Why use "theory" for evolution?

[Copasetic]

Is there actually a law saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? I am not really sure, I thought that was derived from other laws.

No. Like Aq pointed out, we observe the speed of light in vacuum to be what the speed of light is. The law would be the statistical derivation that all photons in vacuum behave in this way. The what happens of photons.

That doesn't stop TV shows and the likes from using the "speed limit law".

[FurthurBB]

No. Like Aq pointed out, we observe the speed of light in vacuum to be what the speed of light is. The law would be the statistical derivation that all photons in vacuum behave in this way. The what happens of photons.

That doesn't stop TV shows and the likes from using the "speed limit law".

Okay, I didn't think so, but physics is definitely not my field of expertise.

[Spock_the_Future]

No. Like Aq pointed out, we observe the speed of light in vacuum to be what the speed of light is. The law would be the statistical derivation that all photons in vacuum behave in this way. The what happens of photons.

That doesn't stop TV shows and the likes from using the "speed limit law".

J. K. got ahead of me and posted a thread for the "Speed of Light" thing. And as I am advised to get my basics right first I would not comment on the same, never the less, shall we go back to the topic letting go of my speed of light comment ? We will discuss it no doubt but I believe that it has no bearing with the topic, also I need to get my basics right first before asking questions I guess.

[aquatus1]

Sounds good. Do you think you could summarize your current understanding of the terms "scientific theory", "Law", and "evolution".

[Cassea]

Evolution is a proven fact. We just don't know. Exactly how it worked. Itself out. So it's Umbrella term. Is Evolutionary Theory. In that regard. It changes all the time.

[Mr Right Wing]

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"?

Evolution and gravity havent been proven.

Evolution cant explain the early stages of life and is only 70% verifiable.

No Gravitrons, gravity waves or anything else inside atoms which could account for gravity have ever been detected.

'Theory' only becomes 'law' when 100% proven.

[Copasetic]

Evolution and gravity havent been proven.

Evolution cant explain the early stages of life and is only 70% verifiable.

No Gravitrons, gravity waves or anything else inside atoms which could account for gravity have ever been detected.

'Theory' only becomes 'law' when 100% proven.

Jesus, read the topic? What part of "scientific laws aren't just 'proven' theories" is so hard to understand?

If you are so lazy that you can't read a topic (I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you failed to read, and not failed to comprehend) then what is the point of your being here? If you just want rant your ideas at the world, without having to think or discuss then go post in a blog. If you want to actually discuss, read what other are saying, learn before you speak, look over a topic before you post in it, try it--It can be marvelous.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Copasetic

[Spock_the_Future]

Sounds good. Do you think you could summarize your current understanding of the terms "scientific theory", "Law", and "evolution".

have been reading, I got to this

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

[/Quote]

Author (Not Named) starts with saying that Evolution is a fact but then just explains the difference between theory and law. She/He also says "There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall.", Isn't that supposed to be a fact and not law ?

[Spock_the_Future]

Sounds good. Do you think you could summarize your current understanding of the terms "scientific theory", "Law", and "evolution".

Also found the following

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[/Quote]

And to explain the above a bit more.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

[/Quote]

Still trying to get to the thing, will post more but will try not to post the repeat of above quotes as explanation repetition may not help. The above points are confusing enough. Much sorry for two such long posts, I usually try not to post long posts.

[aquatus1]

Spock, please don't post more clips from other people. In all honesty, you haven't shown yourself to be the most discerning of readers.

What I want to know is what your understanding of evolution, scientific theory, and Law, are. Not someone else's.

What is it that you are thinking of when someone uses those terms?

Edited February 4, 2012 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

Holy cow...I just noticed that the first article is almost identical to a blurb I helped a girl write back in West Palm Beach a couple of years ago, when I was getting my Masters.

[Spock_the_Future]

Spock, please don't post more clips from other people. In all honesty, you haven't shown yourself to be the most discerning of readers.

What I want to know is what your understanding of evolution, scientific theory, and Law, are. Not someone else's.

What is it that you are thinking of when someone uses those terms?

Well, I won't post now and sorry for not being one of the good readers and posters. You suggested me to read first before posting, so was doing the same. I posted clips because others also do that and I thought that you were interested in how I was getting along with the understanding of the concept.

Now do you wish to know what I understood in a Day ?

Okay here it it - single cell to us, proof proved by fossils and micro evolution (which I take as a fact). Macro evolution (such as one species becoming another like as fish to bird) for me is a scientific theory. Evolution - still not a fact.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Edit: Sorry Edited thrice again. had to put in some commas and full stops.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[aquatus1]

Well, I won't post now and sorry for not being one of the good readers and posters.

Don't apologize unless you are actually sorry.

You suggested me to read first before posting, so was doing the same.

I was the guy who said I thought you read something you did not understand. After that, I corrected you on something else you read and misunderstood. I did not want to do it a third time with your post, because the problem was not with the material, but rather with your reading habits.

Now do you wish to know what I understood in a Day ?

I am more concerned with determining where you are at right now.

Okay here it it - single cell to us, proof fossils and micro evolution as fact, macro evolution (such as one species becoming another like as fish to bird) a scientific theory. Evolution - still not a fact.

Hmm...okay then. Let's take it one step at a time;

Could you please give me a short definition or description of what you understand the following words to mean?

-Evolution:

-Scientific Theory:

-Law:

This isn't a pass/fail thing, or a test of any kind. It's just an evaluation of sorts. Throwing a bunch of data at you isn't going to be much good if we don't actually address where the initial misunderstanding lies.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Don't worry about it.

[The Silver Thong]

Well, I won't post now and sorry for not being one of the good readers and posters. You suggested me to read first before posting, so was doing the same. I posted clips because others also do that and I thought that you were interested in how I was getting along with the understanding of the concept.

Now do you wish to know what I understood in a Day ?

Okay here it it - single cell to us, proof proved by fossils and micro evolution (which I take as a fact). Macro evolution (such as one species becoming another like as fish to bird) for me is a scientific theory. Evolution - still not a fact.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Edit: Sorry Edited thrice again. had to put in some commas and full stops.

I am simpleton when it comes to this but when you say a single cell mush is us. That screames hold on a sec. That momment in time in not of it`s own. Millions of species have been around befor us. We have dna that we can credit to many species. Humans have traces of reptile instect fish aka eveything born of this universe in us.

[Mr Right Wing]

Jesus, read the topic? What part of "scientific laws aren't just 'proven' theories" is so hard to understand?

If you are so lazy that you can't read a topic (I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you failed to read, and not failed to comprehend) then what is the point of your being here? If you just want rant your ideas at the world, without having to think or discuss then go post in a blog. If you want to actually discuss, read what other are saying, learn before you speak, look over a topic before you post in it, try it--It can be marvelous.

Firstly calm down I dont want to be responsible for someone having a stoke. Now I draw your attention to -

'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'

A theory is not a study of something which has been proven. Its an explanation which has been offered and is to be tested. IF it survives every concievable test it eventually becomes a law.

From the rest of your reply I can tell you dont know much about evolution or gravity. Large parts of Evolution are untested. Newtons ideas about gravity (yes the falling apple you refer too) were thrown out by Einstein. Einsteins gravity is in the process of being thrown out by dark matter and quantum gravity thwories (yes they are still theories too as they havent been through all the testing either).

Imagine we take a simple single cell organism and a beaker of chemicals which will keep it alive.

If we break open the cell and spill its proteins, amino acids, cell structures and dna into the beaker we dont find they have reassembled themselves back into a cell a week later. Yet we are to believe all these parts magically came together by random chance to form the first single cell organism? You have a better chance of winning the Euromillions a thousand times in a row.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[FurthurBB]

Evolution and gravity havent been proven.

Evolution cant explain the early stages of life and is only 70% verifiable.

No Gravitrons, gravity waves or anything else inside atoms which could account for gravity have ever been detected.

'Theory' only becomes 'law' when 100% proven.

Come on now, this is getting ridiculous.

[FurthurBB]

Firstly calm down I dont want to be responsible for someone having a stoke. Now I draw your attention to -

'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'

A theory is not a study of something which has been proven. Its an explanation which has been offered and is to be tested. IF it survives every concievable test it eventually becomes a law.

From the rest of your reply I can tell you dont know much about evolution or gravity. Large parts of Evolution are untested. Newtons ideas about gravity (yes the falling apple you refer too) were thrown out by Einstein. Einsteins gravity is in the process of being thrown out by dark matter and quantum gravity thwories (yes they are still theories too as they havent been through all the testing either).

Imagine we take a simple single cell organism and a beaker of chemicals which will keep it alive.

If we break open the cell and spill its proteins, amino acids, cell structures and dna into the beaker we dont find they have reassembled themselves back into a cell a week later. Yet we are to believe all these parts magically came together by random chance to form the first single cell organism? You have a better chance of winning the Euromillions a thousand times in a row.

Is this a joke?

[Stellar]

Evolution and gravity havent been proven.

Evolution cant explain the early stages of life and is only 70% verifiable.

No Gravitrons, gravity waves or anything else inside atoms which could account for gravity have ever been detected.

'Theory' only becomes 'law' when 100% proven.

Oh dear, where to start.

Lets start with gravity, because I feel people are less emotionally invested and will thus be more open to the discussion. Gravity (as a fact) has been "proven". We know that objects of mass are attracted to each other. Its a fact that we are being held on the surface of the Earth. That phenomena is called gravity. The how and why this happens falls into the realm of theory.

A theory is not a study of something which has been proven.

Yes it infact is. Its proven that there is a mutual attraction between objects of mass. We are currently studying this attraction in order to explain it.

Newtons ideas about gravity (yes the falling apple you refer too) were thrown out by Einstein.

Umm... not really. How so? What was thrown out by Einstein? Are you saying F=GMm/r^2 has been thrown out and proven wrong by Einstein?

Einsteins gravity is in the process of being thrown out by dark matter

Actually, dark matter does not violate anything Einstein said. Please, educate me on how it does. You're talking as if you're an expert on the subject.

[Mr Right Wing]

Oh dear, where to start.

Lets start with gravity, because I feel people are less emotionally invested and will thus be more open to the discussion. Gravity (as a fact) has been "proven". We know that objects of mass are attracted to each other. Its a fact that we are being held on the surface of the Earth. That phenomena is called gravity. The how and why this happens falls into the realm of theory.

Yes it infact is. Its proven that there is a mutual attraction between objects of mass. We are currently studying this attraction in order to explain it.

Umm... not really. How so? What was thrown out by Einstein? Are you saying F=GMm/r^2 has been thrown out and proven wrong by Einstein?

Actually, dark matter does not violate anything Einstein said. Please, educate me on how it does. You're talking as if you're an expert on the subject.

Yes, lets start with gravity.

Issac Newton watched an apple falling from a tree and came up with the maths to describe it. He then concluded that matter is attracted to matter through a force he called gravity. (This is where you are up to).

Unfortunatly Einstein destroyed Issac Newtons theory of gravity with Special Relativity. The new theory said that gravity is actually the curvature of space-time.

Since then Quantum Mechanics has taken off. The Quantum physicists now know that non-locality is true and that certain field equations for the electro-magnetic force allow light speed to be violated. This means Einstein is also wrong.

Now we reach 2012 and we have several new gravity theories waiting to be tested - Quantum loop gravity, modified Newtonian Mechanics, dark matter theories, entrophic gravity. When we get the right one Einstein will join Newton on the history book shelf.

Is that enough or do you want more?

(P.S Where are the gravitrons and gravity waves?)

Edited February 4, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Copasetic]

Firstly calm down I dont want to be responsible for someone having a stoke. Now I draw your attention to -

'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'

A theory is not a study of something which has been proven. Its an explanation which has been offered and is to be tested. IF it survives every concievable test it eventually becomes a law.

From the rest of your reply I can tell you dont know much about evolution or gravity. Large parts of Evolution are untested. Newtons ideas about gravity (yes the falling apple you refer too) were thrown out by Einstein. Einsteins gravity is in the process of being thrown out by dark matter and quantum gravity thwories (yes they are still theories too as they havent been through all the testing either).

Imagine we take a simple single cell organism and a beaker of chemicals which will keep it alive.

If we break open the cell and spill its proteins, amino acids, cell structures and dna into the beaker we dont find they have reassembled themselves back into a cell a week later. Yet we are to believe all these parts magically came together by random chance to form the first single cell organism? You have a better chance of winning the Euromillions a thousand times in a row.

Say this out loud, until you understand it.

Scientific theories are NOT "proved" into laws. They always remain scientific theories--they NEVER turn into laws.

Never, never ever. Understand?

Now go back and read the topic.

[Copasetic]

Yes, lets start with gravity.

Issac Newton watched an apple falling from a tree and came up with the maths to describe it. He then concluded that matter is attracted to matter through a force he called gravity. (This is where you are up to).

Unfortunatly Einstein destroyed Issac Newtons theory of gravity with Special Relativity. The new theory said that gravity is actually the curvature of space-time.

Since then Quantum Mechanics has taken off. The Quantum physicists now know that non-locality is true and that certain field equations for the electro-magnetic force allow light speed to be violated. This means Einstein is also wrong.

Now we reach 2012 and we have several new gravity theories waiting to be tested - Quantum loop gravity, modified Newtonian Mechanics, dark matter theories, entrophic gravity. When we get the right one Einstein will join Newton on the history book shelf.

Is that enough or do you want more?

(P.S Where are the gravitrons and gravity waves?)

No. You have no idea what you are talking about and your knowledge of the philosophy of science is about as great as my knowledge My Little Ponies--Which is, needless to say, par none.

A fact is an observation in science, it is a natural phenomena. In this regard we have the "fact of gravity" or ol' Newton observing those apples falling from trees.

A law in science tells you what happens. It does this because it is a summation of statistically predictable behavior--Most often expressed in mathematical format.

Back to Newton then, who wrote a law about gravity based on the empirical observation of how two bodies with mass interact. Again Newton's law of gravitation tells you what happens. NOT HOW OR WHY.

To explain how or why in science you need theory--The most powerful type of idea in science. This is where you can bring in Einstein and his theories which give you the how and why

Free advice: like Aquatus pointed out in another post, if you can't even use basic terminology correctly in science (such as the difference between a law and theory) then jumping into advanced physics is probably beyond your scope of practice. It would be like if I asked you to discuss the answer to a partial differential equation when you clearly haven't learned algebra yet (even the simple kind!). It would behoove you to learn a little bit about what you are trying to discuss before you do so--Least you look silly.

[Spock_the_Future]

Don't apologize unless you are actually sorry.

Aqua, tell me something, are you in anyway associated with the education business ?

I was the guy who said I thought you read something you did not understand. After that, I corrected you on something else you read and misunderstood. I did not want to do it a third time with your post, because the problem was not with the material, but rather with your reading habits.

Yes you said that but then do you have to be insulting all the time ?

I am more concerned with determining where you are at right now.

I'll agree that I am not a biologist, I am a computer nerd so logic is all I have, Just needed to learn your language, so I may be able to say things to you in terms more familiar to you.

Hmm...okay then. Let's take it one step at a time;

Could you please give me a short definition or description of what you understand the following words to mean?

-Evolution:

-Scientific Theory:

-Law:

This isn't a pass/fail thing, or a test of any kind. It's just an evaluation of sorts. Throwing a bunch of data at you isn't going to be much good if we don't actually address where the initial misunderstanding lies.

So now I have to go through your evaluation right ? (glad it’s not a pass/fail thing, you’ll throw me out of website if I fail I guess) to prove I am not an idiot who cannot understand what he reads ? Okay then here goes nothing, just my two bits of understanding gained:

Fact: A fact is an objective, verifiable observation. Verifiable and Observable is the operative word here.

Law: Mathematical representation of the Fact.

Scientific Theory: Reasoning developed based on the combination of Facts and Laws to obtain the reasons (or steps, deduction in a way, has to be proven anyway through testing and replicating so as to provide the theorized effect) for a specific outcome of a phenomenon, or it specifies how a particular fact can be explained by providing transition links between two facts.

Evolution: First Step (As you asked)

Fact 1: First formation of living cells are still in debate(as in how amino acids became living cells ?). From there on single cells developed and may have derived different behavior (so different types but still single cell) as Micro evolution is a Verified and Observed fact.

Fact 2: Multicellular Organisms exist.

Assumption 1(First Steps so number 1): Single Cell life Exists, Multicell Life Exists, from where did multicell come from ? Single cell obviously (Not a objective, verified observation, Added to quote with comments Single Cell to Mutiicell in a Lab (Please do read all the comments), I know you don’t want me quoting studies but then this verifies your standpoint, I just ask is there anyone who is the one shaking the flask in this one or what was the “ normal environment” for that yeast back then ? I am an Atheist remember (So I would never endorse GOD or someone like that and neither do I endorse Creationism).

Still I am an Idiot you will say (I said I’ll re-read so I may understand you better, not because I misunderstand, You may very well have A Point that I should consider, whatever I may believe in doesn’t matter if I just try to understand a fellow’s point against my understanding and then have a discussion (It’s a discussion forum not a tennis match so no one may win or loose after almost 6 hours.), Well I would never say any different anyway. (You’ll say it’s a discussion forum so you are supposed to do that), but then I think it’s never too late to learn. I am still open to possibilities, even when that involves me, me being called Idiot and all. (And I’ll say sorry again, you being senior moderator, I do consider the implications of answering you in this manner but then you prompted it, I never judged you and can never will, You are independent thinking and intelligent entity by yourself as lot of us are, even those who you judge are just as idiots like me).

[The Silver Thong]

(P.S Where are the gravitrons and gravity waves?)

Care to test the theory of gravity gravity is fact the reason for the term theory is because there is more to learn about said subject. The nice thing about science is that it hardly lies, it just poses the most possible explanation given the evidience provided. However some wish to twist that for agenda. True science can not do that and a theory remains because science will not proclaim an absalute as that would discredite what science is.

I view in my limited way the term science as a term of evolution. There is always more to know and learn.

[Copasetic]

Aqua, tell me something, are you in anyway associated with the education business ?

Yes you said that but then do you have to be insulting all the time ?

I'll agree that I am not a biologist, I am a computer nerd so logic is all I have, Just needed to learn your language, so I may be able to say things to you in terms more familiar to you.

So now I have to go through your evaluation right ? (glad it’s not a pass/fail thing, you’ll throw me out of website if I fail I guess) to prove I am not an idiot who cannot understand what he reads ? Okay then here goes nothing, just my two bits of understanding gained:

Fact: A fact is an objective, verifiable observation. Verifiable and Observable is the operative word here.

Law: Mathematical representation of the Fact.

Scientific Theory: Reasoning developed based on the combination of Facts and Laws to obtain the reasons (or steps, deduction in a way, has to be proven anyway through testing and replicating so as to provide the theorized effect) for a specific outcome of a phenomenon, or it specifies how a particular fact can be explained by providing transition links between two facts.

Evolution: First Step (As you asked)

Fact 1: First formation of living cells are still in debate(as in how amino acids became living cells ?). From there on single cells developed and may have derived different behavior (so different types but still single cell) as Micro evolution is a Verified and Observed fact.

Fact 2: Multicellular Organisms exist.

Assumption 1(First Steps so number 1): Single Cell life Exists, Multicell Life Exists, from where did multicell come from ? Single cell obviously (Not a objective, verified observation, Added to quote with comments Single Cell to Mutiicell in a Lab (Please do read all the comments), I know you don’t want me quoting studies but then this verifies your standpoint, I just ask is there anyone who is the one shaking the flask in this one or what was the “ normal environment” for that yeast back then ? I am an Atheist remember (So I would never endorse GOD or someone like that and neither do I endorse Creationism).

Still I am an Idiot you will say (I said I’ll re-read so I may understand you better, not because I misunderstand, You may very well have A Point that I should consider, whatever I may believe in doesn’t matter if I just try to understand a fellow’s point against my understanding and then have a discussion (It’s a discussion forum not a tennis match so no one may win or loose after almost 6 hours.), Well I would never say any different anyway. (You’ll say it’s a discussion forum so you are supposed to do that), but then I think it’s never too late to learn. I am still open to possibilities, even when that involves me, me being called Idiot and all. (And I’ll say sorry again, you being senior moderator, I do consider the implications of answering you in this manner but then you prompted it, I never judged you and can never will, You are independent thinking and intelligent entity by yourself as lot of us are, even those who you judge are just as idiots like me).

Biological fact of evolution: Allele frequencies for a population change from generation to generation.

• Caveat: There is NO difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. They are both this process of the biological fact of evolution simply played out over different, subjective time scales.
  
• Caveat: Evolution deals with the change in species over time. It is NOT about the origin of species, despite the name of Darwin's book (please see the intro to Charlie D posts on my about me page).
  
• Caveat:Cells don't come first in life, they are complex and are the result of evolution.
  
• Caveat: Evolution does NOT require something have cells OR be living to work on it. Viruses for example, are non-living infectious particles that evolve perfectly fine. In this regard, evolution worked on "organisms" before they were cells--Say proto-cells and cells were the eventual evolutionary result.
  

The modern synthesis: The scientific theory which explains the biological fact of evolution. Uses other theories (such as natural selection, artificial selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, sympatric speciation, allopatric speciation, etc), laws and facts to explain it.

Evolution as the unifying theory of biology: Unites the 4 other principles of biology; Cell theory, homeostasis, physiology (metabolism, etc) and genetics.

Edit: For your edification on mutlicellularity. You should use the search function on the forum!

Edited February 4, 2012 by Copasetic

[Stellar]

Issac Newton watched an apple falling from a tree and came up with the maths to describe it. He then concluded that matter is attracted to matter through a force he called gravity. (This is where you are up to).

Unfortunatly Einstein destroyed Issac Newtons theory of gravity with Special Relativity. The new theory said that gravity is actually the curvature of space-time.

Yes, Einstein proposed that the gravitational force we experience is due to the curvature of space-time. Special Relativity does not contradict Newtons equations. F=GMm/r^2 still accurately describes the force of attraction between two objects. There is no destruction here, just an elaboration on what the cause of gravity may be.

Theories are nothing more than "models" helping is "look" at a problem. Using those ways of looking at the problem and understand it, we can make predictions that will be useful to us.

Since then Quantum Mechanics has taken off. The Quantum physicists now know that non-locality is true and that certain field equations for the electro-magnetic force allow light speed to be violated. This means Einstein is also wrong.

Oh yeah? Which ones?

Now we reach 2012 and we have several new gravity theories waiting to be tested - Quantum loop gravity, modified Newtonian Mechanics, dark matter theories, entrophic gravity. When we get the right one Einstein will join Newton on the history book shelf.

What I've been asking you is how do any of those violate Newtons equations of gravity? And what "dark matter theories" are you even talking about?

(P.S Where are the gravitrons and gravity waves?)

Those are perfect examples of hypotheses, or potential theories.