the FoE - Fact of Evolution

[David M]

what elevates a theory to a law?

"the Law of Evolution" LoE
(or whatever qualifies as scientific law)

just wondering

Nothing. Because theories are higher in the scale than laws, Scientific theories explain why Scientific Laws work.

Additionally Laws tend to be limited in scope, they describe (almost always in mathmeatical terms) what will happen for certain given conditions.

 

[Skwim]

I'd probably use it too if I were writing a book or article in layman's terms. But the fact is () it's a sloppy, inaccurate word to use for describing empirical observations.

So you'd have no trouble being sloppy when writing for a lay audience. Hmmm, interesting. And, of course, there are other opinions. For example:

Theories of Newtonian gravity and empirical
indistinguishability
Jonathan Bain*
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
_______________________________________________
Received 28 September 2003;accepted 28 October 2003
​

[pp 347-348]

As explained in detail by Malament,such a structure serves as the basis for a classical theory of motion in the following manner.The vector field ta assigns a temporal length to all vectors and thus allows a distinction between timelike and spacelike vectors.The signature of hab and condition (1)entail that the subspace of spacelike vectors is three-dimensional.Condition (2)entails that ta is closed, so a global time function t exists (given that M is well-behaved topologically). These facts allow M to be decomposed into instantaneous three-dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces Σt parametrized by t.
source (pdf file)
​

And

Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes
[Roger White
Noûs34 (2):260–276.]
​

[p 7]
What matters is the probability of M given E'and E. But now since E entails E', (E' & E) is equivalent to E. So P(M|E' & E) = P(M|E). But as we have seen above, P(M|E) is just equal to P(M). Hence P(M|E' & E) = P(M).So while the Multiple Universe hypothesis may be confirmed by E' alone, it is not confirmed by E' in conjunction with the more specific fact E, which we also know.


[p 9]
In saying that “our universe follows deductively from [M*]” (p. 339) Hacking may mean to say that the existence of a universe of the same type as ours—one instantiating the same set of conditions and constants—follows deductively from M*, and this would certainly be correct. He may wish to maintain that it is the existence of a universe of our type, that constitutes evidence for Carter’s hypothesis. But if this move worked, we could likewise argue that this same fact confirms Wheeler’s hypothesis, for the existence of a long sequence of universes does raise the probability that a universe of our type will exist at some time.
source (pdf file)
​

 

[newhope101]

And yet both accept that life evolved.

If Genesis is such an accurate account of creation as you claim, how come seed bearing plants (created on the 3rd day) don't appear in the fossil record until over 100 million years after fish (created on the 5th day)?

Well evos do not have all the answers so I do not see why I should have. You have no idea when fish came to be created or evolved. All you have is what you find. Evos also use excuses for why there is a lack of fossil evidence. Perhaps you have yet to find such evidence...or are evos the only ones permitted to use this excuse.

So this research dates life to 10 billion years. If like you, I pick the research that suits me, I can alledge, on the basis of this research that all your current fandangle postualtions are nothing more than delusions.



Maybe planet of the apes was real after all.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Gday,



So it's BOTH.

But you always pick the one that plays into the hands of creationists.


Iasion

That's because creationist fail to understand there's a difference in the way the average joe and the way scientist use the word. A lack or understanding on their part is not a concern on mine. The word "Theory" is not all they don't understand when it comes to the diversity of life on the planet......

 

[McBell]

Well evos do not have all the answers so I do not see why I should have. You have no idea when fish came to be created or evolved. All you have is what you find. Evos also use excuses for why there is a lack of fossil evidence. Perhaps you have yet to find such evidence...or are evos the only ones permitted to use this excuse.

So this research dates life to 10 billion years. If like you, I pick the research that suits me, I can alledge, on the basis of this research that all your current fandangle postualtions are nothing more than delusions.



Maybe planet of the apes was real after all.

Your skill in avoiding questions is most impressive.
Not as impressive as your skill in ignoring truth, facts, and reality that you dislike, but impressive non the less.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

That's because creationist fail to understand there's a difference in the way the average joe and the way scientist use the word. A lack or understanding on their part is not a concern on mine.

So, accurate communication is no concern of yours either?

Instead - you repeatedly and deliberately choose a word that is mis-understood; you deliberately choose an inaccurate and biased word that plays right into the hands of creationists; you specifically choose to play the very same word game that creationists play.

How odd.


Iasion

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is nothing inaccurate or biased about using the word "Theory" in reference to a Scientific Theory.

 

[Skwim]

So this research dates life to 10 billion years. If like you, I pick the research that suits me, I can alledge, on the basis of this research that all your current fandangle postualtions are nothing more than delusions.

But you won't "pick research that suits (you)" because there isn't any. This is just another baseless notion you've concocted and thrown to the wind; not to convince us, because you recognize that's a lost cause, but to shore up your crumbling belief in creationism. You can fool yourself, but ya can't fool anyone else, which is all that really counts anyway.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well evos do not have all the answers so I do not see why I should have. You have no idea when fish came to be created or evolved.

Around 510 million years ago.

All you have is what you find. Evos also use excuses for why there is a lack of fossil evidence. Perhaps you have yet to find such evidence...or are evos the only ones permitted to use this excuse.

We don't lack fossils - we've found thousands of them.

So this research dates life to 10 billion years. If like you, I pick the research that suits me, I can alledge, on the basis of this research that all your current fandangle postualtions are nothing more than delusions.

Okay then. Present some research which contradicts evolution that we are ignoring because it doesn't "suit" us.

Maybe planet of the apes was real after all.

So, you still do not understand evolution?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Gday,



So, accurate communication is no concern of yours either?

Instead - you repeatedly and deliberately choose a word that is mis-understood; you deliberately choose an inaccurate and biased word that plays right into the hands of creationists; you specifically choose to play the very same word game that creationists play.

How odd.


Iasion

There is nothing inaccurate or biased about the word "Theory" in lieu of how it is applied in science. It's only misunderstood by the uneducated and the ignorant. I understand the word perfectly and I know how it is to be used. Creationist are applying the colloquial use of the word and because they don't understand or refuse to understand the difference they believe it to be a guess. We see this when we hear them say......"Well the theory of evolution is just a theory" This means they have no understanding as to how it is used in the formal manner and it also makes it seem they have no idea or understanding as to what the Scientific Method is. Very few debates here at RF are focused on the word itself. The arguments here are normally centered around the Evolutionary processes.....(i.e. mutation, variation, natural selection etc...etc...etc...). Once they have been educated as to what Theory means in science vs. everyday informal use as well as how the word is derived from the Scientific Method and still refuse to acknowledge the proper use and meaning then they have chosen to remain ignorant.......

 

[Iasion]

There is nothing inaccurate or biased about the word "Theory" in lieu of how it is applied in science. It's only misunderstood by the uneducated and the ignorant. I understand the word perfectly and I know how it is to be used. Creationist are applying the colloquial use of the word and because they don't understand or refuse to understand the difference they believe it to be a guess. We see this when we hear them say......"Well the theory of evolution is just a theory" This means they have no understanding as to how it is used in the formal manner and it also makes it seem they have no idea or understanding as to what the Scientific Method is.

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of gravity" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of germs" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of atoms" ?
No, no and no.

But you DO insist on repeatedly referring to the THEORY of evolution. When you could just as well refere to it as the "Fact of Evolution" or just plain ol' "evolution" like most scientists do.



Iasion

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.

Which word is that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of gravity" ?

When talking about the theory, yes.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of germs" ?

When talking about the theory, yes.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of atoms" ?

When talking about the theory, yes.

No, no and no.

Actually, yes, yes and yes.

But you DO insist on repeatedly referring to the THEORY of evolution. When you could just as well refere to it as the "Fact of Evolution" or just plain ol' "evolution" like most scientists do.

Because the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. The fact is allele frequency over time, and that is hardly contested by anybody - creationists included. What creationists contest is the theory of evolution that uses evolution as an explanation for the diversification of all life forms on the planet from a common ancestor. When dealing with this objection, we are dealing with the theory of evolution.

There is nothing remotely dishonest, biased or one-sided about referring to a scientific theory as a scientific theory. In fact, quite the opposite, it is completely honest, and the only people whose hands it "plays into" are the people who don't understand what the word means. We do not pander to those people or make them feel like they have a point by suddenly changing the wording of something. We make our points by educating them on the proper meaning of the terms and leaning back on the actual science involved.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Which word is that?

The word is "theory".

The issue is that DP insists on using the term "ToE" which is short for the Theory of Evolution.

Firstly - evolution is a fact of nature.
Yes. It is. Like gravity, germs or atoms.

And, there is also some confusion in the public mind over the word "theory" - because it has 2 meanings :
1. explanation
2. speculation
(I have boiled them down to just one word each to make the difference clear - in practice, if you check a dictionary it will say more than one word.)

So, the problem is that when using the phrase "theory of evolution" there are some poorly-informed people who mistakenly interpret that to mean something like
"speculation that evolution occurred"
or
"wild guesses about evolution"

Some poorly informed creationists think evolution is "just a theory", i.e. it's "just speculation", it's just an idea that Darwin made up our of thin air that has no evidence.

Which is completely false of course.

So - this word "theory" has become overloaded, it causes MIS-conceptions, and it is used by creationists in an misguided religious attempt to deny a fact of nature.

Thus, those of us who wish to communicate clearly, and who wish to discuss accurately and objectively - should afford using the misleading term "theory of evolution" when simply discussing plain old "evolution".


Iasion

 

[Skwim]

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.
Iasion

It's more a matter of creationists deliberately misusing terms regardless of what is said. Go to a few creationist sites and simply see how often they repeat the same old misinformation over and over and over again. It isn't that they don't get it, but that they have no other ammunition with which to counter evolution, and their readership is of such a nature that it feeds on the perceived authority it accords them. So it doesn't matter that a term that can be misunderstood is used, because if it isn't that term it will be some other, or some other concept. There isn't much an evolutionist can say hasn't already been countered by creationists using some logical fallacy, purposeful misconstrual, or outright lie. And feckless, ignorant, enterprising, or zealous creationist don't hesitate in repeating them. And it's for these reasons it's really a no-win contest for the evolutionist in any debate. So, were it not for those sitting on the E. vs C. fence who deserve to hear the truth and not be swayed into supporting the creationist agenda, I, for one, wouldn't bother to talk to creationists.

 

[Quagmire]

Reading through threads like these I'm constantly amazed, amused, and often annoyed by the way that definitive answers, like this one:

We should eschew a common scientific term just because some people don't understand how "theory" is defined and used in science? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In re: fact vs theory, isn't "evolution" the observed fact that organisms change over time while "theory of evolution" is the proposed mechanisms of these changes?
Discussion: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Tend to get ignored

 

[Skwim]

Reading through threads like these I'm constantly amazed, amused, and often annoyed by the way that definitive answers, like this one:

Tend to get ignored

I don't think it's a matter of being ignored so much as a "Yeah, okay. But don't expect me to give you the gratification of knowing I think you're right. So suffer in my silence." Time and again we see people posting excellent responses to someone only to see that someone disappear from the thread forever without uttering a word.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't think it's a matter of being ignored so much as a "Yeah, okay. But don't expect me to give you the gratification of knowing I think you're right. So suffer in my silence."

LOL! Yeah, probably. :yes:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gday,



The word is "theory".

The issue is that DP insists on using the term "ToE" which is short for the Theory of Evolution.

Firstly - evolution is a fact of nature.
Yes. It is. Like gravity, germs or atoms.

And, there is also some confusion in the public mind over the word "theory" - because it has 2 meanings :
1. explanation
2. speculation
(I have boiled them down to just one word each to make the difference clear - in practice, if you check a dictionary it will say more than one word.)

So, the problem is that when using the phrase "theory of evolution" there are some poorly-informed people who mistakenly interpret that to mean something like
"speculation that evolution occurred"
or
"wild guesses about evolution"

Some poorly informed creationists think evolution is "just a theory", i.e. it's "just speculation", it's just an idea that Darwin made up our of thin air that has no evidence.

Which is completely false of course.

So - this word "theory" has become overloaded, it causes MIS-conceptions, and it is used by creationists in an misguided religious attempt to deny a fact of nature.

Thus, those of us who wish to communicate clearly, and who wish to discuss accurately and objectively - should afford using the misleading term "theory of evolution" when simply discussing plain old "evolution".

Sorry, but the word "theory" isn't misleading in the least. As you said, it is the creationists who are the poorly informed ones who don't understand the difference between a common theory and a scientific one. When such a problem arises, you do not resolve it by changing the words you use - you do it by informing the creationists of the proper definitions. Scientists aren't going to stop using the word "theory" just because some ignorant creationists aren't informed enough to understand what it means in a scientific context, and so pandering to such creationists by refusing the use the word actually serves to make us look dishonest. If we call it "the fact of evolution" it doesn't change their misconceptions about the word "theory", it strengthens it, and since the bulk of the arguments made by creationists are formed entirely from misconceptions about science we'd be doing both us and them a disservice in doing so.

There is no reason whatsoever to refer to the theory of evolution as anything other than the theory of evolution, unless you just want to pander to their ignorance or confuse the issue by dismissing the actual terms scientists use.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of gravity" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of germs" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of atoms" ?
No, no and no.

But you DO insist on repeatedly referring to the THEORY of evolution. When you could just as well refere to it as the "Fact of Evolution" or just plain ol' "evolution" like most scientists do.



Iasion

What ImmortalFlame just said in post 53.

It's pretty much what I said in my post.