Is the theory of evolution a fact?

[waht]

Is the theory of evolution still considered a theory or is it considered a fact now, because of the overwhelming fossil and dna based evidence?

If so is there a paper, or a journal to cite from that states that evolution is a fact, and not just a theory?

 

[Bio-student]

Evolution fits both criteria doesn't it... fact and theory.

It's definitely a fact because genetic changes have been observed in populations over time, esp. in bacteria. It also has a theoretical framework (natural selection) which attempts to explain how this is happening.

"Theory" and "fact" aren't progressive rungs on a ladder...theories use the facts to generate explanations and model predictions.

 

[waht]

Evolution fits both criteria doesn't it... fact and theory.

It's definitely a fact because genetic changes have been observed in populations over time, esp. in bacteria. It also has a theoretical framework (natural selection) which attempts to explain how this is happening.

"Theory" and "fact" aren't progressive rungs on a ladder...theories use the facts to generate explanations and model predictions.

thanks for clearing that up

 

[D H]

"Theory" and "fact" aren't progressive rungs on a ladder...theories use the facts to generate explanations and model predictions.

I disagree. Facts without theories to explain them are useless pieces of information. Theories without facts to back them up don't exist, at least not in the scientific meaning of the word "theory".

Theories are the gold standard in science, better than simple empirical laws. Example of in physics: Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's field equation are merely empirical laws. General relativity is a theory. GR not only explains how gravity works in terms of the field equation, but derives it. Without the necessary observed facts (the orbit of Mercury, tests of the equivalence principle) GR would just be a hypothesis.

Evolution is a theory, as good as science can get. It is backed up by logic, by mechanisms (which, BTW, GR is not), and by an immense amount of fact.

 

[Integral]

Evolution is a fact, its mechanism, that is how and why it happens, is a theory.

 

[waht]

I was trying reconcile the transition of a theory to a fact. For example, a few hundred years ago it was theorized that Earth is round, but nobody knew for sure until Magellan circumnavigated the globe to prove it.

Should we still speak that in theory that Earth is round? or rather it is round as a fact?

In contrast, the theory of evolution (its mechanics) attempts to explain how life evolved. Massive amounts of evidence supports this "mechanism." Can we now say that evolution is a fact the same way as Earth is round?

 

[D H]

I was trying reconcile the transition of a theory to a fact. For example, a few hundred years ago it was theorized that Earth is round, but nobody knew for sure until Magellan circumnavigated the globe to prove it.

The problem here is that you are using the word theory in the lay sense.

That is also a rather bad example. That the Earth was round was a fact known to the ancients.

In contrast, the theory of evolution (its mechanics) attempts to explain how life evolved. Massive amounts of evidence supports this "mechanism." Can we now say that evolution is a fact the same way as Earth is round?

Stop abusing the word theory. You seem to think facts are better than theory. They aren't. In a sense, facts are a part of a larger thing called "theory".

 

[atyy]

http://books.google.com/books?id=xPAPgcZflzYC&dq=mark+evolution+ridley&source=gbs_navlinks_s

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree. Facts without theories to explain them are useless pieces of information. Theories without facts to back them up don't exist, at least not in the scientific meaning of the word "theory".

[separate post]
Stop abusing the word theory. You seem to think facts are better than theory. They aren't. In a sense, facts are a part of a larger thing called "theory".

I think you misunderstood what Bio-student was getting at. The "progressive rungs in a ladder" thing is a common misunderstanding of the scientific process some people have where they think a theory can "graduate" to becoming a fact. That's all Bio-student was talking about. S/he wasn't trying to belittle the concept of a theory.

 

[waht]

Stop abusing the word theory. You seem to think facts are better than theory. They aren't. In a sense, facts are a part of a larger thing called "theory".

After looking up a definition of a "theory" as it pertains to science, this is precisely right. I suspected something was out of phase in my understanding, that facts and theory are separate.

 

[muppet]

The new book by Dawkins begins by clearing up this point. He draws the distinction between the two uses of the word "theory" in ordinary English, which I'll abridge:
1)A System of ideas held as an explanation for a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed by experiment; a statement of what are held to be the general principles of something known or observed
2)A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; speculation; individual view or notion.

Dawkins states that evolution is a theory in the first sense. He then goes on to talk about the slightly thorny subject of "proof" in science, contrasting it with maths.

 

[mazinse]

Are we talking the very general version found in general bio books, because that's probably written in stone for our life time. The specific modes, and pathways, mechanisms, those things came later and are still subjected to change/improvisions.

 

[D H]

Are we talking the very general version found in general bio books, because that's probably written in stone for our life time. The specific modes, and pathways, mechanisms, those things came later and are still subjected to change/improvisions.

The basic concept is what we're after. That the hairy details are subject to change/improvement -- well, that's science. The same is true in physics. High school to freshman physics is predominantly classical physics. That stuff is carved in stone but it is not universally true. Yet we teach it because understanding it is essential to moving on to things like general relativity and the standard model of physics. Are those going to be upended by some future physics? Not really. That new physics will essentially be a refinement to what we already know is true.

The same goes for biology. The picture up to freshman biology is a simplification. Upper level undergrad is where you start learning the real picture. Is current research going to completely overturn the modern synthesis and genetics? No. Their science is on just as solid a foundation as is ours.

There are lots of nutjobs out there who are constantly trying to poke holes in everything from classical mechanics to relativity to the LHC. We at PF know those people for what they are: Complete loons. We are flabbergasted every time some doofus of a reporter talks to them, giving them credence. Now imagine a world in which that the loons got more airtime regarding physics than do physicists. That is the world in which biologists live.

 

[ViewsofMars]

From the United States National Academy of Science. :) I love it!

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[BigFairy]

Ha, good read!

 

[xxChrisxx]

Is the theory of evolution still considered a theory or is it considered a fact now, because of the overwhelming fossil and dna based evidence?

If so is there a paper, or a journal to cite from that states that evolution is a fact, and not just a theory?

Theory >> Fact.

So saying it's now a fact is paying it a great disservice, and lowering its standing.

 

[BigFairy]

oh? philosophical can of worms really.

 

[alxm]

Yes, it's a fact as much as anything is.

In the sense that if you're writing a paper in biology or biochemistry or any other area where evolution might come into it, you don't provide a citation for 'evolution'. They don't write "assuming the theory of evolution is valid" or any such thing. Most papers in biology would be invalid in part or in whole if evolution wasn't.

Evolution is not a specific area of biology - it affects everything. And there is no alternative science of biology that studies the subject under the assumption that evolution is false.

 

[BigFairy]

...And there is no alternative science of biology that studies the subject under the assumption that evolution is false...

thtas because evolution is soo strong. Nothing can really compete with it. Unless you call creationism a 'competitive scientific theory'

 

[ViewsofMars]

Adding to my last post from page 1, and asking viewers to please review the link below and explore to the left of that website the information available. Please note that this information is from the United States National Academy of Sciences.

Evolution and Creationism in Schools
The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future.

Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in today’s scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of today’s fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge.

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/InSchools.html

Also, we should remember as stated by the National Academies of Science , "Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist." (see Science and Religion to the left of the page within the website above. THX)

 

[Mattara]

I was trying reconcile the transition of a theory to a fact. For example, a few hundred years ago it was theorized that Earth is round, but nobody knew for sure until Magellan circumnavigated the globe to prove it.

Should we still speak that in theory that Earth is round? or rather it is round as a fact?

In contrast, the theory of evolution (its mechanics) attempts to explain how life evolved. Massive amounts of evidence supports this "mechanism." Can we now say that evolution is a fact the same way as Earth is round?

There is no such transition between a theory and a fact.

Scientific theories are the crown jewels of science, much stronger than a mere fact. A theory when used in its scientific context is defined as a well-supported explanation to some parts of the natural world that includes facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses.

When we typically speak of the fact of evolution, we mean anything between shift in allele frequencies and universal common descent. When we speak of the theory of evolution, we mean things like natural selection. Natural selection is of course a "fact" in the trivial, every day sense of the word ("real").

 

[Mattara]

Yes, it's a fact as much as anything is.

In the sense that if you're writing a paper in biology or biochemistry or any other area where evolution might come into it, you don't provide a citation for 'evolution'. They don't write "assuming the theory of evolution is valid" or any such thing. Most papers in biology would be invalid in part or in whole if evolution wasn't.

Evolution is not a specific area of biology - it affects everything. And there is no alternative science of biology that studies the subject under the assumption that evolution is false.

Not just papers, a surprising amount of things (some) humans use every day would be invalid such as paternity testing, key methods in forensic medicine and so on and so forth just to name a few.

 

[GregorySon]

"Evolution is a fact" is a theory.

"Evolution is a theory" is a fact.



"Evolution is not a specific area of biology - it affects everything. And there is no alternative science of biology that studies the subject under the assumption that evolution is false. "

The above may be true of 'micro-evolution' but does it hold true for the theory of 'macro-evolution'? No scientific or medical discovery ever relied on 'macro-evolution' theory, only religious debate has ever resulted from it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The above may be true of 'micro-evolution' but does it hold true for the theory of 'macro-evolution'? No scientific or medical discovery ever relied on 'macro-evolution' theory, only religious debate has ever resulted from it.

There is no such distinction in science. Only creationists distinguish "micro-evolution" from "macro-evolution". I've yet to hear even a sound distinction between the two.

 

[muppet]

"Evolution is a fact" is a theory.

"Evolution is a theory" is a fact.

Hurrah! More proof (were it needed) that 150 years of scientific theory and experiment can be fatally undermined by bon mot. Yay for inference by droll rhetoric. Shame only half of it is true.

It is indeed a fact that evolution is a theory; a conceptual framework supported by evidence. But in what sense is the statement "evolution is a fact" a theory? It's neither a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena; nor is it a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact; nor a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subdiscipline of mathematics; nor the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice; nor a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; nor a system of rules or principles; nor contemplation or speculation; nor guess or conjecture.

 

[mgb_phys]

Evolution and Creationism in Schools
The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.

I do try and give equal time to the "magic smoke" theory of electronics when teaching.

To those not versed in electronics theology - when stressed beyond it's operating voltage a component will often release the magic smoke trapped within it and then obviously no longer work

 

[ViewsofMars]

I do try and give equal time to the "magic smoke" theory of electronics when teaching.

To those not versed in electronics theology - when stressed beyond it's operating voltage a component will often release the magic smoke trapped within it and then obviously no longer work

Don't be silly! LOL!

Serious me. :)

Talk Origins has something to say.

"What is Evolution?

"Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

"One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

 

[mgb_phys]

Don't be silly! LOL!

Have you read Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth"?
He has an ironic section about the difficulty of teaching latin when parents and students deny Rome existed - on the basis that nobody alive has any experience of it.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Have you read Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth"?

Richard's last name is Dawkins. And, no I haven't yet read his new book. I hope to, though I'm busy reading other stuff right now. (I'm hunting through my CD's that has some stuff for two other topics that I need to catch-up on while my vehicle is in the shop. Freak'n car problems!) Thanks for mentioning the book.

He has an ironic section about the difficulty of teaching latin when parents and students deny Rome existed - on the basis that nobody alive has any experience of it.

Interesting. Richard has the ability to tranform so to speak. As far as the foreign language 'Latin', I don't have any interest learning it, and we sure as heck know Rome exists.

I do think it's possible to obtain information and knowledge through the experience of events expressed by others via books. Similar to internet dialogues. However, internet dialogues are sometimes on shaky grounds. I've noticed from time to time, those who claim they are creationists of which one was a theologian tend to shift their position after telling a fib.

Thanks mgb_phys. It's always cool talking with you.

 

[Mattara]

"Evolution is a fact" is a theory.

"Evolution is a theory" is a fact.



"Evolution is not a specific area of biology - it affects everything. And there is no alternative science of biology that studies the subject under the assumption that evolution is false. "

The above may be true of 'micro-evolution' but does it hold true for the theory of 'macro-evolution'? No scientific or medical discovery ever relied on 'macro-evolution' theory, only religious debate has ever resulted from it.

There is no difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" besides time.

Deriving universal common descent uses the exact same principles and exact same methods such as paternity testing and DNA fingerprinting, for instance. These work by analyzing the pattern that is formed by the differences and similarities between different test samples.

Several scientific discoveries relied on universal common descent, such as the discovery of Tiktaali Roseae http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/.

 

[Biophreak]

Evolution is a fact, its mechanism, that is how and why it happens, is a theory.

You have this backwards. Evolution is a theory to explain the progression towards or away from complexity in an attempt for an organism to me most adapted to its particular environment.

That natural selection occurs is a fact. Natural selection is the proposed mechanism by which evolution is driven.

Richard Dawkins outlines this clearly in his book, "The God Delusion" (a great read!). Natural selection isn't a force so much as it is a result. For natural selection to take place you must have:

1) Replication
2) Heredity
3) Variance
4) Selection forces

In any system, living or otherwise, when these four criteria are present, natural selection WILL occur. Not MIGHT occur, but WILL occur. It is an inevitability, analogous to how on Earth, if you let go of a ball, it WILL fall down.

 

[russ_watters]

You have this backwards.

No, he doesn't have it backwards. Here's another way to look at it: In science, theories are often named after the factual observation they are intended to describe. Some examples:

Newton's theory of gravity is named for the physical phenomena known as "gravity". Its purpose is to describe the functioning of that phenomena. The phenomena of "gravity" is known to exist - it is a fact. That is, indeed, a requirement under the definition of "theory".

Plate techtonic theory is a theory discussing the observed fact that the continents of the world float on plates above the Earth's mantle.

Chaos theory is a theory discussing the phenomena of highly complex (chaotic is almost slang there...) systems.

Evolution is a theory to explain the progression towards or away from complexity in an attempt for an organism to me most adapted to its particular environment.

That's not a very good way to describe it, but what you are trying to describe there is the observed phenomena of evolution.

When Darwin first proposed the theory, it required a logical leap. He saw different, similar birds and concluded that they actually had related ancestors. He didn't have access to the tree of life to know for sure (ie, via dna or fossil record). Now we do have access to that tree (in large part). Now we do know that birds that appear to be related are related via common ancestors. That observed phenomena - that animal species change over time - is called "evolution".

So similar to the way I described it above:

The theory of evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena of evolution.

 

[Biophreak]

No, he doesn't have it backwards. Here's another way to look at it: In science, theories are often named after the factual observation they are intended to describe. Some examples:

Newton's theory of gravity is named for the physical phenomena known as "gravity". Its purpose is to describe the functioning of that phenomena. The phenomena of "gravity" is known to exist - it is a fact. That is, indeed, a requirement under the definition of "theory".

Plate techtonic theory is a theory discussing the observed fact that the continents of the world float on plates above the Earth's mantle.

Chaos theory is a theory discussing the phenomena of highly complex (chaotic is almost slang there...) systems. That's not a very good way to describe it, but what you are trying to describe there is the observed phenomena of evolution.

When Darwin first proposed the theory, it required a logical leap. He saw different, similar birds and concluded that they actually had related ancestors. He didn't have access to the tree of life to know for sure (ie, via dna or fossil record). Now we do have access to that tree (in large part). Now we do know that birds that appear to be related are related via common ancestors. That observed phenomena - that animal species change over time - is called "evolution".

So similar to the way I described it above:

The theory of evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena of evolution.

Sorry to say, but you are wrong in several parts of your statement.

First, he DOES have it backwards. Evolution is first and foremost a theory, hence the name "Theory of Evolution", which you will find in any biology textbook. By the scientific definition, a theory is an assertion that is made and backed up by a set of observable phenomena and experiments.

Second, in regards to gravity: You say that "the phenomen[on] of gravity is known to exists- it is a fact". This statement is false. The correct statement would be to say that the phenomenon that objects tend to fall towards a center of mass is a fact. Gravity, as it stands, is not a law or fact. It is still a theory.

Third, in regards to your statement, "but what you are trying to describe there is the observed phenomena of evolution. ": No, I am trying to describe exactly that which i wrote.

Fourth, in regards to "The theory of evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena of evolution.": You are incorrect in saying this. The theory of evolution, which is proposed to be driven by natural selection, is an extrapolation of the observed phenomenon that accumulating mutations result in new phenotypes. Though this may sound like splitting hairs, there are important differences between the two statements. The reason what you are saying is wrong is that you cannot 'observe evolution'. Evolution can never be observed in a single organism- that is because single organisms do not evolve. Evolution in the correct sense of the word is a change in the genetic material of a POPULATION of organisms from one generation to the next. In order to "observe evolution" one would have to have the capacity to observe the entire population of organisms' genomes. At the time, this is very close to impossible to do since observing an entire population's genetics from one generation to the next is not economically or experimentally feasible.

To be clear, I am not trying to argue the semantics here, but many of the things you wrote are widely held (though inherently false) statements about the true (scientific) definition of words, and it IS important to distinguish between correct and incorrect usages of these words. The way that you and I are explaining things is generally very similar, though for scientific discussions, even the use of a single incorrect notion can make your statement false, i.e your statement about gravity being a fact.

 

[russ_watters]

Turns out there is an entire wiki page on this very subject:

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

They also use my gravity example on that page. I found this via a google of the question that turns up tons of other confirmation of what I said.

 

[Monique]

Turns out there is an entire wiki page on this very subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

They also use my gravity example on that page. I found this via a google of the question that turns up tons of other confirmation of what I said.

That raises the question, what was there first, that wiki or this thread?