Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 35–50 | Cite as

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?

  • Paul A. M. van Dongen
  • Jo M. H. Vossen


In this paper we discuss the epistemological positions of evolution theories. A sharp distinction is made between the theory that species evolved from common ancestors along specified lines of descent (here called “the theory of common descent”), and the theories intended as causal explanations of evolution (e.g. Lamarck's and Darwin's theory). The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution. For instance, (a) phylogenetic trees have been validated now; (b) the observed order in fossils of new species discovered since Darwin's time could be predicted from the theory of common descent; (c) owing to the theory of common descent, the degrees of similarity and difference in newly discovered properties of more or less related species could be predicted. Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent. We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable & often-tested & still-not-falsified theory, which is the strongest predicate a theory in an empirical science can obtain. Theories intended as causal explanations of evolution can be falsified essentially, and Lamarck's theory has been falsified actually. Several elements of Darwin's theory have been modified or falsified: new versions of a theory of evolution by natural selection are now the leading scientific theories on evolution. We have argued that the theory of common descent and Darwinism are ordinary, falsifiable scientific theories.

Key words

Evolution falsification Darwinism philosophy of science 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ayala, F.J. (1978). The mechanism of evolution. - Scientific Amer. 239(3): 48–61.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunge, M. (1974). Treatise on basic philosophy, Vol. 1: Sense and reference. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on basic philosophy, Vol. 3: Ontology I. The furniture of the world. - Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Feldman, M.W., Chen, K.H., and Dornbusch, S.M. (1982). Theory and observation in cultural transmission. Science 218: 19–27.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeGroot, A.D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. - 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greyson, B. (1983). The near-death experience scale: Construction, reliability, and validity. J. nerv. ment. Dis. 171: 369–375.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I & II. J. theor. Biol. 7: 1–52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. - New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hrdy, S.B. (1979). Infanticide among animals: A review — classification and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1: 13–40.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kimura, M. (1968). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217: 624–626.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    King, J.L., and Jukes, T.H. (1968). Non-Darwinian evolution. - Science 164: 788–798.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ligon, J.D., and Ligon, S.H. (1982). The cooperative breeding behavior of the green woodhoopoe. - Scientific Amer. 247(1): 106–114.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malcolm, N. (1963). Knowledge and certainty. - Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nature, editorial. (1981). How true is the theory of evolution? - Nature 290: 75–76.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    New Scientist, editorial. (1982). The creation of an evolving science. - New Scientist 93: 58.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Numbers, R.L. (1982). Creationism in 20th-century America. - Science 218: 538–544.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popper, K.R. (1972). The logic of scientific discovery, 6th revised ed. - London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Popper, K.R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. - Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Popper, K.R. (1976). Unended quest. - London: Fontana Collins.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ridley, M. (1982). How to explain organic diversity. - New Scientist 94: 359–361.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rootbernstein, R. (1981). Letter to Science. - Science 212: 1446–1448.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruse, M. (1981). Darwin's theory: An exercise in science. - New Scientist 90: 828–830.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruse, M. (1982). Creation science: The ultimate fraud. - New Scientist 94: 586–591.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmidt, M. (1982). Albert Speer: Das Ende eines Mythos. - München: Scherz-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spitzer, R.L., Fleiss, J.L., and Endicott, J. (1978). Problems of classification: Reliability and validity. In M.A. Lipton, A. DiMascio and K.F. Killam (Eds.), Psychopharmacology: A generation of progress. - New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Dongen, P.A.M. (1981). The human locus coeruleus in neurology and psychiatry. - Prog. Neurobiol. 17: 97–139.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Dongen, P.A.M., and Van den Bercken, J.H.L. (1981). Structure and function in neurobiology: An conceptual framework and the localization of functions. - Int. J. Neurosci. 15: 49–68.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Waesberghe, H. (1982). Towards an alternative evolution model. - Acta biother. 31: 3–28.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Washburn, S.L. (1978). The evolution of man. - Scientific Amer. 239(3): 146–154.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology. - Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yunis, J.J., and Prakash, O. (1982). The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. - Science 215: 1525–1530.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul A. M. van Dongen
    • 1
  • Jo M. H. Vossen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Comparative and Physiological PsychologyCatholic University of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations