First time posting a thread, so go easy on me✌️

[The Hammer]

The evolution theory is a scientific theory I assume.?if yes Can this theory ever become a fact?

Yes evolution is considered a scientific theory. And scientific theories are considered facts. Which is why they are repeatedly tested against. As a way of ensuring that new knowledge hasn't changed our understanding of it or refuted it.

Edit: gravity is another scientific theory for example, (if I drop an object, it falls at a set rate. Which can be mathematically proven).

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Yes evolution is considered a scientific theory. And scientific theories are considered facts. Which is why they are repeatedly tested against. As a way of ensuring that new knowledge hasn't changed our understanding of it or refuted it.

When you say it’s considered a fact does that mean in the future there is no possibility of evidences that will refutes it?
I mean that’s where it gets confusing to me. Or am I missing something. If it’s considered a fact why just don’t call it a fact? Is there a reason why it still is mention as a theory?
Sorry for the many questions and i appreciate you taking your time to answer

 

[The Hammer]

When you say it’s considered a fact does that mean in the future there is no possibility of evidences that will refutes it?
I mean that’s where it gets confusing to me. Or am I missing something. If it’s considered a fact why just don’t call it a fact? Is there a reason why it still is mention as a theory?
Sorry for the many questions and i appreciate you taking your time to answer

That's a good question and maybe not one I am the best equipped to answer?

Evolution is a bit of both theory and fact. One of the defining features of a scientific theory is it's ability to be used as a predictive tool to explain future discoveries. While also allowing the possibility of further discoveries to also disprove them.

As it stands evolution in the scientific sense, is as fact as 1+1=2. Until proven otherwise.

I hope I'm making sense.

Edit: grammar fix

 

[The Hammer]

@Quintessence @Subduction Zone wanna help me out here?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

That's a good question and maybe not one I am the best equipped to answer?

Evolution is a bit of both theory and fact. One of the defining features of a scientific theory is it's ability to be used as a predictive tool to explain future discoveries. While also we allowing the possibility of further discoveries to also disprove them.

As it stands evolution in the scientific sense, is as fact as 1+1=2. Until proven otherwise.

I hope I'm making sense.

It’s complicated. I know evolution has layers of evidences , and maybe because some of those evidences cannot be fact since we can’t observe it or falsify it?
Can that be reason why it’s still a theory?
Maybe someone with some knowledge about the scientific methods can clarify?

 

[Quintessence]

You're pretty much on track, @The Hammer

To put it another way, a scientific theory is an explanation about something based on a body of evidence (aka, facts) that has been so routinely verified that they are more or less describing natural law (to the best of our current ability to discern it). By the time something becomes a scientific theory, it has very strong weight of evidence.

For better or worse, the word "theory" in common parlance is used far more casually. For example, folks will say something is "just" a theory, but in the sciences, theories are not "just" anything - they're the product of a heaping giant pile of evidence (aka, facts). So much so that they are more or less axiomatic within a given scientific discipline. That's why I described biological evolution as being essential to understanding biology - nothing in biology really makes sense except in light of biological evolution. At least from the perspective of science.

It is not the only theory in biology without which nothing in biology really makes sense. To give another example of a theory in biology? Cell theory - living organisms are made up of cells and cells are the basic unit of organization and structure in living things. Cell theory was made possible by the invention of the microscope, when cells could be seen with magnification. To give a third example? Germ theory - certain diseases in the body are caused by microorganisms that invade it which are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Another theory that was made possible by microscopes.

To point out an important theme here, science is only as good as the observational tools we use. While theories are very robust and based on a heaping pile of facts, it is still limited by the best of our current abilities. New techniques and methods push the boundaries of what we know and ideas in sciences are revised accordingly.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

You're pretty much on track, @The Hammer

To put it another way, a scientific theory is an explanation about something based on a body of evidence (aka, facts) that has been so routinely verified that they are more or less describing natural law (to the best of our current ability to discern it). By the time something becomes a scientific theory, it has very strong weight of evidence.

For better or worse, the word "theory" in common parlance is used far more casually. For example, folks will say something is "just" a theory, but in the sciences, theories are not "just" anything - they're the product of a heaping giant pile of evidence (aka, facts). So much so that they are more or less axiomatic within a given scientific discipline. That's why I described biological evolution as being essential to understanding biology - nothing in biology really makes sense except in light of biological evolution. At least from the perspective of science.

It is not the only theory in biology without which nothing in biology really makes sense. To give another example of a theory in biology? Cell theory - living organisms are made up of cells and cells are the basic unit of organization and structure in living things. Cell theory was made possible by the invention of the microscope, when cells could be seen with magnification. To give a third example? Germ theory - certain diseases in the body are caused by microorganisms that invade it which are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Another theory that was made possible by microscopes.

To point out an important theme here, science is only as good as the observational tools we use. While theories are very robust and based on a heaping pile of facts, it is still limited by the best of our current abilities. New techniques and methods push the boundaries of what we know and ideas in sciences are revised accordingly.

Hi

I don’t know if you read my questions. To get a better understanding.
If all the evidences of evolution is a fact why is it still called a theory. I get your saying the evidences are all fact.

Is it possible for evolution to be labeled as a fact all together and not a theory anymore!?
Or is this not how things work in the science world?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

I never think of evolution as changing from one kind to another. It's just a small change.....in part of a population....if that small change helps survival, it might be passed on to the organism's offspring......and so on....and so on.. etc (I'm no scientist)

That’s called adaption correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s called adaption correct?

It is both. Technically evolution is the change of allele frequencies of a species and that is what adaptation is too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi

I don’t know if you read my questions. To get a better understanding.
If all the evidences of evolution is a fact why is it still called a theory. I get your saying the evidences are all fact.

Is it possible for evolution to be labeled as a fact all together and not a theory anymore!?
Or is this not how things work in the science world?

Good question. Because in the sciences the term "proof" is never used. The highest ranking of concepts in science is a theory. For example gravity is a theory, have you heard of the "germ theory of disease"? Germs are part of a theory. The idea that everything is made up of atoms is atomic theory.

Theories explain facts.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Good question. Because in the sciences the term "proof" is never used. The highest ranking of concepts in science is a theory. For example gravity is a theory, have you heard of the "germ theory of disease"? Germs are part of a theory. The idea that everything is made up of atoms is atomic theory.

Theories explain facts.

Wow these 3 words puts everything in perspective. Thanks for that

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Since that is cleared up, so my next question is about evolution itself .
I made my intention to get to know the history of evolution before looking at the evidences
With history I mean what exactly Darwin came with this theory. I know before him there were others but Darwin made it more clearer or something.

So from what I read he came up with that all beings came from same ancestor and that we evolve to the environments

Is this all what his theory was or did he come with something else that was important?

Also someone here on this thread Mention that he got things wrong? I assume this was something significant otherwise this person wouldnt mention this?

 

[sayak83]

So I looked in to some of the articles en videos and have some questions about it.
Let me first start to say my English is not my first language so be free to correct me if I say something wrong.
I want to start with the something to me give a better understanding on this basics of the topic.

The most confusing thing about the evolution is iif it’s a fact, a theory or a hypothesis?
I have no high education but I always assumed that these three definitions were very simple to understand.

Fact is something that’s can be proven by observation, experiments and falsifying right?
A theory is something that has a valid reasoning and have evidence but it’s not a fact because of the above?
Hypothesis is a opnion that has no evidence?

I know I can find these definitions easily on the internet but getting knowledge from other people.

In science, the word fact is rarely used. Fact is more used outside the scientific circles for things that are believed to be definitely true.
In science words typically used are:-
Observations and Data:- These are roughly correlated with the common word "fact" but are basically phenomena or events that have been carefully observed, tabulated and quantified by scientists. For example:- observation on the value of speed of light in vacuum. Data on radioactive decay rates of heavy atoms.
Theory/Law/Principle/Dynamics/Mechanics:-
All of these are fundamentally scientific propositions on how the world works based on observations and data. The observations and data help to either validate or falsify a proposition like this. Now these can be used interchangeably but in general here the distinction
1) A law or a Principle is a proposition that can be expressed as a single simple mathematical relations.
Eg:- Ideal gas law: PV = nRT
Newton's 2nd Law F = ma
Energy Conservation Principle E = constant

2)Theory/Mechanics/Dynamics:- A theory is a set of connected propositions, including multiple sub laws or sub principles , that together explain a large swathe of the workings of the natural world. Mechanics is a type of theory that deals with motions of bodies and forces acting in them. Dynamics is a theory about forces and how they operate (and is a part of mechanics).
Example:
1) Atomic theory that proposes that matter is made up of discrete atoms with spaces between them(and is not a continuous substance). Atomic theory contains Dalton's Law, Avogadro's Principle, Law of Mass Conservation etc.
2) Classical Mechanics with contains Newton's laws, Principle of Least Action.
3) Thermodynamics contains the zeroth, 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws.
Etc.

In general, any law, principle, Mechanics, Dynamics or Theory can be shown to be wrong, or to have limits of application, by future observations and data. For example, Classical Mechanics was shown to be limited in its application to macroscopic objects and low speed motions while Quantum Mechanics applies to micro-scale phenomenon.

Very successful theories or principles, however, are hardly shown to be false. What happens is that they are found to hold in their original domain of observations, while a more general theory or principle is found to hold in a new extended domain. So classical mechanics still holds for everyday phenomenon, only when we look at microscopic objects or high gravitational fields, do we worry about Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity. Similarly Energy Conservation Principle and Mass Conservation principles hold still in most cases. But when we look at radioactive decay or fission - fusion events in nuclear processes, we generalize to joint Mass-Energy conservation via Einstein's E=mc^2 law.

 

[Stonetree]

To point out an important theme here, science is only as good as the observational tools we use.

In a machine shop, I used a similar phrase while instructing novices. 'Your accuracy is only as good as your ability to measure it'.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

In science, the word fact is rarely used

To be honest with you one of the reason why I asked this is because hawkins said that evolution is a fact. I know there are scientists that does say it’s a theory, that why I asked what in science is the right wording

Fact is more used outside the scientific circles for things that are believed to be definitely true.

I understand thanks

 

[F1fan]

Since that is cleared up, so my next question is about evolution itself .
I made my intention to get to know the history of evolution before looking at the evidences
With history I mean what exactly Darwin came with this theory. I know before him there were others but Darwin made it more clearer or something.

Darwin is pretty much irrelevant to what we know today. He's only famous because he was the one of the first to realize that living organisms change as they reproduce one generation to the next. He wrote a famous book about his observations and predictions. Since this was 1860 he did not have much other knowledge to build on like we do today. There weren't planes or cars when he wrote that book, and look at how much we have learned about designing and building airplanes.

There was another guy named Wallace who also figured out that evolution is a real phenomenon. But he didn't get the fame.

So from what I read he came up with that all beings came from same ancestor and that we evolve to the environments

Humans evolved from homo erectus in Africa about 200,000 years ago. There were neanderthals already in what we call Europe that evolved about a million years ago. Humans, homo sapiens, travelled from Africa into Europe. As humans populated this part of the world their skin got lighter generation after generation. This was because it was farther north and there was less sun, so the pigment was not needed. Humans who evolved in more northern climates have lighter skin than humans who live around the equater. The skin color difference is due to exposure to the sun, which is more intense at the equator. Those of us who have ancestors from Europe have about 2% neaderthal DNA while those with African ancestory have none. And of course, neaderthals died off about 25,000 years ago.

Other animals evolve to their environment. Let's say a large population of cats separate, and one lives in a dry environment with streams and the other lives in a jungle that has trees, each will have offspring that will and won't do well in their environment. As generations go on the offspring that do better in their environment will survive and reproduce. Over time both groups will be vastly different because the demands of their environment selected traits.

Is this all what his theory was or did he come with something else that was important?

He just made some observations. He didn't know about genetics or microorganisms. I'm not sure he knew about dinosaurs. He didn't know how wide spread evolution went.

Also someone here on this thread Mention that he got things wrong? I assume this was something significant otherwise this person wouldnt mention this?

I mentioned it. He got things wrong. It was 1860. I don't remember what exactly. It's not important since he had no knowledge like we do today. He got the ball rolling.

 

[sayak83]

Since that is cleared up, so my next question is about evolution itself .
I made my intention to get to know the history of evolution before looking at the evidences
With history I mean what exactly Darwin came with this theory. I know before him there were others but Darwin made it more clearer or something.

So from what I read he came up with that all beings came from same ancestor and that we evolve to the environments

Is this all what his theory was or did he come with something else that was important?

Also someone here on this thread Mention that he got things wrong? I assume this was something significant otherwise this person wouldnt mention this?

I am linking a very informative article that reasonably answers your question on Darwin's contribution. Please read and let me know if you have any questions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/#:~:text=Darwin's%20greatest%20contribution%20to%20science,into%20the%20realm%20of%20science.

Excerpts

Darwin considered natural selection, rather than his demonstration of evolution, his most important discovery and designated it as “my theory,” a designation he never used when referring to the evolution of organisms. The discovery of natural selection, Darwin's awareness that it was a greatly significant discovery because it was science's answer to Paley's argument from design,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since that is cleared up, so my next question is about evolution itself .
I made my intention to get to know the history of evolution before looking at the evidences
With history I mean what exactly Darwin came with this theory. I know before him there were others but Darwin made it more clearer or something.

So from what I read he came up with that all beings came from same ancestor and that we evolve to the environments

Is this all what his theory was or did he come with something else that was important?

Also someone here on this thread Mention that he got things wrong? I assume this was something significant otherwise this person wouldnt mention this?

I have to add a bit to what others said. What Darwin did that was so important is that he put the concept into a modern scientific form. That means he made the idea testable. In his work he went over how evolution evolution can explain how eyes arose and other traits.

But even more important is that when one puts an idea into a scientific form the made it testable. Scientists in general do not want to be wrong. No one does. But to be scientific one has to form a testable idea that can be confirmed or refuted based upon the predictions that the idea makes.

Quite often when debating with creationists I try to ask them "What test could possibly prove you to be wrong?" There are very often confused by that because they do not want to be proven wrong. They just want to believe. As I said, scientists do not want to be wrong either, but for them knowing what is right is even more important than that. (Ideally)

There are scientists that have honestly thanked others when they were shown to be wrong. They often go on to make other discoveries. There are a few that get very angry when they are shown to be wrong. And they rarely make any more contributions.

Darwin's greatest contribution was to put the concept into a testable form and it has been continually tested since then. Many people have been shown to be wrong in part of their work. That is nothing. It is how science works. They build their work on the greats of the past. Sometimes correcting them sometimes confirming them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also someone here on this thread Mention that he got things wrong? I assume this was something significant otherwise this person wouldnt mention this?

This was a reasonable question that I did not answer. Yes Darwin got things wrong, and it appears that most agree that his biggest error was in proposing what he called "pangenesis". It was almost Lamarckian in its approach. At that time genetics was almost unknown. Darwin proposed that each cell had "gemmules" that it shed and that these made its way to the gonads where they affected the young of the parents. You can read more here:

Pangenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McBell]

In a machine shop, I used a similar phrase while instructing novices. 'Your accuracy is only as good as your ability to measure it'.

My uncle, a career machinist, said that exact phrase all the time.