Evolution, testability and scientific dogma

[LuisDantas]

Still not seeing the problem.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Still not seeing the problem.

Umm... read it again? The problem is that it's being treated as dogma and observations can just be fit into the theory. This doesn't make it necessarily false, but it's a problem if scientists view anything as dogma.

And something I missed you write earlier, you said "It is just as impossible, and as problematic, to disprove gravity."

Why do you say that? I find that hard to believe.

 

[viole]

Well one of the points the authors make in the quote, is that it cannot be refuted because every conceivable observation can be fit into it, and further observations since 1967 would be expected to fit into the theory because that is the very nature of it.

It can be refuted immediately if you dig a T Rex fossil with the rests of a fossil cow in his belly.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich write in an article Evolutionary History and Population Biology, in Nature vol 214 (1967) pg 349:
’Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

Thoughts?

Something I found on rationalwiki in response to that quote: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conser...ary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory

First of all, the quote mining: Karl Popper did indeed originally have some questions on the falsifiability of Evolution and Natural Selection. Indeed though, later he amended his views, saying the following:

“”The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."[121]
The quote mined from Birch and Ehrlich's paper is another quote taken out of context quite frequently by creationist fundies. The quote does not, in fact criticize evolution, but instead criticizes some scientists who misuse hypotheses about evolution.[122]

Both evolution and natural selection are in fact, quite falsifiable. If, for example, it was shown that genetic mutations could not occur, or that such mutations could not be passed down to offspring, or that "survival of the fittest" did not occur, then evolution would invariably be disproven.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Something I found on rationalwiki in response to that quote: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conser...ary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory

Interesting. Though if the academia had cases of adherence to dogma imagine how much more 'RationalWiki' and 'TalkOrigins' (the source) would be. It would be nice to read the actual paper.

Popper was also widely criticised for his skepticism, I am not sure as to the strength of his convictions behind his alleged recantation, nor I don't think anyone ever will be.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It can be refuted immediately if you dig a T Rex fossil with the rests of a fossil cow in his belly.

Ciao

- viole

True, however this dwells on the fringes of the absurd, rather than something plausible that could actually falsify the theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting. Though if the academia were suffered from dogma imagine how much more 'RationalWiki' and 'TalkOrigins' (the source) would be. It would be nice to read the actual paper.

Totally agree. I tried to find it but failed.

Popper was also widely criticised for his skepticism, I am not sure as to the strength of his convictions behind his alleged recantation, nor I don't think anyone ever will be.

My impression is that Popper isn't as popular anymore, not even in science. We should have Legion contribute on this part. He posted recently a discussion about the problems and conflicts we're having today in what "scientific method" really is. And I suspect Popper tried to "streamline" it, but science doesn't work the "Popper"-way all the time.

 

[viole]

True, however this dwells on the fringes of the absurd, rather than something plausible that could actually falsify the theory.

I disagree.
It is not absurd. If you think it is absurd, then you are an evolutionist.

What is absurd about it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

True, however this dwells on the fringes of the absurd, rather than something plausible that could actually falsify the theory.

Actually, finding a cow, rabbit, or other species that we know (or according to the theory) evolved at some stage, in a strata where it doesn't belong would "prove" the theory wrong. For instance, finding a Homo sapiens with a dinosaur would be detrimental to the whole theory.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I disagree.
It is not absurd. If you think it is absurd, then you are an evolutionist.

What is absurd about it?

Ciao

- viole

Why would dinosaurs living at a different time to cows necessitate evolution?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Actually, finding a cow, rabbit, or other species that we know (or according to the theory) evolved at some stage, in a strata where it doesn't belong would "prove" the theory wrong. For instance, finding a Homo sapiens with a dinosaur would be detrimental to the whole theory.

Yes I do agree, that would be very damaging.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes I do agree, that would be very damaging.

Trying to think of any other falsifiable test or evidence... not enough coffee yet.

 

[LuisDantas]

Umm... read it again? The problem is that it's being treated as dogma

Is it? I don't think so.

and observations can just be fit into the theory. This doesn't make it necessarily false, but it's a problem if scientists view anything as dogma.

And something I missed you write earlier, you said "It is just as impossible, and as problematic, to disprove gravity."

Why do you say that? I find that hard to believe.

At some point one just accepts reality.

 

[viole]

Why would dinosaurs living at a different time to cows necessitate evolution?

I did not say that it necessitates it. Obviously, it does not. I can imagine easily a God that creates T Rexes and cows at different times.

What I said is that it would refute it. In other words, finding cows and T Rexes at the same time is sufficient to kill what we know about evolution, because that is what evolution does not expect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

’Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

The fact is that many of the so-called dogmas of evolutionary biology circa 1967 have been tested through the development of other models and observations and technologies--some have been revised, some have been eliminated, some new ones have been proposed. Hell, in 1967 there were still geologists who were arguing against the theory of plate tectonics. Since 1967, the definition of the term "species" has changed in several different areas of biology to reflect advances in understanding, especially based on biochemistry and genetics.

The theory of evolution is based upon the observation that there are patterns in nature: geological process have been happening over time, some of which result in the fossilization of biological materials. The evidence of these dated geological levels shows that the biological species that exist today did not exist in the distant past, but that other, clearly related but earlier species did exist...and did not exist before that time, and do not exist today...and those fossils that date from earlier times are clearly related to others that existed even earlier...

Part of the broader theory of evolution is the theory of dinosaurs, which once stated that they all died out many millions of years ago. The modern version of the theory of dinosaurs says that most of the lineages died out when a comet or meteor hit the earth in the Yucatan 65 million years ago, but that one kind that led to modern birds survived. What would disprove that theory? The discovery of other dinosaur lineages living well after 65 million years ago.

What would prove that humans once lived with dinosaurs, 68 million years ago? discovery of fossils of modern humans in the same strata as dinosaurs might. Would that actually nullify the theory of evolution? No; it would, however, suggest either falsified evidence, or evidence that humans are somehow different...or are capable of time travel. Why would it nullify evolution?

Because evolution is a high-level theory to explain all kinds of different observations and mid-level theories about life as it is and was on the planet long ago. What would it take to really nullify the theory of evolution? The finding of no coherent pattern to the current biological and archaeological observations about life. Yet we find patterns. Any one of those patterns might be explained in other ways (and there have been lots of low- and mid-level theories advanced over the years that don't fit with other things that we observe, test and know--and therefore are later are abandoned as theories), but the ToE provides a framework that coherently explains ALL of the observed patterns.

Does creationism or intelligent design explain those patterns? Not very well; in fact, not at all.

What would it take to nullify the Standard Model of particle physics, which is based on careful observation of patterns of behavior of matter at very small scales? What would it take to nullify the General and Special theories of relativity, which has been validated again and again? What would it take to nullify quantum mechanics, which is also based on careful observation of nature, and has been validated again and again?

Even physicists recognize that our theory of space-time, and quantum mechanics, and particle physics, etc., are not correct: they are incomplete, are at best observationally correct but clearly don't explain everything because they are inconsistent with each other. That's my physicists are trying to develop a Theory of Everything, an understanding that will explain the different observations at the quantum, particle, macroscopic and cosmic levels. Somehow, that theory of everything will bring these very disparate observations together under a single model...But of course, not all physicists believe that it is possible to have an effective theory of everything.

And, in biology, geology, etc., there may always be observations and low-level theories that don't fit with the overall high-level theory of evolution--but any observation and low-level theory should be falsifiable, and in biology, evolution, etc., most are testable and observable in the patterns of the geological record. But to overturn a high-level theory, one has to show that everything about it is wrong, that there is some other high-level explanation that does a better job explaining the observations than does the Theory of Evolution.

 

[George-ananda]

As I always say in these sort of debates, there is a Nobel Prize awaiting anyone who can disprove the ToE. I'm not holding my breath though.

They are not talking about disproving the ToE. They are saying: The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

 

[George-ananda]

Thoughts?

I am skeptical of the ToE claim that this could all have reasonably happened with no conscious intent.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I did not say that it necessitates it. Obviously, it does not. I can imagine easily a God that creates T Rexes and cows at different times.

What I said is that it would refute it. In other words, finding cows and T Rexes at the same time is sufficient to kill what we know about evolution, because that is what evolution does not expect.

Ciao

- viole

No, a single observation does not nullify a theory based on a broad range of other observations. The archaeological record is one of a number of threads of evidence for evolution. A single observation is known as an anomaly. As I point out in another post in this thread, it becomes a problem to explain...but so far, no one has found any such evidence that is incontrovertible...and I can visualize several natural mechanisms by which modern fossils could end up in proximity to ancient fossils, and be difficult to separate. The theory of evolution is based on the patterns observed in nature: no rabbits have ever been found in older fossils, and the most recent fossils of rabbits (or cows, or humans) ONLY occur in more recent deposits, whereas no dinosaurs (except birds) are found in sediments much younger than 65 million years, and no modern mammals (or even mammals from shortly after 65 million years ago) have ever been found in sediments older than 65 million years.

If all animals existed together circa 6,000 years ago, it becomes very difficult to explain this segregation in the fossil record.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Evolutionary dogma" well describes the ideas and claims made by evolutionists, IMO. Yet, the theory of evolution is taught and accepted as unquestionable truth by most, and any competing ideas, such as intelligent design, are met with hostility and scorn.

Whilst this is unfortunately a distortion, the irony is delicious.

 

[rusra02]

By Intelligent Design you of course mean the modern re-dressing of old-school Creationism. It is not a competing scientific idea. It never has been. All it has ever been is a criticism of evolution, where it itself offers no scientific explanations for anything, let alone any valid evidences. There are however many competing ideas within the sciences, but they are scientific ideas. The reason Creationism is met with ridicule is because it tries to pose as science. If anyone stepping into a science discussion brings non-scientific propositions, such as "magic" did it, they likewise will be met with laughter and derision. As well they should.

The reason Creationism is met with hostility, is because it is fake-science using popular opinion and political manipulations to try to pretend it's science and get put into science curriculum. It would be like astrology doing the same thing, trying to get people's fascination with the Zodiac Signs to get accepted as real science and be taught to children as if it were, lending the legitimizing term "science" to it. It should be met as a hostile, as it is. It's hostile to reason. It's hostile to science. It's hostile to advancing understanding. It's anti-science.

Many proponents of Intelligent design do so on the basis of the scientific evidence. A balanced view of ID, pro and con, can be obtained by simply Googling the subject. Attempting to discredit ID by comparing it to astrology simply distorts the facts, IMO.