very slowly. So its not a case of disproving evolotion is happening; its a case of disproving evoloution is capable of all the life forms we see today.

Don’t fossils of previous life forms give evidence that evolution exists? I don’t see how ignoring these things can be done.

There was a white moth that turned black to adapt to the pollutants of the east coast (US) in the last 100 years. We have seen evolution in action.

It makes too much sense anyways. A race of white mice who live on dark soil would be seen as easy prey for hawks, so therefore they die off unless a mutation occured in one that gave it a brown color- if the brown mouse survived by not being seen so easily, it could pass on it’s genes.

Well, for the creationists this is a huge problem. If some God in all His Glory created all the animals, there’d be no need for him to build in evolution. Yet evolution, at least in the sense of adaptation, is manifest and obvious in thousands of recorded examples.

However, for the ID theorists (a bunch with considerably more complex arguments than the Creationists), one could account for speciation via ID and adaptation via evolution, thus creating a monster, hybrid theory capable of capturing even more people’s imaginations than what we have at present.

Perhaps it makes sense because it flatters a whole load of other preconceptions. Just like any other ideology.

shrugs When the original observations were performed, there were no pre-conceived notions, just conjecture. Granted, it was moths not mice, but the same process applies.

Well, speciation is ‘intelligent’ – in the sense that the organic-biological systems which drive them are a complex balance of forces exhibiting ‘emergent’ properties (e.g., planning ‘in advance’ for a future adaptation) – but even this claim would still obscure what it purported to explain.

‘Intelligent’ design just means ‘invisible’ design: that some unmeasurable force went in and made changes which we can now measure. Read ‘backwards,’ their claim reads that science can prove the existence of God – by proving that without his intervention, matter couldn’t arrange itself into the elegantly complex varieties we witness.

The sad realization is that we don’t need a deity to explain the origin of life. It is completely possible to conceive rationally of a universe without a God. And – here’s the kicker – even if it weren’t conceivable, this still wouldn’t prove God existed. You can’t prove God’s existence, even with the ‘ontological’ claim that it would be impossible for him NOT to exist (since he’s the perfection of being, etc.)

What is often forgotten is that evolution makes mistakes, it regresses, does all sorts of things we wouldn’t (intuitively, anyway) ascribe to an intelligent designer – and these ‘bloopers’ show up in the evolutionary record. Evolution isn’t a perfect tool; it’s a natural process, which unfolds according to comprehensible laws. We don’t need a miracle to explain speciation; we just need to realize complex systems create and maintain a complex balance with one another. Humans create more and more varied ecosystems on top of ‘natural’ one: mental and social ecosystems, industrial and economic environments. But we certainly wouldn’t try to use intelligent design to explain the formation of these complex (and constantly reproducing) systems…

That’s an awful and leading manner with which to explain evolutionary shift, and it isn’t how the process works. There is no “planning” in any fashion. Everything works as a matter of environmental forces creating changes at the molecular level, (i.e. chemistry).

There is no intelligence, and as a matter of fact, evolution doesn’t “exist”, it is just the label we attach to change, a process of reaction to stress. Nothing more.

I think Twiffy’s point should be looked at, rationally, it seems we do have a problem with any theory that can’t be questioned. That would lead one to believe either there are omissions, or errors in the model that we haven’t understood.

The sad truth is that ID theory doesn’t require a deity.

It is also possible to conceive rationally of a universe with a God.

True enough. But proof isn’t all that important, belief is…

Well, since the minds here are probably sharper than my own, and because most have had their say I want to throw this out, since it could be of relevance:

Suppose you were a staunch Atheist. Schooled from birth in all that was currently known, and from your own observation of the world as-it-is you’d decided the belief in God, certainly as the bible and related organization describe, was hogwash.

Now suppose because of your over average intellect you were scouted and subsequently went to work for an intelligence agency in the area of human advancement. One day in a very confidential part of a Military installation, you stumble across a small item. It looks like an old box that has been completely sealed but something seems odd. Along with the box is a note scribbled in Hebrew. After translating the note you are utterly speechless: This box contains God! He was caught by humans around the time of Christs ressurection and sealed in by people who simply wanted more power. You then go on to understand a certain method for opening the box exists and that by doing so you will free God as-he-is today.

Without picking apart the story, which is just for show, What would you do?

I believe 99% of people would let him out, including Atheists. Which seems to indicate humans see something WRONG with the world as-it-is…

Are you really suggesting that because humans feel compelled to open closed boxes that are under tight security that have warning lables on them, that it has something to do with religion?

Read pandora’s box prz (that, and observe reality!)

Put a big red button in your office that says “do not press”, and a camcorder on it. Seriously.

-Mach

Please explain, I disagree. I know of no rational definition of the common christian gods described in christian literature. That’s not a coincidence, it’s because it has no basis in realty.

-Mach

Methinks a definition of God is needed.

Good luck with that.

Dio-lectic, interesting hypothetical scenario!

Whether or not I’d let him out would depend on which god he was. If he was the Christian god, I’d keep him in that box, because the Christian god is a fucker. If he were more benevolent and didn’t send atheists to hell, I’d probably let him out.

But your overall point - that most people see something wrong with the world - I think is absolutely correct. There IS something wrong with the world, in that it isn’t an ideal place to live (or really anything close to it). Poverty, war, disease, George Bush, etc. - it’s a pretty fucked up place in a lot of respects.

And of course that’s one of many good arguments that there is no god.