By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

 

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes 657 75.69%
 
Mostly, some things are questionable. 74 8.53%
 
No 99 11.41%
 
Not really, but some could be true. 38 4.38%
 
Total:868
JWeinCom on 02 March 2017
TheLastStarFighter said:
theprof00 said:
Starfighter, what you're both saying is correct in a way. Neither of you are wrong.
Evolution is fact.
Evolution is also theory.
The problem, is that the English language uses theory in a different way. The whole problem would be solved of the word theory was replaced by the word explanation.
The explanation of evolution is the only thing we cannot fully explain. Theories are constantly evolving in order to include more info, but they are rarely significantly changed in meaning.
It's true that scientists use theory in a non-constant way, but it doesn't make it less factual.
For example, let's make a situation where there is a "theory of alphabet" which would say the alphabet is a series of symbols that represent sounds commonly found in english vocal range, and used to convey those words in a published format.
If one day we were able to convert letters into colors, the "theory of alphabet" might have to be altered to cover a non-publicated or audible format.
It doesn't mean the alphabet isn't there plain for anyone to see, it just means that there is more to explain "why" the alphabet is what it is.

Maybe a dull example, but the quickest I could think of off the top of my head.

For further reference, look up the evolving theory of gravity, with research done by a recent scientist that might alter the definition slightly in order to account for dark matter.

That's not correct, and your example is ironically a good one.  Evolution is not a fact, because it is not indisputable.  There have been silly people that have said dinosaur bones were put in the ground to tempt us.  This is extremely likely to not be true, but since none of us were there to see the bones get in the ground, we can't say, indisputably, that it didn't happen.  And scientists, such as myself, keep an open mind to all options, no matter how ridiculous.  And that's why we use the term scientific theory.  It is accepted as truth, but like most scientific observations of our natural world, is not and likely never will be, indisputable. 

 

The term "fact" should be reserved for human-defined concepts or observations in nature that have been 100% observed.  The alphabet, for example, is a human created idea. We don't have a theory to describe it, because it was created by us. We defined what it is.  The alphabet starts with "A".  This is a fact, because it's human creators decided this was to be.

 

Until we talk to whoever made evolution, or develop a time machine to observe its beginnings through to its end, it will remain a scientific theory which means it's really, really, really likely true, and what people are trying to say when they say it's not a theory, it's a fact. They just don't understand what theory means.

Eh... evolution is not a theory.  Like, I don't mean "it's not a theory because it's proven".  I mean it's just literally not a theory.  Like, there is no "theory of evolution".

Theories don't address whether a phenomena happens or not.  Like, Newton's theory of gravitation is not "I wonder if gravity exists".  It's "we know there's this thing we call gravity.  this is how I think gravity works."

Similar evolution is an observed phenomena.  Evolution is the change of traits, or gene frequencies, over successive generation.  We've known that traits change over generations since at least about 15,000 years ago when we started domesticating things.  When you have different traits then your parents, and your children have different traits still, that's evolution.  When we see that diseases are becoming resistant to anti-biotics, that's evolution.  When we breed animals, that's evolution.  

Like I said, there is no "theory of evolution".  What there is is "the theory of evolution by natural selection".  The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't say "hey, maybe things evolve".  It says "things evolve.  This is how I think it happens."  The theory does not speculate that evolution happens.  It speculates on how evolution happens.

I mean... unless you want to tell me that traits don't change over generations...

Edit:  I should rephrase that slightly.   There is not just "the theory of evolution by natural design".  There are a number of theories that have been proposed to explain evolution or an aspect of it.



Around the Network
aikohualda on 02 March 2017

yes



 

Johnw1104 on 02 March 2017

Evolution is clearly at work, though we don't fully understand it yet (or rather, how it's capable of producing some rather incredible results). Really, while it can be hard for us to see it in our sort of "macro" world of large, complex animals and the like, evolution can literally be observed by the minute among bacteria and viruses.

It always seemed like efforts to prove the concept of evolution to people were wasted by focusing on the animal kingdom. Just refer to the new strains of viruses and such that are always arising, as they didn't just appear out of thin air.



numberwang on 02 March 2017

Take a physics book form a hundred years ago and think about all the true facts

- atoms can not be split
- the milky way is all of the universe
- the universe is static, eternal and had no beginning
- light is movement of the aether

Think again how much we will discard from our facts in a hundred years



Azuren on 02 March 2017

Oh hey, a list of people to not take seriously~

If you don't accept evolution, then I just don't even know how to talk to you.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
theprof00 on 02 March 2017
TheLastStarFighter said:
theprof00 said:
Starfighter, what you're both saying is correct in a way. Neither of you are wrong.
Evolution is fact.
Evolution is also theory.
The problem, is that the English language uses theory in a different way. The whole problem would be solved of the word theory was replaced by the word explanation.
The explanation of evolution is the only thing we cannot fully explain. Theories are constantly evolving in order to include more info, but they are rarely significantly changed in meaning.
It's true that scientists use theory in a non-constant way, but it doesn't make it less factual.
For example, let's make a situation where there is a "theory of alphabet" which would say the alphabet is a series of symbols that represent sounds commonly found in english vocal range, and used to convey those words in a published format.
If one day we were able to convert letters into colors, the "theory of alphabet" might have to be altered to cover a non-publicated or audible format.
It doesn't mean the alphabet isn't there plain for anyone to see, it just means that there is more to explain "why" the alphabet is what it is.

Maybe a dull example, but the quickest I could think of off the top of my head.

For further reference, look up the evolving theory of gravity, with research done by a recent scientist that might alter the definition slightly in order to account for dark matter.

That's not correct, and your example is ironically a good one.  Evolution is not a fact, because it is not indisputable.  There have been silly people that have said dinosaur bones were put in the ground to tempt us.  This is extremely likely to not be true, but since none of us were there to see the bones get in the ground, we can't say, indisputably, that it didn't happen.  And scientists, such as myself, keep an open mind to all options, no matter how ridiculous.  And that's why we use the term scientific theory.  It is accepted as truth, but like most scientific observations of our natural world, is not and likely never will be, indisputable. 

 

The term "fact" should be reserved for human-defined concepts or observations in nature that have been 100% observed.  The alphabet, for example, is a human created idea. We don't have a theory to describe it, because it was created by us. We defined what it is.  The alphabet starts with "A".  This is a fact, because it's human creators decided this was to be.

 

Until we talk to whoever made evolution, or develop a time machine to observe its beginnings through to its end, it will remain a scientific theory which means it's really, really, really likely true, and what people are trying to say when they say it's not a theory, it's a fact. They just don't understand what theory means.

Except the alphabet is not complete, it is only as complete as we decide. The alphabet currently has 6 more letters than it started out with, and three letters less than it used to have. Language is similarly an evolving beast, and the alphabet reflects that. Like I said, there may be a time in which out alphabet may have a different use, other than visual, and that theory would have to be updated. It doesn't mean the alphabet isn't a thing. The theory only accepts that it is what it is based on what we can observe currently. 

 

And jwein is correct also. It isn't the theory of evolution, it's the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is an additional theory called speciation. Which is an evolutionary process that Darwin described.

 

Speciation would be the closest theory to what people think is the "theory of evolution". It is almost interchangeable with natural selection, but NS is only one branch of speciation . The theory of speciation attempts to explain why these evolutionary changes took place. Not if these changes took place. Why.

 

We already have proof that one species adapted into another with a fish that was a saltwater fish, adapted into freshwater, changed its jaw size, Gill placement, body temperatyre, and cannot interbreed.



JWeinCom on 02 March 2017
numberwang said:

Take a physics book form a hundred years ago and think about all the true facts

- atoms can not be split
- the milky way is all of the universe
- the universe is static, eternal and had no beginning
- light is movement of the aether

Think again how much we will discard from our facts in a hundred years

Ehhhhh.... I don't think any of that is right.

By 1917 there were experiments already being conducted about the existence of protons and neutrons.  At that point, they knew atoms could be divided.

There was no concensus that the milky way was all of the universe.  The more common theory (proposed in the 1500) was that the universe was infinite.  So there were questions about it before then.  Einstein was the one who brought the idea of a finite universe into prominence.

I believe the theory of lumineferous aether was not that light is moving aether, but that aether was a medium through which light could travel.  There was still debate over lights as particles or waves, and I don't think the theory was ever touted as fact.  Either way, the Michaelson-Morley experiments tested for aether in the 1800s, and effectively disproved the theory, or at the very least cast extreme doubt.



Jumpin on 02 March 2017

Genetic drift is a fact.
Creatures change over the course of generations, fact.
Creatures select mates for reproduction based on a preference of traits, fact.

All of these are components of the evolutionary theory of natural selection.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Mummelmann on 02 March 2017

OP: Yes, of course I do, there is literally no other explanation to be found or had for anything and its not for a lack of trying. Also, scientists have tried to falsify and refute evolution for nearly two centuries but it has only become stronger every decade and we are way past the point where it needs to be considered fact.



Mr_No on 02 March 2017
Azuren said:
Oh hey, a list of people to not take seriously~

If you don't accept evolution, then I just don't even know how to talk to you.

Not everyone needs to go on the same line of thought you have. That's the beauty of it; these kind of theories doesn't have to be a believe/don't believe affair, as there can be a spectrum on what people see more sense in. I for one don't accept evolution fully. There are some concepts I find pretty intriguing and hard to debate with, but I don't fully accept many other factors as facts, and I (and many more) don't need to be forced by a stranger to fully accept something as a fact or be deemed as inferior. If you don't even know how to talk to some people, that's alright. I have lost all respect for some.