(April 9, 2016 at 10:55 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(April 9, 2016 at 10:40 pm)Goosebump Wrote: So, isn't this good evidence of evolution? Doesn't it take the theory and put it into law? Or is that never possible? Rather, why is evolution still just a theory when we can see it now with super duper microscopes and such?
Respectfully, you have a (common) misconception about the term "theory", as used in science. In the common vernacular, "theory" means a hunch or a guess. In science, it is the highest praise that can be given to an idea which is a successful and well-demonstrated predictive model of how the laws come together to make a particular phenomenon happen. Laws are "just" observations of a single phenomenon which seems to happen the same way, every time... for instance, the Law of Gravity says "mass attracts mass". The Theory of Gravity (which is significantly less-well-understood than the Theory of Evolution, I should add) explains why this might be so.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
So theories and laws aren't the same. There can't be a "law" of evolution even with the observable evidence of evolving bacteria and viruses etc? There could be a law of flu virus always evolving to fucks up our noses. But that wouldn't be the same as a theory? Am I remotely in the ball park of understanding this?
"I'm thick." - Me