The theory (fact) of evolution

Master_X said:
Evolution is science backed up by scientific facts,

Religion is backed up by religious facts.
Click to expand...

many years ago it was a 'fact' that the earth was flat, it was 'fact' that the earth was the centre of the universe, science doesn't deal in facts, it deals in theories which constantly evolve, die out and spring up from new discoveries.
 
Gaidin109 said:
Evolution by Natural Selection is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as scientific fact. It is a theory for these reasons. Doesn't mean it is not true though. Most scientific theories are accepted as true, if they can be supported by observation and experiment. Evolution is a fact however, it it the theory of Natural Selection that explains it that is the theory.
Click to expand...

Evolution *is* observable and has been observed.

The method by which evolution occurs is the main thing that is under debate, not that it occurs at all.

Edit: You edited, as I was reading the thread. ;)
 
daz said:
Evolution *is* observable and has been observed.

The method by which evolution occurs is the main thing that is under debate, not that it occurs at all.

Edit: You edited, as I was reading the thread. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup in Bio 101 I made triclosan (antibiotic) resistant E. Coli in just several generations :) Made me paranoid about using antibiotics ever since because they are in everything from handwashes to toothpastes.

As said, it's the method by evolution occurs that is the main question...obviously there's not just 1 answer as there are so many different factors and forces in nature to push the fitness of a species one way or the other.
 
Caveat:

A theory is something that is speculative, an unproved assumption or conjecture. E.g. Northerners are all stupid (:D). This means we can classify things as absolutes: fact or non-fact (theory). Theories and guesses are the same here (which should highlight the problem) - everything theory has a equal chance of being right or wrong.

A scientific theory (such as evolution), is (from wiki as I cba):

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition.
Click to expand...

So, when we discuss "evolutionary theory" - it isn't a best guess, or something that can't be proved. It has (shed loads) of basis in fact.

Thus:

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.
Click to expand...
 
vincent1989 said:
many years ago it was a 'fact' that the earth was flat
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, I wish people would stop saying this, it was widely believed and supported that the earth was round/spherical since 500BC and it is supported even further back in some records.
 
Last edited:
daz said:
Evolution *is* observable and has been observed.

The method by which evolution occurs is the main thing that is under debate, not that it occurs at all.

Edit: You edited, as I was reading the thread. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read it back to myself and realised it wasn't very clear what I was trying to put across. :D
 
growse said:
"The sky is blue" is an observation. One that's certainly dependant on the observer. The sky most certainly isn't blue at sunset.

Evolution is a scientific model. It's a model devised given the available evidence we have the moment. It most certainly isn't a "fact" in much the same way that mavity isn't a fact, and that wednesday isn't a fact.
Click to expand...

If you take a philosophical look at things you could say that nothing is 100 percent fact but the amount of evidence we have makes it as good as fact! There's already a lot of misunderstanding in this thread already, we have hundreds of intermediate fossils all of which are from the exact time they should be! We are lucky to gave fossils at all and even without the fossils we have evolution would still be 99.9% fact!
 
vincent1989 said:
many years ago it was a 'fact' that the earth was flat, it was 'fact' that the earth was the centre of the universe, science doesn't deal in facts, it deals in theories which constantly evolve, die out and spring up from new discoveries.
Click to expand...


That is just a myth. It was common knowledge amongst scholars by the 3rd Century BC that the world was a sphere.
 
I read a very good book on this subject when I was studying Biology/evolution a few years back; Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare (Paul Colinvaux).

Might be worth seeing if you can get your hands on it. :)
 
One of the main problems is that a great number of people arguing for evolution actually do not understand it in the slightest. Another problem is that a great number of people arguing for religious interpretations of creation do no understand the thinking there in the slightest either. Shame really as they are two completely different things that are not necessarily exclusive and this is coming from someone who is a staunch evolutionist and quite sceptical, although not totally discounting, about the existence of any religious truth.
 
Fenris said:
No it wasn't, I wish people would stop saying this, it was widely believed and supported that the earth was round/spherical since 500BC and it is supported even further back in some records.
Click to expand...

but there was a time when people held it as fact yes? i'm well aware that the concept of earth being spherical is not a new one but it was widely believed by classical and pre-classical cultures (and by the Chinese until the 17th century).

my point is that there is no such thing as science fact (i'm not trying to disprove evolution (although i do not claim to believe in the now widely accepted (at least in western civilization)) theory of macro evolution.)
 
Last edited:
Apachegunface said:
If you take a philosophical look at things you could say that nothing is 100 percent fact but the amount of evidence we have makes it as good as fact! There's already a lot of misunderstanding in this thread already, we have hundreds of intermediate fossils all of which are from the exact time they should be! We are lucky to gave fossils at all and even without the fossils we have evolution would still be 99.9% fact!
Click to expand...

Newtonian mavity was 'fact' for 100s of years until Einstein comes along. A scientific theory is the best model we have that fits the evidence available. Someone could come up with an alternative to Evolution tomorrow that fits the evidence better, and that would then become the better model. Similarly, a single piece of evidence could arise tomorrow that counters the entirety of evolution as we currently understand it. We'd then need a different (better) model that takes into account this new evidence. In reality, they'd just tweak the existing model rather than throw it out.

My point is that scientific theories are models that are useful. They're not facts and shouldn't be treated as such. A comparison to evolution would be Big Bang theory - the evidence we've seen so far strongly suggests the universe started with a Big Bang. But it's never going to become a 'fact' until we can travel back in time and observe it.

*edit* what's a 99.9% fact? Something that's "mostly" factual? Only on weekdays?
 
i dont believe its all fact. how can it be ? its definetly a more educated guess than the bible though.

we dont even know everything about our planet now. never mind what it was doing a million years ago.
 
growse said:
Newtonian mavity was 'fact' for 100s of years until Einstein comes along. A scientific theory is the best model we have that fits the evidence available. Someone could come up with an alternative to Evolution tomorrow that fits the evidence better, and that would then become the better model. Similarly, a single piece of evidence could arise tomorrow that counters the entirety of evolution as we currently understand it. We'd then need a different (better) model that takes into account this new evidence. In reality, they'd just tweak the existing model rather than throw it out.

My point is that scientific theories are models that are useful. They're not facts and shouldn't be treated as such. A comparison to evolution would be Big Bang theory - the evidence we've seen so far strongly suggests the universe started with a Big Bang. But it's never going to become a 'fact' until we can travel back in time and observe it.

*edit* what's a 99.9% fact? Something that's "mostly" factual? Only on weekdays?
Click to expand...


I tend to agree with this broadly. Science is not the study of facts but the process of trying to generate working hypotheses that explain the universe. People tend to use "fact" a little too easily. Then again, those who wish to discredit science will exploit this whilst believing in somethings with no basis whatsoever.
Humans, hey. Who'd have them? :rolleyes::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom