• a static fossil record;

  • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;


  • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

  • observations of organisms being created.


  • Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.

  • The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.

  • If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.

ちなみに、創造論者が「進化論も反証不能」と主張する論拠はPopper: "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins"である。しかし、それは論拠にならないことがわかっている:

Index to Creationist Claims edited by Mark Isaak(創造論者の主張)より
Karl Popper said Darwinism is not testable(カール・ポパーはダーウィニズムは検証不可能だと言った)

Claim CA211.1:
According to philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Popper (1976, 151) said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."

科学哲学者Sir Karl Popperによれば、理論は科学たるために反証可能でなければならない。Popper(1976, p151)によれば「ダーウィニズムは検証可能な科学理論ではなく、形而上学研究プログラムである」

Kranz, Russell. n.d. Karl Popper's challenge. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm


  • Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount.

    Moreover, he said that natural selection is a useful theory. A "metaphysical research programme" was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism,
    And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, pp171-172)


    Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached" (Popper 1976, 172).


  • Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978):

    後にPoppwerは考えを変えて、自然淘汰は検証可能だと認めた。ここに、その後の記述"Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status"からの引用を提示する:

    When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.


    However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.


    The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology [see CA500]. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

    自然淘汰の理論が検証困難であるという事実は、反ダーウィニストや、偉大なダーウィニストさえもが、それはトートロジーだと主張させるに至った。"すべてのテーブルはテーブルだ"のようなトートロジーはもちろん検証不可能であり、説明力も持たない。従って、もっとも驚くべきは、子孫を多く残す生物が子孫を多く残すと言うトートロジーに等しい方法で理論を構成することだ。C. H. Waddingtonはあるところで、自然淘汰はトートロジーだとわかったと言い、そして彼はこの見方を別のところで防御している。しかしながら、彼は同時に、"強力な説明力"のある理論だとする。トートロジーの説明力は明らかにゼロであるので、どこか間違っているはずだ。

    Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

    さらに、Ronald FisherやJ. B. S. HaldaneやGeorge Gaylord Simpsonなどの偉大なダーウィニストの成果にも、似たような論理が見られる。

    I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.


    I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.


    Brush, Stephen G. 1994. Popper and evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 13(4)-14(1): 29. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8401_popper_and_evolution_9_10_2003.asp

    Miller, David. 1985. Popper Selections.
    Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
    Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355. (excerpt at http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm )

    Further Reading:
    Cole, John R. 1981. Misquoted scientists respond. Creation/Evolution 6: 34-44.

posted by Kumicit at 2006/07/19 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | ID Introduction | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]