Evolution as a Subject is neither Fact, nor Theory

MayCaesar

Evolution is almost certainly a fact, as we have observed evolution of multiple species, including ourselves, without the recorded history timeline. Now, Darwin's evolution theory is a different matter: while evolution is a fact, the precise explanation of it is up to debate. Darwin did make some mistakes in his research, and those mistakes have been corrected since. The modern evolution theory focuses more not on the general principles (which we, at this point, know very well), but on the specific species' evolution trees. The debate over whether evolution theory holds is not really a part of the modern scientific discourse.

I do not like the sentence "Science has been settled"; science is never settled. But at some point a theory can become solid enough that rejecting it based on it not being provable mathematically does not make a lot of sense.

There are some alternative theories to consider, but creationism is not one of them. It is okay to question science; it is not okay to dismiss it in favor of a theory based on an ancient religious book, that has zero evidence behind it. Evolution may be "just a theory", but it is a pretty good theory. While creationism is a lazy attempt at explaining the observable phenomena that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

Dee

I always liked the way Stephen Jay Gould put it as in the small piece below this comment by me. There is nothing that has come close to making a challenge to Evolution as fact , creationists and others have not got even one peer reviewed paper between them to support their collective nonsense of course when challenged with this they claim its because scientists themselves are corrupt and anti Christian and god 

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. 

Wiki 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Evolution is almost certainly a fact, as we have observed evolution of multiple species, including ourselves, without the recorded history timeline. Now, Darwin's evolution theory is a different matter: while evolution is a fact, the precise explanation of it is up to debate. Darwin did make some mistakes in his research, and those mistakes have been corrected since. The modern evolution theory focuses more not on the general principles (which we, at this point, know very well), but on the specific species' evolution trees. The debate over whether evolution theory holds is not really a part of the modern scientific discourse.

I infer here that you are saying "it's a scientific fact that living species evolve" and that I agree with. However, the point I am making is that it really makes no sense to say "Evolution is a fact" or "Evolution is a theory." To think of this another way, try to imagine the following scenario:

Person 1 asks "So what is Evolution?" Person 2 says "It's a fact." Finally, Person 3 replies with "It's just a theory."

Can you see the problem with the above dialogue? A more apt answer would be "Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4705322/ or "The basic idea of biological evolution is that populations and species of organisms change over time." https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection

In case it isn't clear what I am conveying yet, I will give you one more imaginary scenario to think about which although unrelated to Evolution is analogous to the above example scenario:

Person 1 asks "What is Geometry?" Person 2 says "it's a Mathematical fact." And finally Person 3 responds with "It's just a theory."

In conclusion while there exists facts, substantiated theories, and degrees of evidential support within given subjects, the subject itself cannot be called a fact or theory; it's just the subject name.

Vaulk

Evolution, as a study, isn't complete, never has been complete and for all we know...won't ever be.  Because of this it cannot answer the one question that it set out to answer, "Where did life come from".  

This isn't to say that evolution isn't interesting or fascinating, it just doesn't meet the criteria of the Scientific Method nor can even most of it be explained properly without making large assumptions that cannot be substantiated "Yet".  Darwin himself stated emphatically that, in order to substantiate the theory of evolution, the fossil record would have to include innumerable entries of transitional species.  So according to Darwin who is the Father of Evolution there should be so many transitional fossils in the fossil record that you couldn't possible count them all.  Yet today the few we have are all in dispute despite some claims of hundreds or thousands.  Unfortunately scientists cannot begin to be clear on what is or isn't a transitional fossil because supposedly organisms are constantly evolving.  So not only do we not have so many transitional fossils that they can't be counted but of the ones we do have...none can be accurately accounted for as we don't have any accurate way to determine what exact species they are in transition from or to.

Again I think evolution is fascinating, a real mind-boggling study and overall really cool.  Is it the answer to where life comes from though?  It certainly isn't, in fact it isn't an answer at all.  Imagine if you found a bar of gold in your house and you were trying to figure out how it got there and, because you hadn't figured it out yet, you simply told people about your investigation process in lieu of the answer to how it got there and that your process should serve as a legitimate answer as to the origins of the gold.  Sounds ridiculous right?  That's because it is.  If you don't know for certain then the answer is "I don't know".  Evolution certainly isn't a fact and honestly because the theory or hypothesis has not and cannot be replicated in any experiment...it cannot be tested and if it cannot be tested...it's not a theory.  Check out 7th grade science for the rules on the Scientific Method folks.

Plaffelvohfen

Fact, evolution is a process, an observable one to boot... So evolution is indeed a FACT.

Creationists mistake or conflate (purposefully maybe), evolution and abiogenesis... 

ZeusAres42

Plaffelvohfen said:

Fact, evolution is a process, an observable one to boot... So evolution is indeed a FACT.

Creationists mistake or conflate (purposefully maybe), evolution and abiogenesis... 

Correct me if I am wrong but I think what you're saying is that "It's a fact that evolution refers to an observable process." Now, I am not disputing that. My argument is that to make blanket statements such as "Evolution is a fact" or "Evolution is just a theory" is not the proper language of science. To try to epitomize what I am trying to say imagine if you asked me "What is Algebra?" and my response was "Algebra is a fact." Of course, the more appropriate answer would be "Algebra is a branch of mathematics consisting of expressions, equations, formulas, and so forth. Likewise, Evolution is section of Biological Science that refers to "the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4705322/. 

And within the subject of evolution you will indeed find a multitude of hypothesis, methods, facts, scientific theories with the most famous one being "the theory of natural selection" and varying degrees of evidential support for different theories.

In the scientific world, Evolution isn't just a fact or just a theory; it's much, much more than that.

Plaffelvohfen

@ZeusAres42

I'll correct you... slightly...

I'm not saying that evolution "refers to an observable process", I'm saying it IS the process that we observe, this process exist, it's a fact... Saying Evolution is a fact is like saying the Sun is a fact, sure it's true (and all true things are facts) but it tells us nothing about the Sun and likewise answering "evolution is a fact" to the question "What is Evolution", while true doesn't say anything at all about Evolution and doesn't answer the question at all, one could as well answer "Evolution is a word", which would also be true but likewise irrelevant...

There is the process of evolution and there is the Theory of evolution, which is the aggregation of all explanations to the multiple mechanisms (chemical, biological, etc) relating to this process...

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

Scientific method does not really work the way you make it sound. We do not have to be able to replicate everything in order for a theory to be scientific; we just need to be able to formulate testable hypotheses consistent and inconsistent with the theory, test them and conclude whether the theory is plausible or not.

We can study the processes occurring at the core of the Sun, without replicating the core of the Sun in Earth conditions. We instead study individual nuclear reactions that can be reproduced in the lab, and then we use our mathematical framework to extrapolate those individual reactions to a large scale involving trillions such reactions at the same time, and that is what we compare with the observations.

Similarly, we do not have to reproduce the entirety of abiogenesis in Earth conditions; that would be unfeasible anyway, as the time scale of that process is supposed to be millions years. But we can reproduce various organic and inorganic reactions, plug them into mathematical models and connect the dots.

That is what science is: experimenting in order to learn a bit more about the world. We will never know everything there is to know about any process, but we can learn enough to be able to deduce much of the rest.

Vaulk

@MayCaesarMayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

Scientific method does not really work the way you make it sound. We do not have to be able to replicate everything in order for a theory to be scientific; we just need to be able to formulate testable hypotheses consistent and inconsistent with the theory, test them and conclude whether the theory is plausible or not.

We can study the processes occurring at the core of the Sun, without replicating the core of the Sun in Earth conditions. We instead study individual nuclear reactions that can be reproduced in the lab, and then we use our mathematical framework to extrapolate those individual reactions to a large scale involving trillions such reactions at the same time, and that is what we compare with the observations.

Similarly, we do not have to reproduce the entirety of abiogenesis in Earth conditions; that would be unfeasible anyway, as the time scale of that process is supposed to be millions years. But we can reproduce various organic and inorganic reactions, plug them into mathematical models and connect the dots.

That is what science is: experimenting in order to learn a bit more about the world. We will never know everything there is to know about any process, but we can learn enough to be able to deduce much of the rest.

While I agree that not "Everything" has to be reproduced in regards to variables, reproducibility is the golden standard for scientific theory, without it...it's not scientific.

Your example of Earth's Sun is spot on and you're absolutely correct.  Because the Sun is something we can observe, measure, test, record data from in real-time, it is also something we can extrapolate data from and make deductions based on available and, again, observable information.

Evolution however, is not something we can or have been able to observe (Regardless of why) and therefor what we have in lieu of scientific observation are presumptions based on likelihoods.  Bear in mind that I'm not offering an alternative theory or even something more viable, instead I'm simply suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is, as the OP stated, not a fact or a theory.  It cannot be tested, observed, measured or otherwise replicated and these are all required standards for scientific theory.  

All of this is ignoring the very Father of Evolutionary Theory and his own admission that if his theory were EVER to be proven...there would HAVE to be innumerable transitional fossils in the fossil record.  For everyone else here that's in my boat and didn't quite realize what that word meant, it means it's like the stars...so many that you couldn't possibly count them all.  If evolutionary theory is, in any way, a solid basis for the explanation of how life came to be on Earth then we'd be literally tripping over transitional fossils all day long.  Normally the age old adage of "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" would be applicable here...but when taking into consideration that the evolutionary theory insists that we haven't seen evolving animals because Humans are basically too young to have seen it in our age...then who came along and played hide and go seek with all the transitional fossils?  

If someone told you that their bedroom caught fire and the entire thing burned to a crisp yet, when you inspected it yourself, there was a tiny black mark above one of the sockets...well absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence you might say...but then where the hell is the evidence of this scorching fire?  I'm with Darwin on this one.

ZeusAres42

Plaffelvohfen said:

@ZeusAres42

I'll correct you... slightly...

I'm not saying that evolution "refers to an observable process", I'm saying it IS the process that we observe, this process exist, it's a fact... Saying Evolution is a fact is like saying the Sun is a fact, sure it's true (and all true things are facts) but it tells us nothing about the Sun and likewise answering "evolution is a fact" to the question "What is Evolution", while true doesn't say anything at all about Evolution and doesn't answer the question at all, one could as well answer "Evolution is a word", which would also be true but likewise irrelevant...

There is the process of evolution and there is the Theory of evolution, which is the aggregation of all explanations to the multiple mechanisms (chemical, biological, etc) relating to this process...

I think at times people tend to conflate the ordinary use the of the terms "fact," "Theory," etc. with that of scientific terms. In the science realm these things do not technically mean the same thing in reference to the ordinary day today use of those terms. Take a look at the following for instance :

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
https://ncse.ngo/definitions-fact-theory-and-law-scientific-work

Furthermore, the following excerpt might also epitomize how I can no longer view such broad terms as that of "Evolution" as being stated as fact or theory:

INTRODUCTION

When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media.

It is important to understand these various definitions relative to each other and to show that accepting evolution as defined in the sciences does not commit one to accepting another form, as proposed by theology or philosophy. In particular it is important to realize that, contrary to many nonscientific uses of the term, evolution is neither a progressive process — modern theory does not make it inevitable that the latest is the best — nor can we expect to be able to predict the "next step" in evolution.

To understand the current meaning of the word "evolution", it is useful to take a journey through history and trace the various meanings of the word "evolution" as the modern view takes form.

https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

Also, nowadays when someone says to me that "Evolution is a fact" or "Just a theory" I have to ask them what they mean specifically, as I think that statement could imply many things; because the word "Evolution" is a very broad, generic term.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

But that was my entire point: we do not have to observe something to be able to deduce it taking place from other data available. When we look at the Sun in a telescope, we effectively only catch photons from the Sun. And even when we launch a space ship to orbit the Sun and take measurements, that space ship still ultimately only catches photons, and then we catch the signals from that ship, that are also photons. So photons are all we get to deal with.

Yet those photons are sufficient for us to figure out finest effects happening in the Sun's core. We will never get to see that core or directly probe it with any physical devices, but we are nearly 100% sure about some of the effects taking place there, its structure and so on.

We do not have to observe evolution in real time (and even if we did, we have done so repeatedly) to conclude that it is taking place from a myriad of related effects. Just because we do not yet know what initially triggered evolution, does not mean we cannot call evolution a fact - much like just because we do not know what, if anything, caused gravity to appear in our Universe, does not mean we cannot state confidently that gravity exists.

There are many things we do not know about the world, including the most basic things. For example, we barely know anything about our climate, despite studying it for millennia; we still cannot even very well explain what causes lightnings in the rain, and all computer simulations tasked to verify models of them have failed miserably to produce anything of substance. However, when it comes to evolution, while we do not know much more than we do know, we do know that evolution takes place - much like we do know that lightnings take place.

Vaulk

@MayCaesar

While I understand your point about observation, unfortunately the Scientific Method requires it...and more.  The issue with evolution comes when trying to apply the scientific method period.

Your example of Gravity is a good point in support of my argument against evolution because even in the case of Newton's Laws of Motion, which are the foundation of mechanics and physics in our world, they were proven to be failures.  Scientific Law isn't as factual as we've suggested over the course of 300 years.  So just because someone says that something's a fact, law or truth...that doesn't make it so.  History shows us that Science fails more than it succeeds and in most cases the errors in science lead to catastrophic issues in our world.  I say that Science fails because saying that "Science was wrong" isn't really accurate, someone simply failed to take into account information that should have been.  This further suggests that acceptance of Scientific theory must be tempered despite our common usage of the phrase "We know it's a fact".

All Scientific Theory is based upon assumptions.  Evolution just so happens to be based upon some of the wildest assumptions to date.  Evolution as a theory is based upon the following fundamental principles that are...well...assumptions:

1. Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).
2. Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
4. Multicellular animals (metazoa) evolved from unicellular or single-celled organisms (protozoa or protists).
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
7. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.

None of these have been nor can be proven in any way yet, they are all absolutely critical to the theory of evolution.  Without them...it falls apart.

The modern theory of spontaneous generation is based on the Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1952, the experiment itself is ALSO based upon unproven assumptions and they are as follows:

1. The composition of the early Earth was different than it is today.
2. The proper kind and amount of energy was present.
3. More product was produced than was broken down by the harsh environment.
4. The same processes that produced simple, organic molecules in a closed experimental apparatus also functioned in the open, uncontrolled system found on the early earth.

In regards to these unproven assumptions, it's assumed that the atmosphere of the early Earth had very little if any oxygen and was made up of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen (i.e., the same chemicals that Miller and Urey used in the experiment).  It's common knowledge that the presence of oxygen would have preempted the formation of any organic compounds.  However, there are no reliable and objective means to determine if this model of the early atmosphere is correct.  Again, assumptions.

This is setting aside that the fossil record cannot adequately account for invertebrate creatures and therefor the assumption that all vertebrate creatures came from invertebrate creatures cannot be substantiated.  Furthermore the orderly transition from fish to amphibian to reptiles then birds and to mammals is completely absent from the fossil record.

Again, and I realize no one wants to address this point because it's been ignored three times now.  The Father of Evolutionary Theory, over 100 years ago was still smart enough to know that any theory based on transitional species (One species eventually and slowly turning into another new species) would need billions of trillions of transitional fossils in the fossil record to support it.  Transitional fossils are ALL still being debated as to their authenticity and whether or not they actually ARE transitional fossils and they are minimal in number.  If evolution was a fact, we'd have so many transitional fossils on our planet that they couldn't be counted.  

While I'm confident that natural selection and adaptation occurs, the idea of one species turning into another completely different species has yet to be proven by even the standards set forth 100 years ago by the father of evolution.  Science has rules...which is why I like it so much and I won't slip into following one of the MANY proposed theories that was prematurely decided by scientists that were required to make just as many assumptions as they were required to make actual discoveries to reach a conclusion.

Here's another two issues with Evolution as a theory and both involve assumptions in order to continue with the theory of evolution:



 

ZeusAres42

Vaulk said:

@MayCaesar

While I understand your point about observation, unfortunately the Scientific Method requires it...and more.  The issue with evolution comes when trying to apply the scientific method period.

I think a number of people tend to overuse the phrase "Scientific Method." "Often, reference to scientific method is used in ways that convey either the legend of a single, universal method characteristic of all science, or grants to a particular method or set of methods privilege as a special ‘gold standard’, often with reference to particular philosophers to vindicate the claims" (Scientific Method Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Your example of Gravity is a good point in support of my argument against evolution because even in the case of Newton's Laws of Motion, which are the foundation of mechanics and physics in our world, they were proven to be failures.

I don't know what MayCaeser said about Gravity. However, this is the first I've ever heard about the science of Gravity and

Newtons laws of motion being a failure. Unless I have mistaken you to mean something else. Anyway, Physics and Biology are two different broad branches of science. Therefore, just because something didn't work out so world in Physics doesn't mean it's going to be same for Biology or any other branch of science for that matter.

Scientific Law isn't as factual as we've suggested over the course of 300 years.  So just because someone says that something's a fact, law or truth...that doesn't make it so.

This is partly correct. This is dependent upon who is saying what, and their reasons for saying it, as well as if those reasons can be observed, tested and verified. I l also think it's work mentioning at this point that I think we need to be careful with the word "truth." And I think most Scientists (at least good Scientists) are cautious using this word.

  History shows us that Science fails more than it succeeds and in most cases the errors in science lead to catastrophic issues in our world.

Really? Not only is this a very generic statement but it's also inaccurate I will contend. I mean what about the following successes:

• Moon Landings
  
• Internal combustion engine
  
• Electric power generation
• Motion pictures
• The Steam Engine
• Penicillin
• Genome Editing
• Vaccinations
• DNA
• Antibiotics
• Medical Imaging
• Blood Circulation
• Advancements in Cancer and HIV
• Computer Science Successes
  

Note: the above is not a complete list.

All Scientific Theory is based upon assumptions.  Evolution just so happens to be based upon some of the wildest assumptions to date.  Evolution as a theory is based upon the following fundamental principles that are...well...assumptions:

Again, another very generic statement. Not only is this inaccurate but you have also stated differently to what the actual link said which was "Every scientific theory has assumptions, and the theory of evolution is no exception to this.  G. A. Kerkut, a British biologist, published a book in 1960 entitled, Implications of Evolution.  It is now a rare book, and finding a copy is a challenge." Pace what you call being based on assumptions is actually this: "A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts. It is much different from the non-scientific use of the word." The following says it best: "
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing." ("Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words - Scientific American

)