Changes

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time.  Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time.  Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?"  The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago."  If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?"  The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago."  If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

 

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

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.  Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature.  This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreductible complexity.

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.  Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although this does not disprove evolution unless all possible evolutionary explanations for their development have been ruled out.  This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreducible complexity.

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.  Evolutionists typically have responded by describing hypothetical mechanisms for the evolution of the discussed theory.  (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation).  Therefore, some creationists have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable. Ironically, this same process renders irreducible complexity unfalsifiable as well.

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 impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place", and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:

According to creationists:

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><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>}}

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

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating

: However, we already know that mutations accumulate, and this proposed falsification fails to distinguish between evolution and competing views such as creation, so is rather pointless as a falsification.  

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.

: However, we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.

: However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

 

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

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.  This would disprove evolution wholesale, both within species and between them.

 

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

 

* Direct observation of organisms being created.  The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

 

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref>  The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life.  Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven.  Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===