What makes Evolution a theory?

[River Jordan]

Sorry what is MRSA or VRE.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (antibiotic resistant bacterial infections that are often extremely difficult to beat, and can be fatal).

Oh no these are all scientifically supported. The EES sit has an ongoing research program that is continually updating with new discoveries and testing results.

But what I think it does do is at least change the overall view of evolution from a purely programmed process to one that makes the agent more central. Whether that be in the beneficial choices made and the ability of being able to work with nature. Or the ability of the phenotype of change beneficially to adapt to environments rather than chance or blind NS.

Thats a pretty big fundemental change which puts more of the guidence for evolution already there within the agent rather than in a program dictating the agent. Especially for humans and free will.

Coincidently or not a similar thing is happening in physics where the observer is coming back as a possible effect and influence on reality itself. I know this is unrelated but its interesting how science tried to take the agent and subject out of the equation but reality keeps putting them back in.

Okay, got it. Thanks for explaining!

 

[Hvizsgyak]

This is true. But you're talking about universal common descent, not evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. A fact. Macroevolution is an observed fact. But until we could analyze DNA, we weren't certain that common descent was true. Even Darwin suggested that there might have been any number of originally created organisms. We understand how evolution works. While every new bit of evidence continues to confirm universal common descent of all life on Earth, we will never be absolutely certain. Being 99.9% sure, is not absolute certainty. Likewise, we can't be absolutely certain the sun will continue to shine tomorrow. But we are very, very confident that it will. For the same reason we are very, very confident of common descent.

I'll have to study this further to get a grip on it. Sometimes, I have to resort back to the single-cell state and slowly evolve to the level of thinking you are presenting here .

 

[Hvizsgyak]

All that and you still didn't answer the question I asked. What do you think a scientific theory becomes once it's been proven?

Junk bonds? I don't know. I'll go with fact but what we are talking about hasn't gotten that far yet.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You can believe that if you want, but I promise you there's not a single scientist on the planet who agrees.

Here are a few people who disagree to some extent.

 

[River Jordan]

Junk bonds? I don't know. I'll go with fact but what we are talking about hasn't gotten that far yet.

You don't know because you're wrong. In science a theory is tested, well supported explanation for a wide set of facts.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."

What Do We Mean by “Theory” in Science? - Field Museum

www.fieldmuseum.org

"A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

www.scientificamerican.com

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing."

Here are a few people who disagree to some extent.

No one in those videos said anything like what you said.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here are a few people who disagree to some extent.

Could you present one or more of their arguments and evidence here? The videos blather around, but don't really make much sense to me.

 

[CoreyD]

Theories are never "proven."

I appreciate that being pointed out, and accepted.

Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely test and confirm the predictions of theories to the point that it becomes unreasonable to deny them.

Yes, and LUCA is not a theory, but still an idea, as well as the ideas surrounding it.

No one ever "proved" Newton's theory of gravitation. But it is still used to navigate spacecraft around the solar system.

Many theories were used even though wrong, until they were replaced, when new facts came to light.

The process involves formulating an hypothesis about an observed phenomenon, and then testing that hypothesis repeatedly. After a large number of confirmed predictions, the hypothesis is accepted as a theory.

When these "large number of confirmed predictions" have been accepted by consensus. Yes.

What all of this shows, is that scientist have beliefs which the majority may accept.
This is why they are theories, and to the OP's question, while "evolution" or adaptation is a fact, the theories are not.
Hence evolution is referred to as both a fact, and a theory.

That however, can be grossly misapplied, misinterpreted, or even exaggerated.

 

[The Barbarian]

LUCA is a theory, because the hypothesis made some predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Theories go from being wrong to being less wrong. Newton's theory of gravitation did not include relativistic effects. But the theory is still being used by NASA to navigate the solar system. Most of the time, relativistic effects don't have to be considered.

Evolution is a fact because we can directly observe it happening. There is a theory that explains it. Pretty much like gravity.

 

[CoreyD]

LUCA is a theory, because the hypothesis made some predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Source please.

Theories go from being wrong to being less wrong. Newton's theory of gravitation did not include relativistic effects. But the theory is still being used by NASA to navigate the solar system. Most of the time, relativistic effects don't have to be considered.

Evolution is a fact because we can directly observe it happening. There is a theory that explains it. Pretty much like gravity.

That has already been said.

 

[The Barbarian]

Source please.

nature nature ecology & evolution
12 July 2024

The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system​

The nature of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), its age and its impact on the Earth system have been the subject of vigorous debate across diverse disciplines, often based on disparate data and methods. Age estimates for LUCA are usually based on the fossil record, varying with every reinterpretation. The nature of LUCA’s metabolism has proven equally contentious, with some attributing all core metabolisms to LUCA, whereas others reconstruct a simpler life form dependent on geochemistry. Here we infer that LUCA lived ~4.2 Ga (4.09–4.33 Ga) through divergence time analysis of pre-LUCA gene duplicates, calibrated using microbial fossils and isotope records under a new cross-bracing implementation. Phylogenetic reconciliation suggests that LUCA had a genome of at least 2.5 Mb (2.49–2.99 Mb), encoding around 2,600 proteins, comparable to modern prokaryotes. Our results suggest LUCA was a prokaryote-grade anaerobic acetogen that possessed an early immune system. Although LUCA is sometimes perceived as living in isolation, we infer LUCA to have been part of an established ecological system. The metabolism of LUCA would have provided a niche for other microbial community members and hydrogen recycling by atmospheric photochemistry could have supported a modestly productive early ecosystem.

Which suggests that the last universal common ancestor of all living things today, was not the only living thing when life began. Maybe a lot of different versions, only one of which left descendants.

 

[CoreyD]

nature nature ecology & evolution
12 July 2024

The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system​

The nature of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), its age and its impact on the Earth system have been the subject of vigorous debate across diverse disciplines, often based on disparate data and methods. Age estimates for LUCA are usually based on the fossil record, varying with every reinterpretation. The nature of LUCA’s metabolism has proven equally contentious, with some attributing all core metabolisms to LUCA, whereas others reconstruct a simpler life form dependent on geochemistry. Here we infer that LUCA lived ~4.2 Ga (4.09–4.33 Ga) through divergence time analysis of pre-LUCA gene duplicates, calibrated using microbial fossils and isotope records under a new cross-bracing implementation. Phylogenetic reconciliation suggests that LUCA had a genome of at least 2.5 Mb (2.49–2.99 Mb), encoding around 2,600 proteins, comparable to modern prokaryotes. Our results suggest LUCA was a prokaryote-grade anaerobic acetogen that possessed an early immune system. Although LUCA is sometimes perceived as living in isolation, we infer LUCA to have been part of an established ecological system. The metabolism of LUCA would have provided a niche for other microbial community members and hydrogen recycling by atmospheric photochemistry could have supported a modestly productive early ecosystem.

Which suggests that the last universal common ancestor of all living things today, was not the only living thing when life began. Maybe a lot of different versions, only one of which left descendants.

Thank you.
Where do you find in there that it says LUCA is a theory?

I think a source like this is what you are looking for.
On the basis of a formal statistical test, this theory of a universal common ancestry (UCA) is supported versus competing multiple-ancestry hypotheses. The first universal common ancestor (FUCA) is a hypothetical non-cellular ancestor to LUCA and other now-extinct sister lineages.

The theory of a universal common ancestry of life is widely accepted. In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life,"[69] D. L. Theobald published a "formal test" of universal common ancestry (UCA). This deals with the common descent of all extant terrestrial organisms, each being a genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. His formal test favoured the existence of a universal common ancestry over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. Basic biochemical principles imply that all organisms do have a common ancestry.[70]

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
So, the majority of scientist have accepted the idea of LUCA as a theory.

What scientist believe about the origin of man of earth is not something Christians need to accept, considering that an accepted idea is not a fact, and the truth is not determined by man's beliefs.

Many scientists do not accept this belief. There is good reason why they do not.

Scientists have challenged the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), which posits that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor. One notable challenge came from a study published in Nature, where researchers questioned whether Theobald's statistical test was sufficient to reject the alternative hypothesis of separate origins of life despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection giving a clear distinction between competing hypotheses 1 2

Additionally, Koonin and Wolf critiqued Theobald's model-selection method, arguing that it fails to differentiate between the UCA hypothesis and convergent evolution. They performed a simulation experiment demonstrating that Theobald's method chooses the UCA hypothesis with virtual certainty over data generated by a convergent evolution model. 3

Despite these challenges, Theobald's formal test of UCA remains widely accepted in the scientific community.

So, we now have an established unbiblically supported philosophy promoted as scientifically supported.
They next will establish their Abiogenesis idea.
It's Satan's world, isn't it. 1 John 5:19 What do we expect. A truth serum.

 

[River Jordan]

Scientists have challenged the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), which posits that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor. One notable challenge came from a study published in Nature, where researchers questioned whether Theobald's statistical test was sufficient to reject the alternative hypothesis of separate origins of life despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection giving a clear distinction between competing hypotheses 1 2

Additionally, Koonin and Wolf critiqued Theobald's model-selection method, arguing that it fails to differentiate between the UCA hypothesis and convergent evolution. They performed a simulation experiment demonstrating that Theobald's method chooses the UCA hypothesis with virtual certainty over data generated by a convergent evolution model. 3

Despite these challenges, Theobald's formal test of UCA remains widely accepted in the scientific community.

If I may help out, Koonin and Wolf advocate for an early earth that was populated by more than one population of single-celled organisms that were regularly sharing genetic material (like the horizontal gene transfer we see now) rather than a single population of single-celled organisms.

It's a slight difference, but probably not an important one in the context of this sub-forum.

So, we now have an established unbiblically supported philosophy promoted as scientifically supported.

Scripture teaches that God commanded the earth to bring forth life, and the science is showing that it did. I like that.

They next will establish their Abiogenesis idea.
It's Satan's world, isn't it. 1 John 5:19 What do we expect. A truth serum.

Scientists just go to work and do their jobs every day, basically like everyone else. There's no need to imply that they're up to something nefarious.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thank you.
Where do you find in there that it says LUCA is a theory?

I pointed out that it's a theory because it made predictions that were later verified. Which is what the paper is discussing.

If I may help out, Koonin and Wolf advocate for an early earth that was populated by more than one population of single-celled organisms that were regularly sharing genetic material (like the horizontal gene transfer we see now) rather than a single population of single-celled organisms.

That happens now. Bacterial conjugation involves sharing bits of DNA plasmids. It's how the "nylon bug" mutation rapidly spread among different species of bacteria.

My thought is that all sorts of replicating chemical systems were happening early on, and the key step was enclosure of such systems by spontaneously forming phospholipid membranes. (which self assemble into vesicles)

First step in self/not self, which I think was necessary for life of the kind we see here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scripture teaches that God commanded the earth to bring forth life, and the science is showing that it did. I like that.

Right.

 

[CoreyD]

Right.

While science does harmonize with the scriptures... including the elements making up man, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I read that God the creator, created man from the dust of the earth, and the other creatures as well... and Eve was crated from a rib of Adam. Thus, being out of man.

It doesn't say man evolved from any lower lifeform, but man was fully formed, and complex from the beginning.
Eve was taken from man.
Totally contrary to what "science" says.

So, I am not sure what his comment has to do with anything being discussed in this thread, since the theory of evolution, LUCA, and Abiogenesis do not agree with the Bible, and are unbiblical... which is what I said.

Was his statement not detached from the topic being discussed?

 

[All Becomes New]

Actually, the theory is the whole elephant. The individual data are not individual theories. A scientific theory is an explanation of all the data with one unifying framework.

Not true. There are MANY different fields that study evolution, and they don't all agree with each other. They cannot even define things the same way.

Yes there has, lots in fact.

Please indulge me.

 

[All Becomes New]

 

[trophy33]

Not true. There are MANY different fields that study evolution, and they don't all agree with each other. They cannot even define things the same way.

You just did not understand the point of the post. Studying natural sciences (various areas) brings evidence, parts of reality. The theory of evolution is the unifying system, our try to put it all together - i.e. it is the elephant as a whole, on the picture.

 

[All Becomes New]

You just did not understand the point of the post. Studying natural sciences (various areas) brings evidence, parts of reality. The theory of evolution is the unifying system, our try to put it all together - i.e. it is the elephant as a whole, on the picture.

You sure about that?

"To some scientists, though, the battle between traditionalists and extended synthesists is futile. Not only is it impossible to make sense of modern biology, they say, it is unnecessary... The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. “In my view there is no – can be no – single theory of evolution,” he told me. “There cannot be a single theory of everything. Even physicists do not have a theory of everything.”"

Source:

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

www.theguardian.com

 

[trophy33]

You sure about that?

"To some scientists, though, the battle between traditionalists and extended synthesists is futile. Not only is it impossible to make sense of modern biology, they say, it is unnecessary... The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. “In my view there is no – can be no – single theory of evolution,” he told me. “There cannot be a single theory of everything. Even physicists do not have a theory of everything.”"

Source:

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

www.theguardian.com

Debate is a continuous thing in science. We debate what the framework is (how the elephant really looks like), but the elephant is the theory. The theory is not his leg, for example. It is evidence, not theory.