natural selection?

[darryl]

My question is how can natural selection be falsified? There is a whole range of publications which discuss the tautological nature of natural selection. Do any of them have any merit?

 

[darryl]

There is an interesting link here which gives a history of the debate

This paper was originally published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 1982, vol. 17, pp. 79-96.

http://natureinstitute.org/txt/rb/dogma/dogmadoubt.htm

 

[Aqueous Id]

Natural Selection can be falsified by proving that it doesn't happen, i.e., that all the analysis that proves that is does happen is incorrect. You can similarly prove that the Apollo missions were faked, that the climate is not changing or that the Earth is flat. You just need evidence.

The paper you referenced is an essay. The author seems to want to falsify evolutionary theory, but instead tries to falsify the reasoning, of the scientific community at large, behind accepting theories and data, using arguments like bias and "branding". The essay is decades old, the author's background is not in biology, but something like philosophy, and he does not appear to have any peer reviewed publications in authoritative journals on evolution himself. He has a few good sources, such as Darwin. But instead of abstracting Darwin objectively, he cherry picks ideas from Darwin in what appears to me to be a blatant display of bias, the very thing he was blaming scientists for in the first place.

 

[spidergoat]

If a complex structure were to appear from one generation to the next, with no intermediate steps. Discounting, of course, the phenomenon of neoteny, or genes borrowed from other species.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

He has a few good sources, such as Darwin.

Darwin is all well and good, but the modern Theory of Evolution is considerably more sophisticated than his simple (yet genius) works. Trying to discuss evolution by citing Darwin (like so many denialists do) is akin to discussing modern automotive engineering citing the Model T Ford as an example.

 

[Rhaedas]

Fossilized rabbits in the Jurassic layers.

 

[darryl]

Definition of natural selection:

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

The geneticist Waddington commented that natural selection "states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring".

In other words the "fittest" survive whilst the "unfit" die out. The debate from critics of natural selection, is how can we define the "fittest".

An interesting article into the debate:

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, and the tautology hinges on the word fittest. When the fittest are identified by their survival then there is a tautology. We ask, who are the fittest? We are told, the survivors. We ask, who will survive? We are told, the fittest. Natural selection is then "the survival of the survivors." It is a tautology"

Edward Drinker Cope the great American palaeontologist wanted to know what the origin of the fittest was. This is still the trouble.

Robert Broom wrote that "Natural selection certainly eliminates the unfit and establishes the fit, but in my opinion it has nothing whatever to do with the creation of the fit".

So for natural selection to be falsified there needs to be some examples of where "unfit" or "less adapted" organisms are not eliminated but instead are indeed surviving and transmitting their genetic characteristics to suceeding generations? Correct?

 

[darryl]

Fossilized rabbits in the Jurassic layers.

I think this is an example of how evolution can be falsified not natural selection.

 

[darryl]

Natural Selection can be falsified by proving that it doesn't happen

Ernst Mayr wrote that when natural selection came out it was universally rejected. But when you read modern books you will see it is universally accepted today.

But when Mayr wrote that it was universally rejected, he did not mean altogether, he meant as an evolutionary mechanism. As far as I know nobody denies that natural selection does not exist.

I do not see how the concept of natural selection can be denied altogether - the best adapted organisms to their environment survive - nobody denies this, not even creationists.

 

[rpenner]

But then "Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology if you you use the correct definitions of survival and fittest to match what Darwin said in the first edition of Origin of Species.
Darwin said that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.

HOW will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, First ed. pp. 80-81 (1859)
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=95

The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits. ... Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.

Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32:339-355, (1978)

... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html

 

[Aqueous Id]

Darwin is all well and good, but the modern Theory of Evolution is considerably more sophisticated than his simple (yet genius) works. Trying to discuss evolution by citing Darwin (like so many denialists do) is akin to discussing modern automotive engineering citing the Model T Ford as an example.

In this case I'm not sure the author knows much about the science you're referring to. He's giving nothing more than opinion, and he apparently has no actual experience in the scientific method himself, so he probably wouldn't even understand the significance of what you're saying. From the standpoint of his audience - presumably creationists, but also anti-science cynics in general - anything that seems to discredit Darwin is a goldmine of evidence against science. We are left to discover why the article was even published in this journal. Was it a concession to the religious right, to show science has no reason to censor their opinions? Was it to help practicing scientists understand the kind of reasoning these people use? I wonder: in 1982, did they imagine how this would turn out, that the fundamentalists would dig in and wage this war of ideology for the next 30 years? Now the article is being used as a propaganda tool, to justify the denial of evolution among the naive and ignorant members of their congregations, who see it as an endorsement by a reputable journal, without even considering the actual reason that it was printed, and that it is nothing more than an essay, without a shred of proof.

 

[rpenner]

Ernst Mayr wrote that when natural selection came out it was universally rejected. But when you read modern books you will see it is universally accepted today.

But when Mayr wrote that it was universally rejected, he did not mean altogether, he meant as an evolutionary mechanism. As far as I know nobody denies that natural selection does not exist.

Citation required. Mayr did write something like what you said, but it was not clear that he was addressing scientific opinion as distinct from general opinion.

Social historians have time to time advanced the thesis that the theory of evolution by natural selection was inspired by the social and economic situation of England in the first half of the nineteenth century.
...
if the theory of natural selection were the logical and necessary consequence of the zeitgeist of the industrial revolution, it should have been widely and enthusiastically adopted by Darwin's contemporaries. Actually, just the opposite is true: Darwin's theory was almost univerally rejected, indicating that it did not reflect the zeitgeist.

Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance pp 491-492 (1982)

Ah.. A further read in the same book, shows that biologists and paleontologists alike were very slow to accept Darwin's mechanisms of natural selection and gradualism until the nature of heredity became clearer some 80 years later.

That evolution had occurred and that groups of related taxa are derived from a common ancestor was almost universally accepted by paleontologists soon after 1859. By contrast, Darwin's two other theories -- gradual evolution and natural selection -- were widely, indeed almost universally, rejected by paleontologists, as will be discussed in later chapters.

Ibid. p. 435.

// Edit: A useful Wikipedia page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

 

[Aqueous Id]

Ernst Mayr wrote that when natural selection came out it was universally rejected. But when you read modern books you will see it is universally accepted today.

It is accepted no differently than in any other field of science. The attempt to isolate Natural Selection is no different than the attempt to isolated the Theory of Evolution. What makes this different than rejecting the law of gravity, the axioms of geometry or any other core set of scientific knowledge? Dig into that question, and you will find all the answers you seek.

But when Mayr wrote that it was universally rejected, he did not mean altogether, he meant as an evolutionary mechanism. As far as I know nobody denies that natural selection does not exist.

Copernicus was rejected until Galileo confirmed him. Even Galileo was rejected - but why? Because religious authorities, exercising their powers of persuasion over their captive audiences, laid siege to Galileo. How is Mayr, or the people he writes about, any different from the deniers of a heliocentric planetary system?

I do not see how the concept of natural selection can be denied altogether - the best adapted organisms to their environment survive - nobody denies this, not even creationists.

But you are asking how it can be falsified. The answer doesn't involve the mechanics of proof, although spidergoat gave a good answer to that if that's all you seek. Falsifiability involves adapting a teaching when best evidence proves the teaching false. There is no such "best evidence" against Natural Selection, so the question is moot. The anti-science community like to characterize science as dogmatic, to seem to level the playing field, since that's exactly what they do, and thus to galvanize their congregations. Once science is cast as dogma, then they can simply assume that Natural Selection has been disproved and that the demagogues of science have suppressed evidence. It's another parallel attack - conspiracy theory, the exact way they operate within their congregations. All they have is a convoluted back-door attack based on lies, hypotheticals and on an assumed state of the evidence. It's utterly ludicrous that they argue like this; it's untenable, but clearly designed to fan the flames of ignorance. As long as their financial backers are kept ignorant, they stay in business.

The fact is, whenever there is new evidence to alter the teachings, science adapts to the news. The problem for anti-science folks is that all of the discoveries coming forward are confirming Natural Selection and refining our understanding of how it works. They are way beyond the law of diminishing returns. But I suspect they don't even know what that means.

 

[Rhaedas]

I think this is an example of how evolution can be falsified not natural selection.

You're correct, it is used for evolution, but given natural selection is a subset...

Anyway, natural selection isn't about the best fitted. Often times we find that nature has taken very inefficient routes to solve a problem, or had specialized so much that we end up with dead end species that are too dependent on their conditions to survive further change. Natural selection is messy and imperfect, and it's in some sense a byproduct of mutation and change of environment.

Natural selection is about reproducing to the next generation, and if some characteristics help that cause, then they increase their chance of being continued to more generations. Sometimes adaptations that are better just don't make the cut for other reasons that have nothing to do with their improvements.

 

[darryl]

We are left to discover why the article was even published in this journal. Was it a concession to the religious right, to show science has no reason to censor their opinions?

If you are talking about the article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 1982, vol. 17, pp. 79-96. I do not understand becuase this article is not anti-evolution, the article was written by a firm believer in evolution, you see the website it was printed on, well that is the nature insititue, it is an organisation which supports the evolutionary theories of Goethe, and sometimes they are opposed to the ideas of Darwin. But anyway, the article gives a history of the debate, it is not an anti-science article, it actually seems well balenced.

 

[darryl]

There is no such "best evidence" against Natural Selection, so the question is moot.

As I already posted, pretty much universally natural selection is accepted, nobody denies that it happens, it does there is no debate here. The question is, is it a evolutionary mechanism or not? Remember scientists such as Brian Goodwin have downplayed natural selection, nothing controversial here, there is still room for debate about the role of ns in evolution.

As a user typed above, Karl Popper changed his mind about natural selection, does anyone know why?

Back to the original question of this thread, how can ns be falisfied. One user posted about complex structures, is there another way?

the law of gravity, the axioms of geometry or any other core set of scientific knowledge

becuase all these things can be easily falsified, but when it comes to natural selection, it is pretty hard to come up with an arguement to falsify it.

 

[darryl]

Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance

Thank you for posting the direct quote. Interestingly natural selection was rejected for a period of over 40 years. Peter Bowler has dubbed this period the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism (I just noticed rpenner already posted this).

I think that some of these criticisms have been ignored. There was some very direct aguements against natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism from some of these authors, I will try and locate some of them and type them up.

 

[darryl]

There is no such "best evidence" against Natural Selection, so the question is moot.

I agree with most of your comments in your posts, but not on this, you seem to think natural selection is immune from criticism. Perhaps one day we will find a new evolutionary mechanism and ns will be downplayed by 80%. Science is not static. I have to admit that there is some dogma associated with natural selection, if you want to call me anti-science for saying that, well then that is up to you.

 

[rpenner]

New mechanisms don't necessarily replace the old ones.

Yes, only better (more parsimonious, more precise and/or more accurate when compared with observation) scientific theories replace older scientific theories.

Nothing in experimental or observational science contradicts the 1859 viewpoint that a lot of current and historical evolutionary change is driven by natural selection. This has been tested in the field and in the lab. What's new is that we have the molecular basis of heritable variation largely accounted for and this in turns explains the origin of heritable variation.

But now that we have this pillars shored up, evolution by natural selection is more theorem than theory. The evidence has evolved.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

 

[Aqueous Id]

I agree with most of your comments in your posts, but not on this, you seem to think natural selection is immune from criticism.

Criticism is the opposition to people or policy, not knowledge itself. Science stands on evidence. Evidence is not countered by criticism - it's countered by new evidence. Even now, we're not even discussing evidence. So what is this really about?

Natural Selection is no more susceptible to disproof than any any other tenet of science. The question is why the focus on this. The answer is obvious. Because it offends fundamentalism. As I said before, why are the fundies not challenging Newton or Galileo? You haven't connected that part of what I said with your opinion that I think science is static.

I am saying that whatever the best evidence reveals, that is where you find science, fishing it out of the muck, reconstructing the fragments, dating samples, compiling data, and correlating results. That's about as far from static as any human endeavor can possibly get.

Perhaps one day we will find a new evolutionary mechanism and ns will be downplayed by 80%.

You haven't said why you think that day will ever come, or - if you're hoping it will - why.

Science is not static. I have to admit that there is some dogma associated with natural selection, if you want to call me anti-science for saying that, well then that is up to you.

Maybe we only need to agree on definitions and we can figure out this puzzle. I'm sure you know the word "dogma" originates from the practice of fundamental and orthodox religions which propound their beliefs as infallible and therefore not subject to review. Furthermore, dogma is systematic.

You have not given any examples of the systematic refusal of review by "science" (whatever that means). On the other hand, the web points to the endless list of such reviews. You gave an example of a 1982 review of evolution by a anti-science essayist. It was not censored. By contrast, Galileo was arrested and victimized by religious authorities.

Do you think Galileo, or Bruno, or any of the other victims of witch hunts would approve of calling "science" dogmatic? Why the hyperbole?