There is no scientific theory of evolution

Well there isn’t a scientific ToE and there isn’t any way to test the claims of evolutionism- ie Dawkins blind watchmaker. So that would be an issue for you to address before giving up on God.


I think you mean there isn’t any way to test for the participation of God in the Evolutionary process.

There are hundreds of hypotheses that have been put together by those with an Evolutionary basis, many of which have failed the test… and many of which have PASSED the test.

Actually, he probably means he believes the Theory of Evolution is not science, as many anti-evolution groups insist.


BioLogos doesn’t promote evolutionism or the idea of Dawkin’s blind watchmaker, by the way.


What makes you think we gave up on God?

As for me, Jesus is greater than anything I find in science, including evolution. Nothing compares to God’s work in Him. I certainly have not given up on God.

1 Like

No, there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. If you doubt me try to find it. Being a scientific theory it should be written down so it can be scrutinized. NCSE’s Nick Matzke actually called me a jerk for expecting a scientific theory to be written down.

For gravity we have Newton’s and Einstein’s writings. Everything can be checked out. With evolution by natural selection, drift and other stochastic processes there isn’t anything that can be checked out. Darwin had us proving a negative in order to falsify his claims.

Then you must be IDists, by the way. And there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. Try to find it.

Dr Joshua-

My quote is now out of context and I do not rember what I was responding to

1 Like


I guess you are taking delight in this constant “trolling” over the idea there is no “Theory of Evolution”. Please enjoy this short discussion below:

The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the definition of the word in colloquial use. In the vernacular, “theory” can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

In science, however, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
[National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-06406-6. LCCN 99006259. OCLC 43803228. Retrieved 2015-01-17; Page 2]

Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them. In the case of evolution through natural selection, Darwin conceived the hypothesis around 1839, and made a first draft of the concept three years later in 1842. He discussed this widely with many of his intellectual companions, and conducted further research in the background to his other writings and work. After years of development, he finally published his evidence and theory in On the Origin of Species in 1859.
[van Wyhe, John (May 22, 2007). “Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?”. Notes and Records of the Royal Society. London: Royal Society. 61 (2): 177–205. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171. ISSN 0035-9149. URL: ]

The “Theory of Evolution” is actually a network of theories . . . Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:

1.Populations changing over generations
2.Gradual change
4.Natural selection
5.Common descent.

[Bock, Walter J. (May 2007). “Explanations in evolutionary theory”. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 45 (2): 89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00412.x. ISSN 0947-5745.
URL: LINK: “Explanations in Evolutionary Theory” by Bock ]

If you want my own humble version of THE “theory of evolution”, it would be:

My Hypothesis Statement: Evolution occurs when there is any change in the gene pool for any given population which, over time, leads to differing rates of survival and breeding in an environment that does or can change at any time, favoring or hindering the survival or breeding of genetically defined or inclined traits.

There’s nothing magical about my definition… but it can certainly be tested in any number of ways… just as Harvard did when they created a giant petri dish in the size and shape of a table, and showed how bacteria mutations allowed a population to eventually survive and breed in an environment of an extremely toxic antibiotic.

So, Joe, tell me why my theory… or any other version like it is NOT a theory?

1 Like

Get it published then we can talk. It seems to vague to be a scientific theory. Your hypothesis statement is way too vague to be of any use. Yours might as well be talking about baraminology.

Please test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection or gradual change.

Why is it that you just cannot link to the theory of evolution? That you cannot proves that I am not trolling here- you are.

Sir… I think you know not of what you speak. I’m done with you.

1 Like

Here it is.

Δp = pq [p(w11 − w12) + q(w12 − w22)] / w

Delta p is the change in allele frequency in a population (the definition of evolution) in the next generation, p and q are allele frequencies, w is average fitness, and w11,w12, w22 are the fitnesses of the three genotypes. This is a very basic theoretical formula found in most textbooks, there are many far more elaborate formulations that take into account other factors.


Not all the claims made by a scientific theory need to be currently testable. For example, Einstein predicted gravity waves as part of his scientific and these were only discovered this year. General relativity had been a scientific theory for decades even though it had made predictions that had yet to be verified.

So what successful predictions has the theory of evolution made?

For one thing, it was predicted that we must have a fusion on one of our chromosomes because we have one fewer pair than other great apes do. Well long after that prediction we found that fusion site. If we hadn’t, evolution would have been in serious trouble.

What else has evolution successfully predicted?

  • A biochemical way for information to be passed on from generation to generation that can be subject to mutation

  • Shared transposons between closely related species

  • The synteny between genes on chromosomes

  • Shared pseudogenes with shared means of inactivation

  • Incomplete lineage sorting when we encounter three closely related clades.

  • Mechanisms for new genes to be created

  • Countless intermediate forms in the fossil record including this startling find. In this case, they not only predicted that they would find it but they were able to predict where they would find it.

  • Feathered dinosaurs

  • The ability of closely related species to interbreed

What could disprove evolution:

  • A rabbit in the Devonian

  • A functional gene discovered without any possible origin


So how many mutations does it take to evolve a human from a non-human? Can’t say using your formula? Then what good is it?

There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.

Show me where in the alleged theory that was predicted. Show me where any of what you say was predicted. And seeing that there aren’t any known mechanisms tat can produce rabbits from non-rabbits your falsification fails. BTW Tiktaalik lived millions of years AFTER the alleged transformation.

“There is no theory of evolution”- cytologist Jerome Lejeune at the 1982 close of the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (no one disagreed and the meeting ended)

“There never really has been a scientific “theory” of evolution.” geneticist and former editor of a peer-review journal, Giuseppe Semonti

Not surprising that an AiG contributor would make such an absurd statement… Giuseppe Sermonti - Wikipedia

This quote appears exactly 3 times on the internet. Two times in the comments of other articles (once by you!), and once by @Cornelius_Hunter at Darwin’s Blog. Therefore I do find this quote totally suspect. Please present the provenance and evidence that he actually said this?

And even if he did, so what? He is cytologist, with no identifiable expertise or training in evolution.

EDIT: This quote is in a comment on @Cornelius_Hunter’s blog by @JoeG. It is not traced back to @Cornelius_Hunter .

Even if these are real quotes, this is just statements of personal ignorance. No more. Just like your claims. Of course there is a theory of evolution, you just are ignorant of it. No worries. Teachable people can learn. You just have to decide when you are ready.

Hi Sy,

This is the direction theories of science take - however I need to ask a very common question - how do you obtain w, w11, w12, w13, and from this approach, do you have a mathematical equation for natural selection? I understand that change in a population and fitness may be used in an ad hoc manner to arrive at results, but I have yet to find any source that provides a rigorous mathematical derivation of changes in population based on derived values.

As @Sy_Garte said…

Also, there is neutral theory too.

That article is really worth a good read. To be clear, neutral theory does not assume common descent, rather it makes clear predictions of how DNA will change IF most changes are neutral and IF there is common descent. If either assumption is violated, the data will not match. The fact that DNA data does match is strong evidence for both common descent and that most changes are neutral.


So this is your only test of whether Evolution is a testable theory?

How do you define Human? What is the genetic equation of being Human? I think you are going way over the edge - - asking an interesting question … and then proclaiming that only something that answers your interesting question can be a Science.

The equation is for testing Natural Selection… it is not for measuring what is Human.

1 Like

Hi Joshua,

I have no reason to doubt Sy, so I accept it is text book stuff, and I have seen one or two formula that are more elaborate. My question is directed at the thinking, and more important, the source of the terms in such formulae. Since many have compared ToE with QM, I have posted previously that we can derive the wave equation from maths from Newtonian mechanics (eg, F=ma, and a wave equation). So my question is reasonable in that context.

I will look at your link when time permits, but from your comment, I would conclude that it is data fitting and not, strictly speaking, scientific predictions. Changes in DNA are valid within ToE and CD, if they are directly linked to the phenotype (ie, just what does the change in DNA mean?). If you have a sound theoretical basis for equating a change in DNA with a (next) species in a hierarchy, than I would think you have something substantial to your idea of CD. If otoh, you say that similarities and differences in DNA must, by definition, amount to a descent in species, you must accept the burden of proof.

To reiterate past exchanges, if DNA differs by 2%, 5%, 10% etc., and you claim this proves some type of connection between species and descent, such a theory must quantify these similarities, and also quantify the differences (otherwise how would anyone classify these as distinct species?).

I do not want to go over old comments, but if memory serves, prominent biologists have considered these questions, and some appear to question the definition of species, and others say the genotype and phenotype ‘linkage’ may be too hard to elucidate. Whatever the case, these questions go to the heart of ToE and without answers, the theory is, shall we say, shaky.

Best wishes.