Darwinism and the Winged Dragon: Testing Evolution’s Falsifiability

Darwinism and the Winged Dragon: Testing Evolution’s Falsifiability - In our dragon garage: In his book The Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan addresses the difference between science and falsehood through an example in which a person claims to have a dragon in his garage, and the first question that can be asked to this claimant is: Show us the dragon? The enthusiastic man leads us to his garage, pointing inwards, seeing only a ladder and some scattered objects... I ask, where is the dragon? “He’s here, of course,” he says, “I missed mentioning that he’s an invisible dragon. Here, one of the attendees suggests scattering the flour to catch the traces of that hidden dragon. "That's a good idea, but don't you know that this dragon is a winged bird that swims in the air? Another says: So we're going to use an infrared sensor to detect hidden flames. The Invisible Dragon replied with confidence, “But this fire is cold.” We can spray paint all over the garage to make the dragon visible. - The owner of the hidden dragon angrily says: Unfortunately, this dragon is immaterial and does not stick to the paint, and does not leave any trace. This is how a confident man can respond to every test that is suggested with a special justification that renders this test invalid. In this way each question is answered by circumventing the refutation evidence we can say that the hypothesis of the existence of the dragon is unfalsifiable; that is, the hypothesis is unprovable and cannot be tested. Testing and refutability of theories A scientific theory is a field of science that describes a particular phenomenon for the purpose of explaining how it occurs, and providing a set of predictions or predictions that can be refuted and tested to assess the validity of this theory, and therefore the acceptance of a scientific theory depends on the extent of its testability, and its fallibility. It is called an "unfalsifiable theory" in the absence of experiments and tests that would prove the validity of this theory or not, so the criterion for the ability to prove falsehood according to Popper and his peers is to show the difference between what is scientific and what is false, and to delineate the boundaries between them, and the test of theories is the task of competent scientists in cooperation with philosophers of science. Science's position on Darwinism Philosophical references to the study of science suggest that most standard judgments are physics-based, where the causes of phenomena can be clearly defined without ambiguity by extrapolating laws such as thermodynamics, gravity, and the like. In biology, however, things are not as simple as this except at the molecular cellular level, and the feasibility of prognostication is only noticeable in the field of functional biology and elementary levels that rely on the laws of biochemical reactions. While scientists can test theories to the fullest with experiments in the practical sciences, it is different in sciences where experiments are impossible to perform and where speculation is of limited value in a particular hypothesis test, as in the historical sciences. And this has long been the case for biologists trying to answer the question about a unique historical event: how did millions of species originate? To investigate this event, they will not be able to rely on cosmic laws, but they will have to study a set of additional observations that may help them in this regard, and then create an explanatory scenario that can be called a "historical tale." But it is not possible to be sure of the occurrence of these historical tales, because they are unwitting, and the best to describe the chances of speculation that may offer is the possibility of probabilistic, because it is impossible to monitor and test the events that consist of them, and if you are not sure of the negotiations that led to the conclusion of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in 1936, the re-occurrence of this historical event is not available, and we can not in such a case. Researchers understand that modern Darwinism classifies a sentence as a kind of historical anecdote, because it is impossible to repeat its facts from the "beginning" and subject its events to censorship and direct observation, it covers a great and unheard-of period of history that occurred most of its chapters before the existence of man, and at its best Darwinism can only provide a set of probabilistic (uncertain) predictions about how the species arose, because it will never be able to redevelop a mammal from a reptile. How does science test the theory of common origin? In 1837, Charles Darwin first sketched in his notebook a tree of life that would help explain the origin of the species, and postulated that all species on Earth had descended from a common ancestor, referring the phenomena of massive biodiversity we see today to a long series of speciations, during which lineages gradually diverged among themselves, forming tree branches of distinct offspring called the phylogeny tree. According to the biological view, an organism consists of two images that are linked in one entity; the genetic image, represented in the components of DNA carrying information, which in turn is responsible for encoding and creating the other image. The main assumption of Darwinism is therefore that the similarity between different organisms is necessarily the result of inheritance from a common ancestor, and this necessitates the existence of a tree that maps evolutionary relationships by inferring similarity in morphological (apparent) and molecular data matrices (the alignment of genetic characters or amino acid sequences with specific proteins) between different species. Depending on how close these matrices are, these species are settled on the presumed genealogical tree to represent the common ancestor, the trunk from which branches of the tree represent the offspring where the closely related groups are located at close distances from each other, and the distances between the species on this genealogical tree with the distance of the affinity between them, similar to the family tree. Disappointed predictions. Popper explains that it is very easy to get proofs of almost all theories if we look for such proofs, but they remain worthless unless they are compatible with a set of risky predictions that illuminate our future insight into compatible results. Darwinism must therefore make a set of special predictions capable of being proved false and tested, which, by refuting them, can provide some kind of validity to this claim and prove its validity. Thus, building a genealogical tree in which species line up in a hierarchy of gradually overlapping hierarchies based on how similar they are has been the holy grail that evolutionists have long dreamed of owning, and can be considered the main prediction of the theory of common origin. As New Scientist reports, the concept of the tree of life was central to Darwin's idea, as is the importance of natural selection. "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened".(3) Peter Atkins, a chemist at the University of Oxford, tells us in his book Galileo's Finger that an effective prediction requires that details of molecular evolution must be consistent with phenotypic evolution. "The effective prediction is that the details of molecular evolution must be consistent with those of macroscopic evolution".(4) The Holy Grail, in Eric Baptiste’s words, is a mirage once thought to be close at hand, and in commenting on the product of decades of genealogical tree research he said that for a long time the construction of a tree of life was the Holy Grail, but we have no evidence that the tree of life is real. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." “Today, the Tree of Life project is in tatters, torn to shreds by an onslaught of negative evidence, and many scientists today argue that the concept of the Tree of Life is outdated, and we need to get rid of it.” Today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.(5) Problems began to build up as early as the 1990s, as the means of approach advanced and the observed data expanded, and there were signs of disappointment that Darwinism's main prediction had been achieved. In a 1993 peer-reviewed report, he concluded: "Mophology held high hopes for molecular biology, but the end of our aspirations was frustrating; compatibility between molecular evolution trees is as elusive as in morphology, and as between molecular and morphological trees." "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology".(6) The disappointments were followed by dozens of high-level scientific reports, which tell of huge contradictions during phylogeny approaches to building evolutionary relationships between different species, and the passage of time only proved to exacerbate the problem more than before, until a report by the University of Cambridge in 2012 concluded more frustrating results, and summarized some of those problems: "The incompatibility with the phylogenetic tree has become an even more acute problem as more genome-wide data emerge." "Phylogenetic conflict has become a more acute problem with the advent of genomescale data sets." "The discrepancy between evolutionary trees derived from morphological data versus molecular analyses of different subgroups is becoming more prevalent as the volume of data expands across all species." "Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species." "Conflict and conflict in the breed evolution tree is the common event, the rule and not the exception". "Phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception".(7) As conflicts within and between molecular and morphological phylogenies became widely recognized, it was expected that this would lead to the recognition of the failure of Darwinian predictions about the tree of life, thus leading to doubts about the validity of the entire evolutionary model to explain the history and origin of species, but as we will see, this did not happen and some tricks were resorted to. Additional hypotheses It is as if we are following a dramatic scene of fantasy, whose protagonist, the philosopher of science Karl Popper, sits in a nearby corner, closely watching the historical course of modern Darwinism and taking his observations to serve as a practical example for the definition of pseudoscience, when he acknowledges this description in the criteria for the regulation of scientific theory: “Some theories are really testable, and their proponents and admirers insist on holding them, even when the test proves them to be false, by making additional auxiliary assumptions, and reinterpreting the theory in accordance with the new results to escape being refuted, and such a procedure is always possible, but all it can offer is to save the theory from the process of refutation and testing at the expense of destroying its scientific state, i.e. turning it into an untestable theory.” Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.(9) After they collided with clear results that refuted their predictions and proved useless to explain biodiversity, Darwinism was forced to follow the example of the owner of the hidden winged dragon, and its supporters resorted to some additional justifications and hypotheses to save it from doom, and because of this the theory became irrefutable and proved false, and the medics of Darwinism had no other option. The trade-off between the option of failing her expectations and the option of turning her into a set of unassailable hypotheses was the trade-off between keeping her body under the tools of resuscitation due to death clinically, as the only solution, or leaving this body to be directly classified as biologically dead. For example, Darwinism postulates that the common traits of the horses are the result of the genetic ancestry of the horses, which is published by the same traits, in what is known as homologous homology, so we can predict the distribution of the matrices of this similarity in a hierarchical manner through a tree of life representing family and kinship, but contrary to the expectations that the actual observations are made through the phylogeny examination, we find a wide spread of common features between different and unrelated species. morphology with molecular features.(10) Under the title "How a Quarter of the Cow Genome Came from Snakes," National Geographic asks how a quarter of the snake genome was passed on to cows. When you notice an unprecedented similarity in more than a quarter of the genomes of snakes that belong to reptiles with the genome of cows, which belong to a completely different category are mammals, to strongly contrast with the trees of the alleged kinship and predictions of the common ancestor, and as usual did not prevent Darwinism from fabricating additional justifications and hypotheses, even if they seem illogical, to put the responsibility of this contradiction on the shoulders of a small poor (insect) Such developments as in the previous scenario, in which the bug transferred the jumping gene from the reptiles to a close ancestor of the cow by infection due to its absorption of blood from both. On the other hand, a huge amount of contradictions in the genealogical tree are spreading as the observational area within the genomes of living species is expanded, as Nature acknowledges, and gives us a puzzling example of the compatibility of more than two hundred regions in both the bat and dolphin genomes, and the impossibility of joint ancestor responsibility, to attribute this similarity to another additional hypothesis called convergent evolution, which claims that the common features of these species were not inherited from a common ancestor. The tree of life... and the dragon hypothesis. As a result, the basic hypothesis about the genealogy tree has been transformed by these additional justifications into an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis, and has failed the only test available to disprove it; which is to rely on similarity between species, in other words, we can say that evolution relies on similarity between the genes of different species as evidence for a common ancestor, if compatible, by saying that it is not homologous within the tree of life that has been fabricated, and at the same time the similarity of genes within the tree that are not compatible. Theory -----> Prediction -----> Prediction Failure ------> Additional Hypothesis -----> Untestable Theory Bottom line: We can describe the theory of evolution as a moving target, with each discovery that contradicts it being moved so that the discovery can be buried or circumvented, and science has never proven that the theory of evolution is correct, all it has done is redefine the theory of evolution to harmonize modern scientific discoveries, science constantly adjusts the theory of evolution to suit new data, and then claims that these data fit the theory of evolution. But this isn't science -- it's an acrobatic trick full of absurdity, or, as we might call it, some people don't like it: winged dragon science. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin says: "Evolution is not a fact...it is a philosophy, materialism comes first as an intuitive premise, and then the evidence is interpreted in the light of this immutable philosophical commitment." "evolution is not a fact, it's a philosophy. The materialism comes first (a priori), and the evidence is interpreted in light of that unchangeable philosophical commitment".(13) (1) Carl Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World", The Dragon in My Garage, p165. (2) Ernst Mayr, "This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World", Harvard University Press,1998. (3) Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life", New Scientist, Magazine issue 2692, 21 January 2009. (4) Peter Atkins, "Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science", p.16, (Oxford University Press, 2003). (5) Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life", New Scientist, 21 January 2009. (6) Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24: 179 (Nov. 24, 1993). (7) Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, "Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87: 991-1024 (2012). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573643/ (8) Laura Spinney, "Is life a tree - or more of a tangled thicket?", The Guardian, Monday 26 January 2009 . (9) Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge and Kegan Paul", London, UK. Reprinted in Theodore Schick (ed., 2000), Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, Calif. (10) a) "Bats and horses get strangely chummy", Newscientist.com, 25 June 2006. b) Z Chen & D E Ruffner, "Amplification of closed circular DNA in vitro", Nucleic Acids Res. Dec 1, 1998; 26(23): 1126–1127. (11) Ed Yong, "How a quarter of the cow genome came from snakes", Nationalgeographic.com, Phenomena: January 1, 2013. (12) Erika Check Hayden, "Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes", nature.com, 04 September 2013. (13) Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, InterVarsity Press, Illionis, 1997, p. Ahmed Yahia — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2014-08-09 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/الداروينية-والتنين-المجنح-اختبار-قابلية-نظرية-التطور-للتخطئة