Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why use "theory" for evolution?


Magicjax

Recommended Posts

Hear me out here:)

I'm not a highly eductauted man. I feel I have some smarts and a logical thinker. But I didn't go all that far in school. I feel that my loosing my hearing in my late teens had a roll in that. Not trying to make excuses but I wasn't equipped for life without sound (didn't know ASL, family didn't know ASL, etc…). So formal education kind of lost interest. But now that I can hear again I crave the ease of knowledge from lectures, Documentries and things like that. I love TED.com. :)

Anyway, back to the topic. When it comes to evolution I understand that one of the problems some people have and use it to argue against is that evolution is called "a theory". And people use this word in its inappropriate definition to the discussion. People use the meaning of it meaning "something that's suspected but not enough to rely upon". But that's not the real meaning as its used to describe the scientific mean of a "theory".

Like I said I may not know the official definition. I can easilily look it up and paste the definitions. But I don't want to do that here. I want to explain it in how I understand it and see if any if you agree with how I understand it.

Basically a scientific theory, such as "the theory if evolution" or "theory of gravity" means it's a study of something that has been proven and predictable in every test thrown at it but we're still learning all the details as to the how and why it happens. We know it occurs, exists, consistent and is predictable. We use the knowledge gained by the study.

Just to give some examples to illustrate my understanding. Take gravity. We know the apple will fall down from the tree. With mathematical calculation of wind, height, angle we can even put a target on the ground under the apple to show where the apple will fall and it'll hit the target when it does fall proving its predictability. We know it's going to fall down and land in this spot. Yet, gravity is classified as a theory.

Evolution is predictable as well. It's used it breeding, developing medication. A dark coated mammal living in a hot desert will likely have a light colored underside to fight off heat. A large eyed animal likely hunts at night and so forth. These kinds of things are pretty consistant. So much so that if you turn a small mammal on its back and see its light coated belly you can assume its species came from a hot climate.

Yet evolution is called a theory.

My question is this. Why not get rid of the confusion between the meanings of the word and call them something else? Maybe call it a study or something like that. Because to the uneducated (even more so then myself) who are limited by open mindedness, logical thinking and curiosity. Won't confuse the scientific meaning of theory for the other meaning that basically means "an unconfirmed idea"?

Edited by Magicjax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Spock_the_Future

    30

  • aquatus1

    20

  • Copasetic

    18

  • FurthurBB

    11

Well, this seems to make is quite understandable. Please, no one be offended because the site is oriented for children.

Example:

In a "CSI: Miami" episode, officer Eric Delco says to his partner (regarding a possible homocide):

"I don't have any proof, it's just a theory. I think that she used this wooden bat..."

The way he used the word theory implies that it's a guess, a hunch. In fact, a theory is NOT a guess or a hunch, as you will learn. A more appropriate word would be hypothesis. Officer Delco has a hypothesis that the wooden bat was used in the murder. He could test his hypothesis by completing an experiment.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Theories are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Hypothesis

- a statement that uses a few observations

- an idea based on observations without experimental evidence

Theory

- uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence

- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships

- flexible enough to be modified if new data/evidence introduced

Law

- stands the test of time, often without change

- experimentally confirmed over and over

- can create true predictions for different situations

- has uniformity and is universal

Evolution is a Scientific Theory. Not a guess, unproven idea or gut instinct.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. :)

The Theory of Evolution is based on facts.

The "theory" definition that many use (incorrectly) is idea or hypothesis.

Every discussion about evolution should include in the first statement, the definition of Scientific Theory.

Could stem some of the confusions.

Do a search for "Copasetic". He's a brilliant member who has all kinds of information regarding evolution and its definitions in his profile.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A passing, uneducated thought I just had, is that evolution goes up against religion. Therefore, it is not allowed to be fact by religious strongholds. Hence, it is allowed to be a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the definition of theory given above:

----

Theory

- uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence

- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships

- flexible enough to be modified if new data/evidence introduced

----

A rather lengthy debate on another thread left me with a somewhat unanswered question regarding evolution and experimental evidence. More specifically, the use of fossils as experimental evidence.

When I was in grade school science, our teachers emphasized that Scientific Theory involved experimentation with a control group and a variable group. Observation of the result would either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

The question is this: how/why are fossils used as evidence to support evolution if no one observed them becoming fossils in the first place? How can experimentation occur if fossils are already formed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is this: how/why are fossils used as evidence to support evolution if no one observed them becoming fossils in the first place? How can experimentation occur if fossils are already formed?

Carbon dating and DNA analysis can determine where the fossils came from and how old they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is this: how/why are fossils used as evidence to support evolution if no one observed them becoming fossils in the first place? How can experimentation occur if fossils are already formed?

You didn't ask this on the other topic! If you read any of those books I mentioned, this would be explained to you!

We can use fossils to test homology, lineage chronology, developmental chronology, linage radiations, etc.

On my about me page there is two posts on how we can test homology: here and here.

Modern phylogenetics(I'm a link) is done with molecular techniques mostly and less with fossil data, however fossils can then be used to test predictions made from molecular data. I linked this to you in the other topic, the post is found here (scroll to marsupials)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is an observable, repeatable, fact.

Evolution as the explanation for what we see in evidence for past species is a theory and always will be. Why? Because we cannot observe the past.

I brush my teeth every morning. I can tell you I did so this morning. You can see that my brush is wet, there is slightly less toothpaste, and you have my testimony. Yet, it will always be a theory to you, because you can never go back and observe me brushing my teeth in the past. Even though you have evidence for it. It will always be theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is an observable, repeatable, fact.

Evolution as the explanation for what we see in evidence for past species is a theory and always will be. Why? Because we cannot observe the past.

I brush my teeth every morning. I can tell you I did so this morning. You can see that my brush is wet, there is slightly less toothpaste, and you have my testimony. Yet, it will always be a theory to you, because you can never go back and observe me brushing my teeth in the past. Even though you have evidence for it. It will always be theory.

Well, yes and no. A theory in science is an explanation for a body of observations or natural phenomena. They aren't "proved" because they are provisional, in that you can never definitively say you have all the evidence needed for that explanation. It can only be based on the most current evidence available. It would be foolish to "close" a theory and call it fact, by keeping your explanation open you have room to accommodate new observations or ideas that come along. So a theory in science always remains a theory, nothing more. A theory can only ever be disproven, though this doesn't happen often because as has been iterated in the topic a scientific theory isn't just a guess, it requires lots of evidence to be a theory.

Theories can also be models in science, which can possibly add another layer of confusion to the word. A phylogeny in this regard can be both a theory (model) or a fact (observation). The layout of a solar system is a model (theory).

Evolutionary theory is a unifying theory. Its big and collective and is composed of even other theories that all explain the phenomena of biological evolution. For example, natural selection is a theory that explains how and why allele frequencies change across generations. Natural selection will never be a fact, "only" a theory.

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a theory in science always remains a theory, nothing more.

Are you sure that a theory can never become a law, or that laws didn't start out as theories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure that a theory can never become a law, or that laws didn't start out as theories?

Yes, laws are laws. They aren't theories. Laws are summations of the behavior of a system. They actually don't explain the system or phenomena. Theories in science are more, much more powerful than laws.

For example Newton's law of gravitation very accurately describe how two masses interact gravitationally, but they don't explain why they do. The don't explain the interaction between them. To do that you would need a theory, like relativity which explains why (curvature of space-time).

Law's in science are normally mathematically based, statistical derivations of behavior or phenomena. You can derive a law because they are empirically true, not because you understand the system in question. Whereas a theory puts forth an explanation of those behaviors or phenomena. You can't "intuit" a theory per-say, the same way you could a law. Laws are still "predictive" in that they state statistically repeatable behavior.

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this. Why not get rid of the confusion between the meanings of the word and call them something else? Maybe call it a study or something like that. Because to the uneducated (even more so then myself) who are limited by open mindedness, logical thinking and curiosity. Won't confuse the scientific meaning of theory for the other meaning that basically means "an unconfirmed idea"?

If I may be a little unpolitical here, the problem is not that the uneducated are making mistakes. People who are uneducated, but open-minded, quickly see the point of confusion and adjust their conclusions. It is not the lack of data that makes one uneducated. It is the refusal to think.

The only people who run into significant problems regarding the meaning of "theory" or, more specifically, "evolution", are the people who have a vested interest in making sure that the uneducated do not think. The groups for whom having people understand the difference would significantly impact other beliefs they hold. For these groups, it makes sense to spread the disinformation and to actively promote confusion. Making up new words is not going to change that.

The problem is not ignorance. Learning about the basic concepts of science and the relevant definitions takes all of about 10 minutes, or less. The problem is the active disinformation being spread about this specific subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, laws are laws. They aren't theories. Laws are summations of the behavior of a system.

Does a law start out as a hypothesis, before it is proven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a law start out as a hypothesis, before it is proven?

It can, it depends on what that hypothesis is saying. If the hypothesis is telling you how it happens and why, it can become a theory. If it just tells you what happens, it can become a law.

Think about a law like this. Suppose you wanted to study twins as a phenomena. You could start off by simply observing how many twins occur per pregnancy. It turns out this is pretty statistically true across all data sets. Such that about 1 in every 89 pregnancies results in twins (Hellin's Law). You've just described the phenomena of twins mathematically, but you didn't actually explain twins. In other words you gave it a "what", but not a how or why. To give the how or why you'd have to delve into theory (cell theory).

Or another example to think about. Suppose you observe the sky every night with your telescope and notice the motion of the planets. You observe that the planets always behave in a certain manner. Never different. So certain that you can describe their motion mathematically (Kepler's laws). Again you've answered the "what"--kinds of questions, but not the how or why. To answer why or how the planets move you need theory again (relativity,: large masses, gravity, curved space-time all that jive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her Nibs:

I like the links that you gave, but those just presented information about the fossils themselves, which was not the thrust of my question.

Copasetic:

I didn't ask this question in the other thread because I didn't want to totally sidetrack what was being discussed.

This is perhaps a better way of phrasing. The formation of fossils is not observable, and the process cannot be experimented with. Knowledge about fossils is inferred rather than proved experimentally. When did direct observation and experimentation fall out of usage in the Scientific Method as I learned it in school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her Nibs:

I like the links that you gave, but those just presented information about the fossils themselves, which was not the thrust of my question.

Copasetic:

I didn't ask this question in the other thread because I didn't want to totally sidetrack what was being discussed.

This is perhaps a better way of phrasing. The formation of fossils is not observable, and the process cannot be experimented with. Knowledge about fossils is inferred rather than proved experimentally. When did direct observation and experimentation fall out of usage in the Scientific Method as I learned it in school?

Just my opinion and I know Copa will correct me (him teached me good :))-

I imagine with pressure, all kinds of scientificky bits, current extreme conditions on earth (volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) we can observe the creation of fossils. Also with the same scientificky bits we can study the ground around the fossils and determine the weather, time, environment that the fossils were created in. Once the fossil itself is examined, we can learn (depending on the size) it's DNA, it's food sources, it's size, its age, it's surroundings, possibly HOW it died, etc.

So, to a degree we can observe HOW the fossil is created. We know the mechanisms involved. We can view a fossil and learn many facts that support the theory.

I'm not sure I'm answering correctly. :) I personally usually need pictures.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her Nibs:

I like the links that you gave, but those just presented information about the fossils themselves, which was not the thrust of my question.

Copasetic:

I didn't ask this question in the other thread because I didn't want to totally sidetrack what was being discussed.

This is perhaps a better way of phrasing. The formation of fossils is not observable, and the process cannot be experimented with. Knowledge about fossils is inferred rather than proved experimentally. When did direct observation and experimentation fall out of usage in the Scientific Method as I learned it in school?

Fossilization is an observable process. Sure it can take a long time, but we can actually observe the mineralization process which occurs over the millions of years to replace "organics" with minerals.

What kind of knowledge do you believe is inferred and not "proved experimentally" about fossils? Their age? We can date fossils very accurately with absolute and non-absolute dating methods. If you are talking about biological function of traits we find in fossils, sure--We can only infer and hypothesis the exact use of some of those traits. That's not to say scientists who study such things are just "guessing"--Understanding those traits can come from sequela of studying modern anatomy. Further, like I pointed out to you in the prior post, fossils can be used to test predictions made through TMS--The example I provided above is with the evolutionary origin of marsupials. There are however, many other predictions you can test of evolution using fossils.

That's here nor there though, I've said it before and I'll say it again--If you want the strongest supporting evidence for TMS that comes through molecular biology. Sure fossils provide nice complimentary evidence to TMS, but in the big pond of evidence they are ultimately small fish.

TMS had a great chance to be falsified back in the 50's. It very easily could have gone the way of the luminiferous aether--When a rather fey Englishman and plump American "borrowed" some x-ray crystallography results from a certain brilliant lady and ultimately united the "geneticists" and the "phylogenists". That was the chance, the best chance, to "disprove" evolutionary theory--Didn't happen. And it only got worse for the "detractors" as the likes of the Mayrs', the Simpsons', the Dawkins', the Goulds', the Eldredges' and the Fischers' laid waste to the proponents hopes of falsification through experimenting, observation and theory.

On another note, it may seem petty but it is important. Above you said 'proved experimentally'--You should note that we don't "prove" things through experimentation in science. We disprove, and in effect support or provide evidence for an alternative idea. This is an important distinction in science. And can relate to another way we use fossils--To test homology (see my previous links to you).

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, it may seem petty but it is important. Above you said 'proved experimentally'--You should note that we don't "prove" things through experimentation in science. We disprove, and in effect support or provide evidence for an alternative idea. This is an important distinction in science. And can relate to another way we use fossils--To test homology (see my previous links to you).

I understood you until that last paragraph. The idea of disproving rather than proving is new to me. I'll have to think about that one to process it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

What I have learned from science is that there is always a possibility of improvement, a possibility of gaining a new line of thinking and for the hell of it may be a new law for Physics or Chemistry.

I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ? The laws actually are the things we know till now, but then the question is how much do we ? Can a new possibility be discussed in light of the laws devised decades ago ? when we say that in decades we will be able to build computers based on atoms ? who thought of that in 1960 as a possibility. Isaac Asimov or Philip K. dick maybe but then they supposedly wrote fiction. And fiction is not a possibility let alone a law.

How do we define theory ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

What I have learned from science is that there is always a possibility of improvement, a possibility of gaining a new line of thinking and for the hell of it may be a new law for Physics or Chemistry.

I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ? The laws actually are the things we know till now, but then the question is how much do we ? Can a new possibility be discussed in light of the laws devised decades ago ? when we say that in decades we will be able to build computers based on atoms ? who thought of that in 1960 as a possibility. Isaac Asimov or Philip K. dick maybe but then they supposedly wrote fiction. And fiction is not a possibility let alone a law.

How do we define theory ?

We don't need to define theory or scientific theory. They are already defined.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need to define theory or scientific theory. They are already defined.

Nibs

I am not trying to define the term theory, I am just trying the answer the question OP asked, why call something a theory ? Why respond with ill proven Laws I say, why call them laws even when they are not so ? It's all a theory and we in this wide universe don't understand a speck of it. It's all a theory including Evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to define the term theory, I am just trying the answer the question OP asked, why call something a theory ? Why respond with ill proven Laws I say, why call them laws even when they are not so ? It's all a theory and we in this wide universe don't understand a speck of it. It's all a theory including Evolution.

Not sure if you read the other thread that sort of prompted this question by the OP...

Confusing the general term "theory" (meaning an unsupported idea) with "scientific theory" (which is factually supported etc.) is common in discussions of evolution. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.