Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
7 votes
Apr 5, 2015
Reply to this opinion
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Discussion (9)
::unhide-discussion::
The fact/fiction dichotomy shows bias as a 'theory' can never be a fact. Science calls those 'laws'. A theory is a working rule that is open to challenge no matter how widely accepted and employed. As theories go evolution by natural selection isn't bad, but it hasn't been proven irrefutable. Yet it stands well ahead of dogmatic belief in the written doctrine of a religion that has disputed editions, internal contradictions and conflicting interpretors of the true meaning.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
4 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
So what would be the irrefutable proof for you? For me it's a fact. I'm 100% sure. Just look around, observe animals - they're exactly the same as we are. Sometimes intuition is enough and we don't need a mathematical proof. Imagine there are no humans, but there is a group of monkeys. Now imagine a billion years. Do you think the monkeys are still monkeys?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
In many cases, scientists uses Laws and Theories interchangably. The Laws of Gravity are still theories, since we don't have actual proof on how it works. Newtons Laws of Gravity are not the same as Einsteins Theory of Relativity. Taken as a whole, the Theory of Evolution still needs work, but there is no other working theory that can challenge it.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015
You have a few misconceptions about science.
First and foremost, there is no such thing a scientific "law." Or, at least, a scientific law is no different than a scientific theory.
Built into the scientific method is the attribute that we could observe something tomorrow that totally contradicts everything we think we know. A theory is just an explanation of the phenomenon we see that can be observed, repeated, tested/refuted by other people as well. On that note, Evolution is backed up by more evidence that most Theories.
Second, another thing built explicitly into the scientific method is reputability. If it is irrefutable, it is no longer science. There has to be a way to prove it wrong, if it is wrong. So no scientific theory is irrefutable, by definition.
All that being said, the ToE is one of the most solid Theories we have. We have so much evidence (fossil records, DNA, anthropology, biology, etc...) to support it that the layman might as well treat it as fact at this point, although I think it is important that some people oppose it and spend time trying to disprove it.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
3 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
No theory should ever be shown to be irrefutable. If something is irrefutable it *cannot* be proven false. This is antagonistic to the scientific development of knowledge - if there's no way for something to be shown false, there's no way to test if it's true. The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is falsifiable, but not to current knowledge false.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
4 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Fact in science means data "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". In everyday usage theory refers to a spaculation. Scientific definition of theory is different from the everyday meaning of the word. It is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
That is what I was trying to say, and stay in the context of the question. TYVM,
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Apr 5, 2015
I was taught there are no absolutes in science... only the best explanation for that which was before unexplainable. And when I was taught that there were a mere 108 elements on the periodic scale! I also note the disagreement with religion as applied to science: can't "intelligent design" also be in the form of evolution? There are so many things falling under the banner of "unexplained" and while we can so easily denounce as religion as being unproven so can we many scientific theories such as (I count) man-made climate change which relies as much on faith as any religion does! There are no absolutes to explain everything in its minutest form. I believe life evolved from lower forms and I am also open to the concept of a higher plane of existence and the thing that makes this possible is not an absolute knowledge of the facts but faith in their existence.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015
Let's talk about gravity, for instance. It's "just a Theory" too. But do you walk around all day afraid that you might all of a sudden "fall" off the planet? Of course not. When people build things, should they just assume gravity will always be there? Of course they should. We treat gravity as a fact because there is so much evidence suggesting that it is real, has been more or less consistent and has been around forever.
What the poster is trying to say is that there is so much support for Evolution that for all practical purposes, you might as well treat it as fact, just like you do with Gravity. It is almost as silly to think that evolution is not real as it would be to assume that you might "fall" off the planet due to gravity going away.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
@
click for template
OR
Share it:
Share this opinion via OpiWiki smartlink:
OR
Opinion's page
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Status:
Active
Replies:
9
Main replies:
1
subscribe
For new main reply notification
Voting
(136 votes)