Why is it called the theory of evolution?

[RZZZA]

I know there must be something obvious I'm missing, but why do we still refer to evolution as a theory when theres all this heavy evidence to support it? Why is evolution not a law, like newtons laws of gravity?

I'm kind of tired of talking to creationists and having them tell me that evolution is "just a theory". Uhm...no, its a fact. We have several types of proof to support it. So why not change the wording to Darwin's Law of Evolution?

[Senator]

Bring me out the Half man Half ape and I'll call it a Fact!
Senator

[RZZZA]

uh....huh? Go to the museum you can see tons of half man half apes. Theyre called our ancestors, and we owe our existence to their struggles.

[mongoose]

Bring me out the Half man Half ape and I'll call it a Fact!
Senator

You, sir, have been owned.

[Giorgos]

You, sir, have been owned.

do you have any idea how many of these skulls&bones have been proven to be human made after they had been hailed as major findings? Especially the ones found before the modern verification equipment.

[Dr. Dwermer]

do you have any idea how many of these skulls&bones have been proven to be human made after they had been hailed as major findings? Especially the ones found before the modern verification equipment.

Relatively few. There is a rich history of Hominid skulls with multiple sources of radioactive dating to give a clear chronological framework which corroborates predicted evolutionary frameworks.

[carl-the-conqueror]

its not really evolution its survival of the fittest, and because every time someone is made they are slightly different from before it, certain features become more exxagerated.

[Miraj]

It is just a theory. The problem here is not a matter of truth but of definitions. Creationists are under the impression that theory is something that has not fully proven yet. A theory is simply a "big idea" and facts are smaller more tangibly proven things.

A theory is basically a recurring pattern, idea or rule that is drawn from repeatedly observed facts. Theories tend to be much bigger ideas that cannot be seen directly. Like the Atomic theory, which is determined from indirect observations but it is no less true than the Evolutionary theory.

So when a creationist tell you "its just a theory" tell him "YES!!" and recongnize that that whole line of arguments are a matter of semantics not Evolution's legitimacy.

[Senator]

Owned Nothing, That is an Ape Skull and the Museum is only art (mans Conception) Not Fact.
Senator

[mongoose]

Owned Nothing, That is an Ape Skull

A "transitional form" isn't going to look like a half-human half-ape freak.

and the Museum is only art (mans Conception) Not Fact.

Um, no. Museusms are not used exclusivly art. Please go visit one sometime.

Any way, I think you should take your "there are no magical half-ape half-human monsters, therefore evolution is false" thesis to the scientific community. They'll all agree with you and you'll get a noble prize for uncovering the giant global conspiracy that is evolution.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

The word theory is being used incorrectly. What we think of theory is really an hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution has and is being proven.

[RZZZA]

exactly, its just semantics. Very confusing semantics. I think a lot of this confusion can be avoided by changing the word theory to law. Doing so would not make the idea immune from scientific falsification, so I dont see what the hold up is about. Arent we contributing to ignorance by calling it a theory as opposed to a law? Doesnt this help give credence to the people who believe it is just one of many theories, the others (like creationism) being equally as valid?

Owned Nothing, That is an Ape Skull and the Museum is only art (mans Conception) Not Fact.
Senator

right, and carbon dating, geology, archeology, anthropology...are just fun hobbies.

[Miraj]

exactly, its just semantics. Very confusing semantics. I think a lot of this confusion can be avoided by changing the word theory to law. Doing so would not make the idea immune from scientific falsification, so I dont see what the hold up is about. Arent we contributing to ignorance by calling it a theory as opposed to a law? Doesnt this help give credence to the people who believe it is just one of many theories, the others (like creationism) being equally as valid?

No, it will never be called a law. A law is something more related to mathematics and phyics. Laws need to be exact and precise. The law of gravity: g=9.81m/s^2 is almost exact, its precise. Theories are different. They are less precise and always have imperfections and holes. Nearly all thing in biology are like this. Calling it a law would be wholly inaccurate. I'm sure a more biology knowledgable person can explain why its not called a law (i'm just a lowly engineering student). But there are definite and clear reasons why its not called a law.

[Senator]

Theory is correct, only factual to those who believe the evidence, just like religious people believe the evidence of their holy books, through Faith!
Senator

[mongoose]

Right, because unverifed testimony is just as valid as, say, scientific evidence.

[Miraj]

Theory is correct, only factual to those who believe the evidence, just like religious people believe the evidence of their holy books, through Faith!
Senator

Yes exactly. Theory is correct. There are many theories. Theory of Creation, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Reincarnation. The only difference is that theory of Evolution has all the facts supporting it and no facts contradicting it. While the other two theories have nothing supporting it and everyithing contradicting it.

[xman160036]

First, there is not one "Theory of Evolution" There is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, and there are other variants developed by other scientists.

Second, it cannot be called a law because it is used to explain the world, but it so far cannot be demonstated in the lab or in the field due to the long time periods it involves. It also has a difficult time making any predictions that can be tested. In this manner, it is little different from the various creationist theories.

Now, I personally believe that evolution does work, and probably in a manner similar to the Darwinian theory, but that's all it is, a theory.

[RZZZA]

Its a theory with overwhelming evidence, so much evidence that I think we should stop calling it a theory as it understates the importance of it.

Evidence for evolution can be found within our own bodies, why do we have an appendix or a tailbone if we dont use them?

edit: and dont say "because God willed it so!". God is a perfect being who would not create needless things we have no use for.

[xman160036]

Its a theory with overwhelming evidence, so much evidence that I think we should stop calling it a theory as it understates the importance of it.

Evidence for evolution can be found within our own bodies, why do we have an appendix or a tailbone if we dont use them?

You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is. All of it is circumstancial due to the large time periods involved. There is no direct evidence, and it cannot be actively tested, so it cannot be called a law.

Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory, and it is much easier to empirically test.

[RZZZA]

Well I think evolution has a lot more, and a lot more compelling, evidence than the evidence that is used to prove god or the truth of some religion. If evidence is the deciding factor then the "theory" of evolution has to be much truthier than religous theories out there.

But people like you will look at evidence and just say "oh yeah, God made that." God put the bones in the earth for us to find, because it is his Will, and he likes to mislead us to test our faith.


edit: why is it hard to consider that the eye developed out of weaker and lesser capable eyes such as those found in small mammals, and even further back, reptiles and all sorts of amphibians.