Actually, it might be. Walter comments that evolution and his
message theory are mutually exclusive; they can't both be right
(although both could be wrong - and see below). So, to falsify
message theory, all we have to do is prove evolution. Similarly,
to falsify evolution, all Walter need do is prove message theory.
I too, had questions about what would falsify message theory before
I read Walter's book. He said it was testable and had parts that
were out there waiting to be falsified. But besides the possibility
of finding extraterrestial life, I had a difficult time locating any
other means of falsification described in the book, except to "prove"
evolution. This criteria was rather narrowly defined so that while
Walter's theory might be hypothetically falsifiable, it is possible
that "nature" won't cooperate to make it possible. To avoid the risk
of improperly paraphrasing concepts such as these, I've pulled out
some excerpts from his book _The Biotic Message: Evolution vs. the
Message Theory_, St. Paul Press,St. Paul, MN 1993 by Walter James ReMine).
Hopefully, this will give you an idea about what criteria must be
met. For example, Walter writes [all spelling errors mine]:
-There is another method that might establish evolution as fact. This
method requires that the data have a special type of pattern, a pattern
not attributable to anything but evolution, a pattern due to descent with
modification: a pattern of lineage and phylogeny.
From an observer's point of view, a lineage is a recognizable line of
ancestry with identifiable ancestors and descendants. A phylogeny is
merely discrete segments of lineage connected into an identifiable
tree-structure of ancestry.
We attempt to identify lineages within morphology space. This requires
a strategically located void, or absence of data points. To have a
lineage, the data must not occur in certain places, but must form a trail
narrow and long. Data must be absent from the regions at right angles to
the trail. If the data cooperates, then this method is sufficiently
powerful to bridge large gaps in the record. The size of the gaps is
unimportant, instead pattern is important. If a phylogeny were
sufficiently clear-cut, then it could span large gaps in the record
and establish evolution as fact.
Yet life was designed as a biotic message. Life was designed to resist
all naturalistic interpretations. Therefore the biomessage sender had to
defeat the appearance of lineage. This was done with diversity.
Diversity is the antithesis of lineage. Diversity destroys the semblance
of lineage. Diversity places data points into those "void" regions. In
my wording: Diversity thwarts phylogeny. [p 259]
In other words, only a series of fossils (& not even a series of fossil
families) that were amazingly free from side branches or parallel
developments and could be placed in a temporal order would be suitable
for meeting Walter's criteria. Thus, even if there are might be good
candidates, if one can't pull out a single, direct lineage, it's not good.
That is partially why Walter can take the following quote as not being
a problem for message theory:
-"The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so
abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition
that _it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual
ancestors of modern mammals_ " (Futuyma, 1983 p 85 Walter's emphasis)
[p 319]
The problem here? It's too broad to identify a specific lineage.
Thus, even gradual transitions might be insufficient if the tree of
life is too "bushy". I do not quite understand why it would be
assumed that evolution follows a strictly linear and narrow sequence
over a long period of time.
Another way to falsify message theory would be to provide an example
that spans life on a sufficiently large scale. Actually, multiple
examples could be required. He writes:
-Though a few alleged lineages might be artifacts of our incomplete fossil
record, that argument cannot be a major shelter for message theory.
Message theory would be refuted if the record contained clear-cut
phylogeny of sufficient strength to span life on a large scale. Message
theory is testable science.
*
In summary, there are two separate ways to potentially refute message
theory and establish evolution as fact: gradual intergradations (ie., a
correspondence between life's morphological gaps and experimental
demonstration) and phylogeny. If these exist with sufficient strength
to span the pattern of life, then message theory would be wrong and
evolution would be right. [pp 260-261]
Another way, of course, would be experimental demonstration (suggested
above) that life can span significant gaps. I think this might be
difficult for practical (if not theoretical) reasons. Specifically,
Walter writes:
-Morphological gaps and experimental demonstrations cannot be assessed
separately: They must be compared. When experimental demonstrations can
span the gaps, then common descent of the spanned organisms is reasonably
assured. This method is strong enough to unite any collection or
organisms, without requiring further pattern. In principle, this method
could prove evolution.
Nonetheless, the gaps in life are much larger than experimental
demonstrations.[...] [p 264]
So, given the above criteria, this might explain why one would find
it difficult to falsify the message hypothesis in a manner that
is independent of whether evolution is true.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)