Evolution: fact or theory?

G

gOn

Guest
I'm not a ceationist, but i don't understant what the scientists mean when they say Evolution is a fact. I never saw it happend; I never saw a monkey, or something like that, becoming a man gradually...

PS: English isn't my native language, so... my writing probably sucks.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
You saw it happen.


see it happen
Click to expand...

hehehe... I'm not talking about microevolution.
Don't get me wrong... I think Darwin probably get it wright... I mean... those fossil are very convincing...
 
gOn said:
hehehe... I'm not talking about microevolution.
Don't get me wrong... I think Darwin probably get it wright... I mean... those fossil are very convincing...
Click to expand...

If you accept microevolution you should have no trouble with macroevulotion


If you want examples of speciation happening under our eyes I have given references in the past, but nowadays I can't be bothered anymore.

You may search by yourself:
pubmed
 
The only thing that evolves is our understanding and knowledge.
But there are individuals that are exceptions to that evolving understanding and knowledge.
:D
 
Although no one has ever seen a primate evolve into a human, scientists observe evolution among lower forms of life all the time. Things like bacteria can evolve much faster, mainly because they reproduce quickly and have short lifetimes. There is also a great deal of evidence (fossil records, biochemical pathways, and many other things) that support the theory of evolution.

By the way, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that applying the word ‘theory’ to evolution means that it’s somehow in doubt. In scientific terms, calling something a ‘theory’ means that it’s an explanation for something that’s been observed. Evolution is considered a theory because it explains all sorts of things that have been observed by biologists. Some theories have an overwhelming amount of evidence behind them and scientists are sure that they’re correct, like quantum theory or the theory of evolution. Other theories have very little evidence the back them up and scientists aren’t at all sure if they’re correct, like string theory. Anyway, my point is that you shouldn’t think that scientists aren’t sure about evolution because it’s ‘just a theory’.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
If you accept microevolution you should have no trouble with macroevulotion


If you want examples of speciation happening under our eyes I have given references in the past, but nowadays I can't be bothered anymore.

You may search by yourself:
pubmed
Click to expand...

I know examples of speciation in plants happening in just one generation (poli...something). But that's not the rule in evolution. I have no problem with the exception. My problem is the rule. Why is the rule a fact?
 
FieryIce said:
The only thing that evolves is our understanding and knowledge.
But there are individuals that are exceptions to that evolving understanding and knowledge.
:D
Click to expand...

You must be one of those guys who looks at evolution and says: Yep... this is it... it's an obvious fact... like the sun moving through the sky. I wish i was that smart... but I'm not. That's the reason of this thread.
 
gOn said:
I'm not a ceationist, but i don't understant what the scientists mean when they say Evolution is a fact. I never saw it happend; I never saw a monkey, or something like that, becoming a man gradually...
Click to expand...

You should read this....

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="new">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html</a>

...then move on to the rest of the FAQs....

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html" target="new">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html</a>

...and you will understand!
 
Hey ya... the only thing i really want to know is why is the rule of the theory of evolution a fact... I know bacterias evolve... but they don't become other species...
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
You should read this....

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="new">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html</a>

...then move on to the rest of the FAQs....

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html" target="new">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html</a>

...and you will understand!
Click to expand...

Thanks Hercules... I will...
 
gOn said:
I know examples of speciation in plants happening in just one generation (poli...something). But that's not the rule in evolution. I have no problem with the exception. My problem is the rule. Why is the rule a fact?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about plants. I know shit about plants. I am talking about metazoan animals.

I don't know what your hangup with facts is, but facts only exist in crime detectives.

You have data and the interpretation of this data.
 
I don't think evolution is a fact, as far as a know, it's only a supported theory, at least for now. I don't think any living human being has actually witnessed the process evolution - because it started so long ago, and it lasted so long (and it's still going right now). The only thing we can do is to find evidence or proof to support that this event happened before. haha the good thing about scientific theories is that you have to find evidence to support it in order to convince other scientists. Unlike creationism, which you just have to you believe it.
I personally strongly believe in the theory of evolution, just because it's more logical.
 
Ok...I spend 15 minutes going through old threads.

here is one from the archive

I have been reading other ones too, and I must admit that we seem to have had more interesting threads on evolution in the past on sciforum. Nowadays it doesn't seem to get above the level of 'i don't believe it can be true' and 'the human species is divided into races'.

That makes me sad.

Here are some more old threads:


one
two
three

Browse through the archives if you have nothing to do. It is actually quite interesting once in a while
 
spuriousmonkey said:
who cares what a fact is. Evolution is a theory.
Click to expand...
:confused: but a theory isn't suposed to have its basis on facts, and explain others?


eddymrsci said:
I don't think evolution is a fact, as far as a know, it's only a supported theory, at least for now. I don't think any living human being has actually witnessed the process evolution - because it started so long ago, and it lasted so long (and it's still going right now). The only thing we can do is to find evidence or proof to support that this event happened before.
Click to expand...
Can something be happening right now and not be a fact? If it can't be called a fact, we're suposed to say that it seems to be happening right now, to account the possibility of being somehow a illusion.

I think that the point maybe is the thing of being both a fact and a theory.

By "theory of evolution", eventualy is meant "natural selection" or "common ancestry". These are theories, but simply "evolution" - descent with modification - is a clearly a fact (and theoretically unavoidable, or better, only in theory it's avoidable, under ideal conditions).

From the fact that living beings reproduce, and their descent is modificated, we can theorize that nowaday's living beings are modified descendants from living beings of the past. The fossil registry shows exactly the pattern that would be expected if it had happened from what we know about heredity. We don't find things like mammal polyps, or "vertebroid" squids - with vertebrae-like tentacles and cranium, hexapod dragons or pegasus, etc. Furthermore, we do not observe any alternative explanation for the existence of the nowadays lifeforms, such as sporadic spontaneous generation of new species.

By that, I would at least informally say that evolution or common ancestry is a fact, at least generaly. A specific phylogeny, although, I'd say that is theoretical. I could call it also a fact, with enough evidence to support, although.

I don't see what is the problem in saying that evolution, meaning common ancestry, natural selection, or simply descent with modification, are facts. If there's, it's in the same level of problem than saying that is a fact that I descend from my parents, so is something abuot formal rules, or something deeply philosophical. If there are some scientific formal rules that forbid calling evolution I fact, I don't know since I'm not a scientist, and I guess that lots of scientists also don't know.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
I feel like a parrot.

There is data and there is the interpretation of the data in a theoretical framework.
Click to expand...
spurious is exactly correct, in other words: (from http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm)

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
Click to expand...
...... [i.e. facts]

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves."
Click to expand...

Theories are used to interpret facts. Examples are evolutionary theory and the theory of gravity.

The test of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. If a theory is falsifiable then it can be considered a scientific theory, if it cannot be falsified then it is not a scientific theory.

Examples of non-scientific theories are special creationism, the theory of an afterlife, the theory that there is life elsewhere in the universe.

May I recommend either or both of these books by Karl Popper entitled The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top