• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

leroy

Well-Known Member
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

The standard scientific definition - the stepwise change from a last universal common ancestor to the tree of life we find today by the action of natural selection on random genetic variation.

explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

I'll go with the Intelligent Design people's target - irreducible complexity, or a biological structure or system that could not have arisen by such a path. Several were suggested, such as the immune system, the clotting cascade, the eye, and the flagellum, but it turned out none were irreducibly complex. They could all have arisen stepwise with steps not too large for natural genetic variation to have produced, which each intermediary conferring a selective advantage.

They also identified specified complexity, such as symbolic writing in the genetic code.

Demonstrating that man was made in God's image would also falsify at least human evolution.

why do you think that would falsify it.

These are things that a blind, naturalistic process could not generate.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd stick with "falsify" because that's a much more specific (and higher) bar to clear than "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's true beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing in biology makes much sense except in light of evolution. It's also true that for other purposes, alternative narratives are just as useful especially when it comes to how humans understand their relationship with the broader universe. While I personally incorporate hard science like evolution into my own religious narratives on a routine basis, it's not everybody's cuppa. I get that. The artful storytelling of our ancestors is really fun and tells us a lot about human culture and condition too. Studying it all is quite enriching.

But when the bar is to falsify? Nothing in biology would make sense without evolution. Like, none of it. The entire discipline would be upended. The magnitude of evidence needed to falsify that? I have difficulty imagining that as a possibility, and I have a very overactive imagination. Short of something comically ridiculous like aliens dropping by and going "oh, just kidding, we actually manipulate this artificially through some crazy science you haven't figured out yet from behind the scenes" which... I mean... I don't really feel the need to even entertain that level of nonsense. :sweat:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”
If the chirality (i.e. direction of the spiral) of DNA varied from species to species, this would falsify common descent, which is an important element of the theory of evolution.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Possible falsification of evolution as descent with modification:

1. Sudden appearance (say, with a smaller than 10 million year gap) in the fossil record of an animal with 6 legs and a mammalian skull.

2. Appearance of a bird species with modern characteristics prior to the appearance of amphibians in the fossil record.

3. Appearance of a protein with 200+ amino acids with no other proteins of significantly related sequence.

4. Common descent would falsified by discovery of a living thing with a very different genetic code. Or one using a very different selection of amino acids, or one using a different selection of nucleic bases.

5. Common descent would also be falsified by a failure of a nested hierarchy of characteristics.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution
"Evolution" is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

The "Theory of Evolution" is the framework that explains evolution, e.g., it's mechanisms, pathways, and outcomes.

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)
You can't falsify evolution because it's a directly observed fact. That's like asking "What would falsify erosion".

Evolutionary theory OTOH is potentially falsifiable by a number of means.

3 why do you think that would falsify it.
Outcomes within evolutionary theory (e.g., UCA, or specific relationships) could be falsified by....

Out of place genetic sequences, such as fish with sequences for chloroplasts.

Atavisms that are inconsistent with evolutionary relationships, such as horses with wings.

Out of place fossils, such as humans in pre-Cambrian strata.

Lack of trends in the fossil record.

Lack of fossils indicating transitions between taxa.

Life forms that share no mechanisms, structures, or genetic sequences with any other organisms.

Taxa completely lacking in objective hierarchies.

Hierarchies based on one data set that are significantly contradicted by ones based on other data.​

There's more, but that should do for now.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Possible falsification of evolution as descent with modification:

1. Sudden appearance (say, with a smaller than 10 million year gap) in the fossil record of an animal with 6 legs and a mammalian skull.

2. Appearance of a bird species with modern characteristics prior to the appearance of amphibians in the fossil record.

3. Appearance of a protein with 200+ amino acids with no other proteins of significantly related sequence.

4. Common descent would falsified by discovery of a living thing with a very different genetic code. Or one using a very different selection of amino acids, or one using a different selection of nucleic bases.

5. Common descent would also be falsified by a failure of a nested hierarchy of characteristics.

Okay, those are all really good examples and I now feel dumb today. :sweat:
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”
Pretty much any proof that shows Earth is only thousands of years old would be enough to give me pause.

There are the radio halos from the book Creation's Tiny Mystery. Has anyone explained those, yet? Someone also argued that the current rate of helium escaping from Earth's crust is too high to be consistent with an old Earth and that if Earth was billions of years old the helium should have run out by now. Is that true? Is the rate of Helium too high? Another one is that the various shark teeth all over the forest where I live have been deposited by a great flood, hence showing the story of Noah to be accurate and therefore showing that Earth must be young. Is that true? Were all of the shark teeth in my woods put here by a great flood? I have also heard that similarly the many fossils of aquatic creatures that are found on land everywhere in the US are evidence of a great flood and that there are similar implications: young earth.

So, as I point out, I am perfectly willing to question the validity of Evolution; and a young Earth would be of great interest. That would certainly create problems for evolutionary theory, since we all already know that evolution requires long periods of time and many more deaths than what thousands of years could never provide.


But if the Earth is very ancient then there is definitely no reason to question the extent to which evolution can occur. We don't know how evolution starts, but variation seems to explain all of the species on the planet. We all have DNA, so it seems obvious that we are all connected the same way that cousins are.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Pretty much any proof that shows Earth is only thousands of years old would be enough to give me pause.

There are the radio halos from the book Creation's Tiny Mystery. Has anyone explained those, yet? Someone also argued that the current rate of helium escaping from Earth's crust is too high to be consistent with an old Earth and that if Earth was billions of years old the helium should have run out by now. Is that true? Is the rate of Helium too high? Another one is that the various shark teeth all over the forest where I live have been deposited by a great flood, hence showing the story of Noah to be accurate and therefore showing that Earth must be young. Is that true? Were all of the shark teeth in my woods put here by a great flood? I have also heard that similarly the many fossils of aquatic creatures that are found on land everywhere in the US are evidence of a great flood and that there are similar implications: young earth.

So, as I point out, I am perfectly willing to question the validity of Evolution; and a young Earth would be of great interest. That would certainly create problems for evolutionary theory, since we all already know that evolution requires long periods of time and many more deaths than what thousands of years could never provide.
When wondering whether creationist arguments have been addressed before, I recommend you always start here: An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Note that it was last updated 16 years ago, so if your argument is on that page you can bet it's been done to death by now.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”
The cumulative, net directional change in the properties of populations over generations of time.

Me in the Cambrian. Either rabbit or human fossils from 500,000,000 year old strata would be incredibly out of place and time and prior to the emergence of vertebrates.

What is your definition of evolution?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
"Evolution" is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

The "Theory of Evolution" is the framework that explains evolution, e.g., it's mechanisms, pathways, and outcomes.


You can't falsify evolution because it's a directly observed fact. That's like asking "What would falsify erosion".

Evolutionary theory OTOH is potentially falsifiable by a number of means.


Outcomes within evolutionary theory (e.g., UCA, or specific relationships) could be falsified by....

Out of place genetic sequences, such as fish with sequences for chloroplasts.

Atavisms that are inconsistent with evolutionary relationships, such as horses with wings.

Out of place fossils, such as humans in pre-Cambrian strata.

Lack of trends in the fossil record.

Lack of fossils indicating transitions between taxa.

Life forms that share no mechanisms, structures, or genetic sequences with any other organisms.

Taxa completely lacking in objective hierarchies.

Hierarchies based on one data set that are significantly contradicted by ones based on other data.​

There's more, but that should do for now.
It seems to be a chronic problem among those with creationist views that they conflate the phenomena of evolution (physical evidence/observations) with the theory of evolution (explanation of that evidence/observations).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Dang! Too late to add anything that has probably not been stated already. To the OP, you have been given quite a few good examples. Do you understand them?

Wait, wait, my favorite example would be the sort of "proof" that creationists demand for evolution. They want to see something happen now. I have more than once seen them demand a change greater than a change on the genus level in one generation. That would violate the theory of evolution and thus refute it. The changes that occur need to be small enough so that when any offspring would still be in the same "species".

Now, let's turn the tables. Can you create a testable hypothesis for creationism? Can you form a model of creationism that we can test by the predictions that it makes?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”

If god showed up and said "I am the creator of everything"
But then again that would mean god created evolution
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If god showed up and said "I am the creator of everything"
But then again that would mean god created evolution
So God could not use evolution as a tool? That is not really a reasonable test since it is not likely to happen.

When a scientific model is tested it is tested with the predictions that the model makes. The theory of evolution makes no predictions about God so that is not an appropriate test. A good model provides a test that would show that it is wrong if it is wrong.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If god showed up and said "I am the creator of everything"
But then again that would mean god created evolution
Exactly. Creation included the laws of nature which science learns about. Or as the slogan puts it "God is who. Evolution is how".

“The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both,” Carl Sagan

I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly. We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it. However, a clear distinction should be made between what is not found by science and what is found to be nonexistent by science. What science finds to be nonexistent we should all accept as nonexistent, but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter. - Dalai Lama
 
Top