How is the theory of evolution scientific if it can't be proven wrong?

Question

You know in the scientific method, you make a hypothesis and then do experiments? well the hypothesis is proved wrong if only ONE thing proves it wrong. You can't prove evolution wrong with experimenation. how is evolution scientific? like, I can't run experiments in a lab or a test tube to show that macroevolution is possible. I understand that microevolution exists, it has been proven. However, a scientist cannot go and make an experiment to test macroevolution. you can't observe animals evolving, can you? I've just been pondering what science really is and what some people make it out to be.

For instance, the speed at which objects accelerate in free fall on the earth is 9.8 m/s/s. If someone performed an experiment and discovered that it was really 15 m/s/s, that "law" would be proven wrong. this can't be done to evolution, making it unscientific. isn't this correct, if I follow the scientific method?

How is the theory of evolution scientific if it can't be proven wrong?

How can I observe [macro]evolution? It just can't be done. I don't understand how it is then scientific.

Answer 1

you have a point - up to a point.

Evolution indeed cannot really be proven wrong. On the other hand, it does explain some observed development of species, and traits in them.

Creationism (or call it "intelligent design" in its new guise if you want) cannot at all be proven wrong - by definition. And it does not explain anything - it just states.

When I have to chose between two things that cannot be disproven, but of which at least one suggests a logical process rather than asking to be taken on faith, I have got to prefer Evolution.

It's funny this debate happened in the 19th century - and was closed. And over 100 years later, schools have become so bad and people so uneducated (and don't know anything about biology anymore), and so creationism rears its head again.

who knows, maybe in another 100 years the masses will be saying that nuclear fission cannot work and is some witches' work (and burn the scientists)? ;-)

Answer 2

There are many ways it could be proven wrong ... it just hasn't been.

First, remember that not all of science is based on *experiment* ... some sciences, by necessity are based on *observation*. (Basically all sciences dealing with the very old, the very distant, or the very large.)

For example, we have never directly observed the process start-to-finish of the birth of a star (because it takes about 10 million years). But through observation of many stars at various stages of formation we can tell a lot about the process.

The same for the birth of a species. It takes a very long time (sometimes as long as the birth of a star). So people who insist that they cannot personally observe macroevolution (the birth of a new species), have a simplistic misunderstanding of the timescales that are usually involved.

That said, however, we have in fact seen the birth of species in nature and in the laboratory (with experiments or observations over decades, of certain very fast-reproducing species, like fruitflies or plants).
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


Now, to your question: Yes, of course there are observations that, if made, would tend to disprove evolution. For example,

- If a species was discovered that used a different type of DNA (e.g. a different set of amino acids, or a helix turning in the opposite direction), then it would be impossible for that species to have evolved from anything else.

- Or if we observed species occurring at random depths, or ages, in the fossil record. E.g. an 'ancestor' species in a lower strata than a 'descendant', or radiometric dating producing all the wrong results.

- Or if we observed some genes shared between an ancestor and a descendant species, but absent an intermediate species.

But the fact is that NONE of these observations has ever been documented. NOT ONCE. Despite thousands of fossils and millions of species and hundreds of both discovered every single day, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM FITS perfectly in the schema of descent from other species.

So yes, evolution is quite scientific.

Answer 3

Evolution is scientific because it is based on many, many thousands of observations of geologists, biologists, geneticists, astrophysicists, oceanographers, climatologists and others. These observations all point to a few major ideas... that the Earth is very, very old; that there have been many species of living things which have come into existence, flourished and become extinct; that often the presence of these species is correlated with changes in the geology/climate/environmental conditions of the locations; that the Darwinian concept of Natural Selection can explain how species change; and that genetics and fossil records, among other data, records the changes.

There is no other explanation for this data that even comes close to Evolution in giving a cogent vision of the development of the world's living things. Evolution as a model has allowed numerous advances in biology to take place. And that is a good way to evaluate the correctness of a model such as Evolution - does it allow us to make progress in understanding, predicting and controlling nature. As an effective model, Evolution is one of the very best models we have in all of science.

Answer 4

I can be proven wrong, it just hasn't been.

All the evidence collected via fossil records and DNA samples have supported it. Those same collections of evidence could have proven it wrong, but they didn't.

Tests don't have to be in the form of test tube experiments in the lab. Data can be collected in many ways, and people have been collecting data to support or disprove evolution for years; it just all seems to support it.

EDIT: You don't have to be able to 'observe' something with your eyes for it to be scientific. All you need is a hypothesis, and an objective way to test that hypothesis by collecting empirical data. There is no rule that if it can't be reproduced right in front of your eyes then its not scientific. Many scientific theories are based on concepts that can't be visualized. That's why they're called 'scientific theories' instead of laws of nature. Because its impossible to prove it compelety, it'll always be a 'theory'. There are in fact very few 'laws' in science.

Can you see electrons? No, but they're is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest they exist in the manner that science suggests they do. Likewise with evolution; you can't 'see' it, but you can see the piles of fossils we have showing clear progressive changes in species, as well as empirical DNA evidence.

And again, it CAN be proven wrong in theory, it just hasn't been. It's possible that someone could suddenly discover that human DNA is actually totally unrelated to all other animal DNA in a fundamental way that would be impossible to explain by evolution; this is analgous to your 9.8m/s^2 conversion to 15m/s^2 idea: its possible, but you and I both know that its not going to happen.

Answer 5

Evolution is an expansive subject, covering a wide range of scientific areas, everything from DNA, mode of inheritance and mutation to observations made by scientists of birds, people and other animals.

Evolution theory is derived from many such smaller experiments and observations, which are mostly scientific in their nature. e.g. using fossils to assess the changes in the shape and size of the cranium over the past two hundred thousand years. All these investigations contribute to our understanding of evolution.

Answer 6

A hypothesis can be turned into a theory with supporting evidence. It isn't that it can't be proven wrong, it is that there is supporting evidence. That is what makes it scientific. When experiments, observations, and evidence supports (not prove) a hypothesis it becomes a scientific theory.

Answer 7

Evolution is a theory, not a science. Science works by the scientific method you are aware of. Supporters and objectors to this theory look to facts, evidence, from paleontologists, geologists and many other scientific disciplines to support there arguments. To date, there is more evidence to support the the general theory of evolution than to reject it. For example, natural selection can be observed, and it is a part of evolutionary theory.