Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Renee »

I took this point from a fellow contributor to these forums. He denies Big Bang theory as a scientific fact. He wrote: "As to BB theory being testable and falsifiable, well, some of it maybe, but you probably believe macroevolution is testable and falsifiable too. So I remain skeptical."

This is a very interesting and very VALID objection: "Evolutionary process, as a theory, can't be falsified".

This is what I am up against, as I believe that evolution has happened on Earth's biosphere since day one. (A billion years ago, not six thousand years ago, day one being.)

Here's my reply:

Evolution has three tenets (neo-Darwinian evolution): 1. Life forms from parents to children are different due to genetic changes that happen either in a random fashion, or according to the rules of genetics. 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. 3. Genetic differences can genetically distance a lineage of offspring into a new species.

We can falsify the theory of Gravity by observing two masses repelling each other at close distances, due entirely to their masses. That has not been observed yet. So gravity can be falsified, but it has not happened yet.

How can we falsify evolutionary theory? By falsifying any one or more of its three mechanisms.

1. Genetic changes do not alter the life forms of offspring from parent. This would be a falsifier. But it does not happen: if a DNA gets altered, the offspring is not going to take the form of the parent. So this falsifying never occurred yet, so the theory stands.

2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did.

3. A succession of genetic differences will not distance species from the original, or in case of two streams of successions from genetic differences will not distance two species from each other. According to this, man and chimpanzee ought to be able to produce viable, surviving babies. But they are not, so this point has not been falsified, either.

Here were three different ways that the Evolyooshonary theory can be falsified. Validly. But this has not happened, not one of the named falsifications. Therefore the evolutionary theory stands.
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Felix »

Renee, your statement below falsifies the second evolutionary tenet, which was: 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. As you said, the mutants were less apt (in fact unlikely), not more apt, to survive.

"2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did."

Also, tenet #3 requires geographical separation between the newly divergent species, to separate them from the primary gene pool. We can only test this with short lived species such as fruit flies.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Renee »

Felix wrote:Renee, your statement below falsifies the second evolutionary tenet, which was: 2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions. As you said, the mutants were less apt (in fact unlikely), not more apt, to survive.

"2. Genetic changes gave rise to cats with no lungs, to headless snakes, to people with XXX chromosome triplets, to people born with Myelomeningocele, also known as open spina bifida, and none of these have survived in nature. These are all changes in the fetus developed due to altered DNA due to random mutation. If and only if any of these new mutations survived would then the second point be violated, or falsified. But it is not, because none of them did."

Also, tenet #3 requires geographical separation between the newly divergent species, to separate them from the primary gene pool. We can only test this with short lived species such as fruit flies.
Thanks for your reply, Felix. Please note: the instances I gave were instances of proper falsification, not instances of support with compliance. This is very important to notice.

Because we must seek for falsification, not for compliance.

Thus, no. 2 is a falsification of point no. 2. "Better chance to survive" would be falsified if LESS EQUIPPED individuals would survive. But they don't. So the falsification fails. This is the line of logic I wished to present.

3. "Geographical separation is required." I am not sure of this. This may have been part of Darwin's original theory, but it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition.
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Felix »

2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions.

You don't understand, the evolutionary tenet you paraphrased above requires that favorable mutations survive and reproduce, but they do not, as you said. Thus this tenet is falsified.

Geographical separation is indeed a necessary condition of species divergence.

-- Updated Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:34 am to add the following --

To clarify: we have seen no evidence that actual genetic mutations, "favorable" or not, survive and reproduce.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
gimal
Posts: 54
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by gimal »

Evolution has been shown to be invalid for four reasons.


gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ection.pdf
Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all. If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless.
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Dolphin42 »

It's gimal again. With the "rinse and repeat" posting technique.
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Renee »

Felix wrote:2. Some genetic differences make new life forms that are more apt to survive in a given set of dominant conditions.

You don't understand, the evolutionary tenet you paraphrased above requires that favorable mutations survive and reproduce, but they do not, as you said. Thus this tenet is falsified.
Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations: snakes with no heads, people with spina bifida, lungless cats. These are UNfavourable mutations, and I hoped you'd have seen that. But the onus is on me, I guess, to point that out. So these individuals with UNfavourable mutations did die; therefore the falsification failed.

I don't believe you see this yet. Think of it this way: a falsification is successful when the opposite to the tenet happens. When the opposite of the tenet does not happen, falsification fails.

Mark the above carefully, please.

Now consider:

Opposite to the tenet would be the survival of the lungless cats. Falsification fails when the opposite of the tenet does not happen. But the opposite did not happen, because lungless cats don't survive. Therefore falsification fails.

Thus the tenet's falsification failed.

Thanks for forcing me to break down the logic to its elemental particles, because this is clearer this way to a larger number of readers.

-- Updated December 2nd, 2016, 10:32 am to add the following --
Dolphin42 wrote:It's gimal again. With the "rinse and repeat" posting technique.
gimal wrote:Evolution has been shown to be invalid for four reasons.
There is a season for every reason. (Four of both.)
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Felix »

Renee: Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations.
You missed the point: neither favorable nor unfavorable mutations survive, which falsifies your second tenet (that genetic mutations lead to new life forms).
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Renee »

Felix wrote:
Renee: Favourable mutations, yes, they ought to survive, but my examples were UNfavourable mutations.
You missed the point: neither favorable nor unfavorable mutations survive, which falsifies your second tenet (that genetic mutations lead to new life forms).
With all due respect, you have got to be the only person on this globe (aside from Fundamental Christian believers) who can't see, or rather, does not want to admit, that a favourable mutation would make the mutant survive.

I can accept that that is your personal opinion, but please, if you think that you can reasonably insist that a person who is twice as smart as the next person to him, and twice as strong, and everything else is being equal, than that person would not survive, then I am sorry, my only way to rationalize your incredulity is... well, there are a number of options, but I shall not take any one of them.

I stay at my bewildering bewunderment that a person of reasonable intelligence, such as I have come to know you to be, can't see that a better individual may survive. So be it. That's how you see it, so be it. I shake my head, because your opinion, in my opinion, goes against all acceptable reason.
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Either "macro evolution" is real of God put all beings on planet Earth in a form more or less as is the case today, which is a simply crazy thinking. The term "macro evolution" started cropping up in common internet use after the message started to sink in to devout minds that antibiotic resistance was a proven example natural selection. So they shifted the goal posts to preserve their image of Superman God.
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Renee »

Greta wrote:Either "macro evolution" is real of God put all beings on planet Earth in a form more or less as is the case today, which is a simply crazy thinking. The term "macro evolution" started cropping up in common internet use after the message started to sink in to devout minds that antibiotic resistance was a proven example natural selection. So they shifted the goal posts to preserve their image of Superman God.
My fundamentalist Christian landlady (of Baptist persuasion) and I were talking about how genetics are responsible for human traits. I asked her how she explains that Adam was the father of all Black, White, Asian, tall, short, muscular, weak, smart, less smart, etc. etc. men, if there is no mutational influence. She replied, "Adam carried in his genes all the genomes that we see in people today." I said, and I meant it, that that was a brilliant explanation. Not because it made any sense, but because it made all the sense to people who know (by chance or by design?) nothing about DNA, chromosomes and genes.

It was brilliant, because her explanation gave her the power to continue believing her faith.

"Ignorance is Power."
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Felix »

Evolutionary research is not a topic I am current on [ I suspect you'll say "Duh!" to that :) ], but last I heard the occurrence of what could be considered favorable mutations is so extremely rare and their effects on the organism are so inconsequential that they could not account for macroevolution. Here are quotes from two geneticists that support my position.

"The assumption (that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species) is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the sub-specific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing tightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations." - Dr. Richard Goldschmidt

"The fact that systems (such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis


-- Updated Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:50 pm to add the following --

To be clear, I believe that evolution has occurred, but I am agnostic at present about its means. My comments pertain specifically to the evolutionary tenets you stated.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Felix, I suspect that Dr Goldshmidt has not tried performing calculations representing the possibilities over many millions of years.

The Denton quote is based on the incorrect initial assumption that "advanced computers], in every way [are] analogous to living organisms". Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Felix »

I agree that the computer analogy is not convincing but there are better ones....
Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.
I believe he was just saying that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is in "crisis," not the actual idea of evolution.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Macroevolution: Testable? Falsifiable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Felix wrote:I agree that the computer analogy is not convincing but there are better ones....
Evolution is not in crisis at all; no credible alternative has ever been offered.
I believe he was just saying that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is in "crisis," not the actual idea of evolution.
It all gets rather tribal. To me there is just evolution - things change. There are side arguments, such as EO Wilson's and Richard Dawkins's argument about group selection; I agree with Wilson. RD also, understandably, did not seem to anticipate epigenetics, which is another important consideration aside of one's inherited DNA.

Like most humans, he was not always right, although The Selfish Gene remains an enlightening and seminal work. When he's not grappling with theists he is excellent at communicating the wonders of nature.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021