How is Darwinian Evolution falsifiable?

Question

In this ongoing discussion about science [1], many responders have said that "falsifiability" is a critical line of demarcation. The same responders contend that Darwinian Evolution (DE) is scientific. However, I am not convinced that DE is falsifiable.

The reason: It is not possible to say with certainty that something could *not* have happened.

Therefore, answers claiming the falsifying power of "true chimeras" or "humans in dino strata" do not impress me. We observe the stasis of "living fossils," so why not partial morphological stasis? Perhaps humans evolved much earlier than thought? There are any number of ways to kneed DE to fit the data. DE can never be proven false because of its ability to bend and reshape.

At least, that is my opinion. I am looking for honest answers *supporting* the idea that the opposite is true.

Answer 1

Have the discussion with a religious zealot and voila - Darwin is wrong.

TFTP

Answer 2

I don't claim to be the most briliant person in the world, and I've taken a few readings of your question, additional comments, and the answers, so a few questions and comments of my own...and by no mean take any of this as an attack, it's probably just my limited understanding...

1) "Therefore, answers claiming the falsifying power of "true chimeras" or "humans in dino strata" do not impress me. We observe the stasis of "living fossils," so why not partial morphological stasis? Perhaps humans evolved much earlier than thought?"

My first thought was that it doesn't really matter if these things (true chimeras or humans in dino strata) impress you or not, they would still be significant in falsifying the theory of evolution.  Maybe I don't understand what you mean by partial morphological stasis...how is something in partial stasis?

2) "Under creationism, it is impossible for natural processes to generate life from non-living materials."

But you would still concede, whether you accept evolution, ID, or creation, that the most likely explanation (in fact, the only explanation, whether Earthly or extraterrestrial) of the origins of life is from nonliving material, would you not?

3) "If we actually did witness a cat giving birth to dogs, I highly suspect that you would not suddenly argue that cats and dogs were the product of design."

It's beside the point whether or not anyone would argue for design if we did see this.  Ruling one out (ID/creationism or evolution) does not necessarily validify the other).  There could very easily be more than two sides to the coin.  The fact is that it (a dog giving birth to a cat, etc.) would be very detrimental to biological evolutionary theory--which is what you are looking for ("honest answers" that give a possible falsification of evolution).

4) "I came from life, by the way. A rock did not give birth to me.

.Show that a "rock" can give birth to life, and you will have falsified Intelligent Design, at least."

Nevertheless, you are made up physically of the same chemical substances and are held together by the same phycial laws that rule over rocks as well.

And proto-life has been shown to arise from nonliving substances, and under a growing number of varying conditions.  While it is still *far* from conclusive, abiogenesis is becoming a more viable theory of naturalistic origins.

However, I (we) stray off topic, somewhat, again.  

5) "Your conclusion seems to be that while Darwinian Evolution is not falsifiable, it is possible for the preponderance of evidence to necessitate a different theory."

My interpretation of kirun's answer is that, due to the high quantity and quality of convergent evidence that supports evolution (much of which I'm sure you don't necessarily agree with), it would more than likely take more than one falsifying piece of evidence to deal a "death blow" to evolution.  Yet kirun still doesn't rule out that possibility ("While we can't say for sure that any particular discovery would be enough, it is certainly possible that there can be discoveries which cannot be placed in a coherent model.")

6) "You cite examples of systems that are moving downward informationally, which is precisely opposite of what Darwin's theory requires."

The only contention here is that there is no direction evolution, so your assumption is false, unless I miss your meaning.

7) "You described a situation where DE no longer adequately explains the preponderance of evidence. But this is *selection*, not *falsification*."

However, if these results (as described by gribbling) were *consistently* seen and *consistently* couldn't be adequately explained by evolution (i.e., this type of selection occurred in every generation for one or a number of species), that would move them from selection to falsification (in my book).

8) "I highly suspect that if we actually found a rabbit in the precambrian, you still would not become a Creationist."

I was under the impression that IDer's wanted to distance themselves from creationists, to get away from the religious dogma and enter secular curricula.  Either this is a Freudian slip on your part, or their really is no separation between the two.

But again, this is a digression from the actual point of your specific question.

9) Let's see what you don't accept as "falsifying":  the discovery of a true chimera; a static, unidimensional fossil record; one species becoming another distinct species in one generation; the sudden, unexplainable appearance of a unique life form; and the opposite of what evolution predicts actually occurring in nature.  I would also add one that hasn't been suggested yet--the discovery of a barrier to "macro" changes arising from substantial accumulation of "micro" changes.  If you don't accept these as possibilities of falsifying evolution, then I would posit that you don't really accept evolution as a legitimate scientific theory to begin with.  Or maybe you are so convinced of evolutionary theory that you actually do believe that evolution is the truth...if so, that would make you more of a zealot for the cause of evolution than any other biologist of the past 150 years.  (but we both know that's not the case.)

Answer 3

The theory would be falsifiable in either of two ways.

- By showing that genetic variation does not occur.  But in fact, genetic variation DOES occur: except for identical twins, every living thing on the planet has a different gene structure, thanks to sexual reproduction (and earlier variants, such as conjugation as bacteria do).  Furthermore, mutations occur, and if you had a banana for breakfast, you ate one: bananas don't have seeds, so absent a mutation (propagated as useful by humans), that mutation would not have survived.

- By showing that natural selection does not occur.  But it does, of course; since genetic variants may have different utility toward survival and reproduction, selection is inevitable.

These points are the basis of my proof that the theory of evolution is correct; a copy of the proof is available on request (please provide an e-mail address).

Even without proof (which is rarely available in science), evolution has stood the test of time because it works.  For further discussion, see:

Answer 4

Hehe, up to mischief again;)

I welcome the truth to be challenged, so long as it is in a productive manner. We can all learn from reexamining old ideas. The truth will prevail if it is indeed the truth.

Now, whilst I accept evolutionary theory, I have not examined its scientific basis. There are theories that have become world famous and not contained a shred of evidence to support them, mostly due their unfalsifiability. Freud is one such - now rejected by psychology as unscientific - Marx would be another, improvable theory that has reshaped our world. I am sure you could add others to this starter list. I accept your question has a philosophical point.

Here is the work of Henry Morris, a former evolutionist who has critiqued evolutionary theory.

1) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

2) Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

3) Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

4) The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

5) Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

6) The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

7) Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

8) Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

9) The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Bias towards Evolution

Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred.

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." --Henry Morris

I don't feel I have answered your question in spirit because I am not demonstrating the proofs themselves, my meagre education in biology does not grant me the technical expertise, but I have found a scientist who believes to have found evidence against evolution. Wouldn't this suggest that evolution is actually falsifiable?

EDIT: Well in the absence of being able to find physical evidence against a theory we could apply logic to deduce the truth. By looking for evidence against evolutionary theory the strength in the idea will be apparent by lack of evidence against it. Now, obviously you are suggesting that if the theory cannot be critiqued scientifically, then it cannot logically be scientific, because it cannot be deduced to be a probability.

I like how this line of enquiry forces accepters of evolutions to critique their accepted stance. Surely this had been done 150 years ago when the idea was new?  

I would be convinced if evolution could predict against common sense. Examples that convince me include cave fish without eyes, albino cave insects and Australian ecology, but I now recognise these are no more convincing arguments than bananas being the perfectly packaged food.

Edit 2: I do realise I have chosen a ex-evolutionist as an example. The point was to suggest one way it could be dismissed as a theory through weight of evidence, much in the same way Psychoanalysis was dismissed, in fact the effect of the critique of Psychoanalysis was to create behaviourism as its antithesis, not all bad, but a million miles away from our current understanding of the mind, it is the nature of honest enquiry to move on as new information comes to light.

I do not personally see ID as unscientific in principle, no less so than other unifying theories which attempt to explain alot with a little. If falsifiability *is* an issue, than ID is equally disparaged. As it stands and you can’t blame 'secular' scientists for thinking  ID has a vested interest for the church within. In either case I can’t see how developing a critique of DE will support ID, they are unique theories. The more predictive and applicable of the two will have the most support. The best way I can see of disparaging DE is to come up with something better. Masters assignments and self vindication aside, the point is trivial.

Answer 5

>"The reason: It is not possible to say with certainty that something could *not* have happened."

But the same is true of *ANY* theory about *ANY* event that happened in the past!  E.g. if you're walking in the forest after a lightning storm and you see a tree lying on its side.  I conclude from the charred marks at the base that the tree was felled by a bolt of lightning.  Are you saying that that is not a "scientific" conclusion because it is not "falsifiable" ... i.e. it is not possible to say with certainty that a lightning bolt felling the tree is "not possible"?  Should we then say that it is no more scientific than the hypothesis that the tree grew, or was placed there by God, in its current position ... complete with charred marks on its side ... because we cannot prove this did *not* happen???

>"It is actually a bit funny that you chose rabbits for your example:  53 Million-Year-Old Rabbit's Foot Found, Oldest Known Record"

A 53 million-year-old rabbit is not out of place.  The earliest lagomorphs (rabbits and relatives) have been traced back to to the Paleocene (65 million to 56 million years ago).  (I.e. even Fox News gets something right every once and a awhile.)

But eri said a rabbit in the *Precambrian*, (which *ended* 540 million years ago) would falsify evolution ... and she's exactly right!

----

>"You can define evolution as "small changes over time," but Stephen J. Gould amended this idea with punctuated equilibrium. So it is not necessary to define evolution that way, because some evolutionists believe(d) it can happen in big evolutionary bursts."

You *COMPLETELY* misunderstand Gould and punctuated equilibrium!  Please try actually reading Gould (he is *extremely* readable), not just the Creationist misrepresentation of it.

Punctuated equilibrium is *ABSOLUTELY* compatible with the concept of "small changes over time."  Yes evolution can happen at different rates when measured over many millions of years ... but it is still built up from "small changes over time."

>"Show that a "rock" can give birth to life, and you will have falsified Intelligent Design, at least."

You also completely misunderstand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, and you even misunderstand Intelligent Design!

First evolution is not about a "rock" giving birth to life.  Evolution is about how life changes from earlier life.  

And the concept of abiogenesis is not about a "rock" giving  birth to life. (That's a *CARTOON* description.)  It is *far* more complicated than that.

And Intelligent Design is about some mysterious intelligence influencing evolution (as Behe suggests) or perhaps making the first life forms deliberately (which does not preclude having done so from non-living materials (what you call a "rock").    So Intelligent Design is NOT falsified by showing that life can emerge from non-living materials.

You are just arguing yourself into a hole!

>"I highly suspect that if we actually found a rabbit in the precambrian, you still would not become a Creationist."

That misses the point!  You asked for what would falsify evolution.  A rabbit in the precambrian would deal a fairly mortal blow to evolutionary theory.   But that still would not count as evidence in *favor* of Creationism!

---

As Questioner's statements seem to echo yours ... and you both seem convinced that the world's scientists are all all involved in a massive betrayal of the scientific method.  

Let me put it simply.  

* If the dating of the earth had  put the age at less than 100 million years, this would have disproved evolution.  (Insufficient time.)

* If the world's fossils had been found in random layers of rock, instead of *sorted* into correlated layers (no rabbits in the same layer as trilobites), then this would have disproved evolution (no chronological correlations).

* If the similarities and differences in DNA of modern organisms were also random, instead of displaying the clear pattern of shared but distance-correlated ancestry  ... e.g. if humans and monkeys shared *no* genes in common ... or if there were genes in common between species A and B ... others between B and C, and others between C and A ... but none shared between all three ... then this would have disproved evolution (no pattern of ancestral relationships possible).

There are *SO* many ways that evolution may have been falsified ... but it has not been.  

It is possible to stretch a theory to fit counter-evidence ... but only so far before it becomes *glaringly* absurd.   For example, the way that Young-Earth Creationists have to stretch science to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old ... involves wildly distorting biology, geology, minerology, the science of radioactivity (isotopes now have to have *WILDLY* varying decay rates, that all somehow produce the same numbers in the billions of years), astronomy, astrophysics, relativity (as the constancy of the speed of light also has to be questioned to explain the apparent age of light from distant galaxies), etc. etc.

Evolution has required no similar wild modifications of other branches of science.  All of these other fields are *independently* discovering laws (such as the constancy of radioactivity, or of the speed of light) that are not contradictory, but absolutely *consistent* with evolutionary theory.  

Of course, you and Questioner might argue that all the geologists, geochronologists, physicists, radiometrists, astronomers, astrophysicists, are in league with the biologists and paleontologists to *FALSIFY* science to fit evolutionary theory.   But if so then you are accusing pretty much the entire scientific community ... (we're talking hundreds of thousands of scientists) of conspiring to betray their own profession!

And WHY?

Answer 6

The Darwin Party M.O.

• Step 1: Assume evolution.

• Step 2: Observe a fact.

• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.

• Step 4: Attack, ridicule, and persecute anyone who doesn’t toe the Darwin Party line.

Evolution is so “plastic” that it can be expanded to fit any data.  Even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution.

Dr. Michael G. Houts, “This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of ‘convergent evolution.’ No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.  

One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.”

As Dr. Don Batten said, “...Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.”

Dr. William Dembski, “...falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after Darwin's Black Box appeared remarked, 'We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.' What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, ‘But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.’

The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it."

Answer 7

This is a tricky question to answer impartially - as I'm sure you will agree.

One big issue is that it is difficult to conceive of any findings which would irrefutable falsify evolution. A major reason for this is the sheer weight of data supporting the theory. So if one piece of evidence arises which (seems) to challenge evolution, it would have to:

[1] withstand a huge amount of scrutiny, and

[2] outweigh the supporting evidence.

The "evolution" of scientific theories usually proceeds thus:

- hypothesis is proposed and tested

- evidence is found: if this evidence supports the hypothesis, then the hypothesis remains unchanged (and is further tested in subsequent experiment). If the evidence does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is either rejected or modified

- if the hypothesis is rejected, then an alternative if often proposed, but this is not always the case!

So - with the example of precambrian rabbits, the fossil would naturally be subject to enormous interest. There have been several similar findings in the past - such as supposed sandal-prints alongside trilobites - and such findings have been explained without any recourse to rewriting or discarding evolution.

And, if the remains were found to be genuine, then the likely outcome is a re-writing of evolution to include precambrian lagomorphs (a "kneeding" of the data, as you put it). Of course, such a theory would be quite different in it's details than the current ToE, but would likely retain the important details (such as the changes in allele frequency with time) as they remain unchallenged by the finding. This is nothing to be ashamed of: it is the way scientific hypotheses progress and grow in the light of new data.

However, if the findings were not limited to earlier-than-expected rabbits, but included separate data showing that (for example), modern rabbits display unusual features, like a decrease in myxomatosis resistance on generations-long exposure to the disease (which would be a shocking departure from expected findings), then that would mount a more serious challenge to evolution.

In such a case, the initial reaction would probably be an attempt to discern why rabbits, unlike everything else, were not subject to evolution. But, of course, obvious questions would shortly thereafter be asked about whether evolution can then truly be considered universal; and, if not, then how can we be certain that *anything* is really evolving.

In that circumstance, evolution as we know it would probably truly be dead in the water. Of course, reactionaries would likely hold on to their outdated belief in evolution, but eventually the scientific community would have to move on.

Hopefully, a proper, scientific hypothesis/theory would be proposed as an alternative to evolution (and I do not mean ID, as it is not a *scientific* hypothesis) - but it is certainly conceivable that the question would be left open for a while: people have been looking for a Grand Unified Theory in physics for some time now, without noticeable success, so it is possible something similar would happen with evolution.

So, I disagree that evolution is not falsifiable: it certainly is falsifiable.

But any evidence purporting to falsify it must overcome over 150 years of supporting evidence, which is (to say the least) a challenge.

As an example:

The chemi-osmotic theory of respiration was extremely controversial when originally proposed. Previously, everyone had been searching for a chemical intermediate between oxidative phosphorylation and ATP generation.

However, when a scientist (Peter Mitchell, IIRC) conceived it, and then tested it with extremely detailed and convincing experiments, it became apparent that his results were irrefutable.

That did not stop the audience to whom he first presented his results from becoming angry, and refusing to accept them; many venerable biochemists in the audience had spent their entire careers trying to find the chemical intermediate, and he has just demonstrated that their work had been a collossal waste of time.

But, in a short time, it did indeed become accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

This was a pretty radical overhaul of the biochemical paradigm; but it would be nothing in comparison with overturning evolution!

______________________________________...

Edit:

> ".Still can't respond sans the cheapshots, eh? Ah well, I won't judge too harshly your proclivity for old habits."

I'm sorry, but WTF?!

I was actually half agreeing with you there. My point was basically that, since there is SO MUCH supporting evidence for evolution, it would be exceptionally difficult for any new evidence to overturn it. That's all.

> "You described a situation where DE no longer adequately explains the preponderance of evidence. But this is *selection*, not *falsification*."

Perhaps I'm being obtuse here - but I don't see your point.

> "How about: Rabbits decrease in resistance to myxomatosis because natural processes are *blind and unintentional*. It just so happened that there were no advantageous variations."

Ah. Well - if there were no pre-existing resistant members of the population, then it's true there could be no increase (without mutation to introduce the resistance trait). But - if 50% of the original population were resistant, and then 25% of the next generation after myxo. exposure, then 12.5%, then...

So, if the pre-existing resistant members were not selected for in a situation where, according to evolutionary theory, they *should* have been, then that's a problem for evolution.

Of course, alternative explanations for the phenomenon would doubtless be sought and proposed - but it would still be strong evidence against Evolution by Natural Selection.

> "In fact, the disease is such that offspring of infected animals are even less resistant than their parents. It makes no difference"

Granted that this could indeed be one such alternative explanation that a failure of evolution.

But if the molecular mechanisms of the disease were not such that this would be the case, then my original point still stands.

Of course, this would involve more detailed analysis of the disease mechanism - which was my second point (the need for detailed scrutiny of any possible "anti-evolution" findings).

> "DE does not preclude pandemics or extinction. In fact, the extinction of a weaker species and the survival of resistant species is precisely what DE expects: Survival of the Fittest."

Yes, but it does not predict that resistance traits should be selected against in situations where existing theory says they should be selected for.

______________________________________...

Edit (again):

> "1. Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. Cheapshot: ID is not science. That's not the topic. At least qualify it as your opinion."

It is, of course, not just *my* opinion. But for the purposes of this question I'll grant your point.

> "2. In science, we *select* between competing theories. This doesn't mean that the loser has been falsified. The question is whether DE is falsifiable. You are saying it is possible for DE to be on the losing side of a selection process, but that is not the question. I will indicate which of your points addresses *selection* rather than *falsification*."

Again, I'm not certain I see your point.

If a theory is *selected* against because it fails to fit the existing data, and cannot be reasonably re-written to include that data, then it has been falsified.

It is, of course, always possible that subsequent data will demonstrate that the theory was, in fact, always still correct and just mis-interpreted, or the data was misleading, or whatever. But, for the purposes of the current theoretical framework, it is still discarded. It is still falsified.

> "3. Selection. A non-fatal problem that DE would survive."

It's *possible* - but I can't think of an explanation that would get around it and still keep evolution by natural selection as the underlying theory.

Of course - someone else might (I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so cannot claim "expert" status here), but as far as I can see, this evidence would be at the very least extremely challenging for evolution to overcome.

> "4. My point is that you can never say with certainty that there is NOT an explanation that preserves DE. (Before you retort against ID, refer to my earlier comments.)"

Of course not - but remember that proof is impossible in science. The best you can hope for is "proof beyond reasonable doubt (given current evidence".

> "5. Granted, but this would be an anomaly at worst. It would not falsify the theory because you can't prove that an explanation does NOT exist."

Yes - but see my point to 4. above.

Answer 8

Before we can falsify anything, we need to know what it is. This discussion is largely semantic and goes nowhere because we haven't defined our terms.

Define the theory of Darwinian evolution, and then we can move on, right now your position is BS.

EDIT:

OK - I assumed you would be unable to define what you're talking about, so consider this:

Darwinian evolution is change over time of populations of organisms, most specifically change in their genetic compositions. The population is the evolutionary unit not the individual.

Since genes determine the organism and ultimately a population's characteristics, understanding evolution requires understanding the changes that occur in populations at the genetic level, and it is within the laws of genetics that evolution is clearly falsifiable.

The Hardy-Weinberg Law, a mathematical statement, is part of a theory for predicting the behavior of genes in populations. This equation predicts that if certain restrictions hold, gene frequencies and distributions stay constant forever. However, these restrictions are not met in nature. The reasons they are not met in nature are the forces that propel evolution.

If you can find a natural population, existing over time that does NOT follow Hardy-Weinberg or the other mathematical laws of population genetics (without invoking pseudo-science), then our understanding of evolution is very flawed - something supernatural may be at work. On the other hand, for the creationist world-view to be true all populations must forever exist in Hardy-Weinberg limbo - this is something we've never seen.

Read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popula...

And acquaint yourself with these very falsifiable models:

http://www.msu.edu/course/plb/849/Conner...

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/zdownloa...

There's volumes of this stuff!

Of course evolutionary models haven't been falsified because all of our observations fit quite well. In other words, there's no need to bend, reshape or knead the data, it ALL supports the modern synthesis of evolution as the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

You won't find this kind of modeling and observational fit in ID, it is after all, a pseudoscience.

lol - you still haven't defined what you mean when you say Darwinian evolution - and how does this relate to the Modern Synthesis? You're playing a word game -  that doesn't cut it in science.

"....driven by some yet-undiscovered mechanism completely different from the kind envisioned in the NeoDarwinian synthesis......" Now what are we talking about?

How old do you think the earth is? How about the universe?

*************************

"It is impossible, as a matter of logical deduction, to say with certainty that DE is not driven by some yet-undiscovered mechanism completely different from the kind envisioned in the NeoDarwinian synthesis."

This can be said of ALL science, actually any mental construct no matter how well supported or not, so in truth, it's near meaningless. This is just one of the word games you play. Show me some supportive data!

And what about my questions?

How old do you think the earth is? How about the universe?

Answer 9

As Secretsauce often points out, 'evolution' can mean two things: the process and the Theory.

With regards to the process, it could be falsified if populations could be shown not to change genetically over time. However, all the evidence indicates that populations do change over time. That is the basis for the new flu bugs that come around every year. If you want an example in vertebrates, read Darwin's Finches.

With regards to the Theory, it could be falsified by lots of different things, some of which are noted above. That it hasn't been falsified is not proof that it was not falsifiable, but rather a testament to how strong the theory has become.

Some examples in which the Theory of Evolution could have been falsified:

1. Evolution takes lots of time. If the sun and earth were not old enough, the Theory would need rethinking. Lord Kelvin rejected evolution on this basis. At the time, it was thought that the sun was a 'fireball' or a giant ball of super hot liquid which was slowly cooling. In either case, the sun could not have been as old as was needed for Darwinian evolution. However, with the discovery of radioactivity, and then the elucidation of the nuclear reactions in stars, Lord Kelvin's objections were nullified.

2. Evolution depends on descent with modification. In other words, all complex life is probably derived from a single original species. This is borne out by the fact that all complex organisms share the same genetic code. The Theory could have been falsified if, upon analysis, each complex organism used its own genetic code.

3. According to Darwinian selection, a species could only arise once from one ancestor species. For example, dogs (which are all one species) are descended from wolves, and this has been clearly shown with DNA sequencing. The Theory could have been falsified if some dogs turned out to be descended from wolves, but others were descended from badgers, and yet they could interbreed as one species. Such a finding would have necessitated a major rethinking of the Theory.

And so on. There are lots of genetic, astronomical, chemical, geological, paleontological, archeological, biological, etc. experimental results which could have invalidated the central ideas of Darwinian evolution. They haven't.

You seem to interpret this in the wrong way: you seem to say that since the Theory is now so robust that it appears unfalsifiable, it must therefore not be based on science. If this is what you are saying, you are wrong.

-----

Edit:

Insofar as I can tell, I answered the question you asked accurately, though your additional comments seem like non-sequiturs that are somehow not accurately replying to my answer. But I’ll try to be clearer ...

The falsifiability of Darwinian evolution is directly related to the robustness of the theory. Given that Darwinian evolution is one of the most tested and accepted ideas in science, it would take extraordinary findings to cast serious doubt on it at this point. This was not always the case, however, and the examples I cite above - as well as examples given by other answerers - show ways in which the Theory, either as it was first framed or later, could have been invalidated. For example again, Darwin knew it would take a lot of time for evolution to occur, and without that time the theory would not have survived - and so the age of the solar system was a crucial hurdle.

With regards to the process: the experiments in labs and observations of wild populations are oriented around an unbiased question: does/has the population change/d genetically over time? Note that the question is framed in a way that allows for the finding that a population does not change. Although in every case, and there are thousands by now that have been analyzed in a myriad of ways, the populations are variable and they change over time, the question remains unbiased. It would only take one experiment that showed a reproducing population that was incapable of change over time to falsify a basic part of evolutionary theory.

Nonetheless, based on our understandings of DNA replication, it is now accepted as a basic fact of heredity that variations arise - DNA polymerases have error rates, and the error correction processes have failure rates. If you doubt this somehow, you are free to devise experiments to test the hypothesis that some population is entirely resistant to this genetic change. Perhaps if you study the literature, you can find some ecological niche where the resident species have not yet been tested and you can justify a prediction that they will show no sign of genetic variability.

With regards to the Theory:

1. Punctuated equilibrium was not postulated as a remedy for a young age for the sun. As I described, prior to understanding nuclear reactions serious, well-respected scientists thought that the sun would have been too young to allow life to have evolved. In the absence of a deep stretch of time, Darwinian evolution would have been found impossible and discounted. Perhaps another theory of evolution would have arisen, but it would not have been Darwinian because Darwin’s processes *required* great stretches of time.

2. Polyphyletic *origins of life* have been proposed. This is entirely different from polyphyletic *origins of species*. By complex life, I was referring to eukaryotes - organisms descended from something similar to a yeast. Again, if any eukaryotes, and this includes many unicellular organisms as well as all multicellular life, used entirely different genetic codes, it would have invalidated Darwinian evolution because the descent necessary for the close cellular similarities would no longer be conceivable. Postulating polyphyletic origins among eukaryotes is not Darwinian evolution, though, again, perhaps another theory of evolution would have arisen to explain the data.

3. Species arise when an original population somehow subdivides into two populations that can no longer interbreed. This reproductive isolation results from, and subsequently encourages, genetic differences between the populations. These genetic differences are rare random changes that become fixed in the genomes of the original two populations and later in the two new species. Given the size and complexity of the genomes of dogs, wolves, and badgers, it is inconceivably unlikely - as in impossible given the apparent size and age of the universe - that these random changes could happen in wolves and badgers to generate dogs twice, let alone happen at the same time and place in the universe, by Darwinian evolution. Yet again, if it was found, upon DNA sequencing, that some dogs were descended from wolves, and others from badgers, and that the dogs formed a single interbreeding population, it would invalidate Darwinian evolution. Perhaps naturalistic explanations could be proposed, but the hypotheses that would explain such a finding would not be Darwinian. As with my other examples, perhaps another theory of evolution would have arisen to explain the data.

If any of these experimental results - or an infinite number of others - had turned up during the last 150 years, Darwinian evolution would have been discarded.  Darwin would now be remembered the way Lamarck is:  as a bright naturalist who tried to make sense of the natural world, but failed to do so accurately.  And as I've said, a new theory might have arisen to replace Darwin's in light of findings like the ones I describe above, but it would not be Darwinian.

Since all you are doing with this question is telling the answerers that their answers are not right, perhaps you should actually define what *you* mean by Darwinian evolution, and what your criteria are for falsification. Given that the examples I, and others, have provided would satisfy the scientific community that Darwin was wrong, it seems likely that you are not really trained in science at all. Reaching that conclusion, I find myself wondering why you think you can tell geologists, astronomers, chemists, oncologists, virologists, anthropologists, biochemists, archeologists, biologists, cosmologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc., etc. that they are wrong?

If I am correct that you have almost no scientific training, why not do an experiment for yourself: drop by a good public library and read through an issue of Science or Nature just to see how actual science is communicated. Follow that by looking through the journal to see how often scientists refer to ‘evolution’ in a biological context. And then realize that the journal comes out every week, just that full of the best research by the brightest researchers, and that they universally view biology through a Darwinian context. Perhaps then you would get a clearer idea of what the Theory means, explains, and predicts.

And lastly, since you didn’t ask for “evidence that would convince you to become a creationist’, I have not given that question any thought. Since I have no idea how I would react to the categorical dismissal of Darwinian evolution, what business do you have challenging me about whether I would become a creationist?

-----

Edit again:

I agree with Don - you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.  Nor, I might add, do you seem to have any serious intent to understand the answers you have been given.

BTW:  That's Dr. 62,040,610 Idiots to you.  And if you are going to insult me, at least make it a comprehensible insult.

Answer 10

It isn't directly falsifiable.  The closest possibility is clear scientific evidence for an alternative, contradictory possibility.  For example, the Klingons visited earth and created earth life as an experiment.  They could show us their detailed documentation.  They could reproduce the process in view of qualified scientific observers.  They could show us their documentation of creating fish and birds as separate creative acts.  They could download for us the complete genetic code and lineage of every organism that ever lived, and show us there is precisely zero intersection between the fish tree and the bird tree.

Even if the Bible contained statements contradiction evolution (which it doesn't), that wouldn't constitute a basis for scientific falsifiability.

EDIT: Perhaps you should clarify each issue whose falsifiability you are challenging.  rhsaunders gave two excellent examples.  Those two principles of evolutionary science are fundamental and well established.  I haven't found a thinking person who disagrees with them.

That birds and fish have a common genetic ancestor is a stronger evolutionary claim.  The only way I can think of to falsify that claim is to never find adequate evidence to prove the claim true.  And that can't happen until 'never' actually arrives.

How could you possibly falsify abiogenesis without actually proving it's impossible for it to happen?  I could arguably prove that an electric current can't flow through a conductor without resistance.  But then, superconductivity was observed.

Answer 11

From my understanding, showing that a theory is falsifiable only means that it can be criticized through observational reports (preferably obtained using the scientific method). To do this would only require evidence of a single evolutionary processes which occurs through means that are not included

in Darwin's theory.

The major premise of Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is in juxtaposition to Lamarck's theory of evolution. Lamarckism essentially states that an organism's acquired traits can be passed down to their offspring. This theory hasn't held in relation to larger organisms, but has recently found validating evidence in the evolution of microorganisms.

One study found that specific groups of yeast could alter their genetic makeup under stressful conditions, such as exposure to an herbicide resulting in mutations which enhanced the yeasts resistance to the herbicide. This genetic material was then seen to pass onto subsequent generations - a means of evolution outside the realm of natural selection.

The limitation of Darwin's theory at the microorganism level provides appropriate critique, showing that the theory is falsifiable.

Answer 12

Finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian bed would falsify quite a bit of evolution.  Monkeys turning into humans would falsify evolution.  Cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution.  All of these things are impossible under the theory of evolution.  But note how none of them have happened.

What would be impossible under creationism?

EDIT:  My comment on rabbits is a paraphrasing of a quote by Stephen J. Gould.  And 53 million is NOT equal to 3 billion.

Cats giving birth to dogs is NOT evolution - it is clear evidence that evolution - small changes over time in populations - is NOT true.  It's no wonder you can't think of anyway to falsify evolution if you don't even recognize it when you see it.  

If it's impossible for life to come from non-life, we've already proven creationism wrong.  What exactly do you think you're made of?  I've got news for you - rocks, metals, and gases.

Answer 13

> DE can never be proven false because of its ability to bend and reshape.

This is the key issue here... first, you must come up with a definition of what the core of evolution is; what cannot be removed.

"The" theory of evolution is really a large collection of related theories - so say flaws are found in our current understanding of kin selection - new ideas can come along, and the core is not upset.

The core theory of evolution might be stating the obvious: given reproductive units that change over time, all things other being equal, changes to those units increasing reproductive success in the current environment will accumulate. I suspect this can be stated mathematically.

Now, if we further state that we have the theory that evolution is the *most plausible* explanation for life on earth, then we are on our way.

Consider: how would you falsify the theory of gravity? You could look for things that don't fit the model; these could be put down to other forces, etc. but at some point, the evidence would point the other way.

Finding one out-of-place skeleton may not seem like a big deal. But, there is a whole lot of evidence that creates the big picture of evolution. There is a lot of good work going on with DNA sequencing right now, examining how life fits together. There are related theories, based on how frequently mutations occur - these can be measured. Together, these imply a tree of life, and a timetable that it happened on. Fossils represent ancestors which should fit into this pattern. Multiple sources ( radioactive, tree rings and so on ) all confirm and check one another.

Now, the joke is that every time a new fossil is found, this turns one "gap" in the fossil record into two. The reality is that fossils are good supporting evidence.

Now, if a fossil was found clearly out of place, this would not just imply that "x species evolved earlier"... the species does not live alone. It pulls the tree of relatedness back with it. It undermines a lot of good work - estimations of evolvability can be based on estimations of the mutation rate.

Even with "living fossils", we would not expect their DNA to match that of their ancestors - it would have mutated away from a common ancestor we can measure, just these mutations would have had no effect ( e.g. different DNA sequences can have the same meaning ).

While we can't say for sure that any particular discovery would be enough, it is certainly possible that there can be discoveries which cannot be placed in a coherent model.