Why do scientists call evolution a "theory"?

[MevsEinstein]

That IS amazing.

I absolutely agree. But this is in timelapse, it would've been cooler if the experiment was actually this fast in real life.

 

[BillTre]

Either way a debate is pretty pointless. I still do it though. Sometimes

I think that @Laroxe's point is important: there are lots of different people, with lots of different patterns of thinking, who fall into lots of different different groups, with respect to this issue.

Some are certainly worth talking about controversial issues with, others are the scientific (or rational) equivalent of lost souls.

---

Another thing that I think of as significant are claims like this:

there is no evidence for 'macro' evolution, adaptation is ok as they are still the same kind...

This is a way to attempt to rationalize an anti-evolution view by seeming to be scientific. (See I'm OK with adaptation.)
There are good examples of macroevolution (like the evolution of particular groups (like horses, or there are probably even better examples now) or of particular functional parts (the evolution of eyes is often used to refute evolution, but it is in fact worked out in pretty good detail), but it would take a lot time to get to the detailed point and that's not going to happen in a lot of these kinds of discussions.

This approach holds hope for success in those not beholding to some intellectual lock on their thinking.
Even after a long discussion of some issue, they often just move on to what about this other thing. In the real world, it would be a never-ending endeavor to do this with the stridently anti-evolution.

Evolution is still an unproven theory, a cell just didn't self assemble by chance.

this argument has two problems:

1. Evolution has different meanings scientifically. The issue should be more clearly stated for a scientific discussion. However, it this quoted context it is being used in a more biblical overall genesis kind of way, like what God did. Nothing to people in seven days (beat that scientists!).
   The issue under discussion would have to be broken down into different parts to discuss scientifically.
2. the "A cell didn't self assemble by chance" argument is a common creationist argument, probably due to its pseudo-scientific patina (statistics!).
   This kind of argument overlooks from what stage the self assemble by chance of a cell would have started (nothing?, atoms?, a collection of molecules?).
   This oversight reflects a big difference in how science and those committed to particular contrasting views would think about things. Some of these concepts might be outside of their conceptual universe.
   The scientific argument would say:
   
   a) Yes, a cell (or more likely a population of them) did self-assemble by chance, but in an environment where that was a thermodynamically favored event. that would be an environment with a high enough concentration of molecules amphiphilic (molecules with hydrophilic and lipophilic parts), that the formation of vesicles (like primitive cells) is favored for free energy reasons.
   
   b) There is a complex multi-step process, possibly extending over millions years, that sets up the formation of the first cells. This is a required element of any scientifically realistic origin of life scenario.

Frequently, not all of one's communications on this subject is meant for the interrogating anti-scientist, more importantly, it is about informing bystanders to the exchange.

 

[pinball1970]

I absolutely agree. But this is in timelapse, it would've been cooler if the experiment was actually this fast in real life.

E coli reproduce every 20 minutes or so? That is pretty fast!

 

[pinball1970]

I think that @Laroxe's point is important: there are lots of different people, with lots of different patterns of thinking, who fall into lots of different different groups, with respect to this issue.

Some are certainly worth talking about controversial issues with, others are the scientific (or rational) equivalent of lost souls.

---

Another thing that I think of as significant are claims like this:

This is a way to attempt to rationalize an anti-evolution view by seeming to be scientific. (See I'm OK with adaptation.)
There are good examples of macroevolution (like the evolution of particular groups (like horses, or there are probably even better examples now) or of particular functional parts (the evolution of eyes is often used to refute evolution, but it is in fact worked out in pretty good detail), but it would take a lot time to get to the detailed point and that's not going to happen in a lot of these kinds of discussions.

This approach holds hope for success in those not beholding to some intellectual lock on their thinking.
Even after a long discussion of some issue, they often just move on to what about this other thing. In the real world, it would be a never-ending endeavor to do this with the stridently anti-evolution.


this argument has two problems:

1. Evolution has different meanings scientifically. The issue should be more clearly stated for a scientific discussion. However, it this quoted context it is being used in a more biblical overall genesis kind of way, like what God did. Nothing to people in seven days (beat that scientists!).
   The issue under discussion would have to be broken down into different parts to discuss scientifically.
2. the "A cell didn't self assemble by chance" argument is a common creationist argument, probably due to its pseudo-scientific patina (statistics!).
   This kind of argument overlooks from what stage the self assemble by chance of a cell would have started (nothing?, atoms?, a collection of molecules?).
   This oversight reflects a big difference in how science and those committed to particular contrasting views would think about things. Some of these concepts might be outside of their conceptual universe.
   The scientific argument would say:
   
   a) Yes, a cell (or more likely a population of them) did self-assemble by chance, but in an environment where that was a thermodynamically favored event. that would be an environment with a high enough concentration of molecules amphiphilic (molecules with hydrophilic and lipophilic parts), that the formation of vesicles (like primitive cells) is favored for free energy reasons.
   
   b) There is a complex multi-step process, possibly extending over millions years, that sets up the formation of the first cells. This is a required element of any scientifically realistic origin of life scenario.

Frequently, not all of one's communications on this subject is meant for the interrogating anti-scientist, more importantly, it is about informing bystanders to the exchange.

These discussions were on YouTube posts on talks from Jerry Coyne, Michael Russel, Nick Lane, Tim White, Donald Johansson and Dawkins (obviously) Usually lectures or debates.
Interesting stuff hi-jacked by groups.
Talking to kids is different, they want learn as a rule, unless they are brain washed.

 

[BillTre]

Talking to kids is different, they want learn as a rule, unless they are brain washed.

Obviously some adults are like kids in this way.
The proportions vary among different populations.

 

[pinball1970]

Obviously some adults are like kids in this way.
The proportions vary among different populations.

Right. A study, I am going to ask, intelligent hard working people who I respect the following.

What is a Scientific theory?
What is Evolution?
What is the Theory of Evolution? Is that different to Evolution?

I will report back.

I appreciate that people can be intelligent, hard working AND not be interested in Science and a lot of other stuff that does not affect their lives.

Two anecdotes, one today. I told a co worker that a meteor had hit Webb (I didn't want to use the word micrometeoroid as I had just learned that term)
She said, 'Oh god who is that?'

The other was from a few years ago, again a hard working tax paying mother. A good person.

World war one and two, what is the difference? Her son who was 8 at the time was learning at school and asked her questions she didn't know so asked me.
WW1 trenches, mustard gas, Somme, Gallipoli. Yanks, The great war.
WW2 Dunkirk, Hitler, Churchill, the Blitz, D day the bomb and Yanks again.

Blank stare.

This person manipulates spread sheets that would twist me into knots.

Is Evolution just a theory would generate two questions.
What is Evolution?
What is a theory?

I am going to do this

 

[BillTre]

Interesting approach.
With a good series of questions, you might be able to establish the person's background and basic beliefs.
You'll need a larger n to fill out more cells in a table.

She said, 'Oh god who is that?'

Well, Webb was a person, just not as famous as his telescope (like Hubble).

 

[Laroxe]

Right. A study, I am going to ask, intelligent hard working people who I respect the following.

What is a Scientific theory?
What is Evolution?
What is the Theory of Evolution? Is that different to Evolution?

I will report back.

I appreciate that people can be intelligent, hard working AND not be interested in Science and a lot of other stuff that does not affect their lives.

Two anecdotes, one today. I told a co worker that a meteor had hit Webb (I didn't want to use the word micrometeoroid as I had just learned that term)
She said, 'Oh god who is that?'

The other was from a few years ago, again a hard working tax paying mother. A good person.

World war one and two, what is the difference? Her son who was 8 at the time was learning at school and asked her questions she didn't know so asked me.
WW1 trenches, mustard gas, Somme, Gallipoli. Yanks, The great war.
WW2 Dunkirk, Hitler, Churchill, the Blitz, D day the bomb and Yanks again.

Blank stare.

This person manipulates spread sheets that would twist me into knots.

Is Evolution just a theory would generate two questions.
What is Evolution?
What is a theory?

I am going to do this

I think this is interesting, but I wonder if it goes anywhere, it is the nature of ill-defined terms to allow a wide range of answers and these answers often change even from the same person. As new information becomes available we have to be able to fit this into a coherent framework, if we start from a position that unclear this can be very difficult.

Even within this thread, there are quite a few references to genes, so what's the relationship between genes and Darwinian Evolution. Darwin described a process that appeared to influence how species changed in response to the effects of their interaction's with the environment on their fitness.

Darwin didn't know what a gene was but that didn't matter really because the evolution he described worked at the level of the organism / species, not at the level of individual genes. His theory provided an explanation for some of the changes that occur over a period of time in a population. It didn't explain all changes or all the potential mechanisms that could be driving these changes, genetics for example introduced a whole new set of theories. In many ways that's what evolution is, it's a set of theories with each one potentially having different levels of supporting evidence.

We can in fact be fairly confident about some of these theories providing accurate explanations, while others, for example in evolutionary psychology, can be highly suspect

A theory, well that's a guess isn't it.? Unless you are talking about a theory in science, in which case it takes on an almost opposite meaning. We can of course, make guesses about how to explain things based on other explanations and observations so a lot of guesses are not totally unsupported, but generally the support is rather unstructured and not well-informed.

In some cases people might want to check out the explanations they are using to explain things, a useful way of doing this is to make predictions about what should happen if your right. There are ways of doing this, and you need to check out other peoples ideas. A scientist might call this sort of guess, a hypothesis, and they then need to work out the best ways to test their hypothesis.

If there is sufficient evidence that your guess does provide a credible structured explanation of what is going on this should allow you to develop more predictive guesses to test and gather more evidence, in this case it can be called a scientific theory and you can start applying for grants. :) This does mean that a theory can be just about anything, the word always need qualifying.

We need to get away from the arguments about who is right or wrong, I don't pretend to know if this is even possible, but in cases where the arguments are futile, why are we engaging in them. Essentially, science is about generating good explanatory frameworks and testing them, if necessary to destruction. The ability to make reliable predictions based on these frameworks does tend over time to percolate down through the population and it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore this.

Ideally, we should be able to simply ignore much of the criticism, the fact is that people who promote alternative explanations should be able to generate evidence to support them. Instead of being pushed into defending certain ideas we should be asking them to provide their alternatives because explanations like "god did it" or you "must have faith" are not very credible at all, not even to those using them.

 

[MevsEinstein]

E coli reproduce every 20 minutes or so? That is pretty fast!

I meant that, if the difference was recognizable it would be cool.

 

[Fra]

Even theories are subject to evolution, so "evolution is just a theory" does not even like seem a proper syntax. Evolution is just the opposite to thinking that a cell randomly self-assembled from nowhere.

If someone in some deeper sense calls evolution just a theory (without religious reasons), perhaps they just share Poppers nightmares of inductive logic. I think idea that a hypothesis generation follows some sort of inductive logic, was as offensive to Popper as someone wearing flipflops on a golf course.

/Fredrik

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The word 'theory' in a scientific context has a different meaning than the ordinary defintion of the word.

And from what I've seen from layman debates, this tends to be the crux of the issue. You can't even begin to debate if you don't know the definitions, but then again, how could layman know that it's different?

 

[phinds]

One of the reasons evolution is still considered a theory is it still leaves out the importance of water as an active matrix for life.

Your fixation on water (as expressed here and in other threads) is not helpful and is NOT the reason that evolution is considered a theory (the reasons for which have been explained in this thread and have nothing to do with water). Also, what do you mean "still considered a theory" ? It will ALWAYS be considered a theory.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[jim mcnamara]

Let's leave the thread locked. PF is not meant to argue over a misunderstood definition.