Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Chesterton]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

 

[BCP1928]

None. Science is an exercise of inductive logic. Evidence can confirm a scientific theory, but it is never "proven" in the sense of deductive logic. Thus it is never accepted as absolute truth, only as provisional truth. Or, in other words, as the best explanation available to date based on the evidence now in hand. Any evidence which turns up in future which does not confirm the theory will require it to be modified or abandoned in favor of a new theory which comprises all the old evidence plus the new evidence. That's why Estrid titled her thread the way she did.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

None. Science is an exercise of inductive logic. Evidence can confirm a scientific theory, but it is never "proven" in the sense of deductive logic. Thus it is never accepted as absolute truth, only as provisional truth. Or, in other words, as the best explanation available to date based on the evidence now in hand. Any evidence which turns up in future which does not confirm the theory will require it to be modified or abandoned in favor of a new theory which comprises all the old evidence plus the new evidence. That's why Estrid titled her thread the way she did.

Wasn't the "gotcha" OP thought it was, lol.

 

[Chesterton]

None. Science is an exercise of inductive logic. Evidence can confirm a scientific theory, but it is never "proven" in the sense of deductive logic. Thus it is never accepted as absolute truth, only as provisional truth. Or, in other words, as the best explanation available to date based on the evidence now in hand. Any evidence which turns up in future which does not confirm the theory will require it to be modified or abandoned in favor of a new theory which comprises all the old evidence plus the new evidence. That's why Estrid titled her thread the way she did.

Thanks for the intellectually honest answer. So some of us here are being asked to disprove something which hasn't been proven. I'm not good at coming up with analogies but it might be like being asked to un-bake a cake which hasn't been baked.

Wasn't the "gotcha" OP thought it was, lol.

You might want to re-think that.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the intellectually honest answer. So some of us here are being asked to disprove something which hasn't been proven. I'm not good at coming up with analogies but it might be like being asked to un-bake a cake which hasn't been baked.

You might want to re-think that.

Have you ever heard of the "black swan" analogy? I've seen swans in various places all my life. Hundreds of them, and they've always been white. I can even write a "theory" that says all swans are white. I will have some degree of confidence (but never certainty) that all swans are white but I can never say my theory is proven. On the other hand, seeing just one black swan will disprove it.

 

[sfs]

None. Science is an exercise of inductive logic. Evidence can confirm a scientific theory, but it is never "proven" in the sense of deductive logic.

I'm not sure why defenders of science so consistently answer in this way. No, science does not prove thing in the sense of deductive logic, but that's not what most people mean when they use the word 'prove'. One proves that someone is guilty in court, for example, or an idea you had proves to be false. In that sense, 'prove' means to support an idea with evidence sufficient to clear some threshold -- 'preponderance of evidence', for example, for civil cases in US courts, or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal cases. Scientific thresholds to accept a claim are usually stricter than either of those, at least in the physical sciences. By those standards, evolution (or more specifically, common descent) has long since been proven by a mountain of facts.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure why defenders of science so consistently answer in this way. No, science does not prove thing in the sense of deductive logic, but that's not what most people mean when they use the word 'prove'. One proves that someone is guilty in court, for example, or an idea you had proves to be false. In that sense, 'prove' means to support an idea with evidence sufficient to clear some threshold -- 'preponderance of evidence', for example, for civil cases in US courts, or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal cases. Scientific thresholds to accept a claim are usually stricter than either of those, at least in the physical sciences. By those standards, evolution (or more specifically, common descent) has long since been proven by a mountain of facts.

I know. But to be scrupulously correct to a person who thinks he has a "gotcha" it is necessary to point out the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Most of the time (as in this case) there is an attempt at a sophistical play on the various meanings of "prove" which has to be nipped in the bud.

 

[Yttrium]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

Theories are used to explain the facts/evidence. You don't come up with a theory and try to find evidence to prove it. You form a theory to fit the known evidence, and adjust or scrap the theory if conflicting evidence turns up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

Unfortunately, the terms in question are variable in application and meaning depending on the specific field of study in which they're being used.

Keep in mind that The Theory of Evolution, for all of its vaunted semantics, is primarily a historically laden concept, one that draws together and brings coherence to various specialized fields of Science. The accompanying vast multitude of facts from those various fields which evidence evolution are often gained through the use of specialized tools and methods. Being that this is the case, the evidences for evolutionary theory are subject to interpretation by those who use those tools and methods, but even though this is the case, additional evidences usually conform to, and fit in with, what has already been found.

So asking for "proof" for The Theory of Evolution isn't quite the same as asking for verification for things we do in everyday life, like when any of us gets pulled over by a police officer and he (or she) asks to see proof of our identity and we simply hand over our driver's license. No, the coherence in the Theory of Evolution comes in its complex explanatory power to tie all of these evidences from various fields together, much of them having to do with conceptual inferences regarding the history of biological states.

 

[Occams Barber]

Have you ever heard of the "black swan" analogy? I've seen swans in various places all my life. Hundreds of them, and they've always been white. I can even write a "theory" that says all swans are white. I will have some degree of confidence (but never certainty) that all swans are white but I can never say my theory is proven. On the other hand, seeing just one black swan will disprove it.

Speaking of 'black' swans...

Black swan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chesterton]

Have you ever heard of the "black swan" analogy? I've seen swans in various places all my life. Hundreds of them, and they've always been white. I can even write a "theory" that says all swans are white. I will have some degree of confidence (but never certainty) that all swans are white but I can never say my theory is proven. On the other hand, seeing just one black swan will disprove it.

Yes I think I first heard of that from C. S. Lewis. Also, there was a time when scientists thought water always boiled at a certain temperature, until someone tried boiling water on a mountain top. So I guess the lesson is we should not jump to conclusions, we should not rush to judgement, even if the rush involves a couple hundred years.

 

[BCP1928]

Speaking of 'black swans...

View attachment 344080

Black swan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Curses! My theory is ruined!

 

[BCP1928]

Yes I think I first heard of that from C. S. Lewis. Also, there was a time when scientists thought water always boiled at a certain temperature, until someone tried boiling water on a mountain top. So I guess the lesson is we should not jump to conclusions, we should not rush to judgement, even if the rush involves a couple hundred years.

The other thing to keep in mind is that once a new theory is, in its turn, falsified, there is no default to the earlier theory. Such was the fate of YECism.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not sure why defenders of science so consistently answer in this way. No, science does not prove thing in the sense of deductive logic, but that's not what most people mean when they use the word 'prove'. One proves that someone is guilty in court, for example, or an idea you had proves to be false. In that sense, 'prove' means to support an idea with evidence sufficient to clear some threshold -- 'preponderance of evidence', for example, for civil cases in US courts, or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal cases. Scientific thresholds to accept a claim are usually stricter than either of those, at least in the physical sciences.

And many innocent people have served lengthy prison sentences.

By those standards, evolution (or more specifically, common descent) has long since been proven by a mountain of facts.

The OP asked for facts. If you've got a mountain full, just give me one.

 

[BCP1928]

And many innocent people have served lengthy prison sentences.

The OP asked for facts. If you've got a mountain full, just give me one.

Observed speciation

 

[Chesterton]

I know. But to be scrupulously correct to a person who thinks he has a "gotcha" it is necessary to point out the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Most of the time (as in this case) there is an attempt at a sophistical play on the various meanings of "prove" which has to be nipped in the bud.

I didn't see you complain about Estrid asking her question, but when I do the same it's sophistry?

 

[Chesterton]

Theories are used to explain the facts/evidence. You don't come up with a theory and try to find evidence to prove it. You form a theory to fit the known evidence, and adjust or scrap the theory if conflicting evidence turns up.

I agree. Theories are attempts at explaining facts. They are not themselves facts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. Theories are attempts at explaining facts. They are not themselves facts.

And a fact is itself not the same as evidence. ... I think what you're really asking for is evidence since "facts" are historical and/or scientific statements about evidence upon interpretation.

 

[Occams Barber]

Curses! My theory is ruined!

You're not alone. Many folk from the Northern hemisphere are surprised to discover that Australian swans are black.

Down here we have 'white swan' events.

OB

 

[Estrid]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

For at least the 10,000th time:

There's no proof in science.