Why 'just a theory'?

[trophy33]

The Theory of Evolution has not been proven to be true and is useful only as a paper construct to imagine the possible relationship between two objects.

Only if you are not interested in nutrition, biology, health, sociology, psychology and similar things. The theory of evolution is used in many areas. Even in such distant ones like programming or complex problem solving.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But a scientific theory is an explanation of things.

Actually it’s a plausible explanation based on the information we have, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an accurate explanation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually it’s a plausible explanation based on the information we have, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an accurate explanation.

Fair point. But it is still an explanation using the facts we have available.

 

[Hans Blaster]

However the General Theory has proved to be true in that it accurately reflects a reality and is useful.

This gets the origins of GR inverted. There was a pre-existing body of facts Einstein was trying to rectify with the general theory. It also made some interesting predictions which have indeed proved to be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that GR is and always was a theory and that it exists to explain things not explained by other theories (for example Newtonian mechanics). You are trying to create categorical distinction with the theory of evolution that is not there.

The Theory of Evolution has not proved to be true and is useful only as a paper construct to imagine the possible relationship between two objects.
Evolution has not been proven. The evidence is circumstantial and open to many "best guess" interpretations.

Like the General Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution was created to provide an explanation for a body of facts. It also makes predictions that are true. Your attempt to classify either in a different fashion than they actually are does not make it so.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Fair point. But it is still an explanation using the facts we have available.

Not facts, interpreted information. Take the fossil records for example, that’s a theory but it’s not based on facts it’s based on speculation. We have no way of knowing what offspring dead animals produced. All we actually know is that we found remains of different animals with similar characteristics. I can go to any lake or river and find animals with similar characteristics, but they don’t produce species other than their own. A croppie, a bass, and a perch all look very similar, that doesn’t mean they produce each other. People don’t realize how much speculation actually goes into the theory of evolution. You can’t find a bunch of dead animals that look similar then put pictures of them on paper drawing lines connecting them together as an ancestral tree and call it facts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not facts, interpreted information. Take the fossil records for example, that’s a theory but it’s not based on facts it’s based on speculation. We have no way of knowing what offspring dead animals produced. All we actually know is that we found remains of different animals with similar characteristics. I can go to any lake or river and find animals with similar characteristics, but they don’t produce species other than their own. A croppie, a bass, and a perch all look very similar, that doesn’t mean they produce each other. People don’t realize how much speculation actually goes into the theory of evolution.

That's not a claim you can back up at all.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

This Thread
is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Off-Topic

MOD HAT OFF​