Oh yes, very much so. But they are not proven; there's the slimmest of chances that evolutionary theory is false (for example, if two humans concieve and bear a modern chimpanzee by completely natural means, then no matter how much evidence we have accumulated, the theory must be discarded).
Yes, fact always trumps theory. But first you have to discover the falsifying fact.
Theory is never "proven". A theory is based on evidence. You can prove things in logic, not in science.
OTOH, one does get to the state that refusal to acknowledge a well-evidenced theory as "fact" is an exercise in intellectual perversity.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Yes, fact always trumps theory. But first you have to discover the falsifying fact.
Theory is never "proven". A theory is based on evidence. You can prove things in logic, not in science.
OTOH, one does get to the state that refusal to acknowledge a well-evidenced theory as "fact" is an exercise in intellectual perversity.
Agreed. I would go so far as to agree with this sentiment: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Agreed. I would go so far as to agree with this sentiment: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins
Yes, despite finding Dawkin's opinions on religion incredibly sophomoric, I have to agree with him on that point.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
__________________ "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
-Gandhi
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
Now you're being ridiculous. Come on, get real, that's more like science fiction
Point is that the "evidence" for a 6,000 year old earth and a 6 minute old earth is the same.
If the earth is not as old as the multiple lines of scientific evidence lead us to believe, then there is no way to say just how young it is.
It could just as well have been created last Thursday as a few millennia ago. Any guess on how recently it was created is as good as any other. None can be shown to be false.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated.
Not true. If this were the case, the prosecution would have to duplicate a murder to prove X is the murderer.
In any case theories are never proved. A theory is based on evidence, not proof. It is always subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Last edited by gluadys; 6th October 2007 at 12:21 PM.
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
No: a theory is never proven. It can be evidenced to the point where it's almost certainly true, but it can never be demonstrated with 100% certainty.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
In fact, evolution has been duplicated. Evolution is a change in the traits of a population from one generation to the next. A way that biological systems can evolve is under selective pressures. This is what Darwin's original theory was about; people have done that to many species, and nature itself has done that to even more.
For the first case, look at domestic dogs. If you want a scientific experiment, look at how Dudley and Lambert selected for high and low oil content in maize and achieved spectacular results in both directions (couldn't find the article text online, but there's a graph of their results in The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, and here's the reference in case you want to read the original paper:
Dudley, J.W. and R.J. Lambert. 1992. Ninety generations of selection for oil and protein in maize. Maydica37:1_7.
There were similar experiments on fruit flies, I bet you can find loads of information on the internet if you care to look.
As for selection leading to change in nature, I can give you this paper. Apparently, finch beaks got smaller when there were few large seeds to eat and the big-beaked guys and girls died off...
True, this is small-scale evolution (to expect large-scale events such as a fish-tetrapod transition to occur within a human timescale is like expecting your brother to grow up in a few seconds, in my opinion), but it is evolution. So don't tell me it hasn't been "proved". It has been shown to occur, and probably as unambiguously as anything in science.
I agree with the others. Proof is for logic, evidence is for science.
(by the way, you're a bit confused on terminology. Yes, an experiment has to be replicable if you want people to take you seriously. But I don't see how you can "duplicate" a theory, unless by writing it down again and again What a theory/hypothesis* has to do is make testable predictions)
*And here's where I'm confused about terminology. Honestly, after having taken a course called Science Methods, I have not the faintest idea what a "theory" is. I like to think of them as sort of "extended", more general hypotheses, but you can argue with my definition.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
What a theory/hypothesis* has to do is make testable predictions)
Linear Mode
