Evolution flies.

T. Ryan Gregory

Science 286: 414.

    According to Hogg, a physicist, the empirical support for evolution is limited to a few experiments on fruit flies and is altogether lacking in predictive tests and falsifiable hypotheses. This raises the question, what is the nature of science? Put briefly, scientific theories are postulated to explain scientific facts (observations so thoroughly confirmed that they are considered "true"). Evolution is no different in this regard from, say, the theory of relativity. Gravity is a scientific fact that relativity seeks to explain. That organisms share a common evolutionary history is as much an established fact as any other in science, and the theory of evolution seeks to elucidate the mechanism or mechanisms by which this has occurred. (This includes, but is not limited to, Darwin's concept of natural selection.) Thus, Hogg's complaint that evolution has not been "validated" is unfounded. But can evolution (the theory, not the fact) make testable predictions? The results of countless
laboratory and field experiments strongly suggest that it does. Moreover, these tests are similar in principle to those in physics (has anyone actually traveled at the speed of light to test relativity?). It is also easy to imagine potential falsifiers of evolutionary theory--the discovery of genetic mechanisms not compatible with natural selection, for example. Not only has evolution been overwhelmingly "validated" as a fact, but evolutionary theory has been greatly supported in its specifics. The past 150 years of biology cannot be ignored. Until evolution (both as fact and as theory) is better understood, trends such as those illustrated by the educational developments in Kansas are likely to continue.

Note: Hogg's original letter, a response to an editorial by Stephen Jay Gould (Science 284: 2087), is found in Science 285: 663.  Other replies to his letter were printed in Science 286: 413-414.  Hogg accepts our criticisms and attempts to clarify his original position in a follow-up letter in Science 286: 1679.
 


 

Back to my C.V.