Difference between revisions of "Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎References: Adding numbers and Popper as sources)
(Removing (pending fact checking) Popper's 1978 work, replacing with Popper's 1980 letter to New Scientist. Will add back Natural selection and the emergence of mind soon)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Opponents of evolutionary biology sometimes claim that evolution is an 'unproved theory'. It is true that the [[hypothesis]] that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from another species, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved. However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is  supported by molecular <ref>Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.</ref><ref>Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.</ref><ref>Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.</ref> fossil <ref>Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147</ref> geographical <ref>MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.</ref> and morphological <ref>Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.</ref> evidence.  
 
Opponents of evolutionary biology sometimes claim that evolution is an 'unproved theory'. It is true that the [[hypothesis]] that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from another species, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved. However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is  supported by molecular <ref>Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.</ref><ref>Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.</ref><ref>Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.</ref> fossil <ref>Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147</ref> geographical <ref>MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.</ref> and morphological <ref>Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.</ref> evidence.  
  
−
Some creationists also argue that the evolution of all life on Earth is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] according to criteria advocated by the renowned philosophy of science [[Karl Popper]]. Evolutionary proponents assert, however, that evolution is falsifiable. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution and therefore the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.  Many other possible methods of falsification have been proposed<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref> and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis. <ref>Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).</ref>
+
Some creationists also argue that the evolution of all life on Earth is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] according to criteria advocated by the renowned philosophy of science [[Karl Popper]]. The falsifiability principle essentially states that  scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific.  Evolutionary proponents assert, however, that evolution is falsifiable. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.  In 1980, Popper responded, to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p247}}</ref>  With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not bringing the matter to conclusion, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>  
  
 
Creationists also sometimes attack evolutionary biology with the argument that evolution is 'just a theory' or an 'unproved theory', a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref>
 
Creationists also sometimes attack evolutionary biology with the argument that evolution is 'just a theory' or an 'unproved theory', a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref>

Revision as of 04:35, May 21, 2007

Opponents of evolutionary biology sometimes claim that evolution is an 'unproved theory'. It is true that the hypothesis that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from another species, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved. However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is supported by molecular [1][2][3] fossil [4][5] geographical [6] and morphological [7] evidence.

Some creationists also argue that the evolution of all life on Earth is not a falsifiable hypothesis and as such should be considered a pseudoscience according to criteria advocated by the renowned philosophy of science Karl Popper. The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific. Evolutionary proponents assert, however, that evolution is falsifiable. Most famously the English biologist JBS Haldane argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"[8] would falsify evolution while arguing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria. In 1980, Popper responded, to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"[9] but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.[10] With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not bringing the matter to conclusion, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.[11]

Creationists also sometimes attack evolutionary biology with the argument that evolution is 'just a theory' or an 'unproved theory', a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.[12][13]. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact [14]

References

  1. ↑ Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.
  2. ↑ Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.
  3. ↑ Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.
  4. ↑ Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. ↑ Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147
  6. ↑ MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.
  7. ↑ Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.
  8. ↑ Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.
  9. ↑ Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers & 1992 p247
  10. ↑ Numbers & 1992 p247
  11. ↑ Theobald, Douglas (2004) 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  12. ↑ Answers in Genesis website Arguments we think creationists should NOT use Retrieved on 2007-05-12
  13. ↑ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262
  14. ↑ Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24

Sources

  • Popper, Karl (1980), "Letter to the Editor", New Scientist 87
  • Numbers, Ronald L. (1992), Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., ISBN 0-679-40104-0
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Evolution_is_an_unproved_theory&oldid=170815"