• Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Is the Theory of Evolution, in some way, falsifiable?

    The Altruism Riddle

    Hypothesis: Life is selfish/egoistic (each organism cares about itself and only itself).

    Counterevidence: Whence altruism then?

    Response (ad hoc changes?): Altruism is, if one really thinks about it, actually selfishness/egoism?


    Queries:

    1. How do we falsify the theory of evolution? I know there are some who claim Darwin's theory is scientific and is, in accordance to the rules, falsifiable.

    2. Paradox of Identity: x (altruism) = ~x (selfishness). If you say P and I say false, no, because ~P, you respond by saying P = ~P.

    Apologies for the rather haphazard & disorganized OP. It's bloody hot where I am and I'm outside, in the friggin' sun!
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Is the Theory of Evolution, in some way, falsifiable?Agent Smith

    Yes. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to this question.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Yes. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to this question.Benkei

    :snicker: How would you falsify Darwin's theory?
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    What are the predictive claims of evolutionary theory?
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Let me help you with one: it does not predict consistent behaviour of natural life.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    What are the predictive claims of evolutionary theory?Benkei

    I dunno. Good question though!

    Let me help you with one: it does not predict consistent behaviour of natural lifeBenkei

    Explain please. I was hoping you'd talk about falsifiabe predictions! :chin:
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    I dunno. Good question though!Agent Smith

    Is it that you aren't aware of it making predictions or that you think there aren't any?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k


    Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne

    Dawkins vs Gould, Kim Sterelny
  • universeness
    6.3k


    'All swans are white,' is falsifiable, all you need to find is a non-white swan. The existence of god is not falsifiable as there is no reliable evidence either way. Evolution is falsifiable as you can predict the exact way a creature will 'change' or 'evolve' over time by studying its environment but your predictions are not necessarily going to be 100% correct. You can 'Induce' outcomes from your understanding of the processes involved and the 'state' of the inputs you are using but you don't have enough predictive power in evolution to propose the LAW of evolution. It remains the THEORY of evolution but the evidence that it is correct is very solid indeed.

    Here is a good example of 'natural selection' at work over time. I like this one because its a mix of history, folklore and evolution by natural selection. It was also used in Carl Sagan's Cosmos:

    The Battle of Dan-no-ura was preceded by an immense struggle between the imperial rulers of Japan, the Taira clan (also known as the Heike), who the Heikegani crabs are named after, and the Minamoto clan (Genji), who were fighting for control of the throne at the end of the 12th century in the Genpei War (1180–1185).[6]

    On the 24th of April, 1185 AD, two powerful Samurai clans fought to the death on the Dan-no-ura bay of Japan's Inland Sea. The ruling Taira clan (Heike) was led by their child-Emperor, Antoku, and his grandmother, Taira no Tokiko. The Heike had ruled Japan for many decades, but now, massively outnumbered, they faced defeat at the hands of the Minamoto.

    During the battle, Tokiko took the seven-year-old Emperor Antoku and leaped with him into the water in the Shimonoseki Straits, drowning the child emperor, rather than allowing him to be captured by the opposing forces, and most members and generals of the Taira clan followed them in despair. Antoku came to be worshipped as Mizu-no-kami ("god of water").

    This crucial battle was a cultural and political turning point in Japanese history: Minamoto Yoritomo became the first Shōgun, or military ruler, of Japan. Dan-no-ura marked the beginning of seven centuries during which Japan was ruled by warriors and Shōguns instead of Emperors and aristocrats.


    Heikegani were used by Carl Sagan in his popular science television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage as an example of unintentional artificial selection, an interpretation originally published by Julian Huxley in 1952. According to this hypothesis, the crabs with shells resembling samurai were thrown back to the sea by fishermen out of respect for the Heike warriors, while those not resembling samurai were eaten, giving the former a greater chance of reproducing. Therefore, the more closely the crabs resembled a samurai face, the more likely they would be spared and thrown back.

    This idea has met with some skepticism. Joel Martin for instance notes that humans do not eat heikegani, and as such there is no artificial pressure favoring face-like shell patterns, contrary to Sagan's implication. The pattern of ridges on the carapace serves a very functional purpose as sites of muscle attachment. Similar patterns are found on the carapaces of other species and genera throughout the world, including numerous fossil taxa.


    Here are images of heike crabs that the Japanese refuse to eat because their carapace has what looks like the face of a samurai warrior!

    Crab1

    Crab2

    Crab3
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    May 29, 1919 The Eddington experiment.
  • Moliere
    4.7k
    :up: -- Coyne's work is one of my favorite pop-sci's that actually goes over the reasoning.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.