evolution theory.

[DAKSTER]

Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Evolution is accepted as fact (including by me) because it is the explanation that best fits the available data, the data has been collected for hundreds of years, and no data that disproves the theory has come to light.

I accept the theory of evolution as it stands, but you cannot discount the vague possibility that it may be disproved at some point in the future, however unlikely that may seem. Therefore, although evolution is widely accepted as fact, it has never and can never be proven. It can however possibly be disproved, although I think that's highly unlikely personally.

Evolution is not a fact, it is merely the most likely hypothesis based on the available data. As you've said here, evolutionary theory is the theory that best explains the available facts, rather than being a fact in its own right.

 

[Torborg]

Evolution is accepted as fact (including by me) because it is the explanation that best fits the available data, the data has been collected for hundreds of years, and no data that disproves the theory has come to light.

I accept the theory of evolution as it stands, but you cannot discount the vague possibility that it may be disproved at some point in the future, however unlikely that may seem. Therefore, although evolution is widely accepted as fact, it has never and can never be proven. It can however possibly be disproved, although I think that's highly unlikely personally.

Evolution is not a fact, it is merely the most likely hypothesis based on the available data. As you've said here, evolutionary theory is the theory that best explains the available facts, rather than being a fact in its own right.

A scientific theory is accepted because it explains facts. Facts are undeniable.

While those facts cannot be disproved, our explanation of them can be. If a theory is developed that better explains the facts of evolution, it will be accepted by the scientific community.

No scientific theory can be proven completely, whether that be the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity.

 

[DAKSTER]

Further to my last post, an example of 'fact' vs 'hypothesis'.

Water boils at 100C, correct? Well, yes and no. If you boil water, and measure its temperature 1000 times, and its 100C every time, the theory is proven, right? Again, yes and no.

All you have done is proven that water, when boiled within a particular set of circumstances, did so at 100C 1000 times and other temperatures did not occur. This would appear to be proof... but its not, because there are other unconsidered factors.

If you are unaware of these factors, you are not going to consider them as an influence. However, now we know more than we used to, we have to justify our conclusion with the statement 'at sea level in normal atmospheric conditions with distilled water' for our conclusion to be valid. Even then, there may be other factors which can change the 'fact' occasionally that we aren't even aware of.

I can state that water boils at 75.5C, and I would be approximately correct.

However, I would also have to add 'at 8000m above sea level, in normal atmospheric conditions, with distilled water, and assuming there are no other influential factors' for this to be a scientifically valid statement.

Of course, its not as simple as that either.. to make that statement I also have to define 'normal atmospheric conditions' ,what constitutes 'influence', and just how highly distilled the water actually is.

Of course, how accurate my measurement is also depends on how accurate the equipment I am using is when measuring the water temperature, the altitude, the air pressure, the ambient temperature, the air composition, the purity of the water and the many other factors that form the available data. Even the wind speed is a factor, the tiny amount of cooling provided by a puff of breeze over the water is significant in a truly accurate test, because its variable.

With all available data, within the abilities of our equipment and the availability of physical evidence, evolutionary theory is our current best guess. We haven't been able to disprove it despite having tried our hardest with our best available science ever since Darwin first wrote the book. We did try really hard too, so many people find it unpalatable to have similar genetic origins to the apes (and as stated by someone earlier, we are not descended from the apes, we just have similar origins. We are cousins.).

That means it could yet be disproved, but for now that's the best theory and the one I am going with.

 

[kuzman89]

Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Evolution is accepted as fact (including by me) because it is the explanation that best fits the available data, the data has been collected for hundreds of years, and no data that disproves the theory has come to light.

I accept the theory of evolution as it stands, but you cannot discount the vague possibility that it may be disproved at some point in the future, however unlikely that may seem. Therefore, although evolution is widely accepted as fact, it has never and can never be proven. It can however possibly be disproved, although I think that's highly unlikely personally.

Evolution is not a fact, it is merely the most likely hypothesis based on the available data. As you've said here, evolutionary theory is the theory that best explains the available facts, rather than being a fact in its own right.

^^^ This, couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Torborg]

Further to my last post, an example of 'fact' vs 'hypothesis'.

Water boils at 100C, correct? Well, yes and no. If you boil water, and measure its temperature 1000 times, and its 100C every time, the theory is proven, right? Again, yes and no.

All you have done is proven that water, when boiled within a particular set of circumstances, did so at 100C 1000 times and other temperatures did not occur. This would appear to be proof... but its not, because there are other unconsidered factors.

If you are unaware of these factors, you are not going to consider them as an influence. However, now we know more than we used to, we have to justify our conclusion with the statement 'at sea level in normal atmospheric conditions with distilled water' for our conclusion to be valid. Even then, there may be other factors which can change the 'fact' occasionally that we aren't even aware of.

I can state that water boils at 75.5C, and I would be approximately correct.

However, I would also have to add 'at 8000m above sea level, in normal atmospheric conditions, with distilled water, and assuming there are no other influential factors' for this to be a scientifically valid statement.

Of course, its not as simple as that either.. to make that statement I also have to define 'normal atmospheric conditions' ,what constitutes 'influence', and just how highly distilled the water actually is.

Of course, how accurate my measurement is also depends on how accurate the equipment I am using is when measuring the water temperature, the altitude, the air pressure, the ambient temperature, the air composition, the purity of the water and the many other factors that form the available data. Even the wind speed is a factor, the tiny amount of cooling provided by a puff of breeze over the water is significant in a truly accurate test, because its variable.

With all available data, within the abilities of our equipment and the availability of physical evidence, evolutionary theory is our current best guess. We haven't been able to disprove it despite having tried our hardest with our best available science ever since Darwin first wrote the book. That means it could yet be disproved, but for now that's the best theory and the one I am going with.

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between scientific fact, theory, and hypothesis. Facts don't change, only our understanding of them. IMO our only disagreement is in semantics. I'm using those terms purely based on scientific definitions.

 

[DAKSTER]

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between scientific fact, theory, and hypothesis. Facts don't change, only our understanding of them. IMO our only disagreement is in semantics. I'm using those terms purely based on scientific definitions.

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of my posts. I am not disagreeing with you at all, quite the opposite. I am merely clarifying a slightly ambiguous statement for the benefit of others. I was refining your statement, not refuting it

Sometimes semantics are important, they help avoid people misunderstanding things. I was redefining your words 'evolution is both fact and theory' which are easily misconstrued as 'evolution is fact' by someone who didn't read or understand the rest of your post properly.

 

[Torborg]

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of my posts. I am not disagreeing with you at all, quite the opposite. I am merely clarifying a slightly ambiguous statement for the benefit of others. I was refining your statement, not refuting it

Sometimes semantics are important, they help avoid people misunderstanding things. I was redefining your words 'evolution is both fact and theory' which are easily misconstrued as 'evolution is fact' by someone who didn't read or understand the rest of your post properly.

Cheers. I understand.

 

[monkeys437]

Daskter, I don't really agree with your example of boiling water there.

The Celsius Scale is specifically defined such that Water at one standard atmosphere will freeze at 0° and boil at 100°. So the measurements you take in your imaginary experiment are completely irrelevant.

100°C is the boiling point of water at 1atm by definition, this is not something we discovered, proved or measure. The entire temperature scale is defined around the properties of water.

 

[DAKSTER]

Daskter, I don't really agree with your example of boiling water there.

The Celsius Scale is specifically defined such that Water at one standard atmosphere will freeze at 0° and boil at 100°. So the measurements you take in your imaginary experiment are completely irrelevant.

100°C is the boiling point of water at 1atm by definition, this is not something we discovered, proved or measure. The entire temperature scale is defined around the properties of water.

Well that's an interesting point. I agree with what you are saying, though I hadn't considered that.

It is a fact that in 'normal' conditions any kind of measuring equipment will show water boiling, ie evaporating into a gaseous state, at about 75C at about 8000m. Its also true that said equipment is calibrated to sea level at 1atm. So however are aircraft instruments, and these are widely accepted as providing appropriate data I think.. including their temperature sensors. I assume they factor in any known differences into any calculations they make in that case.

I think this does further prove my point however. There are so many variables, science is never proven. Everything is open for re-evaluation if new evidence is presented. All you can do is go for the most likely theory that cannot be disproved at the time.

 

[Vsfan95]

here is better way to explain evolution truth or fiction. If you put all the ingredients for a banana cake into a bowl that is without cracking the eggs or mixing it and you leave for a 100 years will it evolve into a banana cake.