It has been over a week since I posted my "challenge for creationists" and no creationist has responded. I am beginning to wonder if that is revealing. We did have a guy saying that evolution is not falsifiable, but that just isn't true. Don Lindsay tells us that:
In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
I don't know how many times I have stated things that would falsify evolutionary theory.
14 comments:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
But something like that could never be proven. Proving that there does not exists an unknown benefit of a structure to the given species falls roughly into the same category as proving there are no hidden visitors from other galaxies. With any structure we can say that we don't yet know what the benefit is but that we are sure there is one. Indeed, I am certain that, even as I write this, there are structures that have no known benefit to their species, but that scientists regard as inconclusive because they may find a benefit later.
Darwin's example is particularly interesting, because the falsifying situation he proposes is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect if creationists were right - he's not just giving a falsifying test, he's giving a test that would support the case of a creationist.
Creationists should be looking really hard for exactly that. I welcome it - if they can find something that appears to be such a falsifying circumstance, it will lead to some interesting science (of course, when it's discovered not to be, it won't stop them claiming it is for another hundred years or more, but what can you do?).
Oh yes, I have seen many claims of "what would falsify evolution." They can be dumped into categories: "A disconfirming instance could never be completely proven," "We have already confirmed through prior observation that this doesn't happen. If it had happened, we could have fit it to evolution," "If necessary, the yardstick can be changed to fit evolution."
The fact is I consider creationism to be patent nonsense while evolution is plausible. But I see the tests are rigged so that all outcomes are either "confirm" or "inconclusive."
Ah but they won't focus on that because they know that isn't the case. This isn't about science or falsification, this is about teaching the bible as literal fact. They will rest at nothing to be able to do that. They wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the nose. Even if a mountain of evidence existed against evolution, and lets be fair, there isn't, they STILL wouldn't be able to find it because faith is more important than fact to them. They are the unreachable delusional masses. I know, I used to be one of them. Unless they come on their own, they cannot be reasoned with. This I know from experience. I am an ex-fundy now avid and out spoken atheist.
pvblivs, I don't think you're being reasonable. If it was proven that the world was too young to allow evolution to occur (20 million years old, for instance) that would falsify evolution. If the rates of change observed in the fossil record could not be accounted for by the rates of change seen today, that would falsify evolution.
To go back to my example, let's say that flowers gave bees nectar, but they flowers did not reproduce this way. The flowers have no need to produce nectar. We create, in the laboratory, a genetically modified flower that does not produce nectar, and survives and reproduces just fine in the wild. Wouldn't it be a challenge to explain how nectar-giving flowers evolved?
AIGbusted:
Christians don't think I am reasonable either. My assumption that your belief is religious predicts that you will consider me unreasonable simply for advancing the notion. Ironicly, the scientific method would require testing of whether the belief was religious. A holder of a religious belief will shield that belief from any potential falsification and will deny that he doing so. Is that not exactly what you see creationists doing?
"If it was proven that the world was too young to allow evolution to occur (20 million years old, for instance) that would falsify evolution. If the rates of change observed in the fossil record could not be accounted for by the rates of change seen today, that would falsify evolution."
Fail. There really is no set "rate" of evolution; nor does there need to be. Rates of mutation can change over time. For example, high-energy radiation will increase random mutations. Generational cycles are not static. Plus the greatest spur to evolution is a change in the environment. Also, suppose the planet were 10 million and suppose further (contrary to evidence) that that was the indication of the composition of the elements. It still would not be "proven" The planet gets an influx of material from space and that would be used to justify the composition.
"To go back to my example, let's say that flowers gave bees nectar, but they flowers did not reproduce this way. The flowers have no need to produce nectar. We create, in the laboratory, a genetically modified flower that does not produce nectar, and survives and reproduces just fine in the wild. Wouldn't it be a challenge to explain how nectar-giving flowers evolved?"
I note that you correctly avoided asking "Wouldn't that disprove evolution?" It would be a challenge to explain how nectar-giving flowers evolved. The first thing that would happen is that scientists would state that there was some other (unknown) benefit to the flower. (Perhaps apial activity helps ward off harmful parasites.) It is open-ended. Evolution can be made to fit any observation.
PVBLIVS,
"Fail. There really is no set "rate" of evolution; nor does there need to be. Rates of mutation can change over time. For example, high-energy radiation will increase random mutations. Generational cycles are not static. Plus the greatest spur to evolution is a change in the environment."
You are right that there is no 'set' rate of mutation. But if we could not create (via radiation or something else) rates of change that were as high or higher than the rates of change in the fossil record, evolution would falsified.
"Also, suppose the planet were 10 million and suppose further (contrary to evidence) that that was the indication of the composition of the elements. It still would not be "proven" The planet gets an influx of material from space and that would be used to justify the composition."
One would need to find sufficient evidence that our planet acutally loses material to space, and takes it in from meteorites and comets and so forth in order to justify that conclusion.
"The first thing that would happen is that scientists would state that there was some other (unknown) benefit to the flower."
Bullshit. You are imagining what would happen and asserting it as fact. If you can show me one real life example (similar to the hypothetical one I gave you) then I will grant you that evolution is wrong.
AigB
AIGbusted:
I am not stating that evolution is wrong. In fact, I state that it is plausible. I am stating that it is untestable because any observation can be made to fit.
"If you can show me one real life example (similar to the hypothetical one I gave you) then I will grant you that evolution is wrong."
You are so eager to use the "everything is confirm or inconclusive" shield. I only point that scientific theories must stand without such a shield. Since you gave an example as "find something with no benefit to the species in which it is found," I correctly that it is not possible to rule out unknown benefits.
Pvblivs,
I'm not standing behind a shield. I gave you the opportunity to show me that there are structures that are for the exclusive benefit of another species. Just show that structure can be removed and the organism loses no fitness. You could even perform this experiment yourself, so long as the species lived in your area.
I promise I won't use the "Just because-we-don't-know-what-it-does-doesn't-mean-its-no-good" argument.
See, no shield.
I'll just give an example of why the challenge could not (even in principle) be met. The example comes from the tail of the peacock. The tail itself is, of course, a liability for the animal that possesses it. (It serves a good for the predators.) Now, it is conjectured that it serves as an identifier for other traits conducive to survival. It is also known that it persists because the females select for it in mating. Proving or disproving an benefit to the species is impossible. (Attempting to perform the requisite controlled experiment would alter the environment and taint the results.)
I'm sure you have already thought of why the peacock's tail does not demolish your theory. I identify this as a shield for evolution as it could be applied to any detrimental structure.
pvblivs,
The peacock's tale does have a function and we can identify it. The females which are attracted to strong males tend to leave behind more offspring. For obvious reasons. So the males which can demonstrate strength will be more likely to reproduce. And how demonstrate strength? A long, heavy tail, perhaps?
"Peahens often choose males for the quality of their trains -- the quantity, size, and distribution of the colorful eyespots. Experiments show that offspring of males with more eyespots are bigger at birth and better at surviving in the wild than offspring of birds with fewer eyespots."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_09.html
The tail has to be small enough for the peacock to survive with, but big enough to impress the female. The male shows how well he can do by showing how big of a handicap he can take on and still survive. Like doing pushups with one arm to impress girls.
So the peacock's tail doesn't even come close to fulfilling the challenge.
"So the peacock's tail doesn't even come close to fulfilling the challenge."
No observation that could be imagined would. That was point of my last post. See, shield. Remember, I said, "I'm sure you have already thought of why the peacock's tail does not demolish your theory. I identify this as a shield for evolution as it could be applied to any detrimental structure."
"You are imagining what would happen and asserting it as fact."
And I was correct. You have demonstrated exactly what I said would happen. No matter what the observation, you will find a way to make it fit.
Pv, You are so full of shit it is hard to know where to begin. It has been DEMONSTRATED that the peacock's tail serves said function. DEMON-fucking-STRATED.
This is not a cop out, it is a not an excuse, it is not a shield. It is a fact.
Can you say demonstrate? Say it with me De-mon-strate. Now experiment. Ex-per-i-ment.
Good.
Now hopefully you won't go around trying to bullshit people so much. And why? Do you just want everything to be a mystery or something?
The description of the "function" it serves was created to reconcile an observation with the idea of evolution. What has been demonstrated is that you would not allow any conceivable observation to falsify evolution. Nothing is accepted (even tentatively) as a disconfirmer. Even in the experiment you cite, the possibility of a disconfirmation was not considered. It was strictly a way to reconcile observation with the desired model.
If evolution were falsifiable, even in principle, some scientist would have conducted an experiment for the purpose of falsifying it. They do not and never have. All experiments are designed to confirm or to find out how something fits the desired model.
I really wish that you could step back and see why I identify that as a shield. But you won't. You are acting like any other religious believer, shielding your faith while denying that that is what you are doing.
You can say, "say it with me 'ex-per-i-ment,'" all you want. The setup of the experiments does not and has not allowed for the possibility of anything being a disconfirmer. If they don't find what they are looking for, they decide they need another path to fit the preferred model.
Post a Comment