Do you think evolution being "the theory of evolution" instead of "the law of evolution" hurts its credibility?
It never had any credibility to begin with.
There is no such thing as a "law" in Biology. People who use that argument are just proving their idiocy.
Biology isn't really big on laws. It'd be hard to write complex biological systems in a concise mathematical statement.
Well, there's a whole bunch of evolution theories. Which one is the right one?
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck - Inheritance of acquired characteristics. (Later proven wrong. I guess a THEORY can be proven wrong. So much for a THEORY being a FACT.)
First off, that wasn't a theory. Do you not know what a theory is? It isn't a guess. It is something which requires evidence. So his IDEA was a theory in laymen's terms but NOT scientific terms. Gosh you're as ignorant as Okie.
True Ross. Even supposed facts are later abandoned. Nebraska man was debunked as a pig's bone. "Lucy" turned-out to be from more than one animal. If it were all fact and not theory then there wouldn't be so many "competing" theories."
Only with those who find plain English and simple, well-defined terms to be a challenge. I'm not sure those would get it no matter what phrase you used.
There are parts of evolution that appear to be repeatable & laws. However, there are some beliefs regarding evolution that are not known, but are theories & beliefs. Certainly a theory or a belief does not have the credibility of an absolute law.
Theories nor laws are absolute. Facts are absolute. There is no hierarchy between theory and law.
Kenneh, I agree with your statement, unless a law is based upon facts, true facts. Then the law is truth. There are many examples. Preeminent are the laws of God. They are laws, & they are absolute truth. The laws of God extend into all disciplines.
That plants and animals change and adapt over time is proven science. No one disputes that. Smart people recognize that evolution doesn't explain the existence of millions of species that can't have evolved from one another.
As one scientist put it, "a dog can evolve over time, but it will always be a dog."
Smart people? So 700 out of 480,000 biologists are the only smart ones (that's the number of creationists)?
I don't doubt the intelligence of hundreds if thousands of biologists, I doubt the veracity of the person telling me what they believe.
Only among people who don't know what the heck they're talking about. There are so many fatuous, simplistic arguments made against evolution by people with the will to deny it that taking away "just a theory" just wouldn't matter.
No, not at all. Sadly many people read it and still don't think of it as a proven fact.
Because it's not.
That link you provided is crap. Scientific theories remain a theory because they cannot be recreated. They are not, as the link suggests, greater than a Scientific law. That's just illogical nonsense that attempts to give credence to the unprovable.
For example. The Big Bang theory cannot be recreated without pulling all matter in the universe in & exploding. We couldn't survive that to witness it. Therefore, it can never ascend to anything more than a THEORY.
You need to look up exactly what "theory" means. You have it wrong. Science does not recognize "laws" but theories are as close as anything gets: robustly evidence-supported explanatory frameworks to which no better alternative exists.
With all do respect, their is a thing called Scientific FACT. For example, we known that the density of Titanium is greater than Oxygen because we can demonstrate it & recreate it, yielding the same result. This is not a theory.
When the BEST AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE does not provide a conclusion that can be demonstrated & recreated, it fails to meet the classification of SCIENTIFIC FACT. Therefore it remains a THEORY. A THEORY is NOT a FACT.
It's credibility is in question because it is now off limits to question. So is Islam.
No, it's not fact if it can be disproven.
No. I also know that a scientific theory is a fact and not just a hypothesis or a belief.
until it's disproven (which it won't be), it's a fact.
Only fools say never
Lol OK whatever.
In science, no. But for people who aren't very experienced in science, yes.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory NEVER becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws!
Only if you know nothing about science.
Most people don't :/
if you don't understand what a scientific theory is then maybe yes, otherwise not really. some people treat scientific theory as I were no more significant than a hypothesis at a junior high Science Fair.
I don't think it discredits it half as much as all the people born with birth defects discredits "intelligent" design.
The creation of a new human being is nothing shirt of miraculous. A few errors hardly invalidates that. For all that we think we are "advanced," we can't begin to replicate that ability.
Indeed! Evolution's come a long ways baby!!
Do you honestly think that rocks banging together for long enough will eventually become the incredibly intricate and interdependent series of systems that comprise a human being?
When science can create life in a lab I'll be able to reply with more conviction; until then it's still a theory, but we're getting closer every day. But they had better keep it a secret at first because too many want to believe it's impossible.
And they're ready to pull any shenanigans just to "prove" they're right.
If they could still get away with burning witches they would. Anything not to rock the flimsy cart they're on.
A theory in science is basically proven. To those who don't understand the definition of a theory, maybe it does.
Yes, among people who don't understand science and base their beliefs on fear and distrust.
No, theories can be very strong. Very few scientific advances actually become labeled as laws.
That doesn't make sense in a couple of ways. Did you read the linked article?
Okay I see what you mean. My mistake. Theories do not progress into laws.
Yes, to the uneducated.
Does that really count though?
Considering all the people that are uneducated, yea. However all it goes to show is that we need to spend more money on public education.
Appeal to authority and "more money= better education"
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven."
Evolution undoubtedly occurs.
The belief that simple organic molecules evolved into the millions of species that have ever lived is nonsense. Repeat it and put it to bed if you claim it really occurs. Remember, correlation is not causation.
Correct me if I'm not understanding correctly, but didn't your two comments contradict?
No, not at all. To confirm the latter statement is like watching a high jumper clear 5'5", 5'10", 6'5" etc and claim that he will continue to clear ever increasing heights without seeing him actually do it. Small evolutionary changes we've witnessed,
as they can certainly occur within our scientific understanding of DNA, mutations, natural selection, and so on. It's observed, repeatable, and testable. Until we can do the same on a level above the Linnaeus' Genus classification then it's still
If you concede that small changes occur over small periods of time, I don't see how hard it is to accept large changes occur over large periods of time.
Because it's not just about small changes adding up over time. To jump from one genus to another requires a completely different mechanism that so far has been shown cannot happen. They have no way of explaining how scales could ever become feathers.
You can't simply change a section of DNA and get feathers. It's not that simple. And that's only one small example when there are literally millions of additional others that defy our knowledge of DNA mutation capabilities.
Very eloquently stated.
Your statement proves you know nothing about evolution or its process.
His points are compelling and you haven't even tried to dispute them. "You're wrong" is not a valid rebuttal.
Considering my degree is in biology with a minor in chemistry I'd say I've got a pretty good grasp on evolution and genetics. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I don't see you providing any facts to the contrary, drooski.
It occurs to me, now that I've considered the incredible diversity of plant, animal and human life on this planet that if you sat down and did the math, the length of time the earth has existed is far too short for them to have evolved from a
single organism. Right?
That is correct.
Life supposedly began 3.5B yrs ago. There are a minimum of 2.5B base pair differences just between chimps and humans. That means the mutation rate would need to be close to 1.4 base pairs per year JUST to have chimps evolve into humans. Obviously
life would've started with much simpler organisms. But they say it takes millions of years to see any change above the species level. We also know virtually all mutations are harmful or at least neutral and only germ cell mutations would get passed
on to progeny. There's a glaring contradiction and major hurdle there to overcome.
You say you have a degree in Biology yet just stated "for chimps to evolve into humans". Tell me, did you get this degree at a Christian school or tech school? Humans did not evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. Your entire argument is fla
wed. THIS is why I refuse to respond to your comments, usually, because they show you have limited understanding as to what exactly evolution is, and sound more like a Christian apologistic psuedo-scientist rather than an *actual* scientist.
No need to be an asshole. Yes, i misspoke my point. And you've yet to make any scientific counterpoints.
In any case, there are 2.5B base pair differences between us and chimps who are our supposed closest living relative. Diverging from a common
ancestor would need a miraculous mutation rate never before seen.
You missed the point completely Drooski, which a layman like me came to by simple logic. We could not have evolved from An organism even as advanced as a chimpanzee, the LEAST amount if mutation possible, in just 3.5 billion years.
No. The people who think evolution is not true, or who still somehow think the jury is still out, are ignoring vast amounts of data from multiple disciplines. Changing the word won't convince people who think the earth is 6k years old.
And it won't convince people who are scientifically illiterate.
Those people are straw men. It's very hard to change their minds.
Only to people who don't understand what the concepts "theory" and "law" mean in science. And that's understandable (well, given the state of basic science education, apparently).
But the notion that "theory" means "sort of a guess" has been
debunked & explained so many times, that when I see the *same* people making the *same* "just a theory" claim, I gotta think either they're incapable of learning, or their minds are closed to what theories, and specifically evolution, actually are.
More straw men. Very hard to convince, for obvious reasons.
No, I don't think it hurts it's credibility. But I know it's not been proven yet. It's a theory. A bunch of facts supporting an idea.
Did you read the article? Good explanation of what a scientific theory actually *is* and *isn't*.
Yes , I've read it. Thank you.
Inspired by that obnoxious and inexplicably (actually, explicably if you remember this is America) viral video if that fat guy in a red hat who "disproves" evolution, and all the anti-science circle-jerkers on Facebook who like and share it.
Check out the link if you don't know what a scientific theory is.
(Hint: if you answered "Yes" to this question, that would be you)
I answered yes. But, I did so because I believe that people who are not educated to what a theory is or those who are easily impressionable often see the word "theory" and discount it.
Ahh I see. My choice of wording failed me. I meant does it have that effect for you, personally.
For me personally, absolutely not.
I agree with Kay, "theory of evolution" sounds a but weird to the uneducated, but "law of evolution" is way worse (and not scientifically accurate). I just call it "evolution".
I never thought about it but it might.
it doesn't for me bec I understand how science works and am comfortable with the impossibility it saying anything with 100% accuracy.
No. But then I understand what theory means in this context.