Evolution question

[taylor93112]

I understand this question has probably been on here a million times, but anyway.

Why is evolution not accepted as a fact? When people say "it's just a theory", I don't really understand how, considering all the evidence.

[Minimalist]

Because, being idiots, they do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a "wild guess."

[Darkstar]

I understand this question has probably been on here a million times, but anyway.

Why is evolution not accepted as a fact? When people say "it's just a theory", I don't really understand how, considering all the evidence.

A scintific theory is basically a fact, it is the highest standard of evidence science can have aside from a law, but laws only apply to mathematics.
It should also be noted that god is merely a hypothesis, and it fails at even that due to unfalsifiability.

[taylor93112]

Yeah that makes sense. Because from my understanding, it's impossible for it to be a law.

[Darkstar]

Yeah that makes sense. Because from my understanding, it's impossible for it to be a law.

That would be correct. There are laws of physics, such as

Newton's first law
The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object's speed and the direction of its motion; therefore, the statement that the object's velocity is constant is a statement that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant.

The first law can be stated mathematically as

Evolution can't be stated mathematically, so it isn't a law. Even so, there are theories about laws too, such as the universal law of gravitation vs. the theory of gravity.

[taylor93112]

So what is the next step up from a theory? (Sorry I'm not too "science educated" lol)

[downbeatplumb]

Not my words but I think what you need.

In science, the order of importance is almost reversed: Theory > Law > Hypothesis > Facts. In addition, each term has a specific, well-defined use.

“Fact” in Science: It may surprise you to know that a “fact” is generally used the same way – it is an observation – but it is very specific. For example, if I drop a ball while holding it in the air above a surface, it is a fact that it will fall to the surface. This term is usually not used, however — we resort to “observations.” For example, I observe that when the wind blows, a flag will flutter.

“Hypothesis” in Science: This is an “idea” that is formulated to explain observations (or our “facts”). In the above to examples, I might hypothesize that there is a force that pulls on the ball, counteracted when I’m holding it. Or that the wind exerts a force on the flag that causes it to flutter. The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains “just a hypothesis.” At present, String “Theory” is really just a hypothesis.

“Law” in Science: Laws are a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. For example, Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion are (1) Planets travel in ellipses with one focus being the Sun, (2) planets sweep out equal area in equal time, and (3) a planet’s period-squared is proportional to its semi-major-axis-cubed. Laws are generally made from many facts/observations and are effectively an “elevated” level from a hypothesis. Another example are the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because a Law is just a description of how something behaves and it does not explain why it behaves that way, it is usually considered to be below the level of a theory.

“Theory” in Science: A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a “theory” has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

I should note that theories are usually conglomerations of several different hypotheses, laws, facts, inferences, and observations. For example, while the Theory of Evolution is a theory, various mechanisms for it are generally still hypotheses, such as Natural Selection (though some may quibble with me over that).

Another good example of a Theory is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This describes how fundamental particles and forces interact. It is based upon countless experiments and observations and it rests on solid mathematical framework. It has many different laws in its make-up (such as how particles behave, or how forces interact) as well as many observations (such as the mass of the proton, or the energy of a tau neutrino).

A third example was partially mentioned above – Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. Tycho Brahe and Johannas Kepler made many detailed observations of planetary positions over the course of many years. Kepler formed a hypothesis about how planets moved based upon the data. From the hypothesis, he made predictions on where planets would be later on. When these were confirmed, his hypotheses were elevated to laws. Later, Isaac Newton came along and with his Theory of Gravity was able to provide a physics-based framework for why and how those laws worked.

Finally, it should also be noted that nothing in science is “forever.” It is always subject to further tests and observations. In many cases, people really do try to do this since that’s how you make a name for yourself. If you’re the scientist who has verified for the 123,194th time that a ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum, so what? But, if you’re the scientist that has found evidence that gravity itself is not a force emitted by an object but rather a bending of the fabric of space itself, then, well, you’d be Einstein – a household name.

(I make this note because a common argument you’ll see from creationists is that they say materialists always want to uphold the status quo.)

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/12...y-and-law/

google is your friend.

[Darkstar]

So what is the next step up from a theory? (Sorry I'm not too "science educated" lol)

I don't think there really is one. Laws are for mathematically provable things only. You have a hypothesis, which is rigorously tested by multiple sources, evidence is gathered, etc. until it becomes a theory. Some theories are not as strong as others, but evolution is one of the strongest (the strongest for what it is explaining, maybe the theory of gravity is stronger overall)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

[Minimalist]

“Theory” in Science: A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a “theory” has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

Of course, Taylor, your problem is that some idiot who can ask "if man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" is not going to be able to comprehend the explanation given above.

No, they prefer simple fairy tales like "god played in the dirt and here I am."

Smart people have scientific theories. Idiots really do need the bible as they can't grasp anything more complex.

[Cyberman]

So what is the next step up from a theory? (Sorry I'm not too "science educated" lol)

There isn't one. It's a common misconception that there's a hierarchy in science, from a hypothesis to a theory and on to a law. In science, a theory is the highest achievement possible.

']

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Theories are made up of facts and laws, which are essentially the Lego blocks of science; thus no amount of testing or experimenting can ever turn a theory into a law.