Is evolution a fact?

[Sherlock Holmes]

If Newton's theory was simply taught because its how the universe was percieved in the past, then courses would simply mention it in passing. Instead they devote whole chapters, tests, and exersizes to it. It would be like teaching every astronomy student the old geocentric model of the solar system in several chapters and tests.

Newton's theory is taught because it is a simplified version of the truth that suffices except for untypical cases. Teaching students the simple version first helps them ease into physics, before relativity and quantum mechanics are thrown at them. Newton's theory isn't wrong, it just isn't the full story. The same goes for the theory of evolution. There will always be room to improve and details we haven't figured out yet.

Perhaps you're right abut why it's taught, but I still cannot agree when you say "Newton's theory isn't wrong" because it is fundamentally wrong in the way it defines space, time and action-at-a-distance; yes numerically we get results that are more than adequate for most practical applications but I'm not referring to numerical accuracy when I describe it as wrong.

If you do still think it isn't wrong and it just isn't the "full story" then it follows that the "old geocentric model" isn't wrong just not the full story too.

Acceleration is not relative to an aether, light trajectories are not unaffected by gravitation, clocks do not all tick at the same regular rate irrespective of motion, of gravitation - this is where Newton was wrong.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This should close this thread. You are comparing a false idea of a scientific theory with a false idea of facts. If scientific theories explain facts, that doesn't make scientific theory comparable to a fact. They are inextricably entwined together. You can't have a scientific theory without a basis in facts which the theory explains. There is not both the fact of evolution and theory of evolution. A fact is one part of a theory, and without facts it could not be called a scientific theory. Evolution is not just one single thing, it is an explanation of many facts. And these facts support the theory. All scientific theories work this way; the scientific theory of evolution is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory. And that is a fact.

David please take this up with the National Center for Science Education, they said " In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" whereas you said "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories" I agree with NCSE, you do not so take it up with them now.

 

[Questerr]

Evolution, that is "the change in allele frequencies over time", is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution exists to explain and detail that fact.

 

[zyzygy]

Evolution, that is "the change in allele frequencies over time", is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution exists to explain and detail that fact.

Frequencies? Please explain.

 

[Questerr]

Frequencies? Please explain.

allele frequency

A number that represents the incidence of a gene variant in a population.

www.nature.com

 

[zyzygy]

That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.

What is the current religious dogma?

 

[zyzygy]

allele frequency

A number that represents the incidence of a gene variant in a population.

www.nature.com

Thank you.

 

[Questerr]

That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.

Except its not. There's multiple competing theories for how biogenesis occurred on the Earth. Abiogenesis is just one of them.

 

[Questerr]

Thank you.

The fact that science defines Evolution as a function of changes in allele frequencies (itself a function on modern genetic science) is just one of many reasons why people who refer to Evolution as "Darwinism" are idiots. Modern evolutionary theory has almost nothing to do with Darwin and in fact contradicts many of this hypotheses.

 

[Triton]

That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.

To be honest, the Urey-Miller hypothesis really isn't rigorous. It's evidence, not not a theory or proof, that life can rise from simple chemistry. The fact that life is dictated by chemistry, is however, good evidenc etht the Urey-Miller hypothesis holds water.

 

[Questerr]

To be honest, the Urey-Miller hypothesis really isn't rigorous. It's evidence, not not a theory or proof, that life can rise from simple chemistry. The fact that life is dictated by chemistry, is however, good evidenc etht the Urey-Miller hypothesis holds water.

But at it's core, it's still a statement of "life COULD have arisen this way". It might be widely accepted (AFAIK its the single most accepted biogenesis theory), but I don't know if science will ever be able to definitively say where life on Earth came from.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is the current religious dogma?

That we didn't.

 

[Questerr]

That we didn't.

Is it? All religions believe that?

 

[Triton]

But at it's core, it's still a statement of "life COULD have arisen this way". It might be widely accepted (AFAIK its the single most accepted biogenesis theory), but I don't know if science will ever be able to definitively say where life on Earth came from.

The **** you talkin about fam

 

[Individual]

But at it's core, it's still a statement of "life COULD have arisen this way". It might be widely accepted (AFAIK its the single most accepted biogenesis theory), but I don't know if science will ever be able to definitively say where life on Earth came from.

Nature would appear to be where the answers of such questions might be found.

 

[devildavid]

David please take this up with the National Center for Science Education, they said " In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" whereas you said "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories" I agree with NCSE, you do not so take it up with them now.

No, I'm taking it up with you. The theory of evolution needs facts to explain. These are the facts of evolution. Do you see how a theory cannot exist without facts? These facts are what makes up the theory. The facts come first, the theory second. One cannot exist without the other. Your OP question is meaningless.The theory of evolution has not been treated any different than any other scientific theory. It is built upon facts, just like any other scientific theory. If new facts come along, the theory may be altered. Nothing has come to light to question the basic facts of evolution.

 

[devildavid]

That we didn't.

But what is the religious dogma that explains how it did happen?

 

[Questerr]

The **** you talkin about fam

I'm talking about the fact that Abiogenesis is just one of several competing theories to explain how life originally arose on the Earth and that scientists may never be able to definitively say which one actually occurred.

 

[Questerr]

Nature would appear to be where the answers of such questions might be found.

Except there is no way to definitively say if life arose due to abiogenesis, panspermia, or any of the other possible scientific explanations because no evidence remains from nearly billion years ago that would prove it.

 

[Individual]

Except there is no way to definitively say if life arose due to abiogenesis, panspermia, or any of the other possible scientific explanations because no evidence remains from nearly billion years ago that would prove it.

Many things simply cannot be known with absolute certainty though some theories appear to be more reasoned and rational than others.

 

[Individual]

What is the current religious dogma?

The current religious dogma is "Since science cannot prove with absolute certainty how the universe and/or life came into existence, therefore a supernatural God must have done it."

 

[Questerr]

Many things simply cannot be known with absolute certainty though some theories appear to be more reasoned and rational than others.

Of the primary competing theories for biogenesis, I don’t know how anyone can confidently say which is more reasoned or rational than the others.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Evolution is a fact just like many other things we accept as true are a fact: There is a massive amount of evidence supporting it an no evidence supporting any alternative theory.

 

[Individual]

Of the primary competing theories for biogenesis, I don’t know how anyone can confidently say which is more reasoned or rational than the others.

It's for each individual to make such a decision, or not.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, I'm taking it up with you. The theory of evolution needs facts to explain.

You disagree with NCSE I do not yet you claim it is I who doesn't understand what a theory is!

These are the facts of evolution.

No there are facts that are consistent with the expectations of evolutionary theory, just as there are facts that are consistent with Newtonian mechanics and facts that are consistent with Copernican theory, Galilean theory and so on.

Do you see how a theory cannot exist without facts?

A theory cannot exist without axioms, you persist in refusing to tell me if you even know what an axiom is though.

These facts are what makes up the theory.

See - axiom.

Note:

Axioms -

are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. Remembering that ultimately ``assume'' can make an ass out of u and me, as my wife (a physician, which is a very empirical and untrusting profession) is wont to say. They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.

I can only assume this is all new to you and that the pop-science books you've been eagerly consuming all these years never go into this kind of detail.

The facts come first, the theory second. One cannot exist without the other.

Now you say that facts and theories are different mutually interdependent things yet a few posts ago you wrote "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories"!

Your OP question is meaningless.

You should have said that at the outset then, I'd have been delighted to explain.

The theory of evolution has not been treated any different than any other scientific theory.

Yes it has David, it is described by its most ardent advocates as being a "fact" no other theory in the sciences is so described.

It is built upon facts, just like any other scientific theory. If new facts come along, the theory may be altered. Nothing has come to light to question the basic facts of evolution.

It is built upon axioms David and until you look up this term in a dictionary you'll continue to post embarrassing claims like this.

Why are you afraid to tell me what an axiom is?