Let’s be sure we know what we are talking about when we say “evolution”. Evolution is actually 5 theories:
1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86
What are the scientific developments that disprove any of these? NONE Zilch. Zero. Nada
Notice that life from non-life is not on the list. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Within these 5 major theories, there are dozens/hundreds of less hypotheses and theories. In the language of the philosophy of science, these are called “auxiliary hypotheses”. As one respondent pointed out, within #5 is a hypothesis of “group selection”. IOW, natural selection would also act on populations as well as on individuals. That’s not going too well. Dawkin’s “selfish gene” did not do well, because the object of natural selection is the individual organism, not the gene.
However, neither of those “disproved” evolution. They didn’t even disprove natural selection. Those hypotheses were not essential to natural selection. However, Darwin did state a test that is essential to natural selection:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusivegood of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.
No one has found such a structure.
Suggestions Pending
Here is a comprehensive list of all scientific developments disproving evolution:
Scientific theories are formulated to explain known phenomena. When creationists say “evolution is only a theory” they are either A: agreeing that evolution occurs, because otherwise there could be no theory to explain it, B: lying, by pretending there is no difference between what the word “theory” means colloquially versus what it means in science, or C: demonstrating their ignorance of this distinction.
We have a theory of evolution to explain the evolution we know occurs in the world. We do not have a theory of unicorn flight dynamics because there is no evidence for flying unicorns.
The fact that evolution occurs had been recognized long before Darwin. Darwin merely hypothesized that natural selection was the mechanism behind it. What we would now call Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection was “only a theory” in the colloquial sense of something postulated as possibly true, but it has now been so well confirmed by multiple different lines of evidence from different fields that the only possible way it could be overturned is to demonstrate that we all live in The Matrix and all of reality is a sham.
At this point, it is only possible for scientific developments to refine our understanding of how evolution takes place and under what circumstances different forms of natural selection operate. Not only is evolution real, it’s arguably the best understood process in all of nature. It’s far more likely that new developments will disprove gravity, dark matter, or the perceived limit to the speed of light than that it will disprove evolution.
Troll question. It is written to inflame those who fight reason against those who have facility with it.
Here is a lay view of what science is, and some of its limits. My language will be a bit loose and will likely misrepresent how science is done in the most formal sense, but one seeming goal of quora is holding out ones hand to help lift others out of ignorance, and into a more functionally effective view of the world. As I have written in other quora answers, one predicts the world better as one develops from myths to religion to science. Each has its valued place in human endeavour and the battles between them seem specious, as if any of them were keepers of truth (which they are not).
Myths pass reliable predictions to new people with a variety of stories that change in acceptable ways with some fixed elements (see Hamlet’s Mill). Religions pass reliable predictions to new people as stories which apply to societies as long as they remain unchanged. Sciences pass reliable predictions to new people as story templates which also apply to things not yet observed.
The theory of evolution predicts outcomes that its competitors fail to predict. Take the word predict to its roots “Pre” and “Dict”. You can “say” “before” a thing what the thing will be. Science takes the specifics out and reveals a broadly applicable pattern. Put the specifics back in, and pre-dict the outcome.
Of course, there is a different use of the word predict. The leader says how things must be and the followers must do whatever it takes to make the leader correct. This is the kind of prediction used by a dictator. A dictator declares that humans are not related to monkeys. An evolutionary scientist saves the dictator’s life by predicting that a heart valve replacement from a pig will prevent mitral valve prolapse. I know which side of that argument has more interesting conversations.
The predictive value of the theory of evolution has enabled advances in medicine and the saving of unborn children who would otherwise have died. Note this! Without the application of the theory of evolution, millions of unborn children would die who otherwise would not have.
The value of a scientific theory is the ability to predict the outcome of an event from initial conditions. Early scientific work typically involves noting patterns in materials or events. As those patterns are observed by more scientists, they try various formulae to enable more rapid prediction of outcomes (sufficient). Eventually one or two scientists identify a formula which not only predicts the outcome reliably, but also enables “drill-down” into predicting the outcome of subsets of the materials or events, excluding other explanations (necessary).
As Paul Lucas (another responder to this question) points out; “Evolution is actually 5 theories). He does a good job of identifying them. I would add only one thing, a statement of my own belief: “Any identifiable characteristic of a creature was once a genetic defect which saved the life of one of its ancestors”. There is a particular hair on a particular spider which curls forward on one side of its body and curls backwards on the other side. This asymmetry must have been life-saving to one of its great-great-great….great-great grandmas.
A theory is a statement that if you see this then you should expect that. If you see different skid marks appearing in an intersection over time then you expect that car collisions are more likely to occur there than where you do not see skid marks. A crash where there are no skid marks does not disprove a theory that skid marks are a good predictor of collisions. Nor does a well controlled drag race leaving skid marks in a safe area disprove the theory. A wise police squad will keep their eyes peeled around an intersection with new skid marks.
When a scientific theory is disproved, it is because it either fails to predict reliably, or that the assumptions or observations are shown to be insufficient, unnecessary, or actually wrong. In other words, the business of a scientist, more often than not, is to disprove theories. If an observation can be made which reliably goes contrary to the prediction, and obviously so, it is usually taken as proof that the theory fails. Note that. Showing that the theory fails to predict is the critical issue. But also note that many good predictors are to be found in disproven theories. Disposing of a theory because of a failed prediction is presumptuous. Residual value should always be considered in outdated theories. Failed theories sometimes predict specific minority events better than successful ones.
So, are there observations which go contrary to the theory of evolution? Let’s try a few rough thought experiments.
I predict that if you mate two dogs having different sizes that you will often get a dog of intermediate size. That prediction seems to work most of the time. Observations of outlier giant and dwarf dogs doesn’t reduce the general value of the prediction. The statistics favor the theory of evolution there. The variations can also be ascribed reasonably to latent characteristics. Also, as dog breeders know, one can expose a latent characteristic more and more by inbreeding. This is how fancy goldfish are developed from ordinary carp. So the theory of evolution seems to be viable for purposes of breeding to either maintain a useful variation or exposing an unknown variation which may be exploited. Cattle breeders are always considering how to choose who mates with whom to produce a better offspring. Better sometimes means more flesh. Other times it means able to survive a cold spell. Other times yet it means thriving on a inexpensive feed indigenous to the farm. Yet other times it means producing more milk. Maybe this breed is more docile. Maybe that one makes life easier for dogs to round up. The potential value of evolution based breeding is endless.
Disproving evolution would take a bit more work. Orthodox declarations do not offer alternative observations and predictions, but merely require conformity to untestable statements. A reason why keepers of orthodoxy may fear science is that those who use reliable prediction may profit from their predictions while the orthodox linger in relative poverty. The battles between the two are the subject of history.
Battles are won and lost on observations of the predictability of one’s opponents. Theories come and go about what defense and what offense will prevail. The theories get tested and some even have excellent mathematical bases, such as the battle of Cannae showing that encircling a large military group by a numerically smaller group, the numerical advantage on the front line goes to the encircling group. In other words, the outer circle has more men facing the enemy than the inner circle. Beautiful theory. Predictable using mathematics. Reliably applicable to battles not yet fought. Counter-examples are either non-existent or rare. This is the essence of theory.
What would be the character of an observation that disproves evolution? We have the technological ability to have an animal of one species carry the embryo of another species. We can exchange parts between animals of species with compatible genetics. No disproof of evolution there, merely extreme exercise of technical prowess based on the theory of evolution. In fact, our ability to manipulate such extremes shows how resilient and lacking in disproof the theory is.
We don’t see ducks making babies with platypi. We do see horses making mules and hinnies with donkeys, but the young are infertile. The theory of evolution makes life more interesting. The invalidation of the theory would be difficult since the invalidation would require a body of observational data which illustrated how at least one of the 5 theories Lucas listed reliably failed to predict as a template.
One sometimes sees those who prefer orthodoxy failing to observe important features of the world around them, sometimes to their advantage and others to their disadvantage. It’s not as if there is a uniform virtue in choosing only one of the myth/religion/science triad. I like to discuss what I see with folks who want to discuss what they see. I find it more challenging to discuss things with those who refuse to observe altogether or exclude all but their one choice from the triad.
Back to the question itself. Why would one ask such a question? Is disproving evolution of some monetary or societal value? Does disproving it allow the front line of the battle between religion and science to move one way or another? The question appears to be asked using tempting terminology, guaranteed to keep the battle alive. Will the folks who believe in “intelligent design” feel encouraged? Will scientists feel discouraged? Will the battle rage hotter? Will anyone win?
I declare this a troll question because it gets at neither the root of predictability nor the essential value of any of the various sides in the argument. Rather than offering to unite people using instinct or reason, it appears more designed to divide people using instinct or reason. Watch out for people who divide us up. That is the first half of “Divide and Conquer” (latin: Divide et Expugnare).
Creationists and Scientific Logic
Scott Anderson
“Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.
Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I'm even leaving out several fields.
They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science's way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?
Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That's why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.
The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It's called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories - science is a unit.
To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories - a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world - would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.
We've been through that before - it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”
The alternative to evolution science is not creationism - the alternative to evolution science is superstition and ignorance….
No comments:
Post a Comment