Why do scientists call evolution a "theory"?

[Jupiter60]

TL;DR Summary

"just a theory"

Why do scientists refer to evolution as a theory which leads to the argument that evolution is "just a theory"? Why don't they use a less confusing word?

 

[hutchphd]

Because it is not wise to allow fools and miscreants to dictate one's allowed speech. We routinely say Electromagnetic Theory for instance. Or Quantum Theory
You should feel free to suggest something more helpful and argue it be included in the lexicon instead, but it is not clear to me this serves a useful purpose. Science is, to a large degree, about rejecting dogma.

.

 

[phinds]

To add to what @hutchphd said, back in Newton's day science discoveries were considered more concrete and unlikely to change. So Newton's LAW of Gravity would today be called Newton's Theory of Gravity, just as the more recent, and more accurate theory is called Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We just don't call things Laws any more even when they are not expected change, except perhaps by being expanded to include domains that were not originally there (such as the expansion from Newton to Einstein).

People who say that something is "just a theory" in a pejorative way are simply scientifically ignorant.

 

[jim mcnamara]

It extends into a lot of other words like belief, coincidence. Helen Quinn takes a very different tack from @hutchphd - she claims we know better and should find ways to communicate
see: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March07/Quinn/Quinn.html

 

[phinds]

People who say that something is "just a theory" in a pejorative way are simply scientifically ignorant.

And I would add to that ... almost always someone who acts like that does NOT want to be educated, so it's pointless to even have a discussion with them.

 

[hutchphd]

It extends into a lot of other words like belief, coincidence. Helen Quinn takes a very different tack from @hutchphd - she claims we know better and should find ways to communicate
see: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March07/Quinn/Quinn.html

I respectfully yet emphatically disagree with her emphasis. I see her recommendation as a plea to reduce scientific "fact" (what is that?) to a dogma that can be easilly swallowed. This approach is intrinsically anti-scientific and therefore eventually counterproductive and in fact dangerous.
The antivaxxers criticised Dr Fauci most vehemently for changing his mind when the evidence required. One is not allowed to change dogma.

 

[StevieTNZ]

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

 

[Godot_]

Because it still is a theory, albeit one, where we can prove all the elements and several steps in small scales in vitro. Or observe evolution in work in nature.

But alas, we didn't have an observer in place when the first ribozymes formed so we can't prove it from A to Z. So it's a theory.

However, "theory" in the science world means that there is a significant body of evidence to back it up - before that it'd be "hypothesis". As would be the "theory" in the "Evolution's just a theory!"-people's terminology. Which, BTW, I love to counter with "...and the creation story is just hearsay from five thousand years ago. I place my bet where I see data backing it up."

To add to what @hutchphd said, back in Newton's day science discoveries were considered more concrete and unlikely to change. So Newton's LAW of Gravity would today be called Newton's Theory of Gravity, [...}.

Newton's Law of Gravity is a different story: It's a mathematical formula, that can be observed, measured, quantified, verified, and validated within its limits. So the term "law" is somewhat appropriate. This isn't just about its age... ...many newer phenomena still get the law treatment. But like Newton's law, these only pertains to one small aspect, and can be quantitatively verified and validated. Like Avogadro's law, the Boltzmann law, Hagen-Poiseulle-Law etc. etc.

These are most often referred to as ___ equation, too, but they're, within their known and often defined limits, true and testable, so the term law is somewhat applicable, and sometimes still in use in some languages, like my native German. In e.g. the case of Avogadro's law, those limits are that the whole thing must remain in the gaseous phase, there must not be chemical reactions, etc. etc. But as long as you stay within these bounds, it can be quantitatively verified, over and over again.

The theory of relativity, however, is of the grandest scope, just like the theory of evolution. So no scientist would consider calling it a law...

In molecular biology for example, you won't find many "laws". Even the "universal genetic code" isn't universal - there are quite a bunch of exceptions. "General" or "most common genetic code" would be a better term... ...so it's mostly just called the genetic code, without any overbearing qualifiers. But in general, most things MolBiol are a) to some extent "wobbly", b) thus rarely work 100% of the time, and c) are often initially inferred via somewhat arcane steps. Which sometimes means that they are later found to be experimental artifacts. So the term mostly used here is ___ model.

 

[Godot_]

On a slight sidestep from the original OP topic, here's one pretty awesome for-show-experiment demonstrating and illustrating the concept of evolution:



Enjoy the ride...

 

[pinball1970]

Summary: "just a theory"

Why do scientists refer to evolution as a theory which leads to the argument that evolution is "just a theory"? Why don't they use a less confusing word?

Richard Dawkins dedicated the first chapter to this problem in his book 'the greatest show on earth.'

https://publicism.info/nature/show/2.html

In short, it is not a problem for kids willing to learn about Science if it is explained properly, so why should scientists change recognized terminology?

If you talking to people who really do not want to be educated as @phinds said you are wasting your time anyway.

Certain groups want to point out a flaw wrt TOE to reinforce their own belief which may be nothing at all to do with science.

 

[jack action]

When you look in the dictionary, it's pretty clear what the word "theory" means, depending on the context:

Noun​

theory (countable and uncountable, plural theories)

1. A description of an event or system that is considered to be accurate.
2. (sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena and correctly predicts new facts or phenomena not previously observed, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]
3. (uncountable) The underlying principles or methods of a given technical skill, art etc., as opposed to its practice. [from 17th c.]
4. (mathematics) A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs. [from 18th c.] Knot theory classifies the mappings of a circle into 3-space.
5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]
6. (countable, logic) A set of axioms together with all statements derivable from them; or, a set of statements which are deductively closed. Equivalently, a formal language plus a set of axioms (from which can then be derived theorems). The statements may be required to all be bound (i.e., to have no free variables). A theory is consistent if it has a model.
7. (obsolete) Mental conception; reflection, consideration. [16th-18th c.]

Usage notes​

In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”.

Saying "evolution is just a theory" is a straw man fallacy, where the reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

 

[hutchphd]

here's one pretty awesome for-show-experiment demonstrating and illustrating the concept of evolution:

A truly terrifying piece of work, and a nice video. Makes me want to wear my facemask to bed! Show it often, lest we get too fat and happy.

 

[pinball1970]

On a slight sidestep from the original OP topic, here's one pretty awesome for-show-experiment demonstrating and illustrating the concept of evolution:



Enjoy the ride...

That IS amazing.

 

[gleem]

Even today we are modifying the details of evolution, now we suspect that it may be significantly quicker than previously thought.

https://www.sciencealert.com/evolution-may-be-happening-up-to-four-times-faster-than-we-thought

 

[Filip Larsen]

So Newton's LAW of Gravity would today be called Newton's Theory of Gravity

I seem to recall the convention that historically at least, laws were called "laws" because they are cannot be disproved at such because they are are definitions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion) or are a "fitted description" based on empirical data (e.g. Hooke's law). Right?

If modern work (e.g. in cosmology) happens to call itself a theory I, being just a mortal engineer, am not sure if this is because the distinction has been muddled over the last century or half, or if its just that it has become a more acceptable route to consensus to establish a theory first and then confirm it with empirical data afterwards, rather than doing the old school "fit data at hand to some power law" (or maybe we just ran out of unique power laws to give a name ).

 

[DaveC426913]

So Newton's LAW of Gravity would today be called Newton's Theory of Gravity,

This is not as I understand it.

It is a Law of Gravity because it is empirically derived from observation. Same with Kepler's Laws, etc.
"We see these things happen, given a set of conditions."
It says nothing about how they happen.

Our observations and measurements are not going to change going forward.

just as the more recent, and more accurate theory is called Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Einstein's GR is a theory because it is an attempt to model how things happen. It could always be replaced with a newer model.

I see Filip has beat me to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find myself repeating this one a lot:

Evolution is not a theory; Evolution is a fact. It can be witnessed in any fish shop or dog kennel. We can empirically see that offspring have herited traits from their ancestors.

What you no doubt intend to say is the Theory of Evolution-by-Natural-Selection. That is a theory, because it models how survival pressures tend to drive evolution. That is difficult to show. And it could always be overturned by a new model going forward.

 

[Jupiter60]

There are lots of laws in physics. Laws are less common in other fields of science.

Theories don't upgrade to laws overtime. You will never see an article in a newspaper where a certain scientific theory has officially become a law.

Gravity and evolution are both facts. They can both be directed observed. The difference is that you can directly observe gravity instantaneously. Let go of a ball and it will immediately drop to the ground. To directly observe evolution you need more patience.

Evolution has been observed directly. It is the reason that the ingredients in pesticides always need to be changed because they eventually quit working at killing insects.

 

[Rive]

..."just a theory"...

Somehow, I found all the logical and meaningful explanations for that kind of backward-thought and a bit forced, also: too complex.

So I've came up a solution of my own.
It's just ... everything starts as a theory. And then:
... it sticks.

There was once a discussion about the evolution of science which made an impact on me. It was about the way the new theories overtakes the old. The conclusion was, that surprisingly the old tends to linger around till the old generation is still active. And due this the new generation often politely does not promote the new too forcefully.

 

[Godot_]

The "old generation" are the people deciding what work will be funded...

...so few "angry young scientists" will forcefully oppose them. And those who do tend to not become the most successful ones.

 

[Rive]

...hence the ambiguity of the word 'theory' may come handy when it's about evolution ... of science

 

[Jupiter60]

A common misconception about evolution by those who object to it is what it refers to.

It refers only to how life changes over time, not how life originated, not how the Earth originated, and not how the universe originated.

 

[Godot_]

...which is only somewhat correct - evolution theory after all implies and includes how life evolved from the humble beginnings, and can be used to deduce this. (which can be seen and browsed / explored in the excellent Tree of Life at the onezoom.org website or tolweb.org)

Also, a diehard conservationist (the smarter, rhethorically trained sort) will then maintain that that might be true, but as the world only is 6ky old, this can't explain the plethora of species, so the big G must've created that. *shrug* See above for my reply...

 

[DaveC426913]

...which is only somewhat correct - evolution theory after all implies and includes how life evolved from the humble beginnings,

Sorry, are you referring to Jupiter60's post?

If so, I'm not sure what part you challenge. Any part of this:

"[Darwinian evolution] refers only to how life changes over time, not how life originated, not how the Earth originated, and not how the universe originated."

 

[hutchphd]

Before we descend into a semantic miasma:

"[Darwinian evolution] refers only to how life changes over time, not how life originated, not how the Earth originated, and not how the universe originated."

This meaning depends crucially upon exact definition of "life" vs "non-life" so I declare it unconditionally true. If we really want to try to define "what is life" may I suggest a dedicated thread. I care not to!

 

[DaveC426913]

This meaning depends crucially upon exact definition of "life" vs "non-life"

I am not convinced it does.

1. The fact that there is a grey area between life and non-life doesn't seem to me to affect the definition of Darwinian evolution - which claims to apply only to what is undisputedly life - i.e. the theory errs in favour of caution/modesty. Darwinian evolution does not explicitly say it applies to anything we might consider in the grey area.

2. Even if you wanted to equivocate the near edge of that grey-area, I'd say that does not warrant the use of the "only partly correct" equivocation.

If we really want to try to define "what is life" may I suggest a dedicated thread. I care not to!

It seems to me that's exactly what you're requiring. Nonetheless, I still don't agree it's necessary.

The theory does not make any claims that are called into question by the grey-area. For example, Darwinian evolution does not claim to "drive all life, even from the (albeit poorly-defined) moment of biogenesis".

 

[BillTre]

As @hutchphd said, it a "semantic miasma", not only in how one might define life, but also in what is meant by evolution and Darwinian evolution.

1) I consider the term "Darwinian evolution" a bit of misnomer.
It is usually meant to refer to evolution affecting the frequency of different genes in a breeding population. The "genes" are usually taken as nucleic acid based genes that can generate phenotypes in offspring.
There are a few problems with this:

a) When Darwin can up with natural selection, he had no realistic concept of genetics. That was Mendel, a colleague in time, but overlooked until 40 or 50 years later (well after Darwin died). He described a particle like inheritance. This is Mendelian inheritance. The connection of nucleic acids with genetic "factors" was noticed much later.
What Darwin thought was going on was blending of "factors". These were in some way inherited and lead to traits in the progeny.
Darwin had no great connection to genes. This was a mystery to him and his colleagues, which is why Mendel's findings were such a revelation.
Darwin's insightful vision concerned how natural selection worked to change the frequencies of traits in populations of competing reproducing individuals.

b) Non-genetic traits can be inherited, and therefore selected for or against by natural selection.
There are classic cases in genetics books from when I was an undergraduate (1970's), like the inheritance of cortical patterns of cilia in paramecia. These are propagated through generations, by mechanisms that copy the pre-existing pattern and pass that on to their progeny. By reproduceably generating different inherited patterns of cortical cilia, the entities involved come under the influence of natural selection (favorably or not). (Paramecia with cilia patterns that do not work well for movement or eating will not survive well and will be selected out of the population.)
There are lots of other inheritance mechanisms that don't directly involve genes, often involving "epigenetics".
Some are conceived as inheritance of sets of molecules that could together form an autocatalytic reaction set (makes more of it own components, significant in origin of life considerations). This would be inheritance of different sets of non-genetic molecules passed to progeny as a cell/protocell divides.
Not all evolution involves genes in the Watson and Crick sense.

c) Evolution can proceed without natural selection. Usually, this would refer to changes in gene frequencies in populations over time by mechanisms of random genetic drift (through the luck of which alleles are inherited by which breeding individual. This involves gene frequency changes with impacts on adaptation that are too small to be "visible" to selection mechanisms. this was applied to molecular evolution by Kimura. Michael Lynch has more recently written a lot on this subject.

2) There are literally hundreds of attempts to define life. There is not a lot of agreement on this, so there is no expectation for agreement on when a non-life to life transition might have occurred.

3) By not using a qualifier on the term evolution, @Jupiter60 has left things open to interpretation.
I have my own personal issues with Darwinian evolution (and the NASA life definition that uses that term). I considered using biological evolution instead, that would seem to imply involve defining life.

4) There is a lot of work on what might be called pre-biological chemical evolution of various kinds. Some just involve things like "Where did the complex organic chemicals come from before "life"?". This is covered in geochemistry and systems chemistry. Others involve mechanisms very similar to natural selection working on preps of vesicles containing nucleic acids and how they can evolve over time in the lab. In many ways, the mechanisms in the second group are indistinguishable from natural selection in organisms today.

5) In these confusing subjects, it is probably better in explain, using many words, what you are talking about, rather than using loaded terms, with lots of often forgotten history which can lead to confusion.
You could also ask clarifying questions.

The problem of people misinterpreting the meaning of "theory" in this context (either intentionally or unintentionally, often to make some point) is a similar kind of semantic problem.

 

[MevsEinstein]

Summary: "just a theory"

Why do scientists refer to evolution as a theory which leads to the argument that evolution is "just a theory"? Why don't they use a less confusing word?

It could be that by chance evolution didn't happen but there were just some other animals with similar bones and organs. I mean, it's possible, but highly unlikely.

 

[BillTre]

It could be that by chance evolution didn't happen but there were just some other animals with similar bones and organs. I mean, it's possible, but highly unlikely.

There is more than just the structure (I would also include molecular biology in here) of animals (as well as plants, fungi, and everything else living) supporting the theory of evolution.

There's also fossils. An old explanation for them is that God put them in the ground to test people's faith.
Similarly, God could have created everything a few minutes ago along with our memories, similarly as a test. This approach could explain almost anything.

In general, there are often weird (seemingly unlikely) ways to dismiss evidence that disagrees with some interpretation.
None of it is very convincing.

 

[Laroxe]

I would actually agree that the term is problematic, it's too broad and over inclusive. If we consider evolution as denoting that change occurs over time, then It's pretty clear that evolution is a fact. However, most people use the term in biology to describe an explanatory framework which helps to explain how and why such changes occur. Used in this way, evolution describes a whole range of ideas with each one having different levels of supporting evidence, and work continues in order to refine our understanding.

I think even in physics, there can be similar problems, gravity is clearly a fact but science is more than just a collection of facts, the aim is usually to understand and use this understanding, to predict future outcomes. I suspect that for most people, its the accuracy and utility of these predictions that give the various areas of science their credibility. It has become popular for many people who claim to support science to attack those that challenge the scientific consensus, often when their isn't one.

I'm not really convinced there are large numbers of people who can be described as science deniers, people are avid consumers of the products of science and are often very interested. There are however lots of people who don't like being described as stupid or deniers when they question things, something which used to be considered a hallmark of good science. We also fail to consider the huge social value associated with belonging to large powerful, groups with shared beliefs, this has been a continuing issue in discussions of evolution.

I think that the debates around evolution, provide a really good example of some of the many problems of science in our current culture. Within the loose framework of theories, there are some with the predictive validity of haruspicy, which is fine, (well, not for the animal of course), it encourages debate. It is in fact the lack of debate that leads to these being used to discredit the whole evolutionary framework, it's hard to get good evidence for some idea's, we need to bring back critical appraisal.

I will now get back to proving my own theory that things don't fall down because of gravity, its because the Earth sucks. :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Why don't they use a less confusing word?

I would actually agree that the term is problematic, it's too broad and over inclusive.

Like so many things, scientists - the guys in the trenches - have no problem with the term. It's armchair pop-sci buffs who only read bestsellers who find it confusing.

The problem really comes down to the fact that a lot of people think science is somehow simpler / more approachable / more "common sense" than other disciplines and therefore they can weigh in with impunity.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that corporate forensic accounting is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a corporate forensic accountant.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that non-Euclidean math is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a mathematician.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that civil engineering is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a civil engineer.

But science? Well, Joe Everyman can just use his "common sense" to doubt any scientist's years of discipline.

 

[Laroxe]

Like so many things, scientists - the guys in the trenches - have no problem with the term. It's armchair pop-sci buffs who only read bestsellers who find it confusing.

The problem really comes down to the fact that a lot of people think science is somehow simpler / more approachable / more "common sense" than other disciplines and therefore they can weigh in with impunity.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that corporate forensic accounting is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a corporate forensic accountant.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that non-Euclidean math is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a mathematician.

Joe Everyman would not doubt that civil engineering is a skilled discipline and that it would take him years to learn its in and outs before being able to challenge a civil engineer.

But science? Well, Joe Everyman can just use his "common sense" to doubt any scientist's years of discipline.

Well, yes, I think you're right, but we seem to have forgotten the value people put onto their beliefs, their self-esteem and their self-interest.
I think the fact that evolutionary theories appear to challenge religious beliefs, mean that many people become highly motivated to challenge ideas even when they don't understand them. These attacks can in fact earn significant kudos within religious groups, and as we are unlikely to successfully change this, we probably shouldn't try.

For others we probably need greater involvement and discussion, improving the pop-sci buffs understanding could even have a real value for them. For both of these groups, personal attacks and insults simply evokes more defensive reactions, even increasing their motivation for further attacks. I accept that there are some intensely irritating and irrational people around but I suspect its up to us to at least consider their motives for their behaviour. The current personalized polarization is a real problem, and it doesn't look to be improving, I actually think it is becoming damaging.

I accept that most people are aware of and accept their limitations when faced with experts, in fact I think this is clearly an issue when we look at different areas in science. I think we have to accept that the evidence base and methods used to collect evidence in the different subject areas make it much easier to challenge some sciences, even here we differentiate STEMI from the so called soft sciences. Maybe its right that the areas with a weaker evidence base should be challenged more frequently and made to explain what they are doing, it is after all the public who are paying most of the wages. There is also the increasingly important area of corruption is science, the biomedical and environmental sciences being a prime example's, many examples have become public knowledge and yet these are hugely important areas.

I thought you example of an expert in finance was a useful one, generally I would agree that I would be unlikely to challenge such an expert's opinion. Then I thought about dealing with an expert in accounting that had control over my salary and who had made what I considered to be a mistake. I would be knocking on his door within minutes, I would want an explanation, his training and experience wouldn't change that and if they attempted to use that to justify or intimidate, it wouldn't go well. Self-interest, or in my case "justified indignation":) can't be ignored.

 

[pinball1970]

It could be that by chance evolution didn't happen but there were just some other animals with similar bones and organs. I mean, it's possible, but highly unlikely.

The question was more the issue with the word "theory."

I would actually agree that the term is problematic, it's too broad and over inclusive. If we consider evolution as denoting that change occurs over time, then It's pretty clear that evolution is a fact. However, most people use the term in biology to describe an explanatory framework which helps to explain how and why such changes occur. Used in this way, evolution describes a whole range of ideas with each one having different levels of supporting evidence, and work continues in order to refine our understanding.

I think even in physics, there can be similar problems, gravity is clearly a fact but science is more than just a collection of facts, the aim is usually to understand and use this understanding, to predict future outcomes. I suspect that for most people, its the accuracy and utility of these predictions that give the various areas of science their credibility. It has become popular for many people who claim to support science to attack those that challenge the scientific consensus, often when their isn't one.

I'm not really convinced there are large numbers of people who can be described as science deniers, people are avid consumers of the products of science and are often very interested. There are however lots of people who don't like being described as stupid or deniers when they question things, something which used to be considered a hallmark of good science. We also fail to consider the huge social value associated with belonging to large powerful, groups with shared beliefs, this has been a continuing issue in discussions of evolution.

I think that the debates around evolution, provide a really good example of some of the many problems of science in our current culture. Within the loose framework of theories, there are some with the predictive validity of haruspicy, which is fine, (well, not for the animal of course), it encourages debate. It is in fact the lack of debate that leads to these being used to discredit the whole evolutionary framework, it's hard to get good evidence for some idea's, we need to bring back critical appraisal.

I will now get back to proving my own theory that things don't fall down because of gravity, its because the Earth sucks. :)

I disagree, debate does not work unfortunately. Did you speak to any antivaxers during Covid? Flat earthers or YECs ever? Different motivations for what they believe but the absolute last thing certain groups are interested in is facts that counter their beliefs.
Typical example (this fairly recently)

ED (Evolution denier)Richard Dawking just tell lies about Evolution and says fine tuning just came from nothing.

Me. 'Dawkins' Is/was a biologist, ethologist. Fine tuning is a question for physics not Biology.

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

ME. You don't prove Scientific theories, you test them and no scientist to my knowledge is saying a cell just self assembled. That is not what evolution is. How life got started is an area called Abiogenesis.

ED. That's wrong as well, also there is no evidence for 'macro' evolution, adaptation is ok as they are still the same kind...

So two things, firstly, a Scientific theory contradicts part of a world view is wrong. No fact, study, consensus can counter it.
Second, Knowledge of the issue is not necessary, just that the contrary position is wrong.
There are well used arguments that seem to persist and change over time (evolve) and the micro/macro thing seems to be quite popular right now.

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

 

[DaveC426913]

Then I thought about dealing with an expert in accounting that had control over my salary and who had made what I considered to be a mistake. I would be knocking on his door within minutes, I would want an explanation...

And, being a lay-person, you could certainly ask questions that will help clarify.

But you would be out-of-line to say
"Well that just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I think finances should work like X."
or
"This industry word you use here is not one I understand well. Your discipline should change the word so that I feel more comfortable."

 

[pinball1970]

And, being a lay-person, you could certainly ask questions that will help clarify.

But you would be out-of-line to say
"Well that just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I think finances should work like X."
or
"This industry word you use here is not one I understand well. Your discipline should change the word so that I feel more comfortable."

Arguments from ignorance/incredulity are not the best and the hardest to counter without being insulting.
Being ignorant is totally fine that is the crazy part. Recognizing one is not aware of a body of evidence, models / theory like TOE is ok (Socrates mentioned this), we (royal we) work in non academic environments.
We can always find out about it.

 

[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.