Evolution: fact or theory?

I Think i have my answer... Evolution, as a general ideia is a fact, but the mechanism of evolution (Darwinism) is a theory... But, although a theory is suported by facts... its not a fact but an interpretation...

Thanks ppl... ;)
 
gOn said:
I Think i have my answer... Evolution, as a general ideia is a fact, but the mechanism of evolution (Darwinism) is a theory... But, although a theory is suported by facts... its not a fact but an interpretation...
Thanks ppl... ;)
Click to expand...

In fact u have it the wrong way round. Evolution is a theory but the mechanism for it (Natural selection) is a known fact.
 
So... Darwin's theory is not a theory... and the fact of evolution is not a fact.
I'm very confused...
 
Er... Well... is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution? I understand natural selection as a fact, but does evolution occurs only because of it? Is the idea that evolution occurs through natural selection a fact or a theory?
 
gOn said:
Er... Well... is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution? I understand natural selection as a fact, but does evolution occurs only because of it? Is the idea that evolution occurs through natural selection a fact or a theory?
Click to expand...
No it's not. Even Neo-Darwinists (strict adaptationsists) don't believe that, I think. There's a neutral theory of evolution and a nearly-neutral theory saying that evolution occurs mainly through drift, i.e. stochastic changes in gene frequency. These are not peripheral theories, they are mainstream. Most evolutionary biologists know that both are important.
 
Nasor said:
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’.
Click to expand...


Who cares what scientitists are "sure about" or "unsure about"? What scientific value is this scientific "assuredness". I read a treatise by an evolutionary biologist (Francisco J Ayala in Theory of Evolutuin:Recent Successes. in "Evolution and Creation" edited by Ernan McMullen) who spent 4 of 5 pages ruminating how much a scientific fact evolution was. They don't even consider the alternative anymore.

I was able to decipher a major circular reason path in the comparison of cytochrome C being very somilar in humans and monkeys and then the truth was asserted when other near neighbors were paraded to the front of the stage.

Don't read Darwin's "origin" just read the preamble "Perspectives n History" or something. There Charlle quotes a couple of dozen "leading naturalists" who agreed that evolution was the way to go. Huxley kept the discussion honest by asserting his own belief but recognized the fact that evolution cannot be proved.

When Luther broke from the church religion didn't stop and neither did religion stop when "scientists" broke away and headed into the "natural law" industry. Ask the quantum theorist what reality is all about, the neo-priests have quite a tale to tell, mostly abnout how the cannot know anything useful, or interesting, but a few probabilities of this and that.

"They " ., the propagandists, [can you tell I'm venting?] are identifiable by the statement of "the remarkable predictive power of Quantum Mechanics" . Who among you have felt this rush of scientuific knowledge churnuing through your scientifically stimulatable veins by virtue of a quantum theory prediction? Anyone? You there, how about your grandmother, does she understand quantum theory?
 
geistkiesel said:
Who cares what scientitists are "sure about"
Click to expand...
Back, back BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to the religion forum where you belong! This is SCIENCE!!!!!!!!! Go back where you can safely believe what you want, cause it doesn't fly here!
 
gOn,

I am soooo tired of these kinds of threads, why don't you search for the many other like it that have come before?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Shall we call it a process John?
Click to expand...

Process is what I would normally call it but it doesn't really matter in this discussion as long as gOn learns that although evolution on a very long timescale can never be proven entirely correct, Natural selection does not even need observation in order for it to be proven valid in the real world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top