Theory of evolution

[terminator69]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Why is the theory of evolution still a theory and not a scientific law?

[tommykins]

please learn what a theory is in the scientific context.

a scientific theory is made up of laws.

[1bpcsmem]

Originally Posted by terminator69

Why is the theory of evolution still a theory and not a scientific law?

While the theory of evolution consist of a series of evidence such as comparative biochemistry, comparative embryology, comparative anatomy, bio-geographical distribution, evidence from fossil record to support its claim. It cannot not be taken completely as a scientific law due to varied inconsistencies, the theory of biological evolution as expressed by Charles Darwin and Wallace is a scientific interpretation of observed phenomenon, it is hypothetically not backed up by actual scientific testing and thus cannot be expressed as a scientific law. Other various forms of theory of biological evolution derived from different culture and religion also exist within the sophisticated intellects of the scientific community which provides further reason why the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution cannot be taken as the correct interpretation of the evolving nature of many species. Other infamous theories evident in the fields of science include those formulated by cosmologist to explain the formation of the universe (E.g. Big Bang theory, Steady State theory etc.) which are classified as theories and NOT scientific laws despite the astounding evidence retrieved as proof of them. The reason for this is similar to the reason why the theory of biological evolution is classified by scientists as a theory and NOT a scientifc law.

I hope I was capable in answering your question. =]

[tommykins]

Originally Posted by 1bpcsmem

While the theory of evolution consist of a series of evidence such as comparative biochemistry, comparative embryology, comparative anatomy, bio-geographical distribution, evidence from fossil record to support its claim. It cannot not be taken completely as a scientific law due to varied inconsistencies, the theory of biological evolution as expressed by Charles Darwin and Wallace is a scientific interpretation of observed phenomenon, it is hypothetically not backed up by actual scientific testing and thus cannot be expressed as a scientific law. Other various forms of theory of biological evolution derived from different culture and religion also exist within the sophisticated intellects of the scientific community which provides further reason why the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution cannot be taken as the correct interpretation of the evolving nature of many species. Other infamous theories evident in the fields of science include those formulated by cosmologist to explain the formation of the universe (E.g. Big Bang theory, Steady State theory etc.) which are classified as theories and NOT scientific laws despite the astounding evidence retrieved as proof of them. The reason for this is similar to the reason why the theory of biological evolution is classified by scientists as a theory and NOT a scientifc law.
I hope I was capable in answering your question. =]

oh.
my.
god.

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!

Sauce - http://notjustatheory.com/

[1bpcsmem]

Originally Posted by tommykins

oh.
my.
god.



Sauce - Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
Fuck I just HAD to add this cause the sheer retardation in the previous post just made me cry.

Sorry? A scientific law cannot be changed simply because scientists have accumulated sufficient evidence to state that the law exists as a phenomenon within the natural world. A theory can change over time with new arising evidence through scientific research. A theory is NOT made out of law as tommykins stated in him above previous statement. Logically understood, this can be expressed in that a scientific theory is below a scientific law in terms of status. A scientific theory is below the status of a scientific law due to the logical fact that a scientific law DESCRIBES ACTUAL OCCURING PHENOMENONS however a scientific theory HYPOTHESISES ABOUT SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENONS. The site in which you have accumulated your data from is blatantly wrong in its interpretation. Clearly from a number of reliable sources and understanding the differing terminological meaning between a “theory” and “law”, it can be easily proven that the referenced website is incorrect to a degree.

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.

I never disagreed with this statement.

if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

A theory is defined as “hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena”, “An unproven conjecture; An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances;”
A law is defined as “A scientific law is a statement that describes the behavior of some particular thing or set of things within the natural world”
From these two statements, it can be clearly inferred that a scientific law (describes the behavior of natural phenomenon) is higher in terms of status than that of a scientific theory (unproven conjection or hypothesis with reasonable evidence)
Definition Resources:

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

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

Okay...

Make sure next time you do not simply copy a whole sector of information from a particular site as a form of evidence to support your argumentative thesis when it can be clearly seen there are a number of flaws associated with it. The majority of the your referenced information seems to agree with me also.

[tommykins]

rofl i think you just totally missed the whole point of the post.

whatever hey, carry on with your HSC essay writing bullshit.

rofl are you serious?

The site in which you have accumulated your data from is blatantly wrong in its interpretation. Clearly from a number of reliable sources and understanding the differing terminological meaning between a “theory” and “law”, it can be easily proven that the referenced website is incorrect to a degree.

From these two statements, it can be clearly inferred that a scientific law (describes the behavior of natural phenomenon) is higher in terms of status than that of a scientific theory (unproven conjection or hypothesis with reasonable evidence)

A scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has SUFFICIENT evidence and is CONSISTENT with experiments allowing a 'promotion' into a 'theory'. Some theories are based on Laws such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Newtons Theory of Gravity.

A theory can't be a 'law' because it's not MEANT to be a law. It's a collection of hypothesis that explains WHY something happens. Case in point gravity - 'Law of Gravity' states that two objects always have a gravitational field with each other, THEORY of Gravity explains why (mass etc.)
Note - I will not reply to you if you continue to type like a hsc douchebag writing an essay.

Oh by the way -

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory
theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

[terminator69]

Originally Posted by tommykins

A theory can't be a 'law' because it's not MEANT to be a law. It's a collection of hypothesis that explains WHY something happens. Case in point gravity - 'Law of Gravity' states that two objects always have a gravitational field with each other, THEORY of Gravity explains why (mass etc.)

I am still not sure about the meaning of 'theory'. You used the theory of gravity as an example of how they explain why something happens. But what about the theory of spontaneous generation? It is still a theory explaining something but in compliance with the true meaning of 'theory', it was proven wrong. So from this example it seems theories always have the potential to be proven wrong .. yet in other contexts they are viewed as 'law', such as natural selection or gravity.

So when I was asked in an exam to explain why the theory of evolution is still a theory ... should I answer with "it has varied inconsistencies and can't be proven" or "it is basically a law but explains why something happens instead of how"?

[alcalder]

The scientific method dictates that something must be reproducible for it to be proven.

Evolution, as a theory, is no more provable that creation (another valid interpretation of the available evidence - and the same evidence, not different evidnce).

If you have been led to believe that evolution is a fact, rather than the theory of a disaffected group of people who have interpreted evidence with one basic premise in mind "there is no God" and therefore "everything must have come about over millions of years gradually" then you need to open your mind and read more.

Can I suggest (to open a MASSIVE can of worms which usually continues with name calling and someone calling me ignorant and so on, because that realy helps the discussion - even Richard Dawkins name calls, so there you go, it must be OK) you have a look at Creation Ministries International - Bible Evolution Intelligent Design for the stuff you will not be told at school or read in any scientific jornal because they won't put it in (because they get lambasted for doing so, even if the science is completely correct and written by non-creationists - believe me it happens!).

Just a thought.

But even the ig Bang cannot be proven and there are many different theories that could explain it.

We have all just been blinded by one powerfully supported theory (in the form of evolution) to the idea that there may be other possibilities.

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by alcalder

The scientific method dictates that something must be reproducible for it to be proven.

Evolution, as a theory, is no more provable that creation (another valid interpretation of the available evidence - and the same evidence, not different evidnce).

If you have been led to believe that evolution is a fact, rather than the theory of a disaffected group of people who have interpreted evidence with one basic premise in mind "there is no God" and therefore "everything must have come about over millions of years gradually" then you need to open your mind and read more.

Can I suggest (to open a MASSIVE can of worms which usually continues with name calling and someone calling me ignorant and so on, because that realy helps the discussion - even Richard Dawkins name calls, so there you go, it must be OK) you have a look at Creation Ministries International - Bible Evolution Intelligent Design for the stuff you will not be told at school or read in any scientific jornal because they won't put it in (because they get lambasted for doing so, even if the science is completely correct and written by non-creationists - believe me it happens!).

Just a thought.

But even the ig Bang cannot be proven and there are many different theories that could explain it.

We have all just been blinded by one powerfully supported theory (in the form of evolution) to the idea that there may be other possibilities.

Wow.

The proof for evolution is incontrovertible.

There is no proof for creation.

Again, you have no idea what "theory" means in a scientific context.

[black_kat_meow]

Originally Posted by alcalder

The scientific method dictates that something must be reproducible for it to be proven.

Evolution, as a theory, is no more provable that creation (another valid interpretation of the available evidence - and the same evidence, not different evidnce).

If you have been led to believe that evolution is a fact, rather than the theory of a disaffected group of people who have interpreted evidence with one basic premise in mind "there is no God" and therefore "everything must have come about over millions of years gradually" then you need to open your mind and read more.

Can I suggest (to open a MASSIVE can of worms which usually continues with name calling and someone calling me ignorant and so on, because that realy helps the discussion - even Richard Dawkins name calls, so there you go, it must be OK) you have a look at Creation Ministries International - Bible Evolution Intelligent Design for the stuff you will not be told at school or read in any scientific jornal because they won't put it in (because they get lambasted for doing so, even if the science is completely correct and written by non-creationists - believe me it happens!).

Just a thought.

But even the ig Bang cannot be proven and there are many different theories that could explain it.

We have all just been blinded by one powerfully supported theory (in the form of evolution) to the idea that there may be other possibilities.

You can't "not believe" in evolution, it definately happens.

Yet another one who doesn't understand the scientific definition of "theory".

edit: b10

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by terminator69

I am still not sure about the meaning of 'theory'. You used the theory of gravity as an example of how they explain why something happens. But what about the theory of spontaneous generation? It is still a theory explaining something but in compliance with the true meaning of 'theory', it was proven wrong. So from this example it seems theories always have the potential to be proven wrong .. yet in other contexts they are viewed as 'law', such as natural selection or gravity.

So when I was asked in an exam to explain why the theory of evolution is still a theory ... should I answer with "it has varied inconsistencies and can't be proven" or "it is basically a law but explains why something happens instead of how"?

Law: A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that always applies under the same conditions. Although the term is generally accepted only for widely confirmed observations, not only is there no sharp distinction between a hypothesis and a scientific law, a scientific law might even be known to be false. (E.g. biogenetic law, law of contagion.)

The main difference between a scientific law and a theory is that a law does not include a model or explanation; it is simply an observation. Put colloquially, "the world works like this, but we don't completely understand why". As such, a law limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

/wikipedia

Theories are actually stronger than laws in scientific discourse.

[terminator69]

Originally Posted by alcalder

Evolution, as a theory, is no more provable that creation (another valid interpretation of the available evidence - and the same evidence, not different evidnce).

You are a fool. Good luck contradicting the syllabus.

Originally Posted by Kwayera

Put colloquially, "the world works like this, but we don't completely understand why". As such, a law limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

Theories are actually stronger than laws in scientific discourse.

What don't we currently understand about evolution?

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by terminator69

What don't we currently understand about evolution?

Not a lot with regards to mechanics, but you'll never get to the point where we know enough to ascribe mathematical values to it and say "in this instance this will happen every time." Such is the nature of biological systems.

[terminator69]

Originally Posted by Kwayera

Not a lot with regards to mechanics, but you'll never get to the point where we know enough to ascribe mathematical values to it and say "in this instance this will happen every time." Such is the nature of biological systems.

Does that coincide with what I said in this exam response that was marked as incorrect?

"Evolution can be observed but it is not a law due to its unreliable and unpredictable outcomes."

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by terminator69

Does that coincide with what I said in this exam response that was marked as incorrect?

"Evolution can be observed but it is not a law due to its unreliable and unpredictable outcomes."

I wouldn't ascribe it as unreliable (the mechanisms of evolution (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc) are pretty well understood, and themselves pretty predictable), but unpredictable? Sure. You'd never be able to PREDICT the product of evolution.