When is a theory 'just a theory'? (page 5)

Fisherman

Well, then the next sentence of my post proves itself to be true. :(

No it does not.

Fisherman

Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.

(biological) Evolution (Humanity evolved from simpler organisms) continues to be a theory until it is shown or proven or demonstrated to be the case . Until then it is not a fact.

You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."
There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.

A course in analytical reading and comprehension skills can help you: 'The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution' Think about the statement. And its context.

I am not getting into a pseudo-scientific cofty discussion with you - I am not interested. -or google cut and paste definitions or explanation. Do it yourself. I will say this though: The scientific method is used to test a hypothesis. If it turns out to be the case, it is validated. Such testing or experimenting if successful PROVES the hypothesis.

Evolution of humanity from simpler organisms cannot be proven or validated. Use whatever words you like. I understand that the term "theory of Evolution" refers to that all forms of life evolved from the same ancestor -That has not been proven.

Anders Andersen

@Fisherman,

And every time I am simply amazed, stunned, flabbergasted that people who do not accept evolution "because it cannot be proven" readily accept the existence of a God and the truth of ancient stories for which no evidence has ever been produced.

Someone who rejects evolution for supposed lack of evidence (which is really just lack of knowledge of that claimer's side) should be honest enough to rejects all gods, miracles and ancient stories for even worse lack of evidence.

cofty

Evolution of humanity from simpler organisms cannot be proven - Fish

The word proof belongs to mathematicians. In every other area of life we have to weigh up the evidence.

In this sense evolution has been "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.

However there is nothing that will convince unreasonable people.

Mephis

(biological) Evolution (Humanity evolved from simpler organisms) continues to be a theory until it is shown or proven or demonstrated to be the case . Until then it is not a fact.

Fisherman, people have already pointed out in great detail that you're not using the correct definition of 'theory'. Here's the problem you have. A scientific theory explains a series of facts. Even if one makes the theory go away, one still is left with the facts to explain. And those facts are going to be exactly the same ones which make literal creationists squeal when scientists explain how they demonstrate evolution. The fossil record remains the same and needs an explanation, our genetic links to other primates still need an answer, there's several species of human related to us on the genetic level who need to be explained, vestigial limbs and the like don't stop being there and do still need an explanation, etc etc etc.

So let's pretend evolution wasn't thought of to explain this. "God was very, very drunk" really isn't a satisfactory answer. And a sober God is nonsensical given some of the clearly sub-optimal things which happen in nature. We'd end up describing evolution by another name because it's the only logical way to explain all the evidence.

Fisherman

Someone who rejects evolution for supposed lack of evidence (which is really just lack of knowledge...

Google =

To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:[8]

The general sense of change over time.
All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution

I think that there is a difference between fact and conclusions. Anyway that it just something that I cut and pasted from wiki encyclopedia.

More Google= cofty

There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

Bolony. I remember an article in National Geographic(I think it was) about 10 years ago that stated that DNA confirmed that "Neanderthal man" did not breed with homo sapiens. A couple of years later I read another article somewhere that said that they did. In fact anyone taking a dna test now can see some Neanderthal in their lineage. You figure it out. Where neanderthal humans?

as the understanding

Do you see the logical fallacy in the comparison above?

I am not qualified to advocate or to refute "evolution." Evolution is working system that science uses as a patern to predict. There is controversy whether it can be falsified or not. There is also controversy about evolution apparently contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. There is also controversy whether or not evolution can coexist with enthropy. Some people choose to believe in evolution.

Finkelstein

God is a theory, biological evolution is a science derived from physical evidence.

There are species living today that support biological evolution.

Fisherman

In every other area of life we have to weigh up the evidence.

Or measure, or prove with experimentation: Case in point: The sun is a fact. Case in point: Experiment shows that the relationship between something and the sun under these conditions is always the case.

In this sense evolution has been "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is a difference between preponderance of the evidence and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt: There may be so much evidence to support something is true that it can be accepted as true (if magnitude of supporting evidence was the determining standard) or on the other hand, the reasonable possibility of something not being true inspite of all of the supporting evidence is what reasonable doubt means ( in the US criminal cases are tried with reasonable doubt as the deciding standard and not amount of evidence)

there is nothing that will convince unreasonable people.

But not agreeing with a conclusion or theory does not make one unreasonable. And there are reasons why not everyone is convinced that humanity evolved from the same ancestor as animals inspite of all of the evidence that science uses to support that conclusion.

Mephis

Bolony. I remember an article in National Geographic(I think it was) about 10 years ago that stated that DNA confirmed that "Neanderthal man" did not breed with homo sapiens. A couple of years later I read another article somewhere that said that they did. In fact anyone taking a dna test now can see some Neanderthal in their lineage. You figure it out. Where neanderthal humans?

Was that the first attempts to pull Neanderthal DNA out? Sounds familiar. One group thought they'd found evidence of human and Neanderthal's having offspring, the other group found no evidence. Most confusing but also a reflection of just how darned hard it is to pull DNA out of remains 40,000 years old.

The fun part of that confusion was a huge collaborative project to map the entire Neanderthal genome. That's based at the Max Planck Institute. Anyways, long story short, we did interbreed with Neanderthals. No confusion now. Problem solved by more science. Since then, the techniques have improved further and more and more evidence is building up. To the point where we can identify where the Denisovan genes entered our gene pool (best example - Tibet and the gene which allows Tibetans to live more easily at high altitude) and even identify other species who contributed to the Denisovan gene pool.

Phizzy

" there are reasons why not everyone is convinced that humanity evolved from the same ancestor as animals in spite of all of the evidence that science uses to support that conclusion. "

There may be "reasons", but it is satisfactory evidence for a contrary hypothesis that must be presented to those of us who lead evidence based lives.

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

Share this