Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bad Bird
Sort of.
Yes, theories are used to explain observable facts. They are also used to make testable predictons. A hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence is known as a fact. A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futyuma
In science we can't ever call a theory a fact, that just isn't the way it works. And only in Maths can we really have "proofs". You just have your terminology a little bit off. I can easily use the case of evolution to explain the terminology nuances.
We have the fact of evolution - fossil record, experiments done on mice and bacteria in many experiments, the case of the Galápagos finches, fruit flies etc.
We also have the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is a series of interconnected statements that are the best possible means of explaining how the facts of evolution occur. This theory makes accurate predictions and is capable of explaining all of the facts of evolution. This does not make it proven, it only says that it is the best current means we have of explaining the facts.
Finally, we have Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis, all examples of hypotheses made to explain the facts of evolution. These hypotheses were discarded because they made incorrect predictions and did not explain the facts of evolution to a high enough degree.
|
Agreed.
Except on the bacteria, as this is micro-evolution (bacteria mutates and changes, but always remains bacteria) not macro evolution (where an organsim evolves to a new creature/species).
The galapagos finches (are you referring to Darwins finches??) is more a matter of variation within a species, e.g lengths of birds beaks than evolution.
Not sure on the fruit flies? Are you referring to how scientists do genetic experiements on the fruit flies because of the short time each generation takes?