In other words, we can't prove it in a lab, so we'll disregard that scientific method in this instance and stick to our guns.
Funny, then, how "gravity" is still a theory, but "evolution" needs no more testing to be a law. I hadn't seen the NAS promoting the "Scientific Law of Evolution" before. I've seen a ball drop. I've seen feathers in a vacuum drop. I've done multiple experiments along the topic of gravity that seem to prove what I believe and have been taught. But it's still a "theory", b/c it's wrong in certain instances. Unfortunately, since evolution's pretty tough to experiment with, then they'll just assign it the "fact" label and go from there.
Perhaps it's because I trained in biochemistry and engineering at relatively hard schools that I find a lot wrong with what some segments of politically- or religiously-motivated academia come up with. Or maybe I'm the one with my head in the sand. It seems that a large portion of the population weren't educated to think for themselves, and those with power in the media or government are taking advantage of it. We're getting a bit off topic, though. I'll go back--someone explain to me how MSNBC.com's part 6 of 9 about the bellows lung could conceivably be a genetic mutation that evolved from two non-bellows lung having dinosaurs, and it'll make me think there's something to this. I don't claim to be Mendel, but I did read his stuff, and I'm unconvinced (about evolution, not Mendel). But (going back to the "thinking for yourselves"), it seems that if MSNBC.com posts artists renderings of "similarities" that "perhaps" could explain a bird/dino link, then "religion = fail" and MSNBC is "proof" aren't in keeping with the Scientific Method or any logical state of discovery/research.
Does gravity pull you toward the center of the earth, or is the rest of the universe pushing you toward the center of the earth? How gravity works is a theory, but it is fact you are pushed or pulled toward the center of the earth. Ya know?
What makes you think that there was a big jump from one kind of lung to another? Evolution doesn't work that quickly... What's more likely is that two sets of lungs developed in the species over eons until one set was no longer needed.
The fossil record tends to show dramatic leaps in terms of skeletal structure, however. Tissue unfortunately doesn't typically fossilize, so all we have is speculation sans replication in a lab. Not exactly proof, is it? Is anyone going to try to answer the lack of imperfect mutations in terms of species, BTW?
Good questions, which is why, as Brian said, gravity is a theory. I'm not sure how your valid points strengthen the position that evolution is scientific law. At least in gravity, a result is observable and can be replicated in a controlled setting.
Theory has a different meaning to science than it does when used elsewhere. The Theory of Gravity has evolved, you know. Newton theorized we are pulled to the center of the earth. Einstein theorized we are pushed by the universe, and scientific experiments and observations would indicate he's right. That there is gravity is of no doubt.
Yes, I know this, but I believe Brian's post was in response to being lectured on how evolution had surpassed the level of "theory".
Well, it's evolution, so they go out in the field and look for the right fossils. And find them when they're looking to fill a gap.
PM me when they find fossilized proof of how lungs evolved. Or, just replicate it in a controlled setting and I'll immediately be on board.
Denny, my points were along with what PapaG was saying: I've conducted gravitational experiments, derived G-constants, had to work the equations, written reports on the difference between "normal" and "relativistic" gravity, everyone can observe and 'get' it, etc. And yet, it's still a "Theory". While a poster earlier tried to say that National Academy of Sciences has posited that 'evolution' is "fact". I didn't get that, that's all. This wasn't derogatory against gravity, it was an analysis of why evolution is "fact" while gravity is still "Theory". Well, according to scientists, anyway.
In science, a theory is an organized group of empirical facts that explain a phenomenon. It's essentially the highest "level" there is in science. Nothing in science can rise to the level of "truth" because humans don't know all the most fundamental rules of nature, so there's always the possibility for a better theory. But evolution is one of the most robust theories in science; there's tons of evidence for it in the fossil records and I believe even laboratory evidence for it, using things like bacteria and fruit flies, which have very, very short generations.
"Theory" is a higher standard than "fact," because a theory is logically coherent system of many (empirical) facts. The words "theory" and "fact" are often used in a confused manner regarding science because they have different meanings in science than in everyday conversation.
well, there are Laws. At least according to the Scientific Method Laws of Thermodynamics. (Universe going towards a decreasing entropy) Laws of Physics (a.k.a. Newton's Laws--every action has an equal and opposite, etc.) I'm lazy right now, and want to get to the rest of the thread. There are more.
