What makes Evolution a theory?

[tonychanyt]

Unlike Newton's three laws of motion, the Theory of Evolution is not a hard physical theory. Still, it is not as soft as the one in everyday language, where "theory" often means a guess, hypothesis, or something uncertain. Evolution is a scientific theory rigorously supported by mathematics, probabilities, and statistics.
The Theory of Evolution is a comprehensive framework explaining:

1. the diversity of life on Earth
2. the similarities and differences among species
3. the mechanisms behind adaptation and speciation, like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow
4. the origin of complex structures through gradual processes.

In the subarea of population genetics, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium provides a baseline—a null model. An equation shows that allele and genotype frequencies remain constant in a population unless acted upon by evolutionary forces. For two alleles, their frequencies p+q=1. The genotype frequencies in the next generation are:
p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1. This equation is testable and falsifiable.
The Theory of Evolution is scientific because an immense body of empirical evidence supports it. It explains fossil records, makes predictions, and is falsifiable. Like any scientific theory, it is subject to revision when new data conflicts with the existing explanations.

What is science?

A science must be supported by mathematics, probability, or statistics. Any science must involve measurement by numbers. It makes predictions by calculations using these observable numbers. Social science and political science are fine. Christian Science and Creationism are not science by this definition.

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from Bibliology & Hermeneutics to Creation & Theistic Evolution. ​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[timf]

What is called science today started as people began to measure and record the natural world around them. This was taken as truth because it was simply a representation of the creation made by he who is truth.

This was used as a foundation to impart a sense of truth to that which was only conjecture. I would say that when one enters the realm of speculation and theories, one has left the realm of true science. If one reduces evolution to its basics, that nothing existed and then it blew up and became everything and then organized itself to become us, it sounds stupid.

Darwin had two theories. One was that we lost genetic information when species went extinct. The other was that new species appeared to replace them. There has been no observation of any new species. There can be genetic variability in expression of what already has been created.

There has been so much effort to try to "prove" evolution because it is so important to Satan's efforts to manipulate society. He needed to find some way to counter the idea of God and creation so that people would be more inclined to see themselves as the leading edge of evolution and in the blindness of pride be more vulnerable to his other deceptions.

 

[tonychanyt]

I would say that when one enters the realm of speculation and theories

Define theory

 

[timf]

Each man has a theory of what an elephant looks like. Each makes his speculation on the evidence he finds.

 

[trophy33]

Each man has a theory of what an elephant looks like. Each makes his speculation on the evidence he finds.



View attachment 363149

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.

 

[tonychanyt]

Each man has a theory of what an elephant looks like.

That usage of 'theory' is not the same as in the 'theory' of Evolution. This OP is about scientific theories.

 

[River Jordan]

If one reduces evolution to its basics, that nothing existed and then it blew up and became everything and then organized itself to become us, it sounds stupid.

That's not evolution (it's cosmology).

Darwin had two theories. One was that we lost genetic information when species went extinct.

That's not accurate either. Darwin didn't say anything about "genetic information".

The other was that new species appeared to replace them. There has been no observation of any new species.

Yes there has, lots in fact.

There has been so much effort to try to "prove" evolution because it is so important to Satan's efforts to manipulate society. He needed to find some way to counter the idea of God and creation so that people would be more inclined to see themselves as the leading edge of evolution and in the blindness of pride be more vulnerable to his other deceptions.

That doesn't make any sense, given how we see populations evolving all the time.

 

[timf]

This OP is about scientific theories.

I apologize. I didn't understand that you equated the word "theory" with "truth". I do not consider adding the word "scientific" to the word theory removes it from speculation and transfers it to "truth". The addition of "scientific" to phrenology in the 1930s did not make it truth either.

 

[River Jordan]

This OP is about scientific theories.

I apologize. I didn't understand that you equated the word "theory" with "truth".

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.​

I do not consider adding the word "scientific" to the word theory removes it from speculation and transfers it to "truth". The addition of "scientific" to phrenology in the 1930s did not make it truth either.

FYI, in science theories aren't ever upgraded to something better. As Gould once put it, theories don't become facts, theories explain facts.

That populations evolve is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens. It's no different than the germ theory of disease (that germs cause disease is a fact, the theory explains how they do).

 

[tonychanyt]

I didn't understand that you equated the word "theory" with "truth".

Can you quote my words where I have made the above claim? You have overgeneralized. I prefer to debate with people who don't.

 

[timf]

I assumed that your rejection of "theory" in favor of "scientific theory" was the application of the math/logic of axioms, postulates, propositions, theorems, proofs.

This appropriation of a simple logic system and application to guess work to "prove" something as true has been used poorly by self-proclaimed scientists for quite some time. While I might "overgeneralize" they same could be said for those who declare evolution as "scientific" and therefore true.

 

[tonychanyt]

I assumed that your rejection of "theory" in favor of "scientific theory"

Can you quote my words where I say that? Please read my writings carefully.

 

[timf]

That usage of 'theory' is not the same as in the 'theory' of Evolution. This OP is about scientific theories.

Here the contrast between "theory" and "scientific theory" I took you to mean "theory" = speculation and "scientific theory" = fact

If this is not what you meant, why did you differentiate the terms?

 

[River Jordan]

This appropriation of a simple logic system and application to guess work to "prove" something as true has been used poorly by self-proclaimed scientists for quite some time. While I might "overgeneralize" they same could be said for those who declare evolution as "scientific" and therefore true.

To repeat, evolution is true because it's something we see take place.

 

[DamianWarS]

Define theory

science defines science, this is not subjective in any sense or a matter of discussion. we can just look up the definition and that's what it is

"In science, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, and is not a mere guess or hypothesis"

God cannot meet the criteria of a scientific theory because God preexists the physical world where science operates. The theory of God at best can only be reduced to preexisting natural laws. This is a framework where God may exist but God himself is unprovable in the realm of science.

 

[DamianWarS]

the mechanisms behind adaptation and speciation, like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow

The mechanisms or broadly any scientific theory will only point to that which can be physically observed or building off or other scientific proofs. It will never include God as a part of the mechanism because God is not his creation thus exists outside of the sight of science. its like shaking a snow globe and only explaining what's going on in the snow globe but never be able to explained it was shook from the outside.

God is certainly a part of the mechanism, where things like genetic drift and mutation can have rational causes over mere randomness with an outside influencer and a net effect is that it adds purpose. but because that outsider cannot be explained it's discounted as a legitimate source. We just end up feeling the walls of the snow globe from the inside and never being able to go beyond.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Evolution is a theory and will always be a theory in the age of satan. As it is based on sinful mans observations and not the truth of God.

Satan may even use this theory as time moves on, in the up and coming tribulation. To draw people away from God, to the worship of satan himself.

 

[DamianWarS]

-

​

Evolution is a theory and will always be a theory in the age of satan. As it is based on sinful mans observations and not the truth of God.

Satan may even use this theory as time moves on, in the up and coming tribulation. To draw people away from God, to the worship of satan himself.

it's based on specific observable criteria. it's neither evil nor good, it's simply a conclusion made from a collected mass of observable data, then repeated, tested and challenged until it establishes enough merit to stand on its own. if incorrect it needs to be challenged under the same system of rules. motivations of those who champion these scientific theories (or challenge them) may differ and have moral implications but the scientific theory itself is neutral in these matters. it only can say what the evidence asserts and nothing more/less, sure the data could be manipulated to say different things, which then would need to be challenged but still within the vacuum of science.

Science does not say "there is no God" it more says "we cannot measure God as a repeatable observable criterion". sure we can obverse the unknown or the unexplained but science would not label that as God but rather something yet to be known. In a theistic space, we can approach scientific understanding as innately blinded to God so God is neither false or true, but unknowable.

This is different than an atheistic satirical response with the giant spaghetti monster or GSM. if such a thing existed it would be measurable because the GSM is a physical thing so conclusions on the GSM would be decipherable using a scientific approach. Even without direct observation since the concept of the GSM exists in the physical world it is subjected to the rules within a predictable system that we can make claims on using the scientific methods (and the GSM would fail). This is not the case with God as God is out of the boundaries of the sandbox science plays in, science can measure the observable in the natural world but if those things are influenced by something outside that system science has no access to that information so it can only draw conclusions of the things it observes, not on the things it cannot observe.

 

[d taylor]

it's based on specific observable criteria. it's neither evil nor good, it's simply a conclusion made from a collected mass observable data, then repeated, tested and challenged until it establishes enough merit to stand on its own. if incorrect it needs to be challenged under the same system of rules. motivations of those who champion these scientific theories (or challenge them) may differ and have moral implications but the scientific theory itself is neutral in these matters. it only can say what the evidence asserts and nothing more/less, sure the data could be manipulated to say different things, which then would need to be challenged but still within the vacuum of science.

Science does not say "there is no God" it more says "we cannot measure God as a repeatable observable criterion". sure we can obverse the unknown or the unexplained but science would not label that as God but rather something yet to be known. In a theistic space, we can approach scientific understanding as innately blinded to God so God is neither false or true, but unknowable.

This is different than an atheistic satirical response with the giant spaghetti monster or GSM. if such a thing existed it would be measurable because the GSM is a physical thing so conclusions on the GSM would be decipherable using a scientific approach. Even without direct observation since the concept of the GSM exists in the physical world it is subjected to the rules within a predictable system that we can make claims on using the scientific methods (and the GSM would fail). This is not the case with God as God is out of the boundaries of the sandbox science plays in, science can measure the observable in the natural world but if those things are influenced by something outside that system science has no access to that information so it can only draw conclusions of the things it observes, not on the things it cannot observe.

-
​

It is man observing a sin corrupted earth, that is why this world will be destroyed one day. Before Jesus returns to rule a restored earth.

If you want to believe the lies form this earth go ahead.