Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is theory.
evolution has been proven with:(pick which is fact)
a) viruses
b)those lizards on that Mediterranean island
c)strawberries (someone once told me they used be smaller until 1800’s until we intervened to make them bigger)
d)humans growing certain breeds of dogs
e)any other credible demonstratable verifiable options
And our scientific theory to describe the evolution is just a theory. We put together what we know to make a model of evolution. A model which may change.
In short:
evolution is fact. Our understanding may be a theory, But the facts are the facts, and evolution is a fact. As certain as gravity.
The phrase “just a theory” is never correct. A theory is the highest level of certainty in science. Saying that “evolution is just a theory” is comparable to saying “Obama is just the President of the United States”.
Evolution is a theory. To say “evolution is a fact,” but “theory of evolution” is a theory (besides being a tautology) doesn’t change anything. Evolution is as much a theory as gravity, which is also a theory and not a fact, the “Big Bang” theory, etc.
What opponents against the theory say is that although we can certainly show evolution at work, even in a petri dish, we cannot demonstrate that one species evolved into another species. This is false. Examples abound, but if you point out one, these “creationists” (fka “intelligent designers”) say that those are not examples of different species. I’ve given up arguing with them on that point. There was a reason federal case wherein the judge upheld the theory of creationism is the same thing as the theory of intelligent design.
That species evolve is a fact. The exact mechanism by which we arrived at our present day species is subject to various theories, many of which intersect (i.e. there could be many ways that the various species evolved over time and got to where we are today).
That evolution has occurred (and does occur) is a fact, supported by a plethora of overwhelming evidence. Evolution is essentially proven.
Please don’t say “just a theory.” While we do use the word “theory” in everyday speech to describe hunch or conjecture, in the realm of science a Theory has been fashioned much more rigorously, and in many cases is all but proven. The term indicates a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that has been derived from evidence in conjunction with established knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. Theories are subject to scrutiny and are modified (fine-tuned, corrected, advanced) when new evidence or knowledge is introduced. While Theories defy absolute proof, they are widely accepted as true (within the limitations of what we can know) when they coherently explain what has happened and accurately predict what will happen. The Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Gravity, holds up well in this regard.
Now that we’ve covered that, the Theory of Evolution addresses how evolution occurred.
Those who dispute evolution generally ignore the facts at hand, and seem to base their disbelief on a lack of knowledge and understanding of it, and/or a belief that the Bible accurately relates what happened. In essence, it appears they don’t believe it because they don’t want to believe it.
This what i meant. that species evolve is a fact. and our understanding of it as mechanism is theory.
My question was is that true. And I meant is it true in a factual kind of way as opposed to a debatable kind of way.
( I don’t mind it being changed to great debates, as long as it is great debate.[I had previously thought of it as fact,is it actually still a great debate?])
This isn’t correct. Evolution is a fact – it occurs. Gravity is a fact – it occurs. There is also a Theory of Evolution, describing how evolution occurs, and a Theory of Gravity describing how gravity occurs. So you have the process of evolution (fact) hand in hand with the Theory of Evolution (scientific Theory), and the force of gravity (fact) hand in hand with the Theory of Gravity (scientific Theory).
At least on this board, there won’t be too much dispute that evolution has occurred. Where I think the debate lies in what degree of certainty allows something to be called a “fact.”
For what it’s worth: Creationism and Intelligent Design don’t even begin to resemble scientific Theories. They’re laughable concepts in that regard, at the level of “Human Babies are Brought by Storks Theory.”
There has been recent discussion in the scientific world that the theory of gravity is wrong, or at least incomplete. Dark matter has been stated as a possibility to uphold the present theory of gravity, but it may be that the theory as we know it is not complete or correct.
As I stated before, we can demonstrate examples of evolution in the laboratory, but that, alone, does not prove the theory of evolution. All the evidence supports it, but it is possible that it is incomplete or incorrect. Those who object to the theory maintain that evolution into a new species has not been shown (although it has).
“Gravity is a fact – it occurs”? That’s a conclusion you have drawn from observed events. Those events fit the theory, but perhaps other theories are possible, and perhaps some events don’t fit the theory, such as the slowing down of the big bang, which has involved the invoking of “dark matter” to make the theory fit.
I’ll have you know that it has been proven both that an adult stork could easily carry a baby, and that their homing capabilities are easily up to the challenge of locating a single human family.
But that is true of any theory, there are always other possibilities. Possibly the best approach is to find the simplest theory that matches the observed evidence. Also, there is a difference between a theory being incomplete and incorrect.
Btw, I’m fairly sure you are incorrect that dark matter was invoked to explain the big bang “slowing down”. Quite the opposite, the expansion of the universe seems to be increasing, due to the even more mysterious dark energy. IIRC, dark matter was posited because it was noticed the rotation of gravities did not match the distribution of observable matter.
But yes, that was one of the reasons for the postulation of dark matter.