Evolution Eating Itself?

[quatona]

No, the environment simply changed to one that is manipulated by the species, which will still be subject to genetic evolution in the long run.

Yes, I am not questioning that genetic evolution (provided that a human act doesn´t eradicate all life on this planet) will keep doing what it has always done.
I´m just saying that evolution has brought about a species that - in an unprecedenced way - can alter a huge portion of the environment at a speed (instantaneously) that doesn´t allow for evolution to unfold in the continuous way we are used to conceive of it. Genetic evolution doesn´t go "Boom bang!", and evolution can´t go "Bomm bang!" when it has brought about a species that can cause an environmental "Boom bang!".

Let me try to explain what I mean in another way:
While genetic evolution requires a process in an entire species, and other species had time to undergo a reactive collective process, the fact that it takes only one person to press the RedKnob in order to alter the environment instantaneously and dramatically for all other species is an all time new, in that they aren´t able to reactively *evolve*, but suddenly find themselves in completely changed conditions that didn´t *evolve*.

 

[variant]

Yes, I am not questioning that genetic evolution (provided that a human act doesn´t eradicate all life on this planet) will keep doing what it has always done.
I´m just saying that evolution has brought about a species that - in an unprecedenced way - can alter a huge portion of the environment at a speed (instantaneously) that doesn´t allow for evolution to unfold in the continuous way we are used to conceive of it. Genetic evolution doesn´t go "Boom bang!", and evolution can´t go "Bomm bang!" when it has brought about a species that can cause an environmental "Boom bang!".

Let me try to explain what I mean in another way:
While genetic evolution requires a process in an entire species, and other species had time to undergo a reactive collective process, the fact that it takes only one person to press the RedKnob in order to alter the environment instantaneously and dramatically for all other species is an all time new, in that they aren´t able to reactively *evolve*, but suddenly find themselves in completely changed conditions that didn´t *evolve*.

Evolution would still be in force, it just reacts to the new artificial human created environment instead of the traditional environment.

Humans are by no means the only creature that modifies the environment, we just do it on a huge scale. If we don't end up dead from choking on our own waste like yeast the environment will be ours to engineer.

Genetic changes will still react to environmental changes, they will just be reacting to the artificial environment that humans create more so than the natural environment.

This is of course if humans don't just take it upon themselves to massively genetically engineer themselves at which point natural evolution may very well cease.

 

[quatona]

Evolution would still be in force, it just reacts to the new artificial human created environment instead of the traditional environment.

Undisputed, and I explicitly affirmed this in my post.

Humans are by no means the only creature that modifies the environment, we just do it on a huge scale. If we don't end up dead from choking on our own waste like yeast the environment will be ours to engineer.

Undisputed. However, I tried to point out that what humans can do is not only a jump up on a scale but something substantially new. I would like you to comment on that.

Genetic changes will still react to environmental changes, they will just be reacting to the artificial environment that humans create more so than the natural environment.

Yes, undisputed. The remarkable recent fundamental change that I am referring to is the unprecedenced fact that even only a single member of the human species can alter the entire environment of one or several or all species with one action.
Granted, other species have evolved the ability to use tools, as well. However, those tools were very limited in their effect and, due to the long time which it took the species to evolve that trait, other species were given time to evolve accordingly.

This is of course if humans don't just take it upon themselves to massively genetically engineer themselves at which point natural evolution may very well cease.

Yes, that would be another huge jump.

Just to clarify (because this seems to be what you are arguing against):
I am not saying evolution has ceased to exist due to the phenomenon I am describing.

 

[variant]

Just to clarify (because this seems to be what you are arguing against):
I am not saying evolution has ceased to exist due to the phenomenon I am describing.

Well I must be misunderstanding you.

When you say it is "too slow to deal with the results" I have little reference because you seem to be making an aesthetic judgment there.

I am not entirely sure what evolution is supposed to do, or how it is supposed to deal with things, but it has always been a force obviously too weak to react to rapid or unexpected changes in the environment from the perspective of any single species.

As our species exerts artificial control both over the environment and direct control of genetics, then the effect of evolution will be minimized in comparison.

But, that will only happen if we do indeed exert control over such things and don't act like the yeast and cause a cataclysm for ourselves.

 

[quatona]

Well I must be misunderstanding you.

Yes, most likely there is a misunderstanding.

When you say it is "too slow to deal with the results" I have little reference because you seem to be making an aesthetic judgment there.

Aesthetic?

I am afraid I can´t explain it better than I already tried to, sorry!
As far as I understand evolution,
1. it is a constant process of mutual adaptive reactions between different species and between a species and its enviroment.
2. These adaptions take time.

What I mean to say that once one species can impose immediate dramatic changes to the environment, other species (and even the species by which this change was caused) don´t have the time for the required adaptive processes.

I am not entirely sure what evolution is supposed to do, or how it is supposed to deal with things, but it has always been a force obviously too weak to react to rapid or unexpected changes in the environment from the perspective of any single species.

That is exactly what I mean.
However, what I find so remarkable: Now is the first time that evolution has "equipped" a species with the ability to cause such rapid changes (whereas previously such changes have been due to incidents that were not caused by a species - even less by a single member of a species - but by disasters, for example.)

As our species exerts artificial control both over the environment and direct control of genetics, then the effect of evolution will be minimized in comparison.

You distinguish between natural and artificial control. I am not sure about the criteria that this distinction is based upon - but maybe it´s exactly the difference that I am referring to?

But, that will only happen if we do indeed exert control over such things and don't act like the yeast and cause a cataclysm for ourselves.

Well, I already find it a remarkable difference that we are the first species that is able to do it.
I´m not sure I understand why you are saying a cataclysm for ourselves. Wouldn´t causing a cataclysm for another species suffice?

 

[variant]

Yes, most likely there is a misunderstanding.

I see the mistake. I was focused on human evolution and you are concerned with nature as a whole.

You distinguish between natural and artificial control. I am not sure about the criteria that this distinction is based upon - but maybe it´s exactly the difference that I am referring to?

Artificial, to be made by humans.

You are worried that artificial change in the environment disrupts natural evolution.

Indeed, it does. We are a cataclysmic force on this planet and enforcing an extinction event grander than the Permian extinction and quite a bit quicker.

We might not last very long though if we don't get control of ourselves and our environment which will just make life start over with a few fewer pieces.

To the extent that we can change the environment we must eventually act as a steward of that created environment, on par with natural evolution, or I assure you it wont work out in the end.

Well, I already find it a remarkable difference that we are the first species that is able to do it.
I´m not sure I understand why you are saying a cataclysm for ourselves. Wouldn´t causing a cataclysm for another species suffice?

I am not particularly surprised that nature goes in our direction eventually. Evolution is at it's core a sensory process that reacts to the environment, and we are a creature that has simply developed a way to react to it much more quickly.

We already have caused many of those cataclysms for other species; the question becomes if we break the natural environment so much that it becomes unsurvivable for us.

 

[quatona]

I see the mistake. I was focused on human evolution and you are concerned with nature as a whole.



Artificial, to be made by humans.

You are worried that artificial change in the environment disrupts natural evolution.

Indeed, it does. We are a cataclysmic force on this planet and enforcing an extinction event grander than the Permian extinction and quite a bit quicker.

We might not last very long though if we don't get control of ourselves and our environment which will just make life start over with a few fewer pieces.

To the extent that we can change the environment we must eventually act as a steward of that created environment, on par with natural evolution, or I assure you it wont work out in the end.



I am not particularly surprised that nature goes in our direction eventually. Evolution is at it's core a sensory process that reacts to the environment, and we are a creature that has simply developed a way to react to it much more quickly.

We already have caused many of those cataclysms for other species; the question becomes if we break the natural environment so much that it becomes unsurvivable for us.

Yes, I feel understood now.
However, it´s not so much that I am worried (well, yes, I am - but that was not the motive for writing the OP).
It´s more like I find it remarkable that evolution ("natural control") itself has at some point produced a species that is capable of exerting "artificial control".
This isn´t meant to be an argument for or against anything - it just seems to me to be a *first* in the history of evolution.
(But, as I have hinted in my OP, this may be a new thought for me, but an already broadly acknowledged and considered fact among experts)

 

[variant]

Yes, I feel understood now.
However, it´s not so much that I am worried (well, yes, I am - but that was not the motive for writing the OP).
It´s more like I find it remarkable that evolution ("natural control") itself has at some point produced a species that is capable of exerting "artificial control".

This isn´t meant to be an argument for or against anything - it just seems to me to be a *first* in the history of evolution.
(But, as I have hinted in my OP, this may be a new thought for me, but an already broadly acknowledged and considered fact among experts)

It's hard to say exactly how remarkable it is since we only have one biosphere to look at and it seems to have produced consciousness in relatively short order.

I am of the opinion that consciousness is a natural consequence of biology as we know it and a relatively stable biosphere for a lengthy period of time, because, as I said before, the process of evolution is at it's heart a sensory and reactionary phenomena.

Nothing does those two things quite like a conscious brain. And, brains like ours should develop if a any being should develop complex enough appendages that need controlling with a suitably sizable noggin to use as raw material.

This is not the usual accepted view though. The prevailing view is that the process of evolution is purposeless and direction-less.

 

[quatona]

It's hard to say exactly how remarkable it is since we only have one biosphere to look at and it seems to have produced consciousness in relatively short order.

When I said "it´s remarkable" I didn´t mean to compare it to other - hypothetical - evolutionary processes in other biospheres. I just meant to look at history of evolution and to acknowledge that for a species to develop such a powerful tool like "consciousness" is a substantial new in its history.
I hope you understand that I am not saying that evolution "shouldn´t have done it" or that it should be impossible for evolution to do it.

I am of the opinion that consciousness is a natural consequence of biology as we know it and a relatively stable biosphere for a lengthy period of time, because, as I said before, the process of evolution is at it's heart a sensory and reactionary phenomena.

No disagreement there.

Nothing does those two things quite like a conscious brain. And, brains like ours should develop if a any being should develop complex enough appendages that need controlling with a suitably sizable noggin to use as raw material.

This is not the usual accepted view though. The prevailing view is that the process of evolution is purposeless and direction-less.

Ok, thanks for elaborating!

 

[bbyrd009]

Evo may have produced a species capable of exerting 'artificial control' already...when one reads '...and the earth became void' in Genesis...

I don't think God has a problem with us near-extincting ourselves a couple times, if need be--a remnant will remain. We see at least two of these 'bottlenecks' in our gene pool now.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think God has a problem with us near-extincting ourselves a couple times, if need be--a remnant will remain.

Sounds cold to me, as if God was some genetic engineer who didn't give a damn about individual microbes as long as the species continues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

This species has evolved the capability to render evolution toothless. Humanity (since presumably the industrial revolution) has the ability to change the environment so radically and at such a speed that evolution´s tools are unable to follow and give our species and other species the opportunity to adapt to the new environmental conditions.
IOW: Evolution has "created" a speed that renders it too slow to deal with its own results.

I thought that evolution is changes in the distribution and frequency of alleles. Alleles are being distributed differently and in different frequencies no matter how big the scope of the impact of human behavior on the environment is.

If women in industrialized nations are giving birth to fewer and fewer children while women in non-industrialized nations are giving birth to an increasing number of children then the distribution and frequency of alleles is changing--changing dramatically, one could even say. I do not see how, say, modern peoples' ability to quickly destroy entire ecosystems changes the fact that alleles are being redistributed and occurring in varying frequencies in human populations through selective processes.

 

[Jade Margery]

The development of the human intellect to its current capabilities constitutes an absolute first in evolution:
This species has evolved the capability to render evolution toothless. Humanity (since presumably the industrial revolution) has the ability to change the environment so radically and at such a speed that evolution´s tools are unable to follow and give our species and other species the opportunity to adapt to the new environmental conditions.
IOW: Evolution has "created" a speed that renders it too slow to deal with its own results.

Part of the problem with this point of view is that you are anthropomorphizing a natural process. Calling it 'toothless', saying it has 'tools', that it 'gives opportunities, that it 'created' something that it has to 'deal with', saying it 'eats' itself...

If an acidic substance burned through a container onto a floor that it could not burn through, would you say that the corrosion had foiled itself? Of course not. The corrosion does not 'want' to burn through substances, it does not have a goal. Evolution does not want to create or change species, it has no goal or direction, it is just a force by which other things happen.

If a falling acorn lands on the ground, do we say that gravity is foiled because it's not falling any more? Or does gravity keep working on the acorn, albeit in ways much less noticeable than during its sudden descent?

Crude analogies all, but I hope you get my point.

 

[quatona]

Part of the problem with this point of view is that you are anthropomorphizing a natural process. Calling it 'toothless', saying it has 'tools', that it 'gives opportunities, that it 'created' something that it has to 'deal with', saying it 'eats' itself...

If an acidic substance burned through a container onto a floor that it could not burn through, would you say that the corrosion had foiled itself? Of course not. The corrosion does not 'want' to burn through substances, it does not have a goal. Evolution does not want to create or change species, it has no goal or direction, it is just a force by which other things happen.

If a falling acorn lands on the ground, do we say that gravity is foiled because it's not falling any more? Or does gravity keep working on the acorn, albeit in ways much less noticeable than during its sudden descent?

Crude analogies all, but I hope you get my point.

Yes, I do get your point (in fact, it was my very first objection to my own "theory" when it came to my mind).

Let´s say that all those wordings you criticize are indeed inappropriate.

On a side note: I don´t think it is uncommon even in science to use wordings that make it sound like there were intentionality behind nature´s processes, even though it´s perfectly clear that there aren´t. If, for example, medicine explains allergies as an overreaction of the immune system (or, on the other end of the spectrum, postulates the immune system to be failing in certain cases), these wordings imply that there were some way the immune system is intended to work.
​

My question is: Do you - behind all those distracting, naive or overdramatizing wordings - see the point I am actually making (or better: the question I am actually asking)?

Let´s for example replace "Is evolution eating itself?" by "Do we have to update our concepts of evolution?" or "With humans having evolved in the way they did - has evolution (formerly conceptualized as the dominant force behind the development of species) lost this rank to the intentional manipulations of nature performed by one single species?" (Granted, no matter how drastic those intentional manipulations are - other species will still be doing what evolution describes...this process just might be rendered ineffective in view of the intentional manipulations.)

Even if scrutinizing my thoughts on the matter critically, I can´t detect this naive anthropomorphic assumptions that you see in them. I am not assuming that evolution is an intentional force.
Au contraire, I am asking if the mechanisms of this unintentional natural process are possibly overriden by the humanity´s ability to manipulate environment at a speed that this natural process can´t keep up with.

I don´t think that your analogies are really good ones, sorry. Gravity, for example, is a physical force, and - most importantly - a constant one. The theory of gravity doesn´t describe processes or mechanisms. Whereas evolution theory (if I am not entirely mistaken) is all about processes/change ("evolution") and its mechanisms. If an acorn lies on the ground, this is perfectly explained as a consequence of gravity.

But, for clarification, let´s start somewhere else:

A biologist studies the evolutionary changes in a certain environment for years or decades. He can explain what he observes perfectly in terms of evolution. Now, at some point, a natural disaster occurs which causes immediate dramatic changes in this environment (like, some species are completely eradicated, others lose all their food competitors, etc.etc. You get the idea). Wouldn´t this biologist say something to the effect of "All evolutionary processes in this environment have suddenly been interrupted due to a sudden (non-evolutionary) change"? (This, of course, doesn´t mean that evolution has come to an end or something.)

Now, let´s hypothetically assume there occured natural distasters of various kinds in this place every month or so. Wouldn´t biologists be justified in saying that evolutionary processes there are rendered "toothless" due to the fact that extra-evolutionary forces don´t leave them the required time to take place? [Again, this is not to say that evolution has come to an end or something. The force is still present, it just can´t work effectively (and by "working effectively" I don´t mean "working towards a particular assumed result"): An environment that changes dramatically in short order doesn´t allow for species to effectively adapt to these changes (and, if I am not entirely mistaken, this process of adaption is what evolution theory is all about).

What strikes me as remarkable and a first, however, is that human intentionality coupled with the powers to manipulate environments as dramatically as natural disasters do is not an extra-evolutionary force, but itself the result of evolution.

 

[Jade Margery]

My question is: Do you - behind all those distracting, naive or overdramatizing wordings - see the point I am actually making (or better: the question I am actually asking)?

Let´s for example replace "Is evolution eating itself?" by "Do we have to update our concepts of evolution?" or "With humans having evolved in the way they did - has evolution (formerly conceptualized as the dominant force behind the development of species) lost this rank to the intentional manipulations of nature performed by one single species?"

No.

Even if scrutinizing my thoughts on the matter critically, I can´t detect this naive anthropomorphic assumptions that you see in them. I am not assuming that evolution is an intentional force.

Your phrasing highly suggested that you did.

Au contraire, I am asking if the mechanisms of this unintentional natural process are possibly overriden by the humanity´s ability to manipulate environment at a speed that this natural process can´t keep up with.

Then the answer is no.

A biologist studies the evolutionary changes in a certain environment for years or decades. He can explain what he observes perfectly in terms of evolution. Now, at some point, a natural disaster occurs which causes immediate dramatic changes in this environment (like, some species are completely eradicated, others lose all their food competitors, etc.etc. You get the idea). Wouldn´t this biologist say something to the effect of "All evolutionary processes in this environment have suddenly been interrupted due to a sudden (non-evolutionary) change"? (This, of course, doesn´t mean that evolution has come to an end or something.)

No, the biologist would not say that at all. Dramatic environmental changes affect the evolution of species, but do not interrupt it. Even if the species were to go extinct due to an inability to adapt to the new situation, that does not mean evolution is 'interrupted', whatever that is supposed to mean. The vast majority of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Now, let´s hypothetically assume there occured natural distasters of various kinds in this place every month or so. Wouldn´t biologists be justified in saying that evolutionary processes there are rendered "toothless" due to the fact that extra-evolutionary forces don´t leave them the required time to take place?

No. So long as any kind of species is reproducing, evolution is taking place. Perhaps creatures with very short generations and thus 'quick' adaptability would do best in those circumstances, as would creatures that survive well under harsh conditions or have features versatile enough to deal with different environments.

If creatures evolve to suit niches in their environment, and that environment includes regular natural disasters, then the species will evolve to deal with natural disasters. In fact we already see this all over the world in places where flooding and droughts come regularly and many animals not only survive but actually take advantage of the harsh conditions. For example:

Evolving in the Presence of Fire : Feature Articles

"Although most people regard fire as a destructive force that should be fought and quickly extinguished, the fact is the boreal forest evolved in the presence of fire and adapted to it. Forrest Hall says it’s not a question of if a given region of the boreal forest will burn, it’s a question of when. Hall, a physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, explains that wildfire is an integral part of the boreal ecosystem. Indeed, the high northern latitude forests would be quite different were it not for frequent fires (Hall 1999)."

[Again, this is not to say that evolution has come to an end or something. The force is still present, it just can´t work effectively (and by "working effectively" I don´t mean "working towards a particular assumed result"):

You know, you are quick to say what you don't mean, but you haven't given a very good explanation of what you do mean when use phrases like 'working effectively' or 'interrupted'.

An environment that changes dramatically in short order doesn´t allow for species to effectively adapt to these changes (and, if I am not entirely mistaken, this process of adaption is what evolution theory is all about).

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by effectively here. Will some species go extinct when an environment dramatically changes? Of course. Those that do not will adapt. This doesn't make evolution less effective, in fact it often makes the effects of minor changes on alleles more pronounced because they are taking place in smaller populations and will have a greater effect on survival under extreme or unusual conditions. It could even cause very rapid speciation.

What strikes me as remarkable and a first, however, is that human intentionality coupled with the powers to manipulate environments as dramatically as natural disasters do is not an extra-evolutionary force, but itself the result of evolution.

Sure, but so what? A horde of locusts devouring every piece of green plant life in an area is also the result of evolution and has a profound and sudden effect on the lives of all the other creatures in the area. Many other animals have dramatic effects on their environments, and I don't see why intentionality makes a big difference here.

 

[quatona]

No.

Your phrasing highly suggested that you did.

That´s why I rephrased and tried to explain further.

Then the answer is no. [7quote]
Ok, then.

No, the biologist would not say that at all. Dramatic environmental changes affect the evolution of species, but do not interrupt it. Even if the species were to go extinct due to an inability to adapt to the new situation, that does not mean evolution is 'interrupted', whatever that is supposed to mean. The vast majority of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

What I am trying to explain is the difference between being unable to adapt to a change and having no chance to even begin to adapt, in the first place - due to the fact that change is not a process but an immediate, abrupt change.

No. So long as any kind of species is reproducing, evolution is taking place.

Undisputed.

If creatures evolve to suit niches in their environment, and that environment includes regular natural disasters, then the species will evolve to deal with natural disasters.

I can see how (given the species has survived the first disaster) this is possible with further disasters of the same kind. I was, however, hypothezing disasters of very different kinds in short order.

In fact we already see this all over the world in places where flooding and droughts come regularly and many animals not only survive but actually take advantage of the harsh conditions. For example:

Evolving in the Presence of Fire : Feature Articles

"Although most people regard fire as a destructive force that should be fought and quickly extinguished, the fact is the boreal forest evolved in the presence of fire and adapted to it. Forrest Hall says it’s not a question of if a given region of the boreal forest will burn, it’s a question of when. Hall, a physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, explains that wildfire is an integral part of the boreal ecosystem. Indeed, the high northern latitude forests would be quite different were it not for frequent fires (Hall 1999)."

Undisputed. Particularly the last part ("they would be quite different were it not for...") is trivially true.

You know, you are quick to say what you don't mean, but you haven't given a very good explanation of what you do mean when use phrases like 'working effectively' or 'interrupted'.

Well, apart from the statement where I tried to show that I don´t disagree with you (i.e. in that evolution still takes place), I have been doing my best to try out various ways to explain what my point actually is.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by effectively here. Will some species go extinct when an environment dramatically changes? Of course. Those that do not will adapt. This doesn't make evolution less effective, in fact it often makes the effects of minor changes on alleles more pronounced because they are taking place in smaller populations and will have a greater effect on survival under extreme or unusual conditions. It could even cause very rapid speciation.

Well, I am not saying that evolution stops when a species goes extinct (I am not even saying that evolution stops at all). Sorry for again emphasizing what I am not saying - I feel it needs to be said because we needn´t controversially discuss what we agree upon.
Maybe my mistake is that I understand evolution to describe a continuous process. The fact that due to immediate, sudden changes a lot of evolutionary processes are "interrupted" (because all previous adaptive processes of the species suddenly have been "in vain" - they were adaptive reactions to that which now is suddenly not the situation anymore) seems to make a difference to several species continuously adapting in reaction to adaptive "efforts" of the other species.

Sure, but so what? A horde of locusts devouring every piece of green plant life in an area is also the result of evolution and has a profound and sudden effect on the lives of all the other creatures in the area. Many other animals have dramatic effects on their environments, and I don't see why intentionality makes a big difference here.

I carefully worded it as 'sudden dramatic changes (as they are rarely occuring in nature - like a nuclear strike or a thorough chemical contamination) coupled with intentionality". Of course, whether the sudden change is unintentional or intentional doesn´t make a difference to the evolutionary processes in the species affected. Intentionality, however, may make a difference in that the changes are not recurring incidents of the same kind (like repeated flooding), but dramatic sudden changes of different kinds in short order.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The point that people completely miss is that we have not even come close to stopping evolution.

Have we potentially altered it's course? Absolutely. With numerous medicines and therapies, people are living today that would not have in the past.

That doesn't mean we've stopped evolving though, with every new generation we're still going to experience the exact same levels of genetic drift or mutation that our caveman ancestors did. We're still subject to natural selection, although the selection pressures have also changed over the last few centuries.

As long as natural childbirth happens (i.e. we don't start genetically engineering every newborn baby), we are going to continue to evolve as a species forever.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It sounds to me like there is confusion about what is being suggested.

And it sounds to me like what is being suggested is: evolution by natural and cultural selection has resulted in an organism, contemporary homo sapiens, that can make itself immune to selective forces. Normally a change in the environment such as an increase in UV radiation would result in people who are biologically resistant to skin cancer (natural selection) and people who work indoors (cultural selection) having reproductive success at a greater rate than others. Therefore, there is evolutionary change. However, with modern medicine and other cultural adaptations derived from previous selective processes humans can make themselves immune to that environmental change and any selection that comes with it. Therefore, we have "evolution eating itself".

I do not know the answer to the question. But I think that I have cleared up exactly what is being asked/suggested.

 

[Ripheus27]

The theory of evolution is, ultimately, a theory (in some fairly clear cases, even, a proven judgment) about how life has ended up where it is now, not what it must always be forever in the future.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The theory of evolution is, ultimately, a theory (in some fairly clear cases, even, a proven judgment) about how life has ended up where it is now, not what it must always be forever in the future.

You are aware a Scientific Theory is not a colloquial Theory, right? It's not a "idea that someone has".

A Scientific Theory takes an observed fact (in this case evolution) and provides a description on how that observed fact works. It must make testable predictions about that fact, and pass every attempt to falsify it. Until it goes through that falsification, it's known as a hypothesis... which is basically just an idea on how it might work. Once it graduates to the stage where it can be considered a Theory, there's little very doubt that it's correct. Think of it in terms of Music Theory.... it's not up for debate that certain notes make up a chord, we know they do.... Music Theory is a description of how it works.

Other examples of scientific theories include the Theory of Gravity, or Germ Theory of Disease. They also take observed facts, and describe how they work... The fact that gravity exists, or that disease is caused by germs isn't going to change in the future, and neither will evolution by natural selection.

So in short, the "just a theory" argument is nothing more than a showing of a person's ignorance of science... A theory is the pinnacle point that a hypothesis can hope to attain.