Why use "theory" for evolution?

[Spock_the_Future]

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.

Those are perfect examples of hypotheses, or potential theories.

Well we do have Aquatus1 to answer to all the hypothesis and Science problems. Just hope that he won't berate you too and make you go through an Evaluation. Why not just ask him ?

[The Silver Thong]

Well we do have Aquatus1 to answer to all the hypothesis and Science problems. Just hope that he won't berate you too and make you go through an Evaluation. Why not just ask him ?

I did not see Aquatus1 do that nor anyone else. Science is cold it does not care it just is. It`s up to the observer. Take it for what it is or do something about it that you dissagree with. Science loves people that do that. Nobody was barated unless facts that lead to a theory are ignored. If one can explain something as to it`s process not it`s final destination that is science. Don`t ask science to define anything as a law. It`s the process to a plausable conclusion and not the end all be all.

I just want to point out that many posters here have opened my eyes more then any school room could have. A hypothesis is just the beggining of a theory and no harm comes from that as again science can not lie if left to it`s own with out agenda. Even if that happens science and agenda can not lie as it can be exposed as truth or not.

If science fails it`s all good because with every failure comes a discovery.

[Spock_the_Future]

Science is cold it does not care it just is.

If science fails it`s all good because with every failure comes a discovery.

Hi Silver,

This is the first time I responded to you I believe (Your Icon interests me a lot), but then Is Science cold and non-caring ? He did make me do it or haven't you noticed ? Haven't Science groped for explanations ? (No puns intended ! You just see your icon !) So discovery comes with failure eh... ? I Whole heartily agree with you. I Just wish to hope that we are able to appreciate something being developed by a subculture that we have already developed.

Edit: Removed a statement, I don't know what you gals and guys would have started to make out of it, better that it should not be said

Edited February 4, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[The Silver Thong]

Hi Silver,

This is the first time I responded to you I believe (Your Icon interests me a lot), but then Is Science cold and non-caring ? He did make me do it or haven't you noticed ? Haven't Science groped for explanations ? (No puns intended ! You just see your icon !) So discovery comes with failure eh... ? I Whole heartily agree with you. I Just wish to hope that we are able to appreciate something being developed by a subculture that we have already developed.

Edit: Removed a statement, I don't know what you gals and guys would have started to make out of it, better that it should not be said

Good to hear from you and I have seen a few of your posts and i think I like you but I`m a dude so don`t talk sexy talk to me I like my avi to hehe.. I have to point out that science is not there to point out facts, it`s there to point out what is possible with known function. Saying that science takes what it can know and reduces it to what can not know. Science is about elimination of the what if`s and by doing so makes the evidience more plausibile of the what is.

Science does not seek truth it just discovers it.

Sorry i forgot about the science not caring. Science does not care and it never will nor should it.

Edited February 4, 2012 by The Silver Thong

[aquatus1]

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

In one way or another, pretty much all my life.

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

You mistake being direct with being insulting. Confronting someone with their errors is not an insult. Indeed, if it is the errors that are preventing them from learning, it is a requirement.

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.

Actually, we are going a bit deeper than that. The fundamental misunderstanding here isn't actually about biology. It is about the nature of scientific methodology itself.

So now I have to go through your evaluation right ?

No, you don't. You can choose to refuse, I will not press you on the subject any more.

(glad it's not a pass/fail thing, you'll throw me out of website if I fail I guess)

Ideally, once you learn a bit more about rationalism, you will not feel the need to make such statements.

to prove I am not an idiot who cannot understand what he reads ?

You don't have to be an idiot to not understand what you read. You don't have to be an idiot to not understand how to change the brakes on your car, either.

But it would be a pretty good thing to be able to admit that you don't have the knowledge before you attempt to do it.

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.

Excellent. Agreed, this definition is good for our purposes.

Law: Mathematical representation of the Fact.

Ahh...not necessarily. It most certainly can be, and a lot of them are, however the important part is not that they are mathematical or a representation, but rather that they are a phenomena that is repeatable and verifiable under the same conditions. In other words, it is pretty much the same thing as a fact, but a fact is more noun-ish, and a Law is more verb-ish.

Neither laws and facts have any explanatory power. If you think of a sign on a zoo exhibit, the facts and the laws would be the common name of the animal, or the scientific name of the animal. The whole description underneath that would be what we are going to talk about next...

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,

Agreed, but add "and other theories" up there with facts and laws.

... or it specifies how a particular fact can be explained by providing transition links between two facts.

(my bolding)

Let's change that first "fact" to "phenomena", and we're good. Remember that facts and laws do not require explanation; they simply are. The purpose of scientific theories is to explain phenomena.

Here is where it gets a little confusing, but it really is just a question of semantics, and the sole purpose is clarification. As you mentioned earlier, it is a matter of speaking the language.

Yes, theories can explain "facts"; for instance, the chemical composition of gold is a fact, so a theory regarding the creation of gold would be a theory that explains the existence of a fact. However, we still refer to it (the creation of gold) as a "phenomena", even though as a process, it is indistinguishable from the actual fact (the chemical composition) of gold. The sole purpose of this is to avoid confusion regarding what part of the scientific process we are referring to.

Nature doesn't care about the labels we humans decide to put on things. Nature does not divide itself into convenient categories just to make life easier for scientists. It is important to understand the purpose of facts, laws, and theories, more so than any strict definition, simply because there is going to be a bit of leeway when translating from reality to paper.

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).

Okay, we will need to start from the beginning in regards to evolution. Let's do that a little later. Let's make sure, first, that you are okay with Law, Fact, and scientific theory. Please tell me if you have any questions or need further clarification on that.

Still I am an Idiot you will say

Never have, never will.

(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.

No one has called you an idiot.

(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).

Oh, I certainly judged you. Just not as an idiot.

And you did judge me as well. You will do yourself no favors convincing yourself that you did not.

[Mr Right Wing]

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!

Philosophically speaking only one way in which to see the world is allowed in the West and the reasons are purely ideological. A wise man would admit that every ideology and style of Government is flawed however in our nations we are indocturnated into believing Democracy and Material Reductionism are somehow more correct than the others.

The Chinese believe in the oneness of everything (Taoism) not reducing things into seperate parts. That not only shapes their worldview but is the reason why they believe in Communism not Democracy. Oneness seems to be saying what non-locality in Quantum Mechanics is saying. This doesnt mean their ideology or style of Government is more correct either because as I said you can pick holes in them all.

Now the Western world seems to be philosophically dead. The works of generations of famous Greek philosophers have been brushed under the carpet and people know nothing of them or their implications. Heres one idea which evolutionists wont like -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

I'm sure that will frustrate many here knowing that the past could be caused by the present. That mucks up evolution too because it means you created your ancestors not the other way around.

[Copasetic]

Philosophically speaking only one way in which to see the world is allowed in the West and the reasons are purely ideological. A wise man would admit that every ideology and style of Government is flawed however in our nations we are indocturnated into believing Democracy and Material Reductionism are somehow more correct than the others.

The Chinese believe in the oneness of everything (Taoism) not reducing things into seperate parts. That not only shapes their worldview but is the reason why they believe in Communism not Democracy. Oneness seems to be saying what non-locality in Quantum Mechanics is saying. This doesnt mean their ideology or style of Government is more correct either because as I said you can pick holes in them all.

Now the Western world seems to be philosophically dead. The works of generations of famous Greek philosophers have been brushed under the carpet and people know nothing of them or their implications. Heres one idea which evolutionists wont like -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

I'm sure that will frustrate many here knowing that the past could be caused by the present. That mucks up evolution too because it means you created your ancestors not the other way around.

You spell it d-r-i-b-b-l-e....

I'm not sure what that had to do with anything I said in the quote you quoted. Still working out the quote functions for posting?

The "evils" of the "western world" seem to be just a hair off topic. However as a brief aside, no one is stopping you from going and living somewhere not in this terrible western world dominated by "reductionism" and "science". You're more than welcome to move somewhere like sub-Saharan African and make friends with a guinea worm;

Money where your mouth is big guy.

I'll lol.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Copasetic

[aquatus1]

Philosophically speaking only one way in which to see the world is allowed in the West and the reasons are purely ideological. A wise man would admit that every ideology and style of Government is flawed however in our nations we are indocturnated into believing Democracy and Material Reductionism are somehow more correct than the others.

The Chinese believe in the oneness of everything (Taoism) not reducing things into seperate parts. That not only shapes their worldview but is the reason why they believe in Communism not Democracy. Oneness seems to be saying what non-locality in Quantum Mechanics is saying. This doesnt mean their ideology or style of Government is more correct either because as I said you can pick holes in them all.

Now the Western world seems to be philosophically dead. The works of generations of famous Greek philosophers have been brushed under the carpet and people know nothing of them or their implications. Heres one idea which evolutionists wont like -

http://en.wikipedia..../Retrocausality

I'm sure that will frustrate many here knowing that the past could be caused by the present. That mucks up evolution too because it means you created your ancestors not the other way around.

Mr. Right Wing, what ANY of that have to do with the actual topic under discussion?

[Spock_the_Future]

In one way or another, pretty much all my life.

Okay, That answers the question I had regarding the language you used for reverting.

You mistake being direct with being insulting. Confronting someone with their errors is not an insult. Indeed, if it is the errors that are preventing them from learning, it is a requirement.

Defining direct is hard, but now I would not take you up on this subject. It just is an insight gained from the first question.

Actually, we are going a bit deeper than that. The fundamental misunderstanding here isn't actually about biology. It is about the nature of scientific methodology itself.

Methodology is defined by us, just give the space that we can we wrong in that too. Leave a space for a possibility.

No, you don't. You can choose to refuse, I will not press you on the subject any more.

Well you did ask in a different manner, you should believe me on that as I am not making that up just see your posts. It seemed something else altogether. And I was the guy on the receiving end

Ideally, once you learn a bit more about rationalism, you will not feel the need to make such statements.

Rational is what ? being Logical ? I’ll tell you, I never mind being corrected, I am a human not superman and neither am I Sherlock Holmes, I can be incorrect but then what is wrong with the concept of asking nicely ?

You don't have to be an idiot to not understand what you read. You don't have to be an idiot to not understand how to change the brakes on your car, either.

But it would be a pretty good thing to be able to admit that you don't have the knowledge before you attempt to do it.

I don’t need to be a scientist to comment on something or should I be, It’s a forum, ask me to correct myself nicely and I would, Did you see all my posts ? When did I disagree or showed righteousness for my beliefs ?

Excellent. Agreed, this definition is good for our purposes.

Good that you agree.

Ahh...not necessarily. It most certainly can be, and a lot of them are, however the important part is not that they are mathematical or a representation, but rather that they are a phenomena that is repeatable and verifiable under the same conditions. In other words, it is pretty much the same thing as a fact, but a fact is more noun-ish, and a Law is more verb-ish.

Neither laws and facts have any explanatory power. If you think of a sign on a zoo exhibit, the facts and the laws would be the common name of the animal, or the scientific name of the animal. The whole description underneath that would be what we are going to talk about next...

Law is still a representation of the fact right ? Why should theories be involved with Facts and Laws ?

Agreed, but add "and other theories" up there with facts and laws.

Okay. Please see the quotes above.

Let's change that first "fact" to "phenomena", and we're good. Remember that facts and laws do not require explanation; they simply are. The purpose of scientific theories is to explain phenomena.

Here is where it gets a little confusing, but it really is just a question of semantics, and the sole purpose is clarification. As you mentioned earlier, it is a matter of speaking the language.

Yes, theories can explain "facts"; for instance, the chemical composition of gold is a fact, so a theory regarding the creation of gold would be a theory that explains the existence of a fact. However, we still refer to it (the creation of gold) as a "phenomena", even though as a process, it is indistinguishable from the actual fact (the chemical composition) of gold. The sole purpose of this is to avoid confusion regarding what part of the scientific process we are referring to.

Nature doesn't care about the labels we humans decide to put on things. Nature does not divide itself into convenient categories just to make life easier for scientists. It is important to understand the purpose of facts, laws, and theories, more so than any strict definition, simply because there is going to be a bit of leeway when translating from reality to paper.

Theories explain a Phenomena, Phenomena is a collections of facts, Theory explains the relations between them. Scientific theories are proven and verified. They are observable and repeatable. Theory needs to be justified, Proved. The example you stated can be reproved in lab again and again.

Okay, we will need to start from the beginning in regards to evolution. Let's do that a little later. Let's make sure, first, that you are okay with Law, Fact, and scientific theory. Please tell me if you have any questions or need further clarification on that.

Questions may arise later, Let's leave space for that too. I think that we will achieve a common ground sometime in future.

Never have, never will.

If you say so. It seemed like that anyway.

No one has called you an idiot.

Not directly of-course.

Oh, I certainly judged you. Just not as an idiot.

And you did judge me as well. You will do yourself no favors convincing yourself that you did not.

I was forced to retort just because of you judging me, I don’t judge you even till now, I was just putting in angry arguments back then, was just n anger trying to make you acknowledge the things you said wrong(As I thought It was) and make you feel bad about saying the things that you said to me. I repeat again, I never can and never will judge a fellow human being. I'm being direct. Sorry if it anyways offends you.

[Copasetic]

Theories explain a Phenomena, Phenomena is a collections of facts, Theory explains the relations between them. Scientific theories are proven and verified. They are observable and repeatable. Theory needs to be justified, Proved. The example you stated can be reproved in lab again and again.

Spock,

Theories are "justified" in so far as they are supported by evidence. They are not proved however. You can disprove a scientific theory (falsify it), but you can never prove it. Follow?

[Spock_the_Future]

Spock,

Theories are "justified" in so far as they are supported by evidence. They are not proved however. You can disprove a scientific theory (falsify it), but you can never prove it. Follow?

So if Scientific theories explain how and why between two facts, the evidence is some kind of test or hypothesis they are based on, They can be disproved once the test or hypothesis they are based on provides a result contrary to the Fact it is trying to explain.

Is this what you are saying ? Now If in case I understood right about what you are saying, that means in a way a Scientific theory in a sense could be replaced by a new and better Scientific theory and thus has a possibility (okay, remote possibility) of being wrong ?

[aquatus1]

Oh, theories get replaced by better theories on a fairly regular basis. That can mean the previous theory is completely wrong (which is rare, but it has happened), it can mean the previous theory is partially wrong, but also partially right, and it can mean the previous theory was right, but just not complete (which is pretty much the most common).

[Emma_Acid]

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?)

I feel a Wolfgang Pauli quote coming on.....

[Spock_the_Future]

I feel a Wolfgang Pauli quote coming on.....

I guess that you are referring to the quote "That is not even wrong". Am I correct ? or am I ?

And that's right I did find a bit of time.

[Spock_the_Future]

Oh, theories get replaced by better theories on a fairly regular basis. That can mean the previous theory is completely wrong (which is rare, but it has happened), it can mean the previous theory is partially wrong, but also partially right, and it can mean the previous theory was right, but just not complete (which is pretty much the most common).

So is there always a room there for improvement and re-discovering and getting to better explanations ? getting back to the topic, Scientific Theory is used for explaining Evolution right ?(And is a Fact as claimed by people in the forum {Are they as ill informed as I am, maybe on the other end of the spectrum ?}, Is it ? In the light of what you guys explained to me in terms of technicalities ). Is there a room (however remote) for a correction or for a new and better Theory ? New thinking perhaps ?

What do you say ?

[ninjadude]

So is there always a room there for improvement and re-discovering and getting to better explanations ? getting back to the topic, Scientific Theory is used for explaining Evolution right ?(And is a Fact as claimed by people in the forum {Are they as ill informed as I am, maybe on the other end of the spectrum ?}, Is it ? In the light of what you guys explained to me in terms of technicalities ). Is there a room (however remote) for a correction or for a new and better Theory ? New thinking perhaps ?

What do you say ?

The theory(s) of evolution have changed many times already. And will probably continue to do so.

Please understand there is a fact of evolution - the changing of allele frequencies and the theory of evolution that attempts to explain this phenomena. These are different things.

[aquatus1]

So is there always a room there for improvement and re-discovering and getting to better explanations ?

Absolutely. Heck, I remember back in college I gave one of my professors an article about how some scientists were testing the state change process between liquid water and solid water, and his bemused smile followed by "Well, every theory needs the occasional kick in the pants."

It isn't just that we need to make theories better. We still need to check them regularly just to make sure they are still working as expected.

getting back to the topic, Scientific Theory is used for explaining Evolution right ?

Ahh...there are "scientific theories" regarding evolution, yes. "Scientific Theory" isn't an explanation in and of itself, but rather a very specific definition of the word "theory". Scientific theories are used to explain all sorts of phenomena, including evolution. There are certain criteria that a definition has to meet prior to being considered a scientific theory.

(And is a Fact as claimed by people in the forum

No, no, scientific theory is not a fact. The mutation of the genome through generations is a fact, referred to as the Fact of Evolution, strictly for the purposes of clarity. The affects surrounding this process (such as diversity of species, punctuated equilibrium, etc) are explained with scientific theories.

{Are they as ill informed as I am, maybe on the other end of the spectrum ?}, Is it ? In the light of what you guys explained to me in terms of technicalities ).

In all honesty, your willingness to put forth so much effort to understand this puts you way the heck ahead of the curve, compared to most people coming into this forum with the ideas you used to hold.

Is there a room (however remote) for a correction or for a new and better Theory ? New thinking perhaps ?

What do you say ?

Hmm...how to say this?

Generally, as a scientific default, yes, there is always room for a new theory...however...

This is actually the part that most people who come in here arguing about this have the most difficulty with. And, in large part, that difficulty is perfectly understandable, because people have a rather large emotional investment in this part of the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that...

But...well...

The thing of it is that this part of the argument, these definitions, the Fact of Evolution, the General Theory of Evolution, even the more well-known actual scientific theories of evolution, like Neo-Darwinism, and Punctuated Equilibrium...

These is all really, really basic stuff.

And, I mean, most people really do not appreciate the utter beginner level material this is. This is high school. This is honors Junior High. At the college level, knowing this isn't even a requirement; it is assumed.

When you ask if there is room for a new theory, yes, there is room, but you have to understand that from an academic perspective, it is a little bit like saying "Is there any way in which walking might not be the actual precursor to running?" Quite simply, the concept has stood up so firmly against all sorts of tests and verifications, and falsifications, and is used on such an unbelievable level by literally thousands upon thousands of commercial processes that rely on regular, predictable, behaviour, that we simply can't think of a situation in which it has never been true.

The new theories of evolution are about increasingly specific aspects of increasingly specific behaviours with the genetic material. There are new theories which allow us to trace genetic lineages back through time and new theories which allow us to create entirely new sequences and even entire new genetic strands that have never been seen by nature, such as the triple helix strand. Evolutionary science is incredibly advanced, and the possibilities are still being explored and discovered by the people...who are working on the front lines.

But this stuff here, that we are talking about in this forum? This isn't the front lines. This isn't even the war zone. This is back home, on the farm, where things have been done this way for ever, simply because they work.

[FurthurBB]

Absolutely. Heck, I remember back in college I gave one of my professors an article about how some scientists were testing the state change process between liquid water and solid water, and his bemused smile followed by "Well, every theory needs the occasional kick in the pants."

It isn't just that we need to make theories better. We still need to check them regularly just to make sure they are still working as expected.

Ahh...there are "scientific theories" regarding evolution, yes. "Scientific Theory" isn't an explanation in and of itself, but rather a very specific definition of the word "theory". Scientific theories are used to explain all sorts of phenomena, including evolution. There are certain criteria that a definition has to meet prior to being considered a scientific theory.

No, no, scientific theory is not a fact. The mutation of the genome through generations is a fact, referred to as the Fact of Evolution, strictly for the purposes of clarity. The affects surrounding this process (such as diversity of species, punctuated equilibrium, etc) are explained with scientific theories.

In all honesty, your willingness to put forth so much effort to understand this puts you way the heck ahead of the curve, compared to most people coming into this forum with the ideas you used to hold.

Hmm...how to say this?

Generally, as a scientific default, yes, there is always room for a new theory...however...

This is actually the part that most people who come in here arguing about this have the most difficulty with. And, in large part, that difficulty is perfectly understandable, because people have a rather large emotional investment in this part of the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that...

But...well...

The thing of it is that this part of the argument, these definitions, the Fact of Evolution, the General Theory of Evolution, even the more well-known actual scientific theories of evolution, like Neo-Darwinism, and Punctuated Equilibrium...

These is all really, really basic stuff.

And, I mean, most people really do not appreciate the utter beginner level material this is. This is high school. This is honors Junior High. At the college level, knowing this isn't even a requirement; it is assumed.

When you ask if there is room for a new theory, yes, there is room, but you have to understand that from an academic perspective, it is a little bit like saying "Is there any way in which walking might not be the actual precursor to running?" Quite simply, the concept has stood up so firmly against all sorts of tests and verifications, and falsifications, and is used on such an unbelievable level by literally thousands upon thousands of commercial processes that rely on regular, predictable, behaviour, that we simply can't think of a situation in which it has never been true.

The new theories of evolution are about increasingly specific aspects of increasingly specific behaviours with the genetic material. There are new theories which allow us to trace genetic lineages back through time and new theories which allow us to create entirely new sequences and even entire new genetic strands that have never been seen by nature, such as the triple helix strand. Evolutionary science is incredibly advanced, and the possibilities are still being explored and discovered by the people...who are working on the front lines.

But this stuff here, that we are talking about in this forum? This isn't the front lines. This isn't even the war zone. This is back home, on the farm, where things have been done this way for ever, simply because they work.

This is a really good post! I like the way you explained it. I always try to think of elementary ways to say things because I know jargon can put people off. This post did that very well.

[Spock_the_Future]

The theory(s) of evolution have changed many times already. And will probably continue to do so.

Please understand there is a fact of evolution - the changing of allele frequencies and the theory of evolution that attempts to explain this phenomena. These are different things.

Hi dude,

Sorry for the late reply, A new project has started and gives me no time even for myself. Anyway I agree with Evolution being both the FACT and Scientific Theory part. My confusion begins from the place where the distinction between the two start. I'll state the same as a question in answer to what Aqua posted.

[Spock_the_Future]

Absolutely. Heck, I remember back in college I gave one of my professors an article about how some scientists were testing the state change process between liquid water and solid water, and his bemused smile followed by "Well, every theory needs the occasional kick in the pants."

It isn't just that we need to make theories better. We still need to check them regularly just to make sure they are still working as expected.

Well, so upgrades are required. It is in this light I wanted to ask something which I will do in the last part of the comment.

Ahh...there are "scientific theories" regarding evolution, yes. "Scientific Theory" isn't an explanation in and of itself, but rather a very specific definition of the word "theory". Scientific theories are used to explain all sorts of phenomena, including evolution. There are certain criteria that a definition has to meet prior to being considered a scientific theory.

But still Evolution IS a FACT and a Scientific Theory (Am not being Creationist as you know). When you now say ""Scientific Theory" isn't an explanation in and of itself" It sort of confuses me again as earlier thorough various posts of different people I am led to believe that Scientific theories need not be proved and can only be disapproved, hence the simple notion that they are in a sense made after scientists have come to some sort conclusion based on tests or observations made by them. Well I will again get into the same and try and understand what you are trying to say here.

No, no, scientific theory is not a fact. The mutation of the genome through generations is a fact, referred to as the Fact of Evolution, strictly for the purposes of clarity. The affects surrounding this process (such as diversity of species, punctuated equilibrium, etc) are explained with scientific theories.

I got that, I was just trying to point out that there are a few people who still say that Evolution is a FACT. I understand that science says that it's both FACT and Scientific Theory in parts (depends on which effect is the point discussion)

In all honesty, your willingness to put forth so much effort to understand this puts you way the heck ahead of the curve, compared to most people coming into this forum with the ideas you used to hold.

. I Just wanted to understand, that is all. If it had been something else I had misunderstood, I would still do the same. Discussions tend to enlighten and is the only reason why I joined UM. By the way this is the first forum that I have joined in all these years of working on the Internet. I like you guys a lot.

Hmm...how to say this?

Generally, as a scientific default, yes, there is always room for a new theory...however...

This is actually the part that most people who come in here arguing about this have the most difficulty with. And, in large part, that difficulty is perfectly understandable, because people have a rather large emotional investment in this part of the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that...

But...well...

The thing of it is that this part of the argument, these definitions, the Fact of Evolution, the General Theory of Evolution, even the more well-known actual scientific theories of evolution, like Neo-Darwinism, and Punctuated Equilibrium...

These is all really, really basic stuff.

And, I mean, most people really do not appreciate the utter beginner level material this is. This is high school. This is honors Junior High. At the college level, knowing this isn't even a requirement; it is assumed.

When you ask if there is room for a new theory, yes, there is room, but you have to understand that from an academic perspective, it is a little bit like saying "Is there any way in which walking might not be the actual precursor to running?" Quite simply, the concept has stood up so firmly against all sorts of tests and verifications, and falsifications, and is used on such an unbelievable level by literally thousands upon thousands of commercial processes that rely on regular, predictable, behaviour, that we simply can't think of a situation in which it has never been true.

The new theories of evolution are about increasingly specific aspects of increasingly specific behaviours with the genetic material. There are new theories which allow us to trace genetic lineages back through time and new theories which allow us to create entirely new sequences and even entire new genetic strands that have never been seen by nature, such as the triple helix strand. Evolutionary science is incredibly advanced, and the possibilities are still being explored and discovered by the people...who are working on the front lines.

But this stuff here, that we are talking about in this forum? This isn't the front lines. This isn't even the war zone. This is back home, on the farm, where things have been done this way for ever, simply because they work.

The reason for my confusion is that single to multi-cell is still unexplained, yet Evolution is quoted as a FACT (And a Scientific Theory). I understand that wolf to pet dog and mud-fish to snake can be explained(micro evolution), but how single cell to multi-cell and lizard to bird (macro evolution) can be still quantified as Scientific theory ? Isn't that just a load of conjuncture and plain and simple theory instead of it actually being a Scientific theory ? How does Science consider the hypothesis for these ? Guess work or Scientific Theory.

Edit: wrote you instead of who mistakenly.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[aquatus1]

Well, so upgrades are required. It is in this light I wanted to ask something which I will do in the last part of the comment.

Ah, no, upgrades are not required. If, however, one comes along, it is not automatically dismissed.

But still Evolution IS a FACT and a Scientific Theory (Am not being Creationist as you know). When you now say ""Scientific Theory" isn't an explanation in and of itself" It sort of confuses me again as earlier thorough various posts of different people I am led to believe that Scientific theories need not be proved and can only be disapproved, hence the simple notion that they are in a sense made after scientists have come to some sort conclusion based on tests or observations made by them. Well I will again get into the same and try and understand what you are trying to say here.

Which is why we are spending time making this clear. Yes, expect confusion. That happens when you are learning anything new, and doubly so when what you are learning is something you previously thought to be something different.

In the event you might need a little more confusion in your life, here's another tidbit:

Scientific theories require "proof"; Scientific theories, however, are never "proven".

I got that, I was just trying to point out that there are a few people who still say that Evolution is a FACT. I understand that science says that it's both FACT and Scientific Theory in parts (depends on which effect is the point discussion)

Okay, good. I thought so, but I had to make sure.

The reason for my confusion is that single to multi-cell is still unexplained, yet Evolution is quoted as a FACT (And a Scientific Theory). I understand that wolf to pet dog and mud-fish to snake can be explained(micro evolution), but how single cell to multi-cell and lizard to bird (macro evolution) can be still quantified as Scientific theory ? Isn't that just a load of conjuncture and plain and simple theory instead of it actually being a Scientific theory ? How does Science consider the hypothesis for these ? Guess work or Scientific Theory.

Okay then, if we have some of the foundational definitions out of the way (I suspect there are still a few connotations in there that we haven't gone over, but we'll deal with them as we go on), let's do evolution proper.

Evolution, the Fact: The mutation of the genome through generations. Basically, the concept that, as genetic information is passed from ancestor to descendent, the information is always changed in some way or another. The descendent never has the exact same genetic information as the ancestor.

This is the stuff we look at through the microscope. This is the stuff that can be directly observed. Questions on that?

[Spock_the_Future]

Okay then, if we have some of the foundational definitions out of the way (I suspect there are still a few connoe tations in there that we haven't gone over, but we'll deal with them as we go on), let's do evolution proper.

Evolution, the Fact: The mutation of the genome through generations. Basically, the concept that, as genetic information is passed from ancestor to descendent, the information is always changed in some way or another. The descendent never has the exact same genetic information as the ancestor.

This is the stuff we look at through the microscope. This is the stuff that can be directly observed. Questions on that?

Hi,

Your quote is regarding micro-evolution which as as I said I believe as a proven fact. I just question the inter species reptile to bird or reptile to mammal thing. It has not ever been observed or tested or verified to base a Scientific theory on. How is it then still a Scientific theory let alone a FACT ?

[aquatus1]

Hi,

Your quote is regarding micro-evolution which as as I said I believe as a proven fact. I just question the inter species reptile to bird or reptile to mammal thing. It has not ever been observed or tested or verified to base a Scientific theory on. How is it then still a Scientific theory let alone a FACT ?

Forget micro-evolution and macro-evolution. That stuff doesn't actually exist. What we are doing here is getting you to understand terminology as it is used by biologists and as it applies to evolution. I know you are eager to jump straight into what some people consider the controversy, however the main reason you were confused before is because you did not understand the foundational terminology, and it will do you no good to repeat that same mistake again.

So, do you understand that the mutation of the genome through generations is referred to as the fact of evolution, and that "micro-evolution" is not a technical term and does not describe any biological process?

[Nephilim_Slayer]

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.

"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded."

Gitt, Werner

[FurthurBB]

"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded."

Gitt, Werner

Actually it has now been shown that RNA can originate itself in a material medium, though to think of nucleic acids as information is just a way to understand it and not the reality of their nature.