TOE

[Revoltingest]

All the fossils discovered aren’t hard core enough?

The fossil record is fact.
The explanation (TOE) is a theory.
What makes it a "scientific theory" is that it
makes falsifiable predictions that can be tested.
This makes it "useful".

Personal view....
I say the theory has risen to the level of factuality.
Why?
It makes so darn much sense.
It's been tested & verified so many times.
Its explanatory power is elegant & powerful.
There's no alternative scientific explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We know it’s a fact species have changed over time but we still call the study of it the theory of evolution. We know plants are a fact. We don’t call the study of plants the theory of plants. We call it botany. Just sayin

Speciation. Evolution. Studying speciation or the evolution of a species is not called the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains that speciation though.

You could lump it under evolutionary biology.

 

[Jimmy]

The fossil record is fact.
The explanation (TOE) is a theory.
What makes it a "scientific theory" is that it
makes falsifiable predictions that can be tested.
This makes it "useful".

Personal view....
I say the theory has risen to the level of factuality.
Why?
It makes so darn much sense.
It's been tested & verified so many times.
Its explanatory power is elegant & powerful.
There's no alternative scientific explanation.

Yeah just change the name and keep on studying the details of how and why. I mean they don’t even include abiogenesis in it so they don’t have to worry about that colossal undertaking to gather evidence for that at least.

 

[Jimmy]

Speciation. Evolution. Studying speciation or the evolution of a species is not called the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains that speciation though.

You could lump it under evolutionary biology.

Yeah The theory of evolution falls under biology Along with other theories which is pretty broad. I think it should have a specialization
Field like botany

 

[Jimmy]

Speciation. Evolution. Studying speciation or the evolution of a species is not called the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains that speciation though.

You could lump it under evolutionary biology.

Call it Evology

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah just change the name and keep on studying the details of how and why. I mean they don’t even include abiogenesis in it so they don’t have to worry about that colossal undertaking to gather evidence for that at least.

Abiogenesis is a different issue, being highly speculative.
But interesting work on it continues.
And I don't see any alternative testable theories.

 

[Jimmy]

Abiogenesis is a different issue, being highly speculative.
But interesting work on it continues.
And I don't see any alternative testable theories.

Can’t test ‘MAJIK’ haha of that which I’m a believer

 

[Revoltingest]

Can’t test ‘MAJIK’ haha of that which I’m a believer

Oh, well...ain't nobody perfect.

 

[Jimmy]

Abiogenesis is a different issue, being highly speculative.
But interesting work on it continues.
And I don't see any alternative testable theories.

Synthesizing RNA or DNA will be far far off. Probably never actually. If we become that good then we’d be able to identify the messiah. Haha only joking

 

[Polymath257]

The scientific study of the brain and nervous system is called neuroscience or neurobiology Not the Theory of Brain

But that is mostly looking at the anatomy and physiology. It is not a theory in the sense I described above. The theory comes when we link the brain to the mind, when we get a theory of mind.

 

[Polymath257]

We know it’s a fact species have changed over time but we still call the study of it the theory of evolution. We know plants are a fact. We don’t call the study of plants the theory of plants. We call it botany. Just sayin

Again, what is the *theory* part of it? The part that explains observations and predicts new ones? Much of what is called botany is *observation*, the collection of facts, and classification.

Those facts are mostly explained by, wait for it, evolutionary theory.

Now let's go to physics. We have Maxwell's theory of light, which is incredibly well established. We have quantum theory, which is also incredibly well established. We have the Big Band theory (same). We have the theory of solids. We have the theory of statistical mechanics. And, of course, the theory of gravity.

Observation and classification tend not to be called 'theories'. The explanations do.

 

[Polymath257]

Synthesizing RNA or DNA will be far far off. Probably never actually. If we become that good then we’d be able to identify the messiah. Haha only joking

Synthesizing them from what? We already synthesize our own DNA molecules to do what we want. We have also synthesized RNA that uses different bases and used them to code for proteins with novel amino acids.

 

[Jimmy]

Again, what is the *theory* part of it? The part that explains observations and predicts new ones? Much of what is called botany is *observation*, the collection of facts, and classification.

Those facts are mostly explained by, wait for it, evolutionary theory.

Now let's go to physics. We have Maxwell's theory of light, which is incredibly well established. We have quantum theory, which is also incredibly well established. We have the Big Band theory (same). We have the theory of solids. We have the theory of statistical mechanics. And, of course, the theory of gravity.

Observation and classification tend not to be called 'theories'. The explanations do.

My eyes are tired from all the observation

 

[Jimmy]

Synthesizing them from what? We already synthesize our own DNA molecules to do what we want. We have also synthesized RNA that uses different bases and used them to code for proteins with novel amino acids.

You probably should reread the thread