Changes

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature.  This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below.  Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.  

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature.  This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below.  Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.  

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]."  Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together.  Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc.  Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development.  While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]."  Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together.  Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc.  Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development.  While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .  

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .  

In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together.  However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}.  That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote><small>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182.<br/>8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25.<br />9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</small></blockquote></ref>}}

In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together.  However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}.  That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182.<br/>8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25.<br />9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}  

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}  

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>

Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>  In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/>  In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations.  Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.  It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false.  No one can think of ways in which to test it.  Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}}  Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself.  A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations.  Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.  It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false.  No one can think of ways in which to test it.  Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}}  Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself.  A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states: