Is evolution even a theory?

[Psalm 27]

It's definitely a scientific theory, or else they wouldn't be teaching it in biology at the colleges. I'll try to answer the ones I know.

It's an agenda, (and a lie of the devil) so they would.
and Charles lyell started it.

 

[Psalm 27]

All it's saying is that there's no existing data which contradicts the theory. If you think you can provide some data to contradict evolution, go right ahead.

Missing link??

 

[Frank Robert]

After how many tries and collaborations?

You do not appear to know the basics of scientific hypothesis and theories.

See:

Hypothesis, Theories, and Laws ​

Summary​

• A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation.
• A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations.
• A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables.
• An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis.

Hint: amount of support from evidence, not collaborations.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not appear to know the basics of scientific hypothesis and theories.

Frank, didn't you say this:

Collegial? Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution.

I want to know how many tries and how much collaboration goes into consilience.

 

[Frank Robert]

Missing link??

What’s a “Missing Link”?

While some still use the term, experts abhor it because it implies that life is a linear hierarchy.​

​

If you get your evolution info from creationists' site it will lead you:

​

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank, didn't you say this:

I want to know how many tries and how much collaboration goes into consilience.

Collaboration means working together while consilience is agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you get your evolution info from creationists' site it will lead you:

​

​

Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Collaboration means working together ...

Why is this so hard for you to understand? or are you being obtuse on purpose?

Okay ... I'll use your term:

How much working together went into this agreement?

 

[Frank Robert]

Why is this so hard for you to understand? or are you being obtuse on purpose?

Okay ... I'll use your term:

How much working together went into this agreement?

You cut off the important part.

...consilience is agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

There is no need for science and humanities from different fields to work together for them to be in agreement.

 

[AV1611VET]

You cut off the important part.

Interviews are a bear for some, aren't they?

Especially when they've got something to hide.

 

[Frank Robert]

Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?

Not quite falsify but it would put a huge chill on our present understanding of the ToE.

 

[Frank Robert]

Interviews are a bear for some, aren't they?

Especially when they've got something to hide.

You are not making sense. What interviews? Who are the interviews and interviewess? What are the hiding?

 

[Gene2memE]

Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?

A single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.

Repeated observations and testing that run contrary to the predictions of an established theory, combined with a model that provides superior explanatory power, will result in the formation of a new theory that supersedes the old one. This could be something totally new, or something that is a substantially modified version of the existing theory.

The current best Theory of Evolution is known as the modern synthesis. It is formed from the combination of Darwin/Wallace's Evolution by means of Natural Selection, with Mendel's concepts of inheritance. This has since been modified by a number of other discoveries, including work around the various role of genes and molecular biology.

There has been argument in the last decade or so that the modern synthesis needs to be expanded further (the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), to incorporate other modes of inheritance (epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, phenotypic effects, ect, ect) to create a theory more encapsulating of modern understanding.

Mendelian inheritance didn't overturn the ToE. Instead, the existing framework was expanded to incorporate the new evidence and parts of the model (Darwin's concept of pangensis and passing on of acquired characteristics, for instance) was ejected because it didn't provide as good an explanation of observations as the new model did.

 

[AV1611VET]

A single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.

So evolution is a not-yet-falsified falsifiable theory ... right?

 

[That Guy 11200]

So evolution is a not-yet-falsified falsifiable theory ... right?

No. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed fact of nature. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a falsifiable theory to explain how it works.

 

[Estrid]

A single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.

Repeated observations and testing that run contrary to the predictions of an established theory, combined with a model that provides superior explanatory power, will result in the formation of a new theory that supersedes the old one. This could be something totally new, or something that is a substantially modified version of the existing theory.

The current best Theory of Evolution is known as the modern synthesis. It is formed from the combination of Darwin/Wallace's Evolution by means of Natural Selection, with Mendel's concepts of inheritance. This has since been modified by a number of other discoveries, including work around the various role of genes and molecular biology.

There has been argument in the last decade or so that the modern synthesis needs to be expanded further (the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), to incorporate other modes of inheritance (epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, phenotypic effects, ect, ect) to create a theory more encapsulating of modern understanding.

Mendelian inheritance didn't overturn the ToE. Instead, the existing framework was expanded to incorporate the new evidence and parts of the model (Darwin's concept of pangensis and passing on of acquired characteristics, for instance) was ejected because it didn't provide as good an explanation of observations as the new model did.

A single observation cannot disprove a
theory?
How do you figure that?

 

[Ophiolite]

A single observation cannot disprove a
theory?
How do you figure that?

Observations need to validated and preferably repeated multiple times, else they may simply represent error, or misinterpretation, or fraud, or. . . .

 

[Estrid]

Observations need to validated and preferably repeated multiple times, else they may simply represent error, or misinterpretation, or fraud, or. . . .

OK that's what you meant.

I was thinking observation of one
particular phenomenon.

A single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.

Repeated observations and testing that run contrary to the predictions of an established theory, combined with a model that provides superior explanatory power, will result in the formation of a new theory that supersedes the old one. This could be something totally new, or something that is a substantially modified version of the existing theory.

The current best Theory of Evolution is known as the modern synthesis. It is formed from the combination of Darwin/Wallace's Evolution by means of Natural Selection, with Mendel's concepts of inheritance. This has since been modified by a number of other discoveries, including work around the various role of genes and molecular biology.

There has been argument in the last decade or so that the modern synthesis needs to be expanded further (the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), to incorporate other modes of inheritance (epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, phenotypic effects, ect, ect) to create a theory more encapsulating of modern understanding.

Mendelian inheritance didn't overturn the ToE. Instead, the existing framework was expanded to incorporate the new evidence and parts of the model (Darwin's concept of pangensis and passing on of acquired characteristics, for instance) was ejected because it didn't provide as good an explanation of observations as the new model did.

The C. Bunny could have been put there via
time machine.
Or a god that falsifies history.

 

[AV1611VET]

The C. Bunny could have been put there via time machine.
Or a god that falsifies history.

Is there a name for this god?

 

[Gene2memE]

OK that's what you meant.

I was thinking observation of one
particular phenomenon.


The C. Bunny could have been put there via
time machine.
Or a god that falsifies history.

The 'pre-Cambrian Bunny' would wildly revise our understanding of the development of life in the last ~550 million years. The history of complex life would need to be radically re-written from our present understanding.

But, it wouldn't falsify anything to do with the actual underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution. Descent with modification would still be an observed fact, genetic inheritance would still be an observed fact, the facts of molecular biology would remain unchanged, the facts of cell biology would be unchanged.

Given that the Theory of Evolution has multiple facets, it's robust in the way that you could adjust/alter some of those facets and the rest of the framework would largely be intact.

About the only thing that would fundamentally disprove the Theory of Evolution is an observation that organisms don't inherit genetic variations from their parents and are thus static over time and there's no natural selection via differential reproductive success going on.