Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[Eternal Mindset]

It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

 

[Sanguine]

No,

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-fact.pdf

 

[Cassandra]

the process of evolution has been repeated inside and outside of the lab. Would you be so kind as you explain (or point out was source/s) made you think it had not?

 

[gluadys]

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

Another important foundation of a theory is correct prediction of things not yet observed, but derived logically from the theory.

If we begin with the hypothesis that evolution is true and derive from it an observation that must be true as a consequence, then we can test to see if that observation really is true.

If we find the observation is not true, then we judge that the hypothesis is not true either, since the observation must be true. The hypothesis must be revised or discarded.

If we find the observation is true, it becomes additional supporting evidence for the theory and may suggest further predictions and more tests.

A hypothesis that has been tested multiple times with none of its predictions shown to be false is generally accepted as a well-supported theory. On this basis evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

 

[Eternal Mindset]

No,

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-fact.pdf

That's nice
Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

the process of evolution has been repeated inside and outside of the lab. Would you be so kind as you explain (or point out was source/s) made you think it had not?

Give me 1 example of a lab where evolution has taken place.

 

[Eternal Mindset]

Another important foundation of a theory is correct prediction of things not yet observed, but derived logically from the theory.

If we begin with the hypothesis that evolution is true and derive from it an observation that must be true as a consequence, then we can test to see if that observation really is true.

If we find the observation is not true, then we judge that the hypothesis is not true either, since the observation must be true. The hypothesis must be revised or discarded.

If we find the observation is true, it becomes additional supporting evidence for the theory and may suggest further predictions and more tests.

A hypothesis that has been tested multiple times with none of its predictions shown to be false is generally accepted as a well-supported theory. On this basis evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

According to this, evolution is one of the best supported hypothesis; unless you take into account the observations that work against it instead of for it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

That's nice
Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

Give me 1 example of a lab where evolution has taken place.

How about the mice of Madiera, my favorite example. Portuguese mice stranded on the islands by Medieval sailors have since spawned up to six daughter species with a chromosomal variance of both count and type, such as would not permit them to interbreed with their European cousins anymore.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Speciation has been directly observed, both in the lab, and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, numerous times. And all the elements of population mechanics have not only been tested and repeated, but many of them have been implimented in practical application in agriculture, livestock, virology, and bioengineering, each billion-dollar industries. I would say that counts as repeating the predicted conclusion, wouldn't you?

 

[gluadys]

That's nice
Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

Give me 1 example of a lab where evolution has taken place.

No, it does not have to be repeated in a lab. It can be observed in nature. Can you imagine trying to verify a prediction in astronomy in a lab?

Nevertheless evolution has been observed in a lab as well as observed many times in nature.

My favorite example is the evolution of carnivorous flies from fruit flies.

On the contrary, the Observed Speciation thread has lots of those. I like this one: 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. because

1. The "fruit" flies on the bread or meat diets now only eat those foods, so instead of "fruit" flies we now have 'bread' and 'meat' flies.
2. The genetic difference between the new species of flies and the old is 3% of expressed genes. When we look at comparable genes between chimps and humans, it is less than 2%. So these new kinds of flies are farther apart genetically than the kinds chimps and humans!

http://www.christianforums.com/t722770&page=5 post #45

 

[Eternal Mindset]

Well, I'm glad so many of you have come out with examples trying to disprove my statement.

As much as I would love to refute your posts, it is 11:30 here, I have homework to do, and my parents want me to go bed

To quote one of the greatest diplomats of our time...

I'll be back.

 

[gluadys]

According to this, evolution is one of the best supported hypothesis; unless you take into account the observations that work against it instead of for it.

Well, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. We haven't found observations that work against it yet.

 

[Dal M.]

In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

I think you misunderstand. While the tests need to produce repeatable results, the event under investigation does not have to be reproduced in a lab.

That's why forensic scientists don't have to reanimate and re-kill a corpse in order to discover the murderer's identity; they just need the tests to reliably finger a suspect.

 

[Physics_guy]

Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

What does a lab have to do with anything? Very few scientific theories can be tested in a laboratory (try doing stellar mechanics in a lab some time). They can, however, be tested.

Do you care to learn about how theories are tested by real scientists, or are you only interested in continuing your poorly informed (can't blame you at only 15) ranting?

 

[ForeRunner]

Give me 1 example of a lab where evolution has taken place.

Here's 50, a few were in a lab.

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

[Jet Black]

It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

no, it is a theory. the scientific definition of a theory is an explanation for a body of knowledge, and that is exactly what Evolution is.

 

[Jet Black]

That's nice
Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

why does it have to be repeated in a lab? what are the special features of a lab that make it any different from the rest of the world? If I have a hypothesis that increased snowfall in volcanic regions leads to an increase in the number of eruptions, do I have to repeat this in a lab too before it becomes a theory , or is it enough for me to wander round the countryside poking my head into volcanoes? how about an hypothesis that increasing the numbers of airports leads to increased viral infection rates, how do I do that in a lab? How about the curvature of the path of light as a result of massive bodies, should I do that in a lab too? (how would I get a stellar mass into my lab by the way?)

you see, the thing about science is that it has predictive power. It doesn't matter where those predictions are shown to be true (or false for that matter)

 

[Novaknight1]

Yes, it's a hypothosis.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, it's a hypothosis.

No, it is not. And that would be 'hypothesis.

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

Okay it doesnt matter.. Hypothesis or Theory... Theory is just an idea that they THINK might be true, but never has been PROVEN!! I mean Why are there still MONKEYS AND APES if we evolved from them??? and dont give me that different species bull, so what they evolved from what? a chunk of bacteria?? Bacteria is still around.. if we evolved from that there would be any more of it.. it just doesnt add up.. Even if that was true, which its not... What are you living for? absolutely nothing.. thats what..Wow look at me I'd rather be a cousin to a monkey than be created by something so much more powerful that are little human minds cant even begin to comprehend.. Yeah also, since we evolved,, there is no heaven or hell or limbo, when we die, thats it.. wow dude that sucks if u think that.. I mean your choices are:

- Created By an awsome god, who has prepared a place for our afterlife that is so awsome that it is out of our comprehension

or

- My great grandpa was an ape, and there is nothing after this life..

Soo Even if evolution was true (which it is not) you wouldnt even have the satisfaction of saying I told YOU SO!! because there is nothing to live for!! No Awsome eternal life, not anything to look forward too, nothing to believe in or to inspire you.. I mean then human race hasnt changed much in the past 2000 years, and we havent been around that long... seriously, just THINK about it, evolution doesnt add up.. and if your one of those people that think we were put here by aliens... id rather come from an ape.. cmon now..

All those plants changing and mice changing, is called a animal or plant ADAPTING to its surrounding! Evolution is something completely different.. Maybe if those mice lost all their hair, and walked on two legs, u might have something..

Cats dont have Dogs
Dogs Dont HAVE Cats
Birds dont have snakes
Lions dont have fish

Every animal was created exactly they way God intended.. There is no mixture of animals.. like we dont see a natural animal that is half dog half cat unless it is some freaky human expierement...

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.. Thats not what i set out to do, Please this is a very hot subject and is fun to debate about..

By the way, all this debating and division and people splitting up into different religions and pagan beliefs was said that is was going to happen in the bible, so by arguing this, we are actually proving the bible..

"All Men will hate you because of me"

 

[Avaya]

How about the mice of Madiera, my favorite example.

And your only example, right?

[/quote]Portuguese mice stranded on the islands by Medieval sailors have since spawned up to six daughter species with a chromosomal variance of both count and type, such as would not permit them to interbreed with their European cousins anymore. [/QUOTE]

But . . . . . . . . they ARE still mice. Right?

Isn't that really just 'adaptation' instead of 'evolution'?

 

[gladiatrix]

It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

No, evolution is not simply a hypothesis. It is an explanation of what has happened to life AFTER life arose from pre-biotic conditions on Earth. This explanation has nearly a couple of centuries worth of evidence to support it. Evolution is not concerned with how or when life arose on Earth in the first place, this is covered under another topic, abiogenesis.

From the Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1998, p. 5

Ideas are not referred to as 'theories' in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence

Seems to me that you don't have a clear understanding of what is meant by some scientific terms and practice so here's a thumbnail explanation...

First, a theory in science is NOT a guess or a hunch,the colloquial definition.

FROM FAQs About Evolution and the Nature of Science:

"Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena.

For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe WHAT will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain WHY these events occur."

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence.

Rather, theories are the goal of science.To keep it simple here, think of a theory in science as the equivalent of a goal metal in a sporting event.


The attempt to equate a scientific theory with the colloquial definition is a common creationist/IDist propaganda ploy used against evolution/abiogenesis. Steven J Gould comments on this kind of DECEIT.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

And from Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

[A] theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. ...Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.

Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab..

Not all of science is done by "men in white coats" in gleaming laboratories, herding lab rats (you really do need to pay less attention to the Frankensteinian/creationist/ Hollywood "version" of what a scientist is and does).

Your basic mistake here is to believe that all scientific propostions are studied/verified using just one particular scenario/method, e. g., "the men in white coats". Here is a short explanation of what experimentation means in science, noting that the methods of experimentation differ, depending on the discipline. Here is an excerpt:

FROM:What is the Scientific Method-Its Different Forms
A confusing aspect of science is that not all fields of science arrive at conclusions in the same way.

• 1. The physical sciences, like physics and chemistry, use experimental forms of the "scientific method. "The physical sciences do experiments to gather numerical data from which relationships are derived, and conclusions are made.
• 2. The more descriptive sciences, like zoology and anthropology, may use a form of the method that involves gathering of information by visual observation or interviewing.

What is common among all sciences, however, is:

• 1. the making of hypothesis to explain observations, the gathering of data
• 2. based on this data, the drawing of conclusions that confirm or deny the original hypothesis.

The difference is in what is considered data, and how data is gathered and processed. (Excerpt reformatted for clarity.)

Please feel free to read the rest of this SHORT article.