Evolution is a fact, not a theory

[oberliner]

Scientists generally agree that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation of how life on earth evolved. Even if other scientists come up with other theories about how evolution works, evolution itself remains a fact. Let’s consider this in light of another scientific fact - gravity. Gravity is a fact. How gravity works is a theory. Current theories about gravity might be disproved, but gravity remains a fact.

From: http://salmonriver.com/lightscience/evolution2.html

I still can't get over the fact that three of the ten in the debate do not "believe in evolution"

[BlueStateModerate]

1. Did you catch which ones raised their hands? N/T

?

[oberliner]

3. Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo nt

[slackmaster]

44. Exactly the ones you would expect to raise their hands

The responses that floored me were the ones to the questions on abortion, and in particular the failure of any of them (except Ron Paul) to come up with a really good answer on that gem of a question on stem cell research that Nancy Reagan tossed them.

Paul's response, that the Constitution does not provide for government funding of that kind of thing, was right on principle as was pretty much everything else he said.

[Lerkfish]

2. I believe in evolution, yet I think its still a theory

I think its a correct theory, but I do believe there is a difference between theory and fact. For what its worth.

:shrug:

[oberliner]

4. Can't it be a fact and a theory?

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth, isn't it?

[opiate69]

6. Precisely, oberliner..

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven 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. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

[cassiepriam]

12. String theory is an example of a another very popular theory. But it is not fact.

And it may be found to be untrue at some later date.

[Lerkfish]

15. A theory can reasonably explain all observable data, and still be wrong.

I'm just sayin.

How many times have there been paradigm shifts in science, when a theory that was considered proven was disproven later by better data? It wasn't that the theory was bad, or the scientist stupid, but rather that the data was incomplete and led to an incorrect conclusion.

This is true in nuclear physics, for example, where old theories of particle orbital configurations, although they arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on the data available, when further and more complete data arrived, were proven incorrect.

[opiate69]

18. Well, much like the apple in my previous post..

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

[Lerkfish]

23. I agree it is considered a fact, as you say.

and I also stated I think its a CORRECT theory. I'm just pointing out the basic difference between a theory and a fact. What you've done is explain how belief can change the perception of a theory into a considered fact.

Unless and until we invent a time machine, we can extrapolate what we know now and use it as a template to surmise past evolution based on the fossil record, but we cannot necessarily eliminate all variables that detract from the theory since we cannot direct OBSERVE past evolution in action.

We can NOW observe an apple, but we cannot NOW observe dinosaurs becoming extinct, for example. We can gather clues and come to some very good conclusions. But the litmus in proving a theory to be a fact requires observation and replicability under the same conditions, and we can't replicate the past conditions, so we are left with the impression past conditions have made in our environment in lieu of direct observation.

[cassiepriam]

7. No not absolute fact. Scientists have found evidence disputing some of

Darwin's claims. So it is like anything else in science,
a work in progress. Not carved in stone at all.

A theory is just that, a theory.
Not fact.

[opiate69]

10. For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to have no idea what "scientific theory" means.

[cassiepriam]

20. Tsk tsk....A theory is a way to explain facts. And theories, even popular ones

can be wrong.

Any one who buys all of Darwin's work is wrong.
He was a genius, and we owe much to him, but he
made some mistakes.

And OP you might want to stick to sound arguments
rather than resorting to insults, weakens your case.

[opiate69]

25. Ok then.. is this statement a fact?

Changes in allele frequencies occur in a population from one generation to another.

[madeline_con]

13. I'mm poo pooing what you just said.

No offense. :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

16. evolution is a fact. It is a demonstrable fact.

The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for how evolution works. The theory itself has evolved and developed since Darwin and indeed has many remaining areas of contention. What is not contentious at all is that there is in fact a process of evolution that can be observed in living creatures.

[johnaries]

26. Darwin's theory was Natural Selection. Evolution is a fact.

Viruses and bacteria evolve all the time. We have seen insects evolve to become resistant to certain pesticides. We have rcently even seen a bird species evolve. Evolution is an observable fact.

Darwin's Theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism through which species evolved to their present state.

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. Can you link to some of this "evidence"?

I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[gollygee]

40. There is proof that things have evolved, therefore evolution is a fact

there is no proof that evolution is how people, etc., came to be. *That* is a theory. But there is simple proof that evolution in and of itself exists because it's been demonstrated over and over again among organisms in labs.

[Arugula Latte]

43. Evolution is a theory in the same way "the Earth is round" is a theory.

Evolution has been observed. That is irrefutable.

[electron_blue]

22. No, it can't be both. Facts are measurements that can in principle be verified by anyone

A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation for those facts. So, to put it in the evolution debate, evolution is fact, natural selection is the theory explaining the observed evolution of features over time. However, it doesn't help at all that the word theory is used in a flimsy way in everyday conversation, and you'll also see scientists using the word evolution for theory instead of natural selection. I really wish we'd pick a different word for theory in science. It's been co-opted and is next to useless for popular discussions.

[cassiepriam]

5. Thank you from a fellow scientist.

It is a theory, a very popular one.
But not perfect and there appears to be evidence
that Darwin missed the boat on a number of points.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Yes. It is fact, not holy writ

It is in practice a model for how life behaves, and follows the rule of models:

All models are incorrect. Some are useful.

[oberliner]

11. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory

There can certainly be other theories on how evolution occurred that are different from Darwin's theory; natural selection may not adequately explain the mechanism of evolution.

But the fact that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history is one of the foundations of modern biology.

[Zodiak]

27. I'm with you lerk

Theory is not a low position in science, especially biology. In order to graduate to "theory" a hypothesis has to be supported over and over and over again with very few exceptions. Biologists often treat theory as a facual framework for other experiments. The only thing I can think of that is higher than theory in science is dogma, but even dogma allows a little wiggle-room.

There is nothing demeaning in the word "theory". Unfortunately most Americans are not familiar with the nuances of scientific terms or which terms mean what in the various scientific fields. (Physics vs. Biology, for example).

And these asshat Republicans probably have never heard of parsimony, either.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Oh jeez.

[TahitiNut]

14. The fossil record is a fact ... evidence of a phenomenon. The mechanism is theoretical.

"Natural selection" is a theory as is steady mutation as is leap mutation ... explanations of the fossil record. DNA confirms the phenomenon evidenced by the fossil record.

[Liberal In Texas]

17. Wish there had been a follow up, "Do you believe in the theory of relativity?"

Probably would have been a wall of blank stares.

[Naturyl]

19. You gotta "love" the ignorance...

It's hard to understand how they can even think that facts can be "disbelieved" at will. It's not even a legitimate choice to disbelieve evolution. One either accepts the facts or ignores them - and to ignore is to be ignorant.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. That's a really good point that the media forgets to mention

Evolution is a fact. It is not going away. Not believing in evolution is like not believing in Tuesday.

[Error]

24. God, you're right!

[Skinner]

28. You are correct, but I think your presentation is a little confusing.

Yes, evolution is a fact.

The theory that explains how evolution works is called Natural Selection.

[Idioteque]

29. I would have spoken up had I been on that stage.

One doesn't "believe in" evolution like one believes in bullshit fairy tales like zombie jesus.

I accept evolution because evolution is science. I want a president who accepts science, not one who "believes in" anything.

[Wiregrass Willie]

30. Maybe it's mis-named

I would have less trouble if it were called the "theory of devolution". It's hard to look at our current world leaders and think they have "evolved" upward.

[KittyWampus]

31. Well, I've heard the likes of Al Franken, Randi Rhodes & countless DU'ers make the same mistake

Evolution is an empirical fact.

NeoDarwinism is an imperfect THEORY of evolution based on the outdated philosophy of Materialism.

And THAT is also a fact. Even though countless DU'ers are ignorant of the philosophical basis of their views. Some DU'ers claim their views regarding Evolution don't have a philosophical basis (which is impossible) and some are even dishonest and claim that they are not Materialists but Idealists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. No, "that" is not "a fact"

Materialism is not an 'outdated philosophy'. It is still coherent, and not contradicted by anything we know.

It may not be what you personally believe, but that doesn't mean you can claim your belief as a 'fact'.

[WinkyDink]

34. Why didn't dinosaurs evolve?

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. They did.

They evolved for over 100 million years. Some evolved into birds, as well.

[WinkyDink]

39. Birds MIGHT be linked. Some dispute this:

http://www.dinoruss.com/de_4/5c60b93.htm
"A study that claims to finally disprove the ‘birds are dinosaur descendants’ theory has recently been published by Burke and Feduccia. Based on a study of the development of the hand and foot digits in chickens, turtles, alligators, lizards and mice they consider that in all cases development is similar, and that they can accurately describe which digits are lost in the case of birds. In contrast to the current theory which holds that birds, in common with the later bird-like dinosaurs, retain digits I-II-III, Burke and Feduccia insist that in fact birds retain digits II-III-IV. The argument is highly technical and difficult for non-embryologists to assess, but if proven it would seem to put an end to the dinosaur to bird link."

Where did dinosaurs come from? Why did it take the extinction of dinosaurs to have one-celled creatures start all over again, and this time end up as Homo sapiens sapiens (e.g.)?

For another question: How does evolution account for symbiosis; i.e., must two distinct species evolve at the same time?
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. But most, as your link says, think birds are descended from dinosaurs

Another bit of evidence: the recent discovery of proteins in T. Rex bones that is similar to that of modern birds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6548719.stm

Dinosaurs evolved from earlier archosaurs - the same group as crocodiles.

Mammal evolution didn't "start all over again" from "one-celled creatures" - we are descended from reptiles, possibly cynodonts. The latest genetic analysis reckons mammals had evolved before 160 million years ago - which was when they reckon the monotremes (eg duck-billed platypus) and the rest of the mammals diverged - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=28963 . It's hard to give the exact dividing line in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals - the defining characteristic of a mammal is producing milk, which doesn't show up well in skeletons. But creatures like cynodonts show some of the features that modern-day mammals (like their teeth shapes) that point to their being on the evolutionary path.

Symbiosis doesn't require a simultaneous appearance of 2 new species; for each creature involved, the other is part of its environment, and can thus exert selective pressure on it. This may mean there is a tendency for the changes to appear at the same time; but speciation (ie the point at which interbreeding between an 'old' population and a 'new' one) needn't happen at the same time.

By the way, I hope you don't take anything that last link you gave as correct. It's got things fundamentally wrong in the first paragraph.

[mmonk]

36. The next thing you're going to try and say

is gravity is a fact, not a theory.

[Philosoraptor]

37. AMEN! Now, onto disproving the theory of gravity.

People prefer fairy tales to truth every time.

[Odin2005]

38. Evolution IS a theory, the creationists just don't know the proper definition of "theory"

The problem is that lay people use "theory" to describe what us scientists call a hypothesis, an educated guess; that is how the creationists fool people with the "it's just a theory" BS. A theory in the scientific sense is a hypothesis backed up with evidence from observation and/or experiment. Also, scientific theories can never be absolutely proven, only absolutely disproven. Science is based on Falsification not Verification/Induction; Verification/Induction is logically impossible, just because you've seen 100,000 ravens and all are black one can not logically conclude that all ravens are black.

[frustrated_lefty]

42. Any scientist worth their snuff

is going to be reluctant when it comes to using the word "fact." As soon as you declare something a fact, you close your mind to alternative explanations when and if contrary evidence presents itself.

Frances Crick, of Watson and Crick, once postulated that life on earth was brought here by aliens. At the time, he was just taking a poke at the creationists. The point stands, though...it's a different theory which would explain the phenomena we have observed and yet does not require evolution to be a "fact."

Besides, when a theory becomes so incontrovertible that even the village idiot has to accept it, it still doesn't become a "fact." It becomes a "law." :p