It has often been asserted that scientific evidence actually disproves evolution, but it is also fairly common to hear that anything contradicting evolution is not real science. Do scientific facts line up with Evolution, or Creation?
Discussion
One important discussion which is closely related to the ce-debate is the ongoing debate between atheism and theism (or, often, Christianity). Please feel free to share your favorite arguments for atheism and/or theism (and why you favor them)!
It all depends what we meant by "scientific evidence."
Using the rules of mainstream science, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. http://peacefulscience.org/evidence-and-evolution However, mainstream science does not take into account God's action. It is possible that God made us in a way that just appears to us as evolution. As the YEC Todd Woods writes:
For example, As graduate student in 2005, the Chimpanzee genome was published, just five years after the human genome was sequenced in 2000. There were ten times more differences between human and chimps than between mice and rats. This turns out to be exactly predicted by neutral theory and confirmed with experiment. God could have placed undeniable evidence against evolution in our genomes. He did not. Why not? At the very least, disproving evolution was not among God's design goals. So at the very least, he did not care about disproving evolution as much as most creationists seem to care.
Evolution has also become a fundamentally important scientific finding to understanding biology in present day. https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/cancer-and-evolution
If one wants to believe that evolution is still false, the most coherent way forward is to explain why God made us in a way that is so easily mistaken for evolution. Why did he not leave clear and obvious evidence it was false? I've heard some reasonable answers from theologians. http://peacefulscience.org/category/projects/100-year-old-tree/ I think that leads to some plausible positions that make sense of Scripture and the evidence for evolution without accepting evolution.
On the other hand, If by definition no evidence for evolution is valid, then there certainly is no evidence for evolution. As AIG puts it,
Of course, if we use the rules of mainstream science, then the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong. In mainstream science we do not read in our preset answers into science. We see where the evidence leads us on its own.
An assertion I have heard is that Evolution (macroevolution) is not really science because it is not falsifiable among other things...In many Creationist circles, it is stated that Evolution and Creationism are simply different belief systems that scientific evidence can support equally. Please not that in this one area I am using the term "Evolution" as the creationist umbrella term (you can check that out in the glossary under the letter "E").
At any rate, I would be interested in hearing what you think about the idea that evolution is not falsifiable...
Sorry for the delay.
First off, I am not using evolution the way you are. Evolutionism is a worldview that is not compatible with our faith. I think J.E.S changed the glossary too, though the defs need some work still =). It treats evolution as an alternative to creation. If you want to debate about evolutionism here, you will have to find some non-Christians to bring to the site. I will not defend that position; it is one with which I disagree strongly.
I affirm, instead, evolutionary science, which is the dominant paradigm for understanding the history of life on earth. It does not refer to the big bang or the first cell, but rather that scientific theory that we all descend from common ancestors. That theory is "evolution" as I understand it. It is best understood as "common descent".
Now is evolution as we define it in science (common descent) falsifiable? Absolutely. We are often testing hypothesis of how organisms descend from prior ancestors, and are often falsifying different proposals. In human evolution, there has been a large number of theories falsified over the years too. However, the larger claim that we descend from common ancestors with the great apes has not been falsified because there is so much evidence for it. None of this evidence demonstrates otherwise. Do not mistake "not falsified" with "unfalsifiable." The common descent of man is clearly falsifiable, but also clearly unfalsified at this time.
The common descent of man is a notion that is far more often asserted than proven. Homology certainly does not provide convincing evidence that all living things share a common ancestor. From an evolutionary perspective, it would make sense that similar structures would develop similarly in the womb. However, many similar structures develop from different groups of embryonic cells. For example, the forelimbs of the newt, lizard, and human develop from different trunk segments. And the kidneys of fish and amphibia develop differently than the kidneys of reptiles and humans.
Also, the similarity in the chemical make-up and function of cells in all living things is actually an argument against common descent. Extensive biochemical research has revealed that the simplest reason for biochemical homology is that all life requires similar inorganic elements, compounds and biomolecules; consequently, all life is required to use similar metabolic pathways to process these compounds. Most organisms that use oxygen and rely on the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats and proteins must use a citric acid cycle which is remarkably similar in all organisms. Furthermore, the metabolism of most proteins into energy produces ammonia, which is processed for removal in similar ways in a WIDE variety of organisms. Those who propose a "common ancestor" theory must explain why billions of years of evolution have not produced major differences in the biochemistry of life. The biochemistry of all life, even that allegedly separated by hundreds of millions of years of geologic time and evolution, is far too similar.
Geneticists have also determined that characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous and homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes. Also, in the early 1900s, evolutionists believed there were about 180 organs in the human body that had no function. They claimed these organs were evolutionary leftovers—evidence that we shared a common ancestor with all living things. According to evolutionists, organs that played a role in more primitive life forms were not necessary in humans. However, this idea is now known to be false. Each alleged “vestigial” organ is known to have an important function, e.g., the appendix plays a vital role in the immune system, while the tailbone provides support for the muscles in the floor of the pelvis.
Having said that, the fact that species change is, of course, observable in nature and in the laboratory. We also read in Genesis 1 that the various plants and animals are created and reproduce “after their kind.” God created certain "kinds" (plural). He did not create a "kind" (singular) from which various kinds evolved over time from a common, hypothetical ancestor.
Deuteronomy 14 lists some of these biblical kinds and gives us some guidance in our understanding of the various kinds. Since various species can interbreed, we can conclude that those species are from the same created kind. The division is probably somewhere around the family level in our current classification systems. So, within the created kinds, we see changes in characteristics over time—or “descent with modification.” That is a commonality in the biblical and evolutionary understanding of life on earth. The disagreement comes in the amount and direction of that change.
SMS thanks for you comments.
I was the case for me when I was a YEC, you probably have not been exposed to the evidence yet. It is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we share common ancestry with the great apes. You do not have to agree with it, but it is better to understand what you reject than just rejecting a strawman right?
You've raise a great individual points, and I want to invite you to post one or two of them on forums designed for more detailed conversation. There is my recently launched forum, which JES is part of too, discourse.peacefulscience.org, and also the BioLogos forum, https://discourse.biologos.org.
See you there!
I think that a common problem for proponents of Evolution and Creation alike is the "Where do I start problem." I wish to compliment SMS for his comment as well, as it gives much specific evidence. I would encourage fellow forum members to not be afraid to post only some evidence concerning their views (as this discussion is going to focus on accumulating evidence for each position.) A good place to start may be listing your top 5 evidences for the truth of Creation or Evolution.
The most basic falsifiable test for evolution is phylogenetics. As a previous commenter noted, homology by itself is not evidence for evolution. Instead, it is the PATTERN of homology that is evidence for evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy. Talk.origins has a great run down of what phylogenetics is, how it works, how it is scientific, and how it is falsifiable:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
Start there and keep reading the following sections.
What it boils down to is that the only pattern of homology that evolution can produce is a nested hierarchy. You inherit characteristics from your ancestors and then add to them or modify them. However, you don't inherit characteristics from your evolutionary cousins because they aren't your ancestors. This means that characteristics stay on one branch of the tree of life, if evolution is true. Some good examples are feathers and middle ears. Feathers evolved in the bird branch of the tree of life and there is no way for that characteristics to make its way into the mammal branch because no mammal had a feathered bird as its ancestor. In the mammal branch we find that their middle ear has three bones, two of which evolved from jaw bones during their evolution from their reptile ancestors. No bird should have three middle ear bones because no bird had a mammal ancestor.
Therefore, if evolution is true we shouldn't find a species, living or dead, that had three middle ear bones and feathers. If you did find such a species, then you have a potential falsification for the theory of evolution.
Does creationism have anything similar to this test? No. Creationism can't explain why we see this nested hierarchial pattern. If species were created separately then there is no reason why a creator could not mix and match different characteristics, such as creating a species with three middle ear bones and feathers. This is why the nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not evidence for creationism.
This evidence also extends to DNA. When you compare genomes of different species those genome sequences produce the same nested hierarchies as those based on morphology. One might think that if two species look the same then they would have to have the same DNA, but this simply isn't true. Only a tiny portion of the genome affects how a species looks, and DNA which has nothing to do with how a species looks produces the same nested hierarchy as those based on physical characteristics. These are two independent pieces of evidence that agree with one another which is "smoking gun" evidence for evolution (and open to falsification too boot).
Even in the late 1800's when fossil evidence was scant, the observed nested hierarchy of living and fossil species i is what convinced the scientists of the time that the theory of evolution was accurate (along with other evidence like biogeography). It is the first evidence, the best evidence, and still can't be explained by creationism.
Welcome, T_aquaticus!
You have mentioned some interesting ways that Evolution can be falsified with nested hierarchy, among other things. Out of curiosity, do you have any potential falsifications pertaining to the fossil record?
The same falsification applies to fossils. If you found numerous fossil species with a mixture of mammal and bird features then they would falsify the theory of evolution. When we do find fossils with a mixture of features from two different groups of species they always fit into the already established tree of life, such as known fossils that have a mixture of mammal and reptile features, bird and dinosaur features, fish and tetrapod features, and human and ape features. ALL of the fossils we have fit the predictions made by the theory of evolution even though there are so many possible combinations of homologous features that could falsify the theory, and there is no reason why this should be if creationism is true.
Additionally, if you found mammal fossils in the earliest sediments, such as the Cambrian, then it would falsify the theory. The theory makes predictions about the emergence of species groups in the fossil record, and those predictions are easily falsifiable.
Perhaps we should continue the discussion that has started in "Is Evolution Truly A Threat To Christianity" here...
Where is "here"?
Continuing the theme of nested hierarchies . . .
Some may wonder why I say creationism can't explain a nested hierarchy. A great example would be organisms that are actually intelligently designed which would be organisms that humans have genetically modified.
One great example is the Glofish, a commercially available fluorescent GMO pet fish. The earliest versions of these GMO fish carried an exact copy of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) from jellyfish. Let me stress this again, it is an EXACT copy of the jellyfish gene and it is found in a very, very different type of organism, a vertebrate fish. Humans took an exact copy of a jellyfish gene and moved it to a very distant cousin of the jellyfish. Finding a mish mash of genes that match all types of different life is what we would expect from species that did not evolve and were the product of creationism/ID/separate creation events. We would absolutely not expect to see a nested hierarchy as shown by the jellyfish gene in these GMO vertebrate fish that clearly violate a nested hierarchy.
Inanimate designed objects also don't fall into a nested hierarchy. For example, cars can have any combination of features from motors to radios to wheels to radios. Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy because there is absolutely no reason for the designers of cars to put them into a nested hierarchy. There is no reason why they couldn't use a specific radio with a specific type of tire. GM could put the same engine in a sedan and a pickup while putting two different engines in the same sedan model. A Ford and Chevy sedan could have the the same tires while two different Fords of the same model could have different tires.
This is why creationism can't explain one of the most basic and ubiquitous features of eukaryote biology: the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy simply shouldn't be there if species do not share a common ancestor and did not evolve from those common ancestors. A common designer would not be limited to a nested hierarchy and would be free to mix and match any number of different parts, but that's not what we see. Instead, out of all the billions of possible patterns of shared features we only see the one pattern out of those billions that evolution could produce, a nested hierarchy.
Continuing on with the nested hierarchy theme:
One of the predictions made by the theory of evolution about the nested hierarchy is the match between the independent trees of DNA and physical characteristics. There are genes that have nothing to do with the way a species looks, yet the nested hierarchy for these genes matches the tree based on how the species' physical characteristics (i.e. morphology).
One example of such a gene is cytochrome C (cytC hereafter). This gene sits in the mitochondrial membrane and shuffles protons back and forth. It isn't involved in building legs, brains, kidneys, or anything else. There is no reason any designer would be forced to use a specific DNA sequence for cytC because there trillions and trillions of possible DNA sequences that produce cytC. Moreover, there is no reason that a designer would be forced to fit cytC into a nested hierarchy based on what species look like.
However, if evolution is true then cytC should fall into a nested hierarchy. Let's focus on just three species for the moment, and the tree they fit into:
The mouse and human are more closely related and they share a common ancestor at node 2. The chicken and human share a more distant common ancestor at node 1. Interestingly, the mouse and chicken share the same common ancestor at node 1. Therefore, the mouse and human are equally distant from the chicken because they share the same common ancestor, at least according to evolutionary predictions.
This evolutionary equidistance should be reflected in the genetics of these three species. This is where cytC comes in. If we compare the DNA sequence for the cytC gene in these three species we get the following similarities
Human v. mouse = 90.5% similar
Human v. chicken = 81.6% similar
You will notice that I left one out. What does creationism predict will be the % similarity between the mouse and chicken gene, and why? Does creationism even make such a prediction? Not that I know of. I don't even see why any of the cytC genes would need to be different between these three species, much less what the percentage differences should be.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, does make a prediction. It says that the evolutionary distance between humans and chickens is the same as the evolutionary distance between mice and chickens since those branches all meet at the same common ancestor. Therefore, the difference between the mouse and chicken gene should be about the same as the difference between the human and chicken gene. Is it?
Mouse v. chicken = 81.9% similar
It is. You can check out the numbers yourself here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055
If that link doesn't work, do a google search for Homologene, and then search for "cytochrome c human", choose the somatic gene, and then find the option for pairwise alignment.
The theory of evolution makes these types of super accurate predictions throughout biology, and creationism has no explanation for them. When I hear people claim that creationism can explain the same data I just don't know what to say because it is flatly false. I don't doubt the sincerity of people when they say that, but it only shows how unaware they are of the basic facts in biology.
T_aquaticus, I agree largely with you, but think a couple things should be tempered.
1. It is critical to accurately represent the data and what evolution predicts. It is not completely in nested clades. There is also, for example, noise caused by change in species which breaks the nested clade pattern. What we see in the data that fits in nested class (especially at a DNA level) but with exceptions caused by things like horizontal transfer. The pattern is nested clades but there are exceptions.
2. Nested clades do not disprove design, but the explain the data in a way that design does not. In science (as you know), we look for explanatory theories. Design does not tell us why we see the patterns we do, but common descent does tell us. However, this is not evidence against design. I, for example, would affirm that God designed us through common descent.
3. If one does not like common descent, what is need is a design principle that could equally (or better) explain the data. Such a principle has not been offered. The closest offered (other than common descent) is descent with divine modification (as we have discussed before).
4. Alternatively, ReMine suggested that we should see perfect clades in nature (but we do not), as this was how God would disprove evolution (see #1). However, he ended up being wrong, because exceptions to the rule of nested clades. This is expected in evolution, but not in his design principle.
So the actually story is closely related to your point, but it is important not to falsely present the data as anti-design or cleaner than it really is. Right now, however, common descent is the best explanation of the data. That is why Science affirms it, as it should.
A big thank you to Swamidass for those very constructive criticisms. Part of the difficulty in communicating science to the general public is remembering that they aren't scientists. Things scientists take for granted are not taken for granted in the lay public. For example, when scientists talk about data supporting conclusions the statistics behind that conclusion are tacitly implied. In any experiment there is going to be a ratio of signal to noise, and no data set perfectly matches the hypothesis, especially in biology where things are a bit "messy" and can produce noise in our analyses. What we look for is statistical significance (specifically, a phylogenetic signal), and that is definitely something I should have stressed in my previous posts, so a big thanks to Swamidass for pointing that out. His points about homoplasies, incomplete lineage sorting, and other evolutionary processes that produce imperfect clades are important to keep in mind.
However, when I use the word "design" I mean separately created species that don't share common ancestry. Conveying what you mean by a specific term is yet another hurdle in discussions like these. When creationists talk about common design they are not talking about characteristics or DNA inherited from a common ancestor which is why I put design and evolution on the polar ends of the spectrum. I am not saying that Swadimass' definition of design is wrong, only that it is a different definition from the one I am using.
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/testing-common-ancestry-it-s-all-about-the-mutations/37367
To the YECs on this board, this is an excellent example of evidence for Common Descent, carefully stated by a leading scientist. Just published.
A big thank you to Swamidass for definitively explaining why nested hierarchies-while simultaneously being evidence for evolution-are not evidence against design!
The bigger question is what evidence would disprove design? If mountains of evidence for common ancestry and evolution through random mutation and natural selection are not evidence against design, then what would be? Is design an unfalsifiable position?
This gets to one of the fundamental reasons why inquiry into God's action is not considered in science. There is no way to falsify divine design, without have some sort of constraints from theology. But science is about Nature, not God. So we just set that aside and focus on nature. Science is blind to God; He lies beyond the streetlight.
I think the question is really meant to be posed differently. Stepping outside science for a moment, is there any evidence for design? Is there any evidence for God? I think the answer is certainly "yes."
Swamidass,
Perhaps I should have been more specific. What would falsify the claim that species were created separately as described by Young/Old Earth Creationism?
As to the larger theological question, once we step outside of science what method do we use to test ideas and beliefs, and how do we differentiate between what can be used as evidence and what can not?