Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
Welcome to Physics Forums DonFelipe!DonFelipe said:It seems that depsite the 240+ posts to this site no-one has picked up on the fatal flaw in initial question, choosing instead to get involved in this very tiresome evolution vs. creation debate.
Evolution is merely a model, (no doubt incomplete and in some ways flawed), it is certainly not a "fact" as someone stated several pages ago. It is a theory which allows us to make predictions (to some extent), and which seems to be supported by some of the experimental evidence mentioned in the various posts.
It is only a model, however, and if someone can comes up tomorrow with a theory that better fits the evidence, or provides greater predictive ability, then that would (hopefully) be adopted by the scientific establishment.
As such evolution can't be "true" - it is merely that it hasn't been disproved or superseded yet.
DF
As Phobos said, part of the richness of the English language is the multiple meanings which a word may have; in the case of 'evolution', the fact is beyond question - for example, every extinction is evolution (I mean, does anyone assert that 'the Passenger Pigeon is extinct' and 'the Dodo is extinct' are not facts?), the theory is alive and well.
For a theory as successful as that of evolution to be superceded means its replacement has to explain all that the theory of evolution now explains, and more. I'm not aware of any theories in modern science which completely re-wrote their predecessors - what happens is that the new theory has a broader scope, and is 'just like' the older theory within the narrower scope of that older theory. An example is General Relativity and Newtonian gravity - GR is essentially the same as Newton's theory for the solar system.