Some evolutionists assert that macroevolution (evolution across life forms) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They also assert that macroevolution has been proven to the same extent as other theories like Relativity and gravity. I argue otherwise on both counts.
It is true that convincing evidence for macroevolution exists, which is why I would never claim that evolutionists are dummies. (Were it not for the teachings of the gospel, I would, in all likelihood, be an evolutionist.) Even Mormon evolutionists have plenty of reasons to believe in macroevolution. By the way, just for the record I also believe that many evolutionists will go to heaven, as will many Buddhists, Muslims, and Baptists, to name a few. (Having a perfect knowledge in this life, something we all lack, is not a prerequisite for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.)
This post is about the quality of evidence for macroevolution in comparison to the quality of evidence for other well-accepted scientific theories. For example, I submit that evidence for macroevolution, notwithstanding being impressive, is not on par with the evidence for Relativity. Relativity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while macroevolution has not. To support this assertion, let’s compare two impressive studies, one in transitional fossil research and the other in time-space curvature.
It is true that convincing evidence for macroevolution exists, which is why I would never claim that evolutionists are dummies. (Were it not for the teachings of the gospel, I would, in all likelihood, be an evolutionist.) Even Mormon evolutionists have plenty of reasons to believe in macroevolution. By the way, just for the record I also believe that many evolutionists will go to heaven, as will many Buddhists, Muslims, and Baptists, to name a few. (Having a perfect knowledge in this life, something we all lack, is not a prerequisite for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.)
This post is about the quality of evidence for macroevolution in comparison to the quality of evidence for other well-accepted scientific theories. For example, I submit that evidence for macroevolution, notwithstanding being impressive, is not on par with the evidence for Relativity. Relativity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while macroevolution has not. To support this assertion, let’s compare two impressive studies, one in transitional fossil research and the other in time-space curvature.
The Amazing Discovery of Tiktaalik
Ten years ago researchers Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Jennifer Clack decided that the best place to look for an elusive transitional fossil bridging the divide between fish and tetrapods was in Nunavut in northern Canada. This region, although now in the Arctic Circle, was once thought to be near the equator and to have a warm climate.
So in 1999 they sent research teams to Ellesmere Island to look for transitional fossils in an area where an intermediate animal would most likely be found.
After 5 years of digging with little success and the realization that their exploration would soon come to an end, the researchers made a profound discovery. They found several fossils of a fish-tetrapod looking animal. The animal had characteristics similar to a fish, but with skeletal characteristics akin to a crocodile. Its skeletal structure enabled it to support itself on land and water and the presence of spiracles (small holes) on its flat head suggests that the animal had primitive lungs, in addition to gills.
The researchers hypothesis was confirmed. It is an amazing discovery.
Eddington’s 1919 Journey
When Einstein introduced his theories of Special Relativity and Relativity in the early 1900s his ideas created a stir. Back then Newton was still revered as the undisputed champion of science and the thought of anyone challenging Newton’s ideas was considered heretical. However Einstein boldly challenged Newton’s ideas. He argued that space and time are not constant as Newton had supposed; rather space and time differed based on one’s state (hence the name “relativity”). Yet at the time there was very little empirical evidence to support Einstein’s ideas.
Searching for ways to test Einstein’s theory, scientists decided to study the light from stars next to a fully eclipsed sun. If Einstein was right then the sun’s gravity well would cause the light from ‘nearby’ stars to bend and thus appear shifted in the dark sky. And so in 1919 a British research team headed by Sir Arthur Eddington went on a distant journey to view a solar eclipse on Principe Island near the coast of Guinea in West Africa.
It was cloudy during the days leading up to the eclipse and a heavy thunderstorm rolled through the team's location on the morning of the much anticipated event (May 29th). The research expedition was in jeopardy of failing, nevertheless, Eddington and his team set up their instruments and hoped for a miracle. Minutes before the eclipse when the sky was still overcast, anxieties grew as the moon moved in front of the sun and the sky darkened. Then suddenly, before the eclipse reached totality, as if by supernatural fiat, the clouds parted revealing the corona of the sun and surrounding stars. The team quickly snapped their photos.
The photos revealed that light from ‘nearby’ stars (in the Hyades star cluster) had indeed shifted, as Einstein predicted. The sun’s gravitational pull shifted the position of the stars an average distance of 1.6 arcseconds. It was an amazing discovery.
The Crucial Experiment: The Crux of the Matter
Tiktaalik’s discovery provides reasonable evidence for accepting macroevolution, and Eddington’s eclipse study provides reasonable evidence for accepting Relativity, but the quality of evidence from these two studies are not on par. The essential difference is that one was a crucial experiment and the other was not.
A crucial experiment is one where a do or die scenario is set up that allows us to tentatively decide on the truth or falsity of a theory. Relativity was subjected to a do or die test, and it survived. The bending of starlight around the eclipsed sun allowed us to ascertain with a great deal of certainty that Einstein was right. If the light had not bent, we would have good reason to conclude that Einstein was wrong and we might still be going with Newton’s theory.
Tiktaalik, although an important and impressive discovery, was not a crucial test of macroevolution. By this I mean that Tiktaalik did not create a situation where the theory of macroevolution was subjected to a do or die scenario. If the Ellesmere research team had never discovered Tiktaalik then the theory of macroevolution would not have been any worse off. Explanations might have included, “Well, we’re not looking in the right place,” or “We just have to keep looking.”
The quality of scientific evidence hinges, among other things, on the possibility of finding something false. Scientific theories that have been repeatedly subjected to crucial tests and survived have earned the status of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Those that have not been subjected to crucial tests have not earned the status of proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I look forward to the day when macroevolution will be subjected to crucial tests. Until then, we must be content with the currently available evidence, which is fairly impressive to say the least.
Ten years ago researchers Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Jennifer Clack decided that the best place to look for an elusive transitional fossil bridging the divide between fish and tetrapods was in Nunavut in northern Canada. This region, although now in the Arctic Circle, was once thought to be near the equator and to have a warm climate.
So in 1999 they sent research teams to Ellesmere Island to look for transitional fossils in an area where an intermediate animal would most likely be found.
After 5 years of digging with little success and the realization that their exploration would soon come to an end, the researchers made a profound discovery. They found several fossils of a fish-tetrapod looking animal. The animal had characteristics similar to a fish, but with skeletal characteristics akin to a crocodile. Its skeletal structure enabled it to support itself on land and water and the presence of spiracles (small holes) on its flat head suggests that the animal had primitive lungs, in addition to gills.
The researchers hypothesis was confirmed. It is an amazing discovery.
Eddington’s 1919 Journey
When Einstein introduced his theories of Special Relativity and Relativity in the early 1900s his ideas created a stir. Back then Newton was still revered as the undisputed champion of science and the thought of anyone challenging Newton’s ideas was considered heretical. However Einstein boldly challenged Newton’s ideas. He argued that space and time are not constant as Newton had supposed; rather space and time differed based on one’s state (hence the name “relativity”). Yet at the time there was very little empirical evidence to support Einstein’s ideas.
Searching for ways to test Einstein’s theory, scientists decided to study the light from stars next to a fully eclipsed sun. If Einstein was right then the sun’s gravity well would cause the light from ‘nearby’ stars to bend and thus appear shifted in the dark sky. And so in 1919 a British research team headed by Sir Arthur Eddington went on a distant journey to view a solar eclipse on Principe Island near the coast of Guinea in West Africa.
It was cloudy during the days leading up to the eclipse and a heavy thunderstorm rolled through the team's location on the morning of the much anticipated event (May 29th). The research expedition was in jeopardy of failing, nevertheless, Eddington and his team set up their instruments and hoped for a miracle. Minutes before the eclipse when the sky was still overcast, anxieties grew as the moon moved in front of the sun and the sky darkened. Then suddenly, before the eclipse reached totality, as if by supernatural fiat, the clouds parted revealing the corona of the sun and surrounding stars. The team quickly snapped their photos.
The photos revealed that light from ‘nearby’ stars (in the Hyades star cluster) had indeed shifted, as Einstein predicted. The sun’s gravitational pull shifted the position of the stars an average distance of 1.6 arcseconds. It was an amazing discovery.
The Crucial Experiment: The Crux of the Matter
Tiktaalik’s discovery provides reasonable evidence for accepting macroevolution, and Eddington’s eclipse study provides reasonable evidence for accepting Relativity, but the quality of evidence from these two studies are not on par. The essential difference is that one was a crucial experiment and the other was not.
A crucial experiment is one where a do or die scenario is set up that allows us to tentatively decide on the truth or falsity of a theory. Relativity was subjected to a do or die test, and it survived. The bending of starlight around the eclipsed sun allowed us to ascertain with a great deal of certainty that Einstein was right. If the light had not bent, we would have good reason to conclude that Einstein was wrong and we might still be going with Newton’s theory.
Tiktaalik, although an important and impressive discovery, was not a crucial test of macroevolution. By this I mean that Tiktaalik did not create a situation where the theory of macroevolution was subjected to a do or die scenario. If the Ellesmere research team had never discovered Tiktaalik then the theory of macroevolution would not have been any worse off. Explanations might have included, “Well, we’re not looking in the right place,” or “We just have to keep looking.”
The quality of scientific evidence hinges, among other things, on the possibility of finding something false. Scientific theories that have been repeatedly subjected to crucial tests and survived have earned the status of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Those that have not been subjected to crucial tests have not earned the status of proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I look forward to the day when macroevolution will be subjected to crucial tests. Until then, we must be content with the currently available evidence, which is fairly impressive to say the least.
Continue reading at the original source →