On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:11:44 -0600, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>DM>This is a hypothesis for which no testable supporting evidence has yet
>been forthcoming, though it continues to be widely believed.<<<<
RC>The same can be said for macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, or variation,
>can be observed and replicated in lab conditions, but macro-evolution
>cannot. Many erudite opinions are offered, but no proof.
Indeed! Firstly, as co-founder of Neo-Darwinism Theodosius
Dobzhansky admitted, Neo-Darwinist macroevolution has not, and
indeed cannot, ever be observed or experimentally tested:
`These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as
it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the
experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes
is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved,
which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it
is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti- evolutionists when
they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously
accept as satisfactory.' 28 (Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of
Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology", Part 1, "Biology",
American Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 5, December 1957, p388 , in
Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
Secondly, Neo-Darwinist macroevolution cannot even be tested in any
scientifically rigorous sense:
"Our theory of evolution has become, as 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 attained
currency far beyond their validity. They 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."
(Ehrlich P.R. & Birch C.L., "Evolutionary History and Population
Biology", Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p352)
And thirdly, as Patterson points out, modern Neo-Darwinist
macroevolution is in principle unfalsifiable because even if one
mechanism (eg. natural selection), could be proved to fail, another
mechanism (eg. genetic drift) can take its place:
"Modern evolutionary theory does not say that all evolutionary
change is caused by natural selection: random effects, like genetic
drift, have played a part. Natural selection is therefore protected
from falsification by the alternative explanation, random effects."
(Patterson C., "Evolution", British Museum (Natural History):
London, 1978, p147)
"...When these two theories are combined, as a general explanation of
evolutionary change, that general theory is no longer testable. Take
natural selection: no matter how many cases fail to yield to a natural
selection analysis, the theory is not threatened, for it can always be
said that these failures of selection theory are explained by genetic
drift. And no matter how many supposed examples of genetic drift
are shown to be due, after all, to natural selection, the neutral theory
is not threatened, for it never pretended to explain all evolution."
(Patterson C., "Evolution", British Museum (Natural History):
London, 1978, p70)
So Neo-Darwinian macreoevolution is indeed, "a hypothesis for which no
testable supporting evidence has yet been forthcoming, though it
continues to be widely believed."!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------