# Is the theory of evolution "testable"?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 2, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752 "2005-09-02T16:28:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/21 "2005-09-04T02:15:26Z")
Evolution deniers usually frame the argument as a contest between only two possibilities; evolution or divine origin, evolution or spontaneous generation, evolution or Lamarckism, evolution or Lysenkoism, evolution or creationism, evolution or intelligent design. Then they point out a fault in evolution, claim this proves evolution is wrong in total, and then proclaim that their system must be right if evolution is wrong.
The flaw with these arguments is that whatever gaps might exist in the science of evolution there are far greater chasms in any of the alternatives that have been offered - most of these alternatives can’t even stand up to the same tests that these believers use to “disprove” evolution. Evolution may be displaced someday; but it will be by a theory that’s better, not one that’s just different.
Another factor, as you pointed out, is too many people don’t understand the distinction between what they don’t comprehend and what is incomprehendible.
---
### Author:  [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/22 "2005-09-04T04:55:45Z")
> [@wevets](#):
>
> There’s a really cute short sci-fi story with this premise… actually Moses comes down and tells Aaron (I think) to write the history of the last four billion years on Earth for the book of Genesis. Aaron dissuades him based on the cost of papyrus and demands on his time, so Moses sighs, and says “OK, seven days.”
>
> I think it’s Asimov, but I’m not sure.
That would be [_How it Happened_,](http://www.sumware.com/creation.html) by Isaac Asimov. A REALLY short story.
---
### Author:  [@Ferit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferit)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/23 "2014-01-25T22:06:50Z")
Isn’t the possibility of the IPU manipulating all the atoms of that organism to make it"evolve" incompatible with the conservation of energy and that laws of physics hold everywhere, everytime? and can’t god be disproved by the same logic?
---
### Author:  [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/24 "2014-01-25T22:23:32Z")
If the creationists are so eager for a “test” of evolution, why don’t they come up with a test of ID? Why did a Creator do what he did, and were there “outside influences”?
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/25 "2014-01-25T23:47:32Z")
> [@Ferit](#):
>
> Isn’t the possibility of the IPU manipulating all the atoms of that organism to make it"evolve" incompatible with the conservation of energy and that laws of physics hold everywhere, everytime? and can’t god be disproved by the same logic?
Not entirely. A non-divine creator could have modified animals’ genetic code much the same way we do in real life, today. The long and slow way is selective breeding – the way we get Dalmations and Poodles and Saint Bernards. The quicker way is direct genetic modification.
A lower-case “g” god could operate in materialistic ways, within the laws of physics.
---
### Author:  [@Ferit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferit)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/26 "2014-01-26T00:18:05Z")
so that materialistic god manipulates the DNA of every animal that is conceived? and we cannot detect it? if that is the case shouldn’t you see energy being put into or being removed from a system let’s say two breeding plants, in an isolated environment? Needless, the presence of aliens manipulating the DNA of every living thing wouldn’t go unnoticed.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/27 "2014-01-26T00:21:36Z")
> [@Ferit](#):
>
> Isn’t the possibility of the IPU manipulating all the atoms of that organism to make it"evolve" incompatible with the conservation of energy and that laws of physics hold everywhere, everytime?
Why? We manipulate the DNA of organisms all the time without violating the laws of physics.
> [@](#):
>
> and can’t god be disproved by the same logic?
No, for the same reason.
---
### Author:  [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/28 "2014-01-26T01:57:52Z")
The problem with trying to test God away is that literally no matter what evidence or argument you put forth, the creationist can simply respond, “Well, that’s how God wanted it for some reason.” In other words, it is not a testable hypothesis. There is no conceivable experimental result or possible observation that cannot be “explained” with that statement.
---
### Author:  [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/29 "2014-01-26T02:17:39Z")
Another serious weakness to ID is the many cases of truly bad design.
An outstanding example is found in the human eye. Can we call a designer “intelligent” who brings the nerves out on the side of the retina where the light comes in?
---
### Author:  [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/30 "2014-01-26T02:36:56Z")
One tenant of rational thought is you don’t have to explain everything, and you never have 100% certainty about anything.
The evidence says that evolution is, by far, the _highest probability_ of being the reason for life working out like it has. So high that it is a near certainty. Nevertheless, it isn’t an absolute certainty, and that is ok. You do not have to disprove a creator, you have to produce strong and convincing evidence that your “creator did it” theory has merit. As of yet, no one has produced such evidence in a form that can be reproduced and peer reviewed.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/31 "2014-01-26T02:52:13Z")
> [@Xema](#):
>
> Another serious weakness to ID is the many cases of truly bad design.
>
> An outstanding example is found in the human eye. Can we call a designer “intelligent” who brings the nerves out on the side of the retina where the light comes in?
Indeed. It would be better to call that line of thinking “Unintelligent Design”. An intelligent designer wouldn’t make so many mistakes.
---
### Author:  [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/32 "2014-01-26T02:57:55Z")
Peppered moth evolution - [Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/33 "2014-01-26T04:12:48Z")
> [@Ferit](#):
>
> so that materialistic god manipulates the DNA of every animal that is conceived?
Why every single animal? It could be done strategically, simply altering one animal in ten, or one in a hundred. Over time, the effect could work out.
> [@](#):
>
> and we cannot detect it?
It would appear exactly the same as occasional random mutations.
> [@](#):
>
> if that is the case shouldn’t you see energy being put into or being removed from a system let’s say two breeding plants, in an isolated environment? Needless, the presence of aliens manipulating the DNA of every living thing wouldn’t go unnoticed.
Again, not “every living thing.” Just the line you want, and just judicious alterations. It would be hard to detect – not impossible, just very hard. And it doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
The real argument against it is – why the hell bother? Why go to the absurd effort of conducting a process that looks like trial and error? (Especially the errors! The process has to include dead ends, mistakes, and alterations that masquerade as detrimental mutations.)
“Theistic” or “guided” evolution is not falsifiable. It’s rotten science. It’s very strength – that it cannot be detected – is also its weakness. It doesn’t explain anything that the prevailing standard model – random mutation and natural selection – doesn’t explain more readily.
Don’t worry about it: it’s a perfectly valid possibility, but it is of no interest to anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of species.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/34 "2014-01-26T04:37:55Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#):
>
> Astronomy and geology, just to name two other fields, have the same “problem” your friend is objecting to. You can’t build stars or continents in the laboratory and then watch what happens to them. This inconvenient fact doesn’t make these disciplines unreliable, or a big bunches of wishful guesswork. It just means (as already said for evolutionary biology) that they are observational sciences and not experimental.
Indeed, I have seen the same accusation just recently launched against climate science, particularly about the computer models, since we can not build another atmosphere/ocean then some contrarians claim that everything is guesswork; not so, as nature throws many changes and opportunities to then test the models and the theories.
Even when one can get a thing like HIV in a lab and experiment with it, it does not mean that observations should be ignored, far from it, they are still an important part of science.
> **[R&D World | Latest Research & Development News, Analysis](https://www.rdworldonline.com/)**
>
> R&D World covers the latest trends, breakthroughs and technologies in R&D across industries, and host the RD 100 awards.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/35 "2014-01-26T05:01:03Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#):
>
> Astronomy and geology, just to name two other fields, have the same “problem” your friend is objecting to. You can’t build stars or continents in the laboratory and then watch what happens to them. This inconvenient fact doesn’t make these disciplines unreliable, or a big bunches of wishful guesswork. It just means (as already said for evolutionary biology) that they are observational sciences and not experimental.
And, importantly, you can form models and make predictions in observational science.
I’ve seen many creationist arguments that labour under the misapprehension that to make predictions you need the phenomenon to repeat in the future.
But no, it’s perfectly valid to make predictions about what data we will find in the future. For example, when Neptune was discovered it was (more) confirmation of newton’s laws of motion (which had been applied to predict its location and size). The fact the planet had been there all along and was not a new phenomenon is irrelevant.
ToE has been used to make countless predictions like this.
ETA: of course evolution _is_ something continuing into the future, and we can readily see that. But the standard handwave of that is to say that that’s _micro_evolution and the macro kind is only a hypothesis about our past.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/36 "2014-01-26T08:23:21Z")
> [@groman](#):
>
> I think a lot of confusions with evolution would end if we just separate two completely different aspects of it.
>
> The math theory, that does not need evidence, since it can be derived from set theory and formal logic, and it can be tested using any number of computer algorithms, as simple as John Conway’s Game of Life. If the logic is consistent, then the theory is true, regardless of how it affects biology.
>
> The biological evolution theory, which says that for the some time ago certain strings of hydrocarbons fit the mathematical model and started evolving, which can be tested by fitting modern and historical evidence to the mathematical model(which is already proven)
I’m not sure this would help in the context of the so-called ‘debate’ between creationism and evolution - creationism already tries to drive a wedge between the categories of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution - this would just provide them the opportunity to divorce the theory from the reality.
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/37 "2014-01-26T16:48:09Z")
The thing the non-evolutionists don’t understand is that because DNA replication is not perfect, it’s almost impossible to NOT have evolution.
It’s just a side-effect of our physical environment. Creating exact duplicates of anything would require much more energy than something that is just pretty close.
---
### Author:  [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/38 "2014-01-26T17:10:41Z")
> [@lee](#):
>
> As I recall, they found that mathematical analysis showed that there were niches, beak lenghts that seemed to confer some advantage in that microenvironment, and the finches on the island seemed to be evolving to fit the niches on the island. I don’t remember it all that clearly, does anyone else know more of that book?
The evolution is backwards from the way many non sciency folks see it. Beak size will always be a range. If a larger beak allows easier or more successful feeding or better defense from predators, more larger beaked finches live long enough to mate and pass those genes on. The differences are subtle and can take hundreds of generations to see a tiny shift in average beak size.
they dont just grow longer beaks, they are born more likely to survive well as a finch.
---
### Author:  [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/39 "2014-01-26T17:14:05Z")
> [@Ferit](#):
>
> Isn’t the possibility of the IPU manipulating all the atoms of that organism to make it"evolve" incompatible with the conservation of energy and that laws of physics hold everywhere, everytime? and can’t god be disproved by the same logic?
God \*owns \*the laws of physics. God is not constrained by them. You cannot disprove God.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752/40 "2014-01-26T18:10:31Z")
> [@drachillix](#):
>
> The differences are subtle and can take hundreds of generations to see a tiny shift in average beak size.
However, detailed studies in the Galapagos have shown that [significant changes in beak size can take place in only a few years](http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060710/full/news060710-11.html) given the right conditions.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-theory-of-evolution-testable/319752.md?page=3)