What makes evolution a fact and not a theory?

What makes evolution a fact and not a theory? Topic: Example of a conclusion in science
July 20, 2019 / By Nevada
Question: a fact is not in fact something that cannot be proven wrong, but in fact something that has been observed. we have not observed evolution, so how is it a fact? we have observed the working of gravity, micro-evolution, planets, the atmosphere of our earth, the abilities of animals in all kinds of situations, the eruption of a volcano, the age change of a animal, the composition of shale, sunspots, electromagnetic interference, etc...the list go on forever. but all these facts have been observed. evolution has been calculated, and we have seen fossils, among evolution other sciences that cannot be regarded as fact would be: radiocarbon dating, the distance between stars, radiometric dating, the size of nebula, the speed of light, the size of stars, black holes, the size of our earths core or the size of the cores of other planets, the compositions of said cores, ghost, the age of the earth, the age of the astronomical cycle...this list goes on forever. what is a fact? Information that has been objectively verified. (objective = unbiased) we have seen skeletons of other animals, i do not know what makes us think that because they are similar they must have evolved from animal x. (example: the chicken is the closest living relative to the T-Rex. ) and not a completely different animal that just so happened to become extinct. (i am talking solely on the basis of fact, anything that do not fit the definition of fact i did not add to solve my question.) ps. please lets not go along with the "i am going to call you names" or the "i am going to look at your past and find dirt on you" games, that is very childish and it just makes you look both bad and proves your theory on evolution to be wrong. people only attack people in that way when they cannot answer something for themselves. so i say this, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. to tell you the truth, there is copious amount of evidence to prove ghost and the human spirit and even god to be supported. but just because they are supported does not mean they are fact. from everything i have heard, the speed of light has to be constant. so we cannot measure that in a couple thousand square foot room. or as they call it a "lab" what i am trying to say is: evolution has not been observed, or its effects have not been observed, just because we have a animal that looks similar to a human does not mean we evolved from them you get me wrong hun, i believe in god, but not in the bible. i never put my religious beliefs in the way of my pursuit for knowledge. i just want facts. one thing many people don't seem to want me to have. so...as you are saying... evolution is considered a fact based off of lack of competition? then i decree that moogles are in fact in existence as there is a lack of competition.
Best Answer

Best Answers: What makes evolution a fact and not a theory?

Lux Lux | 6 days ago
Well, one fact is that bacteria are changing, you can "see" it because they have many more generations per time as animals/humans. Concerning skeletons. You don't just find skeletons of animals looking similar, you find that when you order them by age, you see things change over time. This very heavily indicates that it changed more or less continuously over time. Many more facts, but I am not that into biology Btw: Why should some things not be facts like distance between stars or speed of light? We made an experiment at school which was , for the circumstances, a good approximation of the speed of light. Edit: Actually it should not be called theory of evolution anymore. It always missleads people to think it was "only" a theory. Science is not only about witnissing things, it's about deducting things from known facts (skletons/radiocarbon dating...) Einsteins "theory of relativity" was a theory long ago, now it is a fact, as far as these things can be facts, which means it predicts the "universe" well (till a theory comes along that predicts things even better then before). Edit2: @biblequotes I would not give thumbs down for people believing in religion. But christians should also try to be open minded. If someone wants to believe in a supreme being, ok, but to believe anything some people wrote thousands of years ago despite all the evidence that it is not right is not very open minded. Believe in the morals of the bible if you must and can't come up with your own, but it certainly is not true on things like how old the world is. In one part the bible states, that Pi is 3. Anyone can measure out Pi and find it is not exactly 3. But it is in the bible so believe in it? If you must, but then there is no need to argue because you won't listen anyway.
👍 180 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? What makes evolution a fact and not a theory? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Example of a conclusion in science

Lux Originally Answered: When did evolution evolve from a theory to a fact?Facts require solid proof, is there any for evolution?
You do not understand the relationship of theories to facts. Theories do not evolve from theory to fact. Theories explain how specific groups of facts relate to each other. In your case concerning gravity, what happens when a stone is thrown up provides an observed fact. The law of gravity provides a mathematical expression of how gravity affects objects. Gravitational theory provides an explanation of why gravity affects objects--as, for example, Einstein's theory that the mass of an object warps space-time around that object which affects other objects passing through the warp. As for the theory of evolution, Darwin developed it from observations of certain facts. Since his time, more and more newly found facts have been found that support and have been integrated into the theory (for example, the genetic basis of heredity). The theory also makes predictions about what should be found in further lines of research, and many of those predictions have been verified. For example, about fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists of the time pounced upon that as evidence against evolution. The evolutionist scientists, however, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number. That prediction has been verified with the human and chimp genome projects. http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chrom... In addition, nothing has been found that falsifies the theory. Some of the other answerers provided links for evidence for evolution. What it boils down to is that so much evidence for evolution has been found that it would be perverse to reject acceptance of it. Just bear in mind that if you get most of your information about evolution from creationist sources, they lie.

Kayleigh Kayleigh
Evolution is a conclusion by inductive reasoning, which is supported, but not empirically proven, by observation and experiment. There is no such thing as objectivity or unbiased anything. We can come relatively close to objectivity when we test hypotheses and get a result that can be replicated. It's close enough for most purposes. Science works ... check out this computer thingy we're using to communicate, for example. It was developed and made using a scientific approach to knowledge. Evolution as a phenomenon is a fact by my standards because it is based on applying logic to "objective" reality. Traits are inherited (observation), not all organisms survive and reproduce equally well (observation), interaction of traits with the organism's environment has an effect on reproduction and survival (observation). In an environment that changes over time (observation), evolution of species will occur. Because it logically must occur. That does not mean that there are no other factors explaining the development of species, but other influences can be no less "theories." We make the fewest assumptions if we assume that some form of evolution or other purely material processes can account for all of development of species. The sources of variation, and how diversification and increasing complexity happen, are also pretty well accounted for by observation and logic, but we definitely have to say we are theorizing when we describe the evolutionary history of the life that actually exists, because all the evidence we have of past events is circumstantial.
👍 70 | 👎 3

Hosannah Hosannah
You're getting hung up on semantics. Here's the thing - we see things in the natural world. Those things we see may be living things, fossils, whatever. Some of these things seem very similar to others, but are different in some way. Sometimes the various slightly different similar things come in some sort of time-based series (thing A lived before thing B, which is slightly different, and later on in the fossil record we see thing C which is slightly different from B, and even later on we see thing D which is slightly different from thng C. The question was, are these independent things which spontaneously appeared, or did one give rise to the next in some sort of series of changes over time? Well, put that together with the fact that directed human breeding has caused distinct, even dramatic, changes in various plants and animals over time, and it seems a reasonable leap to say that there may be some counterpart to human-selected breeding which we can call 'natural selection'. This is the driving force behind evolution, which is the change in populations of things over time. I personally don't care if you decide to call evolution a Hornswoggle or a Fudd or even a Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious; names are just arbitrary labels, and it's kind of missing the point to get all worked up over some label. Call it what you want, the fact remains that populations of organisms change over time. We have seen this over and over again, in everything from bacteria to mammals. The sticking point is, at what point do we determine that some new species has developed from a parental population. Would we be able to see speciation in the short amount of time that we are able to observe things? Would we even notice speciation occuring when we're barely able to keep up with a relatively few plants and animals? If a new species of cockroach has evolved, for instance, would anybody notice? Who pays much attention to cockroaches, anyway, let alone study them closely enough to determine when some population has diverged enough from the rest of its type to call it a new species? We can decide that speciation has occured based on the fossil record, because we have a time series of similar things that we can classify by their similarities and differences and make a set of species that come one after the other. We can sometimes say that one evolved from another, but always that's a somewhat arbitrary determination. It's possible that we'll find more information in the future which will make the picture clearer, but when it comes to fossils it will generally be a 'best-estimate'. The only way to know for certain is by using genetic information to fill in the picture. Genetics can allow us to determine relatives, ancestry, family trees, whatever you want to call it, and that lets us be extremely confident that evolution, driven by some form of natural selection, is the means by which speciation occurs. Now, if somebody, sometime comes up with a better explanation, then we'll grudgingly and gradually accept that alternative after a lot of kvetching and kicking and screaming (well, some of us more than others of us, I suppose), but until that alternative comes along, there is nothing even close to evolution as an explanation for how life is the way it is and how it got to be that way.
👍 65 | 👎 0

Ednah Ednah
First of all the definition of fact does not consider it has to be observed. Second of all observation does not have to be relevant to time. Although we can not see evolution occuring in our lifetime does not detail that it cannot be fact. We can observe evidence, evidence just as convincing as what we can see with the naked eye like "the working of gravity". This goes for many of the other practises that are proven like carbon dating. And for you to consider that evolution is a biased fact is completely out of proportion. Also to compare evolution to ghosts is pathetic when im guessing you believe in creation.
👍 60 | 👎 -3

Charla Charla
But we have observed evolution. Maybe what you mean is YOU have not personally observed evolution. http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macr... We have observed the working of evolution. We have observed the workings of genetic mutations. We even know what mutates and how it mutates. We have observed beneficial genetic mutations. We have observed genetic change within a population.
👍 55 | 👎 -6

Charla Originally Answered: Evolution is a religion! ## Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proven fact of science, (but that's false)?
Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proven fact of science, (but that's false)? - Sorry, I missed your Nobel Prize for that proof. many leading evolutionists - The only "evolutionists" are some brain dead fundies. To people with functional brain cells they are called biologists. have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolution! - Are you really that stupid? Evolutionists like to claim that "science" proves their religion - Evolution is more proven than gravity and electricity. But what evolutionists won't admit is that their religion is derived from occultism rooted in pagan folklore. - I guess you really are that stupid.

If you have your own answer to the question example of a conclusion in science, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.