|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God of Pokiphlanon Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
One thing that must be made clear: Evolution is NOT a fact. Ti is simply a incredibly well supported theory. Evolution is over a hundred years old and has only been reinforced since Charles Darwin first proposed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Will you give me some examples of things that you think are facts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
There are two ways the word evolution is used. When speaking about The Theory of Evolution, which has a mechanism for evolution to work, namely mutation and natural selection, then you're correct.
However, the theory was created to explain the facts we see, namely that species change and adapt...they evolve. It is this second sense in which the phrase "evolution is a fact" is used. Evolution is observed, we know it happens. We also have a theory that tries to explain how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray, God of Pokiphlanon.
Evolution is NOT a fact. As has been pointed out, there is some confusion about which evolution one is talking about when the word is used alone: 1) the process that is ongoing in all known species living today: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This process is measured and documented and this forms the basis for ... 2) the theory of evolution, that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archeology, from paleontology and the fossil record, and from the genetic record. The investigation of the validity of this theory is ... 3) the science of evolution, the study of mechanisms by which populations change and react to opportunities provided by ecology and mutations. We know that (1) is a fact, (2) is a theory that can be tentatively regarded as true until contradicted by evidence, and (3) is the process of testing the theory, which testing includes intentional attempts to invalidate the theory, but so far has failed to do so. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a valid theory that provides an adequate explanation of all the evidence currently known. That may not count as fact, but it is much closer to fact than falsehood at this time. We can be justified to have a high degree of confidence that the ToE is mostly correct in the overall picture, with some details that may need to be ironed out as time passes. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips Edited by RAZD, : ps added by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God of Pokiphlanon Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
When I looked at your avatar at 11:13 on the 30th of August, I saw ('Saw' meaning that my brain interpreted the signals from my eye as looking like) the image HERE: http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Avatars/5163.jpg. I am not lying. That is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
And when we look at population, we see the allele frequency of those populations change over time. This is called evolution. I am not lying. That is FACT.
I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PetersDenial Junior Member (Idle past 5342 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
I think that facts only true exist by definition or logic.
1 + 1 = 2 is a fact because we have defined it. You can never truly prove that gravity exists. Sure, if you let a apple fall, it'll hit the ground. Maybe just once in a billion years it doesn't. How many times do you repeat an experiment before you accept the result. In the strictest sense, you can only ever disprove a theory. If you could, given the evidence for evolution, we wouldn't have this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
1 + 1 = 2 is a fact because we have defined it. Is it a fact that we have defined it?
You can never truly prove that gravity exists. I think my problem with this is that may well end up redefining the word, 'fact'. For example - the statement "Henry VIII was King of England" is no longer a fact. It isn't defined as true, and it can't be proven true in the mathematical sense. Yet most people would use the word 'fact' to describe it. (welcome to EvC!) Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PetersDenial Junior Member (Idle past 5342 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
In the 1500 the country decided / accepted that Henry VIII was king of England. Their decision has made it so. Just to make sure that everyone got it, they even put a crown on hit head. Whoever wears it is king. If that is not a definition then I don't know what is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the 1500 the country decided / accepted that Henry VIII was king of England. Is that a fact, as you define it? If so, prove it. Explain how you logically prove there was no cover up, errors, legal loopholes that mean he wasn't actually king, or any other possible but unlikely occurrences that might happen. Unless you are saying that we define a king based on who historians say is king... And if we define gravity as being 'the phenomenon that caused masses to be attracted to one another', ie., as a historical fact, does that mean gravity is a fact, after all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the strictest sense, you can only ever disprove a theory. As Popper admitted, you can't even do that, "in the strictest sense", because one can always provide an ad hoc argument against any evidence contrary to any theory. Perhaps we should take this one to my "The Scientific Method For Beginners" thread, where this point has already been discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
And if we define gravity as being 'the phenomenon that caused masses to be attracted to one another'... ...then you'd be wrong. Sorry Mod, couldn't help myself. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
It is also true that we can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can you prove that you are not in reality just the figment of another's imagination, soon to disappear when that being loses interest?
No. You cannot. But we do not live our lives like that nor do the products we use everyday operate like that. You are completely free to accept that everything in this world is unprovable and go about like that, but it's hard to be rational (or sane).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: It isn't except to the Religious Fundimentalists, who for some unknown reason, think that it is detrimental to their religious beliefs. It doesn't seem to bother the mainstream religious. there is good reason why evolution is criticized among religious people. When evolution was first presented, it was explained that evolution is how all life came into existence. Evolutionary scientists claimed that all life evolved, that life originated by itself, moved up to the plant and animal stage, and then progressed through apelike beasts to man this was in direct opposition to religions belief that God created all life. in origin of the species, Darwin gave many examples of how certain animals 'must' have evolved and were not individually created. For instance, thisThe Galapagos Archipelago...bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America? So there is good reason why the religious people object to 'evolution' in this sense. It seems that over the years, evolution has gone through many changes itself and now 'evolution' is more about how species change over time rather then where life came from in the first place. It could be for this reason that many are now accepting 'evolution'..its no longer about the origin of life. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It seems that over the years, evolution has gone through many changes itself and now 'evolution' is more about how species change over time rather then where life came from in the first place. It could be for this reason that many are now accepting 'evolution'..its no longer about the origin of life It has never been about the origin of life. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024