Epistemic stress test yields interesting results about biological evolution

Unveiling Insights into Biological Evolution Through Epistemic Stress Testing

In the ongoing quest to deepen our understanding of scientific theories and models, leveraging advanced language models (LLMs) has become an innovative approach. Recently, I have been applying a technique known as epistemic stress testing to evaluate the robustness and explanatory power of various scientific claims, especially within the realm of biological evolution.

At its core, this method involves stripping away typical reinforcement learning and human-centered adjustments that many LLMs incorporate. Instead, these models function primarily as symbolic compression engines—they distill complex reasoning processes into compact representations. This allows us to compare how effectively different models can “compress” or structure explanations for competing scientific hypotheses.

The process begins with a carefully crafted prompt that directs the model to evaluate claims objectively and bluntly, ignoring personal background, politeness conventions, or hedging language. Instead, the focus is on causal, structural, and informational coherence. An example template looks like this:

Maintain the context for the entire session. Disregard personal knowledge or expectations. Prioritize honest, fact-based analysis without politeness or hedging. Focus on structural and causal clarity.

Perform an epistemic compression test on the following claim:

[Claim]

and evaluate it against the counterproposal:

[Counterclaim]

Always adhere to these instructions in your responses.

For illustration, consider a classical debate — the shape of the Earth:

Claim: “The Earth is a rotating oblate spheroid, as confirmed by satellite data, astronomical observations, and physical modeling.”

Counterclaim: “The Earth is flat and stationary. Curvature isn’t observed over large distances, water surfaces are always level, satellite images are fabricated, and the globe narrative is a constructed myth.”

When fed to the model, the result naturally dismisses the flat Earth assertion, aligning with established scientific consensus.

However, the real insight emerges when we shift the topic to biological evolution:

Claim: “The modern neo-Darwinian framework adequately explains the complex, modular architecture of the genome.”

Counterclaim: “Genomic modularity isn’t a product of mutation and selection, but instead reflects activation of pre-encoded scaffolds. Without a generative compression process, the neo-Darwinian model struggles to explain the origin of such evolvable biological structures.”

Surprisingly, under epistemic pressure, the neo-Darwinian model often collapses or reveals internal inconsistencies,