Evolution is only a theory...or is it?

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
If you really want to know, this is a good read on the subject. If you don't, feel free to move on.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
 
Last edited:
Mar 16, 2005
13,856
109
106
can a scientist practicing science create a conscious being from organic matter?
 
Last edited:

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
what does it take for it to become the Law of Evolution?

Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law?

This is an issue which often confuses the general public, as the two words, theory and law, have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion). Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,124
778
126
Aliens are real. We have tons of illegal ones here in California.
 

phucheneh

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2012
7,306
5
0
so evolution and creationism can both be considered theories?

In a similar way that both general relativity and the capability of my anus to produce delicious chocolate spongecakes are.

Don't believe in my magical hole? Then you'll have to eat my poo.
 

mammador

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,120
1
76
It cannot be tested.

Mutations occur, granted. But how these mutations help species adapt to environments cannot be measured. The physical environment of the Earth has been the same for 10,000 years, since the last Ice Age. It would take another major shift in global climate to trigger evolution. Evolution in humans has essentially ceased.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Not only is evolution real, true, and proven...

it would actually be physically impossible given how life works (at least on our planet) for it to not occur.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,698
4,659
75
I think science needs a new term: "conviction". It's not an obsolete "law", but it's more firm than "theory".

How do you get a conviction, then? By proving a theory beyond a reasonable doubt, of course! :p
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Evolution is considered to be as factual as the Sun being (roughly) the center of the solar system. Anyone who says otherwise is either a troll, else someone who is utterly clueless as to the incredibly vast amount of evidence supporting evolution. Science is open to change, but the likelihood that evolution is wrong is about as close to zero as you can get.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
It cannot be tested.

Mutations occur, granted. But how these mutations help species adapt to environments cannot be measured. The physical environment of the Earth has been the same for 10,000 years, since the last Ice Age. It would take another major shift in global climate to trigger evolution. Evolution in humans has essentially ceased.

Evolution *IS* tested. Evolution has been observed - both micro & macro, not that there is a difference between the two, other than time.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
The thing no one ever talks about is, why can't both be true? Granted, you can't usually have rational discussions with religious people. I consider the Bible to be propaganda, however I don't rule out that SOMETHING created us at some point, just nothing that mankind is or has been aware of.

The one thing no one can figure out is how did life actually start. Who's to say someone didn't start life on Earth, then the life evolved. Since we've never actually found any life (as of yet) elsewhere, anything is possible.
 

GrumpyMan

Diamond Member
May 14, 2001
5,780
266
136
If you weren't there to actually observe it, it's a theory. We just don't live long enough to observe it since it takes so much time to happen. Evolution? Yeah it could of happened that way, God? sure it could of happened that way, or maybe an Alien just decided to take a crap on Earth one day and it could of happened that way.
 
Last edited: