Why Neo-Darwinism is a Pseudoscience?

The mechanism of speciation, or generation of a new species, is an essential but unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Although many prominent evolutionists claimed to have unraveled the puzzle, the mechanism of speciation remains unknown.

What is Neo-Darwinism?

The mainstream theory for the mechanism of evolution or speciation is modern synthesis, which was developed in the 1940s. Modern synthesis is interchangeable with Neo-Darwinism. The modern synthesis accepts multiple mechanisms accountable for evolution/speciation that include random mutation and natural selection (RMNS), geographical isolation (GI), genetic drift, polyploidy, and parthenogenesis. RMNS, GI and genetic drift are long-term processes, whereas polyploidy and parthenogenesis are one generation processes, in which new species is generated instantaneously.

Tenets of the modern synthesis

According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, for example by geographical barriers. Neo-Darwinists consider only NS and GI as important, other instantaneous mechanisms play minor roles (Mayr, Ernst, 1998).

The tenets is inconsistent with reality

Embarrassingly, no one can tell which organisms evolved by RMNS or GI. Thus far, only instantaneous speciation is without controversy among biologists. In this process, speciation does not require natural selection, GI or drifting prior to its startup. It is estimated that the majority of flowers and ferns were generated by polyploidy or instantaneous speciation, and it occurs in many other plants, land animals, and fish as well.

A female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium in Michigan surprised zookeepers by giving birth to two babies. It was a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, as the mother had not been in contact with a male shark for six years. The resulting sharks are a different species than their direct sexual ancestors because they are asexual. Parthenogenesis, which occurs in approximately 70 species, including snakes and lizards, is a process in which eggs become embryos without male fertilization. The majority of these species might have descended from sexually reproducing ancestors (Simon J. et al. 2002).

Although instantaneous speciation is not observable, biologists universally accept it. The time length implicated in RMNS or GI would be several hundred thousand or many million years or longer, too long to be validated, if they ever occur.

Popperian criterion of pseudoscience

The issue of finding a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience is always controversial. Karl Popper, an Austrian-born British philosopher of natural and social science, is a pivotal person in understanding the differences between science and pseudoscience. Popper believes that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its invalidity, i.e. person who establishes a theory should specify what events invalidate the theory. If a theory cannot specify a scenario where the theory will fail or it will justify any outcome, the theory is not a scientific one, but a pseudoscience. Sound scientific theories have many examples where it can occur theoretically if specific conditions are met, which would falsify theories. However, these scenarios do not happen in reality.

Testing the relationship among resistance, voltage, and current invalidate Ohm’s law. If the current is 10 and the resistant 10, then the voltage should 100. Although the voltage could be 105 or 110, it does not occur in reality.

Three major features make the case for falsification: 1) practical and doable can be done with reasonable efforts. 2) Objective measurements are obtained; thus, no matter who runs the machine same values are obtained. 3) Relevance in that one does not use current, resistance and voltage to invalidate Newton’s law, as they are not relevant.

Darwin failed to provide the case for disproval

Darwin cited several sorts of observations (Patterson, C. 1999a), which would, in his view, disprove his theory.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

This is a logical error. Mechanisms of how any complex organ formed are debatable and whether numerous successive steps are required for formation of any organ is still a question. Speciation by RMNS is not a given. The person who postulates the theory must provide evidence of its validity. In this case, Neo-Darwinians should show how numerous successive steps, in what animals, and by which genetic mechanism, form complex organs. An idea cannot be proved wrong if it never existed. If the logic stands, anyone can claim all kinds of absurd “theories” correct. If it could be demonstrated that I am not going to Heaven after death, my theory that I will go Heaven will break down. Since no one can demonstrate that, my theory is correct, and I will go the Heaven after death. If it could be demonstrated that core of the Sun is not made of diamonds, my theory that core of Sun is made of diamond will break down. Since no one can demonstrate that, my theory is correct.

"Certain naturalists believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This Doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory."

Beauty in the eyes of humans is a subjective feeling as no universal criteria for beauty exists. Additionally, the creation of any structure to appeal to humans or for mere variety is not relevant to the theory of new species arrive by the natural selection.

"If it could he proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory."

Exclusive good of another species are not objectively measurable. Every individual within a species is different, even if criteria to measure the goodness of species can be subjectively established; the results would be diverse and heterogeneous. Members in a species will be 81% goodness, or 35% or 20%, individuals with 100% or exclusive goodness of another species are not survivable.

Neo-Darwinists make the mechanisms of RMNS and GI a pseudoscience

Ernst Mayr, considered as the 20th century Darwin, was also a founder of Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis, wrote:

"Evolution is an opportunistic process . . .Pluralism is characteristic of all aspects of the evolutionary process. Reproductive isolation is effected in most higher animals by prezygotic isolating mechanisms (e.g., behavior), and in others by chromosomal incompatibilities, sterility, or other postzygotic factors. Speciation usually occurs for geographic reasons in terrestrial vertebrates, but it is sympatric in certain groups of fishes and perhaps in plant-host-specific groups of insect (Mayr, E. 2001)."

Many opportunistic processes are present in the world. At one time, persons who received blood transfusions were more likely to acquire HIV infection than those who did not. However, every species and every member within a species is the outcome of natural selection and are adaptated to their environments. Under natural selection or geographical isolation, who then will evolve into different species? Do persons in South Africa have more opportunities to evolve into a new species than those who live at the North Pole?

Scientists might provide many mechanisms for one particular outcome. Hepatitis B virus infection may lead to hepatitis (outcome), whereas Hepatitis C and D viruses also lead to hepatitis. These claims can be supported and refuted. There are evidences to support the claim, and ways to falsify it. One way to disprove it is to test bloods from the most suspected patients to see if there is existence of antibodies or antigens of Hepatitis C or D viruses, if not, the claim is falsified or disproved.

Assuming that one group of scientists postulates the theory that flu virus also causes hepatitis (in fact, it does not) To test the theory correct, all patients with hepatitis should be tested and if none of them has flu antigen or antibody, then the theory is incorrect. Even if none of the confirmed cases shows it support the flu virus theory, you can not disprove it; nobody can test ones with the virus infection died 5000 years ago, or ones not borne yet. The flu virus theory is a pseudoscience.

One popular misconception about Neo-Darwinism is that speciation by RMNS or GI would take millions of years, which makes the mechanism difficult to prove or disprove. In fact, this is not the reason. We can image a scenario in which a group of biologists is given unlimited money ($ 10 billion a year), and unlimited time (1 billion years) to invalidate the theory. The biologists select 1000 species to disprove the theory. Four outcomes are possible for each species: 1) the species does not evolve, and remains unchanged after 1 billion years, 2) the species becomes extinct before evolution, 3) the species evolves into another species via RMNS or GI, or, 4) the species evolve into another species under a mechanism unrelated to Neo-Darwinism or instantaneous process.

Apparently, the cases 1 and 2 do not provide support or disproof. The case 3 is a confirmation, not disproval. The last case supports instantaneous speciation that could falsify the RMNS or GI theories, but it would not occur with current Neo-Darwinian strategies. Even if all 1000 species in the study evolved by polyploidy into other species in the billion years, one could say that that the majority of species evolved by RMNS or GI. No one would know which animal evolved by which mechanism, no one could state that any of those 1000 animals had to evolve by RMNS or GI, and the denominator or, how many species has been formed, would be unknown.

Some evolutionary biologists would say that scientific evidences support the theories. History shows that wrong scientific theories or pseudoscience could have sufficient evidence to support them. Marxism, Leninism, Nazism, and Geocentricism, all have so-called scientific evidences. Evidences are what one interprets, not facts. The same observation can be interpreted with many different ways. Nature of interpretation is highly influenced by what interpreter believes. Besides not adequately explaining transitional fossils Neo-Darwinism also poorly accounts for the chicken-egg paradox, atavisms, innovative organ, Cambrian explosion, and more.

Characterization of Neo-Darwinism as a pseudoscience does not mean that natural selection or evolution itself wrong. Instead, it only says that instantaneous mechanisms are only valid mechanisms, whereas others (RMNS and GI) working, but not lead to speciation.

The Marxist’s theory of capitalism was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. Marx predicted that wages would fall as greedy capitalists exploited workers to obtain more profits. While an increase in wages was also consistent with Marxism; as capitalists propped up the system with bribery. Therefore, Marx’s theory of capitalism could not be considered scientific by the Popperian criteria, as it can justify any outcome of the capitalist society.

Invalidation requires prediction. If a result is not consistent with a prediction, then the theory is invalidated. Ohm’s law could be disproved if voltage is not equal to current multiplied by resistance. However, Neo-Darwinism is consistent with every imaginable outcome. By the Popperian criteria, it is a pseudoscience.

Predictions do not have to be deterministic, and they could be statistically true. Persons with college degree will make more money than ones without it. The prediction, however, does not mean everyone with a college degree will earn more money than those with a high school diploma only. Bill Gates, the richest person in America, has no college degree. This statement could be confirmed or invalidated by comparing average incomes from 500 persons with college degree and 500 ones without by random sampling.

Scientific theory might be wrong. Ones can say that persons with college degree will make less money than ones without it. This statement could be disproved by comparing average incomes from two groups of persons with and without college degree.

Mayr considered that GI might be the most common mechanism; however, this idea is not falsifiable, as neither the nominator (how many species has been formed by GI in the past, in any) nor the denominator (how many species has been formed in the past), is known.

History did not provide Darwin the opportunity to find out correct mechanism

"One predicts something on the basis of a theory, checks to see if the prediction turns out true or false, and then rejects or retains one’s theory on basis of the results. But how can one make genuine predictions with Darwinism? Who could possibly predict what will happen to the elephant’s trunk twenty-five million years down the road? In the Newtonian case, one had a paradigmatic instance of a theory which integrates from many different areas—which exhibits a consilience of induction—and which therefore was judged as a whole (Ruse, M. 2003)."

Darwin has no such luxury. His theory fails in many fields of scientific discovery. Many developments, not foreseen by Darwin, provide severe tests of the theory. Darwin thought pangenesis the basis on hereditary. It stated that hereditary information was carried by tiny particles that bud from cells throughout a person’s body. These particles or ‘gemmules’ migrated into the reproductive organs prior to fertilization. Thus, every cell in the body contributed to the constitution of the offspring. However, Mendelian genetics indicated that hereditary units are discreet, not mixed.

Current biology has known that hereditary materials stored in reproductive cells (sperm and egg), which is isolated from somatic cells. In other words, no particles or ‘gemmules’ migrated into the reproductive organs to have any impact on next generation.

"Darwin used variation in domestic animals as one of the major arguments for his theory… The most striking example of variation in domestic animals is surely the amazing range of dogs. Darwin thought that the various breeds of dog were descended from several different wide species…and it seems he was simple unable to believe that a single species could be the source of such variety. …. All breeds of dog are interfertile, but some cross, for example between 1 kg Chihuahua and a 75 kg Great Dane, are prevented by the disparity in size (Patterson, C. 1999b). "

Apparently, to Darwin, morphology of animals is the criterion to differentiate one species from another. The biological species concept became accepted a few decades after his death.
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other .... it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake (Dawin, Charles, 1859).

The debate between creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) versus Neo-Darwinism is not religion versus science. Instead, it is one belief versus another or one belief versus pseudoscience. The difference is that Neo-Darwinism is masked as science and it wastes public funding and resources. On the other hand, creationism or ID is a self-sustained belief system unsupported by tax dollars.

Jianyi Zhang, M.B./Ph.D/M.S.

References

Charles Darwin 1988 (1859) On the Origin of Species in The Works of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. Barrett and R. B. Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press vol. 15 page 39

Mayr, Ernst 1998. One long augment. Harvard Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Mayr, Ernst 2001. What evolution is. pp. 221-222. Basic Books, New York.

Patterson, Colin 1999a. Evolution 2nd ed. pp. 117, Comstock Publishing Ass. Cornell University Ithaca, New York.

Patterson, Colin1999b. Evolution 2nd ed. pp. 7-8, Comstock Publishing Ass. University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Ruse M. 2003. Evolution Is Testable and Scientific in Evolution-Fact or Fiction. Pp. 130-140. Greenhaven Press, New York.

Simon J., and Rispe, Claude & Sunnucks, Paul. 2002. Ecology and evolution of sex in aphids. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:34-39.

More Readings

http://chickensfirst.googlepages.com

RE: Neo-Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design, as a concept, is essentially non-scientific. The primary reason is because it requires “magic” to be an axoim in the argument for its affirmation. The first assumption of intelligent design, is that there must be a intelligent designer available to make the design. This designer, by its very nature, is external to the universe or physical matter altogether – it does not adhere to the principals of gravity or thermodynamics, nor any other observable or quantifiable principals of nature. Therefor, the assumption that there is a “creator” external to the observable universe is essentially a leap of faith, and not based on observable data (subsequently, it is not science).

Natural selection, on the other hand, is based on observable data. Selective breeding is demonstration of mankind's ability to harness the mechanism of evolution, just as surely as the catapult is demonstration of mankind's ability to harness the mechanism of gravity.

Why is it that new diseases are “created” every day – more virulent strains that are resistant to antibiotics? Simply because bacteria have an extremely short lifespan (in comparison to a human being for example) and thus the rate of evolution is higher, since evolution occurs when deviations are made through the process of reproduction (either sexually or asexually) and natural selection eliminates the weaker deviations. This is why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – when they (antibiotics) are applied to an infection, a small number of resistant bacteria will remain. If they are allowed to multiply then you will have a strain of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

As for the definition of “species” - I proport that this is not actually a scientific definition as it stands. A definition that I would prefer is “If two organisms can have sex and produce offspring, they are of the same species”. This is non-ambiguous and easy to test. Some scientists speculate that human beings and chimpanzees can mate and produce offspring, and if this is true, I would classify chimpanzees as being in the same species as human beings. Not flattering, but also not politically tainted. I can't accept a definition of species which has politically motivated exceptions where things are not “palatable” to the human sensibilities.

Isuru Abeysinghe
http://www.ai-evolve.com

You refer repeated to "geographic isolation". However isolation need not be geographic, thsi is just the simplest visualisation of isoaltion that is easy to understand.

Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, for example by geographical barriers.

Non-geographic reproductive isolation is often more subtle to be visualised. And what may be geographic barriers to one species, may not be a barrier to another (for example, land mammals are isolated in Australia, but not migratory seabirds).

Alternative modes of speciation (to geograhic/distinct isolation) have been proposed and accepted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Speciation_modes.svg

=====

Charactersing, describing, observing and witnessing instances of speciation is a terrible problem in of itself for the mere issue with the definition at hand. What is speciation, what constitutes a new species. Is it reproductive isolation? Isolation of individuals, or populations? Is this a circualr definition? How can asexual organisms be sexually isolated?

This is known as the Species Problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

A female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium in Michigan surprised zookeepers by giving birth to two babies. It was a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, as the mother had not been in contact with a male shark for six years. The resulting sharks are a different species than their direct sexual ancestors because they are asexual. Parthenogenesis, which occurs in approximately 70 species, including snakes and lizards, is a process in which eggs become embryos without male fertilization. The majority of these species might have descended from sexually reproducing ancestors (Simon J. et al. 2002).

Sorry. Parthenogenesis is not a mechanism of speciation. Not no how, any way. The baby sharks here were still Chiloscyllium plagiosum. Not a new species. And while it was the first observed instance of parthogenic reproduction, nothing suggests it was necessarily atypical, or that the progeny will not be able to reproduce sexually.

Plenty of creatures have capacity to reproduce by more than one mechanism: Invertebrates like Planaria, numerous fungi, and plenty of plants.

========

RMNS remains the most simple and natural explanation for the change observed in life forms over the historical and fossil records (including the generation of new species and varieties).

It posits very little, while explaining why and how a plethora of biodiversity exists today. No observation has disproved RMNS as a mechanism for change, although some might challenge what level of power other mechanisms of speciation might play, they still heavily rely on natural mechanisms rather than divine interventions.

The debate between Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinian evolutionary thought remains pseudoscience vs natural science. Intelligent Design does not fail at science for its lack of being correct, for if so, Neo-Darwinian would also be ditched, as would almost every other scientific theory, as no theory fully encompasses everything, or rely on some basic assumption. Intelligent Design fails because it has repeatedly failed to offer new scientific thought, or produce any credible research that follows the accepted scientific method (indeed its key proponents wish to redefine the scientific method). It has also been shown that it is but a thin veil for a largely religiously based argument. I for one would accept that non-religious Intelligent Design is a theoretically possible world view, but no such organisation or research group has shown up.

====

Observed instances of speciation relying on RMNS:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Mimulus guttatus (Yellow Monkey Flower) - resistance to copper toxicity; the genetic change responsible also created reproductive isolation. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v50/n3/abs/hdy198331a.html

Rhagoletis pomonella (Apple Maggot Fly). Native American species that infests Hawthorn trees has adapted to infest introduced Apple trees. While host-preference variants display clear genetic and phenotypic differences, reproductive isolation has yet to be established. Is this speciation is progress?

I don't see "Millions of Years" in either these "natural world" or the further in-laboratory selection exaples presented at talk.origins.

===

You attack "Neo-Darwinism" which you equivalate with modern synthesis, but then you use Darwin himself as its poster boy. Evolution, and indeed the evidence for it, has come a long way. Criticising a 19th century publication does not mean you have beaten the 21st century theory.

IsuruTS1064958 wrote:RE: Neo-Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design, as a concept, is essentially non-scientific.

This is right, but it does not make Neo-Darwinism scientific, they are not mutually exclusive.

Natural selection, on the other hand, is based on observable data.

The recent American presidential election produced lots of data, which does not mean that the debates between Hillary and Obama caused earthquakes in China.

Why is it that new diseases are “created” every day – more virulent strains that are resistant to antibiotics? Simply because bacteria have an extremely short lifespan (in comparison to a human being for example) and thus the rate of evolution is higher, since evolution occurs when deviations are made through the process of reproduction (either sexually or asexually) and natural selection eliminates the weaker deviations. This is why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – when they (antibiotics) are applied to an infection, a small number of resistant bacteria will remain. If they are allowed to multiply then you will have a strain of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

You are right. Nobody denies evolution occur, we are talking factors to cause evolution. Generation of drug-resistant bacteria could be years ahead of availability of antibiotics, the pre-existed bacteria only proliferate under natural selection.

As for the definition of “species” - I proport that this is not actually a scientific definition as it stands. A definition that I would prefer is “If two organisms can have sex and produce offspring, they are of the same species”.

This is exactly what I use, except that offspring should be healthy with reproductive ability. This definition is used by mainstream biologists.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at Feb/17/2009 10:54:10

MichaelTS863182:

I know exactly what geographical isolation mean, and its variants.
Different species could be found in different location with geographical barrier, which does not mean that geographical isolation plays any role in speciation. New species can be formed by polyploids or similar processes that happen in both side of the barrier. All of cases used to advocate geographical isolation can be explained alternatively. Also under multiple mechanisms proposed by Neo-Darwinians, there is no way to beat it even If they DO NOT occur at all.
They could be all imaginations. I can make a story with hundreds other factors with the same strategy.

Sorry. Parthenogenesis is not a mechanism of speciation. Not no how, any way. The baby sharks here were still Chiloscyllium plagiosum. Not a new species. And while it was the first observed instance of parthogenic reproduction, nothing suggests it was necessarily atypical, or that the progeny will not be able to reproduce sexually.

When I mean parthenogenesis, I really mean generation of parthenogenesis animals from bisexual animals. Whether this baby shark reproductive is not important, the point is that there are few dozens parthogenic reproductive animals with bisexually parents.
Are they still the same species? How was NS involved prior their births?

Charactersing, describing, observing and witnessing instances of speciation is a terrible problem in of itself for the mere issue with the definition at hand. What is speciation, what constitutes a new species. Is it reproductive isolation? Isolation of individuals, or populations? Is this a circualr definition? How can asexual organisms be sexually isolated?

The problem arises if ones try to have universal definition of species to cover all organisms. For bisexual organism, a new species starts at individual level as long as they have sexual partner with reproductive offspring.

RMNS remains the most simple and natural explanation for the change observed in life forms over the historical and fossil records (including the generation of new species and varieties).

Instantaneous speciation like polyploidy and generation of parthenogenesis animals from bisexual animals and generation of different parthenogenesis animals from parental parthenogenesis animals with different chromosomal structures are well-known facts without little controversy among biologists that could explain all speciation in sexual and parthenogenesis animals. There is no point to involve other unsure mechanism, which is against principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor). HIV would cause AIDS, and nobody looks for new virus that causes AIDS, as HIV infection can explain all AIDS.

The debate between Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinian evolutionary thought remains pseudoscience vs natural science.

What ID science or not has nothing to do with the nature of the Darwinian Theory, they could be both non-scientific and faith-based idea. Attack of ID would not help the Darwinian Theory at all. ID does not need tax money to sustain, Neo-Darwinism is just the opposite.

Mimulus guttatus (Yellow Monkey Flower) - resistance to copper toxicity; the genetic change responsible also created reproductive isolation.

Alternative explanation is that copper-resistance Yellow Monkey Flower can be result of one-generation speciation that happen to be in copper-rich area. The same mutation can happen everywhere, anytime, even in copper-poor area. The natural selection (Copper) does not cause it, only kills other copper-sensitive plants, let the plant outstand.

I don't see "Millions of Years" in either these "natural world" or the further in-laboratory selection examples presented at talk.origins.

The "Millions of Years" theory was proposed by Charles Darwin, and advocated by many of his followers repeatedly. The fact shows just opposite, that suggests his theory problematic. By Neo-Darwinian no matter short or long time, the theory is always right, that is exact characteristics of pseudo-science by the Popperian criteria.

You attack "Neo-Darwinism" which you equivalate with modern synthesis, but then you use Darwin himself as its poster boy. Evolution, and indeed the evidence for it, has come a long way. Criticising a 19th century publication does not mean you have beaten the 21st century theory.

Nobody argues here there are evidences for evolution and evidences for NS, the debate is if NS leads to speciation, that is whole thing the Darwin’s theory about.
I only quote Dr. Mayr’s writing, the 20th Darwin, did you mean that he published it in 19th century? Let me know what’s new in Neo-Darwinian theory the 21st century. I doubt if any new.

The 19th century theory should be dead long time ago; it is a shame to see so many 21st scientists hold on it.

This is my impromptu reaction to Why Neo-Darwinism is a pseudoscience? Suppose three conditions A, B, C produce a result R, how can anyone conclusively say that A and B will never produce result R? If it does once in a billion times, the statement that A, B, C are necessary conditions is falsified! So conclusive proofs are like statements like "two parallel lines meet at infinity", "at the beginning of creation there was a big bang". When a female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium gave birth to two babies, my contention becomes evident.

Actually, all science is based upon observations, importantly, finite number of observations. There can be no other way. So what I want to say is that what Jiang Zhang terms as pseudoscience, probably in the sense of hyposcience, I would tend to rather term it as HYPERSCIENCE. So, though CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCES are the only human day to day mechanisms to go by, I tend to believe that there is something beyond big bang, there is something BEYOND the amino acid route to life. - Sharbani Ranjan Kundu, sharbani_ranjan@yahoo.co.in

SharbaaniranjanTS1067316:

Suppose three conditions A, B, C produce a result R, how can anyone conclusively say that A and B will never produce result R? If it does once in a billion times, the statement that A, B, C are necessary conditions is falsified!

Science can not exclude all possible causes, it never did. For example, researches prove that HIV caused AIDS, it never says HIV only virus to cause AIDS. How can science say no if it did not know all possible viruses? In your case, nobody can prove A and B ever occur, we only know C does. It is a burden of the claimer to provide proof. Nobody did.

Secondly, the principle of parsimony is the rule in science, which means that the simplest is the best. Instantaneous speciation, such as polyploidy and generation of parthenogenesis animals from bisexual animals are well-known and well-accepted facts, thousands animals/plants are thought to evolve by this mechanism. Why can’t all animals/plants evolve by the same mechanism? Likewise, HIV virus causes AIDS in Africa, why can’t it cause AIDS in Asia or America?

Actually, all science is based upon observations, importantly, finite number of observations. There can be no other way. !

Currently, there are only observations that evolution occur and natural selection occur. There is no observation the evolution or speciation occur by natural selection. Please see:
Gems? Or Shames? At
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/342.page

Those claims of observations in which evolution occur thru NS are misinterpretations of natural phenomena, and these scientists simply need those explanations to fit the theory they take it for granted.

SharbaaniranjanTS1067316 wrote:When a female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium gave birth to two babies, my contention becomes evident.

That a virginal female white spotted bamboo shark gave birth by parthogenesis, absolutely no law of life was broken.

Sure, no one had observed parthogenic birth in this particular species before, but its certainly shocked no scientist that it was possible.

Parthogenesis was a well understood mode of reproduction, both on physical, and genetic, levels.

And again, can I stress, no new speciation event was involved.

JianyiTS1042469,

The theory of evolution does indeed make falsifiable predictions: as was famously said, one would not expect to see rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era. If it could be established that such an observation was genuine, it would be a major blow to the theory of evolution. In addition, if in vitro evolution experiments consistently generated phenotypes/activities that were different, or even opposed, to the one that was being selected for, the theory would also be knocked down.

So, therefore, Neo-Darwinism is not a pseudoscience. Furthermore, it's predictive power is very useful; it allows us to predict or at least speculate as to what will happen to bacterial or viral populations that are being exposed to antibiotic or antiviral agents. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is useless for predictions like this unless we knew the mind of the designer. Not to mention that these predictions can have very important implications for medicine, and is not just some armchair game of evolutionary biologists.

DevinTS1056093 wrote:JianyiTS1042469,

The theory of evolution does indeed make falsifiable predictions: as was famously said, one would not expect to see rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era. If it could be established that such an observation was genuine, it would be a major blow to the theory of evolution.

When ones talk the theory of evolution, it could mean two things 1) species did not appear same time in the past, some came into being earlier than others. It makes sense if one assumes later species was generated by its ancestor under natural laws. Fossil records support this view.
2) The theory of evolution could also mean the mechanism of above phenomena, i.e. how was new species generated from its ancestor? The Darwin theory and Neo-Darwinism are about the mechanism, ones can not get conclusion of the mechanism by looking at fossil records. Generation of new species by any mechanism would generate fossil records, nobody can tell which mechanism by shapes and or distribution of fossils. By fossil record one can falsify the first case, not 2nd one.

Jianyi Zhang