Talk:Evolution as fact and theory

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.

Define what is meant by "evolution"

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:76.167.179.6 per WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a bad suggestion. I propose a reference is added to the beginning of the article, similar to the article on evolution itself:

For more information on the mechanisms of evolution, see Evolution.
For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution.

Gralgrathor (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The very first word in the article is a wikilink to Evolution. I think anybody wanting to know what the word means could follow it to that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant

This article makes me smile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qc (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Me too! Great job to whoever worked on this! 71.197.87.105 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To: 65.87.184.50

Nothing you said had any relevance to this article. Clearly you did not read this article. Wow.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did and here it is again, improve the article. In the section 'Evolution as theory and fact in the literature', the author is on a soapbox and trying to state that evolution is fact by the quotes chosen:

'Despite the scientific certainty embodied in these excerpts, Creationists refuse to accept the evidence.'

WP:NOT Soapbox

R. C. Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory.

WP:NOT Soapbox and a respected biologist saying it is a fact is not proof.

Carl Sagan wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory"

Carl Sagan is not a biologist and should not even be quoted in an article like this. He's had associations with genetics early in his life but his PHD is in astronomy.

The article should cover the difference between fact and theory, as it does and state what the facts are if it wants to make the claim evolution is a fact. The facts are skulls and their brain capacities, or the relationships and links found in DNA, and many other things. A common ancestor and evolution is one theory explaining those relationships.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 65.87.184.50. I'm not sure what the problem is here. How exactly do you think the article should be improved? Can you suggest some specific wording to add, remove or alter? It seems to me that it already does pretty much what you are asking for. It does explain the difference between fact and theory, and it does briefly enumerate the facts and theories relating to evolution (with links to further detail elsewhere). The quotes you object to are in a section clearly headed "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature", and are presented as examples of the use of the words, not as proof of anything. Snalwibma (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, some of the quotes are soapboxing. Another person wrote:

'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".'

That is the kind of quote to have in the article. Quotes that someone says it is fact (especially non-biologists) or choosing quotes that dump on creationists are off topic and sloppy.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50: Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact, directly measurable in many situations. Common descent is so well supported by the available evidence that it is also considered to be "fact": to argue otherwise is like arguing that round-Earthism "isn't fact" because the actual "facts" are photographs from space or whatever. The theory is that the fact of evolution is responsible for the fact of common descent: that's why evolution is "also a theory". --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact', then state it that way and cite the article, if there is one.

'Common descent is so well supported by the available evidence that it is also considered to be "fact". Then state it that way. However, 'considered to be a fact' is a far cry from 'it is a fact'. In the context of the article, a fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. If someone has observed speciation (not micro-evolution) then cite it and put it in the article.

Quoting Carl Sagan that evolution is a fact or choosing quotes that dump on creationists is off topic and soap boxing.

You will also notice from the comment below, some seem not to be interested in improving the article.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading what you wrote, 'Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". And that is a fact', actually, that is a definition. The facts or data are what the change is, how much did it change, and over what period of time.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are free to argue with the National Academy of Sciences and get them to change their documents. But for now, we will go with what the NAS says. When you get them to change it, we will of course change to state what the NAS states. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The NAS has many references to books one can buy and read and it also says:

'Evolution is one of science's most robust theories, and the National Academies have long supported the position that evolution should be taught as a central element in any science education program.'

Note the word 'theory'. What was not there was the statement, 'evolution is a fact' as this article seems to claim. This article needs preciseness and should reflect what the current state of evolution is.65.87.184.50 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to throw up smoke screens when you are unable to argue the technical aspects. If your idea of a well written, precise article on 'Evolution as Theory and Fact', is quoting an astronomer then good for you.65.87.184.50 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to reproduce the entirety of the Introduction to Evolution article, or the Evidence of common descent article, or the Macroevolution article, or the Speciation article, in this article. That would be superfluous, and outside the scope of this article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine but don't make the claim that it is fact, in the words of another person, above, 'xxx is considered to be a fact'. That is not a fact.

If you choose not to reference that info then cut the article down to the difference between fact and theory. Quoting Carl Sagan and choosing quotes that dump on creationists is not a presentation of facts of evolution in literature. It is soap boxing and off-topic.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've already said that. Since you are unable to argue the technical aspects, you fall back to,'you are confused', revert edits, or some other irrelevant action.65.87.184.50 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Our friend 65 is badly confused. Facts are data (i.e., measurements, or observations). Theories are explanations for that data. That is all. If you do not understand that, you have not understood the article. And everything else you have stated is basically ignorant nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about scientific facts and scientific theories. Micro and macroevolution, as used by most people, do not exist. These are creationist fantasies. See microevolution and macroevolution.--Filll (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you are funny, above, you said 'macro-evolution does not exist and is a creationist fantasy.'. It seems Berkley disagrees with you. It is clear to me why the article is and will be so imprecise and sloppy. Just because others quote an astronomer to make their evolutionary points and are sloppy in their writings does not mean you have to do the same.65.87.184.50 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That article also says, 'details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.'.

This article is about observable data, changes are observed and recorded over time, and another fact is 'the overall theory behind macroevolution . . . has been . . . consistent with empirical data.', is also a fact. That is as far as it goes. Quoting Carl Sagan does nothing for the article

65.87.184.50, see NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather see you add preciseness to the article and remove irrelevant quotes about what creationists believe or not believe. If you have a fact to add then add it. It is a real simple equation, you want to make the statement that evolution is a fact then show me the fact. That does not mean, show quotes where data fits evolutionary thinking, or 'data fits so well, it is considered to be . . .'. If that is the evidence then state it that way, 'data fits', or 'it is considered to be' (quotes from above).65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT WLU (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

'Do not feed the trolls' link also says:

'Criticism of the project, made constructively, is welcome from contributors when shared in an appropriate place.'

The article is imprecise, sloppy, and makes claims it can not support for the reasons listed above. It also has irrelevant quotes about creationists and from people like Carl Sagan, who is an astronomer. Improve it per the above comments.65.87.184.50 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sagan holds degrees in Physics. Many campus departments are titled "The Department of Physics and Astronomy". As a physicist, astrophysicist, whatever title you want to call him, he is qualified to make statements in these types of articles.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You want preciseness? No problem. Evolution is the statement that cells change, and that is a fact. A few years ago a robot went into Chernobyl and brought back some black sludge. They have discovered this sludge was bacteria which absorb Gamma Rays the way plants do sun light. Before Chernobyl, no such bacteria has even been found. Animals do change, and that is a fact. As in the article, Evolution Theory refers to how people evolved into what we are now. You posts don't seem to make any sense, or you seem to just be ranting because you don't want to accept evolution is a fact. Saying that evolution is not a fact is saying that cells and animals don't change, which they have been observed to do.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you get too excited

The thing about Wikipedia is, everyone can edit it. Now if a person is very dedicated they can fight everyone who comes along and keep it from changing very much. But let me tell you, that is incredibly exhausting. A lot of what you object to was added by people exactly like yourself; someone who came along and wanted to change the text one way or another.

Look at how the article read a year ago or more and compare it to how it read now. See the differences? All that stuff about macro and microevolution was not in the original (which I wrote); someone came along and wanted to add it. And the part about creationists is below. See the difference?

I read the original article and it seems correct because it talks about the observed data, fossils, genetic data, etc. and then says the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory to explain those facts. Those words, 'theory of evolution' match what the National Academy of Sciences say.

As the article was edited, quotes and statements were added which said, 'evolution is a fact'. Then later, quotes added dumping on creationists.

Yes, everyone can edit an article and that is a blessing and a curse. People can add useful information but sometimes, others misrepresent the subject. Misleading people, especially people new to a subject is not very good but if you put the article back to its original form and/or build on that then it would correct many of its current flaws.65.87.184.50 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution IS a fact. It is a fact that the frequency of alleles in populations tends to change over time. The theory of evolution explains how this happens. The article explains all this: it explains why evolution is a fact AND a theory. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then write it that way, 'Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles over time.'. The changes that have been documented are . . .' and add references.

Simply writing evolution is fact just like gravity is fact, grossly misrepresents/underrepresents the subject.

Gravity is a fact, you throw something out the window it'll fall down. Evolution is a fact, there have been tons of examples where animals have changed. The analogy properly represents the subject.Bridger.anderson (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing about that statement, 'evolution is fact', those words won't be found on web pages like the National Academy of Sciences. There are words that say it is a robust theory, and best explains the data scientists have observed (skull changes, genetic research, etc.).

The last thing is, drop all the useless quotes about what creationists refuse to believe or what an astronomer thinks, etc.65.87.184.50 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are mistaken. Of course the NAS says that evolution is a fact. In several huge publications. And the analogies with gravity have a long illustrious history. Going back to Darwin himself. But do not panic; this article will be scrapped and rewritten.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50: Once again, I will point out that this article is NOT intended to provide comprehensive coverage of evolution! We have other articles for that. And, yes, the analogy with gravity is appropriate (and frequently used), and shouldn't be dropped just because you don't like it (for whatever reason: you don't actually provide one). You also need to clear up your misconceptions regarding the scientific usage of the word "theory". Yet again I will point out that evolution is a fact AND a theory, therefore your comment regarding the use of the word "theory" by the National Academy of Sciences completely misses the point. Do you not agree that there is a "theory of gravity"? Does this mean that you don't consider gravity to be a fact? --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing that evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact then talking about apples does not provide enough depth. I also said *NOT* to repeat the whole of all evolution articles but to make a point and add the link/reference.

As for the statement, the NAS says evolution is a fact, people say that but fail to show anywhere where it is written. It is not written on their own web page either.

You can write all you want that '50 is confused' but you fail to show the relevant quote that it is a fact. That does not mean show a quote that says it is considered to be a fact, nor it fits well with data, nor from a person outside the NAS who says he believes the NAS says it is fact. User:fill keeps repeating this, the NAS says it is fact, either put up or shutup.

I quoted above, in the other section, the NAS' statement about evolution. Stop repeating the same words and show the reference which has words to the effect of 'the NAS' official position on evolution is it is fact'.65.87.184.50 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the NAP which is linked to from the NAS:

'the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.'.

'. . . the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.'.

First that is not the NAS saying it, they say it is a very robust theory, and secondly, it in effect says it is considered to be a fact because of strong supporting evidence.

This article uses gravity as an example, gravity can be observed and tested directly not through supporting evidence. That is what the article needs to state, 'scientists consider the supporting evidence strong enough to be consider evolution a fact.'. However, in doing that, the article fails to mention the other views, the NAS web page says it is a robust theory.

Having the article state outright, 'evolution is a fact' and compare it to gravity is a tremendous disservice to newcomers to the subject.65.87.184.50 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution is a theory and fact"..... There are 10 references for this statement in the article and no doubt many more could be found....that's good enough for me.Teapotgeorge (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

65.87.184.50, let me put it this way: do you accept that populations of organisms change over time? Do you know that dogs are descended from wolves? Do you know that the different breeds of dogs are genetically distinct (despite being of the same species) so that a pair of poodles will produce a litter of poodles rather than Dobermanns? Do you understand that if there are poodles and Dobermanns in the same town, a new litter of poodles will increase the overall frequency of poodle-specific genes in the local dog population? If you answer "yes" to these questions, then you accept that evolution is fact. And it can indeed be "tested directly not through supporting evidence" (not quite sure what you're getting at there, because gravity is invisible and cannot be directly observed). Mutations, natural selection, and speciation can also be "observed" in real-time. You still have not explained why the comparison with gravity is invalid, and the article itself explains the many parallels very clearly. You have not explained why "evolution is a fact" is a "tremendous disservice to newcomers", nor have you explained why the comparison with gravity is likewise a "tremendous disservice" to them. And, as Teapotgeorge has pointed out, there are abundant references for evolution being "theory and fact": therefore that WILL stay in the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'. . . because gravity is invisible and cannot be directly observed'. Gravity can be observed using three main instruments, but using one of them, a spring with a weight on it, I can measure gravity on earth's surface, and I can fly a plane in a parabolic path and mathematiccally tell you what that measuring device will read at each pooint along the parabola. Evolution is no where near that developed, if it were, you would be able to tell me when and where and what the next speciation event will be. Some of the attached articles, where wording was copied from for this article, are sloppy, especially the article that quotes an astronomer to make his evolutionary points. Does that mean you have to reflect the same sloppyness in this article?65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What you claim to be abudantly clear, it is a fact, is not so clear to the NAS, they say it is a robust theory. No one has shown a quote from the NAS that says, in effect, 'the official position of the NAS is evolution is fact.'. Instead, I read explanations and see red herrings. At the very least, the article is cherry picking sources, people who say it is fact, and not including the other side of it, such as the NAS saying it is a robust theory. That is misrepresentation of the subject and misleads newcomers.65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: evolution is a theory AND a fact. The NAS saying it's a "theory" doesn't mean it's not ALSO a fact! Why don't you try reading the article (or the many references supporting it) which explain this point to you? Why aren't TEN existing references good enough for you? Why are you still trying to pretend that the NAS is giving "the other side of it" when there is no "other side" here? Do you not understand the meaning of the word AND? Why are YOU misrepresenting the subject? I can only conclude that you won't accept that gravity is a fact either (because it's a "theory")! --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Write it your way then but you expand on what the NAS says, etc. I am sure the NAS is very capable of explaining their own views and the one view/opinion/belief that is not an official position of the NAS is 'evolution is a fact.'. Cherry pick away the sources, and be one sided. Really a shame.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You seriously want to maintain that the National Academy of Sciences would not know the basic facts about (for instance) dog breeds, that I described above? They wouldn't consider it a "fact" that the birth of a litter of poodles in a town would increase the frequency of poodles in that town? Some facts are so obvious that they don't need to be stated. If they have no statement that "gravity is a fact" either, are you prepared to argue that it is not their official policy that gravity is fact? --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The NAS says that the theory of evolution is robust and best explains observed data. You have something different on their official position then show it and stop with the long line of reasoning.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "either put up or shutup" is of course a gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for which 50 should be summarily banned from further editing of Wikipedia. Thanks for the personal attack. Would you like to be sanctioned now, or should I wait until you have another outburst?--Filll (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "either put up or shutup" is of course a gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL . . . Thanks for the personal attack.

And your statement that 'you are confused' is not a personal attack? So, lets see, to review, you made the statement that the NAS says evolution is fact. I said show that quote from the NAS. Your responses throughout all this are:

- Revert edits.

- Your declaration more than once that 50 is confused.

- You own brand of reasoning as to why you think it is fact.

- A call to ban from editing, effectively shutting up a person.

The one thing you do not do is show the quote from the NAS. You are fantastic at throwing out red herrings.65.87.184.50 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm content to wait on Filll's re-write rather than, as the section header says, get too excited about this. The split between fact and theory is confusing, but I trust that Filll will do a good job of re-writing. Keep in mind, anon, the purpose of the page is to demonstrate that the word 'evolution' in terms of biology, has two related meanings. One is factual (evolution is a fact - living things have changed over time in visible morphology; simple and unquestionable), one is theoretical (the 'theory of evolution' - how this change in morphology over time is explained via alterations to genes through mutation, sexual selection, sexual recombination, how the speed of evolution may vary i.e. puncutated evolution; complicated, contested, political and subject to falsification and rejection). The purpose of the page is to make this distinction, and explain the difference between the two. As part of the scope of the article is how these two different meanings are confused, either through simple error, or deliberately as a tool in a political and cultural conflict (by creationists). Anon, your statement above "Then write it that way, 'Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles over time.'. The changes that have been documented are . . .'" suggests that you've missed that this is only one use of 'evolution', the theory part. You're missing out on the fact part and appear to be trying to challenge the theory of evolution. Whole different kettle of fish and a different talk page. No responsible scientific authority would say X theory is fact (except perhaps as a polemic) due to the criteria of falsifiability. They might say 'X theory is the best explanation to date for Y data'. In this case, Y would be the 'fact' of evolution - the change in living things over time. The analogy with gravity is similar - gravity as a fact (things fall down when dropped; uncontestable) versus gravity as a theory (mass bends space or whatever the lastest theory is; testable). Evolution gets a lot more traffic and grief because of the culture wars, while no-one that I know of has ascertained the bible's position on gravity. WLU (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a long response but deleted it because I am not going to pulled off topic. The statement was made that the NAS says evolution is fact. Show the quote where that is their official position. Despite all your explanations, the NAS says evolution is a robust theory that best explains observed data. Stop the long line of reasoning and show where they state it is fact in their official position. If you can't show it then saying it is fact in the article is misleading.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "misleading" to state that evolution is a fact when the "fact" part (clearly specified in the article) IS unquestionably a fact? Regardless of whatever the NAS either says or doesn't say about that specific part? The changes over time don't become "un-factual" if the NAS doesn't happen to mention them in the cited reference. Therefore the article will continue to state facts as facts (well-supported by the many other references provided). --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...Actually, the NAS article does point out that the theory is "supported by so many observations and confirming experiments..." and so forth. Those are the observations of the FACT that evolution is occurring: the theory is what accounts for these observed facts of evolution. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, you make claims but when challenged, you can't support them. You offer up your brand of reasoning and try to go off topic. The claim is, 'the NAS says evolution is fact'. Show the reference from the NAS showing that is their official position.

The NAS does say evolution is a robust theory that best explains the observed data.65.87.184.50 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, my claim is that evolution IS fact. And I have supported that position. And you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to confront my arguments. You cannot actually refute the case that the "fact" of evolution IS fact, as the article itself makes clear. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the only answer I can give is, the NAS disagrees with you. They state that the theory of evolution is robust and best explains the observed data. The NAS' official position is not what you claim, 'evolution IS fact'. You should not be misleading people.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then "the only answer you can give" is clearly wrong, because the NAS does not disgree witn me in the slightest. They would never be so stupid as to deny the fact that evolution has occurred, and is occurring: despite your ongoing misrepresentation of them. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is the problem, you talk, opinions, reasoning but fail to show the quote/official position. I showed it above, the link and the statement, it is a robust theory and should be taught in schools and best explains observed data. Do the same, show the quote that supports your opinion. Otherwise write the article and mislead people new to the subject.65.87.184.50 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the "observed data" mentioned in your quote IS the "factual" part of evolution: the observable FACT that evolution IS happening. Your ongoing inability to understand this is, frankly, not MY problem. This talkpage is for suggesting improvements to the article: because you evidently don't understand the issues here, you evidently have no actual contribution to make. Meanwhile what the article says is accurate and supported by multiple references. End of discussion. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not clearly distinguished in the article. A skull found from 1 million years ago and a skull found from 200,000 years has differences, that is facutal, evolution is a theory to explain it. However, in the 'evolution in literature' section, it has quotes, 'the word theory is no longer appropriate', Carl Sagan, 'evolution is fact'. Very sloppy and misleading.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from National Academy of Sciences...."There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution." http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=52

Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted that above and the NAS also says evolution is a robust theory. This article says things like, carl sagan, 'evolution is fact'. Very sloppy.65.87.184.50 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There you have it then; the two quotes from the NAS togther describe evolution as both a "robust theory" and as "basic facts" - evolution is both theory and fact at the same time - precisely the purpose of the whole article. --Pbrione (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then distinguish it in the article, in the article, in the quotes cherry picked, the word 'theory' is not appropriate, carl sagan says evolution is fact. Does that sound like, 'robust theory and . . . basic facts'? The group here will be proud at all the newcomers the article will mislead.65.87.184.50 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon is wasting our time and trolling at this point, and completely missing why the page exists. WP:DNFTT. The page is not about defending the theory of evolution, so let's stop pretending it is. Anon is not even trying to understand, not reading replies, or baiting us. No matter what, the page will not change based on these comments, so there's no point in replying. This isn't a soapbox or a place to debate. Filll, take it away with the new version, huzzah! WLU (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Original wording

In spite of all the enthusiasm evident in these excerpts, considerable confusion remains in some circles.

Changed to

Despite the scientific certainty embodied in these excerpts, Creationists refuse to accept the evidence.

New version

I am also planning to rewrite this article completely. A rough draft is in the sandbox now. It will be much cleaner and easier to read. A lot of the things people added over the last 18 months will be discarded. People just like yourself who wanted to add things.

So do not get upset; the reason the article looks the way it does is not because someone wanted to annoy you and wrote a biased article and then fought off all people coming along. It is because it was written, and the people over the last 18 months changed it to this. You see?--Filll (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature"

I have attempted a rewrite of this section. Here is why. The purpose of the article (AFAIK) is to set out clearly the difference between a theory and a fact, and to show how evolution, like gravity, is both. The first quote (Gould) is fine, as is the Lenski one - both of these reinforce the point made by the article. But the quotes from Campbell ("...evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate.") and Mayr ("most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact"), and the briefer extracts from Sagan, Simpson, et al, confuse the issue by setting fact against theory. Then there is a reference to "all the enthusiasm evident in these excerpts", which is a mere appeal to authority, and which appears to be trying to "prove" that evolution is a fact as opposed to a theory. I hope my rewrite (mainly just reorganising the material a little) makes it both clearer and more accurate. I hope I have not strayed too far into WP:OR or WP:POV. Any thoughts? Snalwibma (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly like it and agree with it. And I agree that not only do people get confused about theory (I forget the article where some editor more or less screamed, correctly, that the word theory was being used for hypothesis -- I fixed that and do it where I can) the fact issue gets confused also. I like the Gould and Lenski quotes. I don't understand why Campbell thinks the word theory doesn't apply as it clearly does.Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to make that distinction. Evolution is a fact, a theory, and a fact! There's the basic fact of evolution (creatures evolve: undisputable), the ToE itself (explains how), and the more colloquial use of "fact" (the ToE is evidently correct), as something so thoroughly well-established that "it would be perverse to withold consent". IIRC, Stephen Jay Gould said something like that: if we can find and source it, let's add it. There are two sorts of "fact" here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... the section does read a bit OR-ish to me; I think an there's a valid case to be made that there is a three-way fight occuring in the section: That biologists recognize that species-over-time-evolution is a fact separate from genes-change-over-geological-time-evolution theory (quotes 1 and 2); that the Modern Synthesis is so well proven that it's treated as a fact, despite being a theory; and that creationism has exploited the fact/theory distinction to foster its own political/religous agenda. I'd say that sub-sections on each would be a good way to separate the now-mixed ideas. WLU (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Boltzmann H Theorem

Irrelevant rant on time asymmetry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As physics underlies chemistry and biology, is it ok to discuss the physics of time asymmetry in this article? The positive H-theorem supports the forward movement of time (to some extent), while the negative H theorem supports time reversal. Without a scientific basis for time moving forward, it would seem to me that the basic physics for evolutionary time is either lacking or reversible. Prigogine and the Second Law of Thermodynamics could also be discussed for open systems, but I think Boltzmann is cited as being more basic. There is also an old Russian experiment that claimed laboratory (experimental) reversal of time in a nonlinear optical system. I think that made it into a Scientific American article. Do you agree that it is important to lay the groundwork for evolution on firm physics or do you argue currently unknown vital force in nature that have yet to be identified? If so, we might want to reference Stu Kaufmann and his postulated "complexity force". Doug Youvan (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there now some doubt that time does indeed pass? And why did you take out a referenced section twice without discussion?--AkselGerner (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

laws and proof

The below is being challenged, it seems. I've restored it as they are accurate points. However a citation may be in order. Does anyone have a good source to attribute these claims? If not, I'll go look up one. Btw, to respond fuller to the IP editor, Gravity is an instance of both a theory and fact, in that there are certain factual things that are observed but it also involved a theory (actually there have been different theories, ie. Aristotles, Le Sage's, Nordström's, Newtons, Whitehead's and, of course Einstein's theory of gravitation.) Since the theory is so strongly supported by all facts that best explain the predicable observations, its considered a law. That math is involved as a tool to show this, does not provide absolute proof (which does not exist in science as science is based in inductive logic)--except the kind of proof that equations show within mathematics. Anyway, the section removed that I restored is:

• "Proof" of a theory does not exist in science. Proof only exists in mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation.

• A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I too saw that anon deletion, and I wondered... I agree that the first of the two points has correctly been reinstated, but I'm less happy with the second. I think it does confuse the issue somewhat, and does appear to mis-define "law". Maybe change to something like:

• A scientific theory is distinct from a scientific law. A scientific law states what occurs, generalizing across a set of conditions, while a theory proposes an explanation of why it occurs. Sometimes, however, theories that rely on a simple principle are referred to as "laws". For example, it is common to encounter references to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

But I don't (yet) have a citation for this. Snalwibma (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think law implies something more specific than a theory, a theory is an ordering of the facts, but a law is a formalization of the implications of that ordering... a scientific law to me seems to be the predictive potential of the theory. The theories with the most predictive power are also most likely to be associated with a law of science. Of course, I don't have a source for that either as it's drop-of-a-hat-OR. A historian of science might be able to say better, I think that older sources (like 1800-1900s) use law a lot more, especially in physics, it might also be a leftover from a previous paradigm that has been simply absorbed into mainstream language and expanded beyond it's original meaning.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the article use gravity for comparisons and quote non-biologists to make points which put the development of the idea on weak ground. If the article is going to throw around words like 'the law of evolution', that would make it silly. The understanding of gravity is much more refined and gravitional readings can be predicted for various situations such as a plane flying a parabolic path. Someone mentioned time. The rate at which time flows can also be accurately predicted and tested with the famous experiment where an atomic clock was placed on a plane and then compared with its twin on the ground to see if the math and theory holds up.

With evolution, no one can predict the rate of evolutionary change, nor can anyone predict accurately the next evolutionary event(s). The article needs to stay with the theory/fact idea. The more it pushes beyond that, the sillier it sounds.65.87.184.50 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look for predictions made by evolutionary theory, there are many many predictions, both qualitative and quantitative. And there are also places where gravitational theory falls down; maybe many more than evolutionary theory actually.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Problem

The article defines a fact as an observation. So... when did we observe the evolution of a species? Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been observed many times in many ways. I've added a link to Talk:Evolution/FAQ up top, and this topic is addressed specifically here. — Scientizzle 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have observed speciation in the laboratory numerous times, as well as in the field. For example, the plants on the opposite sides of the Great Wall of China are different species. Several nylon eating species of bacteria have appeared in the last few decades, and this has been repeatedly observed and is well established. Some are less direct, but there is a special species of mosquito that has evolved to live only in the London Underground. And there appears to be a special species of bug in Hawaii that has evolved special mouths to eat bananas. There is a ton more on TalkOrigins [1] and in our own speciation article. That should get you started, but it is obviously an immense field with thousands if not tens of thousands of examples. And of course, that does not include the less direct examples of speciation evident in the genetic code (the fingerprints left on our DNA by endogenous retroviruses and the teleomere in the middle of our 2nd chromosome, for example) and in the fossil record (which has many examples as well).--Filll (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We've dealt with this before. Read the archives, read talk origins, don't bother with anything similar unless you've a reliable source - that is to say, a scientific journal, not a creationist mouthpiece. WLU (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gravity as fact

The claim that gravity can be interpreted as a fact seems incredibly misleading; only the most archaic uses of the word "gravity" refer to its original factual meaning of the intrinsic "weight" or "gravity" of an object. In all modern usages, the word gravity, in a scientific context, amounts to referencing one of the many theories of gravity, generally Newton's conception of a mysterious force with strength proportional to the square of the distance, or perhaps to Einstein's conception of a curved space time. But I again contend that it is incredibly misleading to say that measuring an apple falling is measuring the "fact" of gravity; rather apples falling, or satellites orbitting, are factual evidence for the theory of gravity. Whether the case is different for evolution, so that evolution really does have a factual meaning, I'm not qualified to say. Lewallen (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are confused a bit by semantics. Do you not think we have any "facts" of gravity, or any observations of gravity?

Also, gravity has been used over and over in scientific publications as an analogy for evolution, in publications by the NAS and the AAAS and even as far back as Darwin.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences

I dropped in to read this discussion because I thought it might be amusing. It was just incredibly frustrating ;). Anyway, I thought I would drop in one "fact" to this discussion. Instead of "theories" about the position of the NAS, here's a quote from their publication "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science". You can find it online here: http://www.nap.edu/html/evolution98/, or you can buy a copy for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0309063647/.

Sum up: The NAS says evolution is a theory and a fact. End of discussion. You can still disagree with them. You can argue about their definition of fact. You can say that they all idiots who are descended from apes and we shouldn't listen to them anyway. But hopefully we can at least stop arguing about what their position is.

Actually, that publication is pretty good on making all these differences very clear. It might be worth including a reference to it in the article. Not that this is going to convince anyone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKNuDnh8Kw). Chaleur (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

In what was going to be the revised version of this article, I was going to feature NAS material and definitions far more prominently. However, since this article has been defined as a war zone by a substantial number of Wikipedia editors, I have decided for time being to not edit it or improve it any longer. The threats and vendettas being waged for things as simple as quoting the NAS are just too much to take. I would suggest that you also stay away from such dangerous sources as the NAS because you will probably receive death threats or worse for even daring to suggest that the National Academy of Sciences publications are a good source for Wikipedia. Sad, but true. Every editor who let things get to this point should be ashamed of themselves. It is an embarassment. But the condition of these articles is not worth dying over.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pointed noted, and agreed. Though it is a pretty sad state. I think the world will probably have to wait another generation (or more) before the ridiculousness of this is accepted.Chaleur (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points: first, the original article opens with a definition of 'fact' which says two things: facts are observable (meanining if I dispute it as a 'fact' you can show it to me) and facts are statements which have become so well believed that they are taken as facts. Specifically you say "a fact is an observation or a piece of data." Thus, if I observe something I assume it's a fact -- and if you too observe it -- it's a fact. From what I observe in the ongoing discussion here, some people want to make a distinction between that which can be directly sensed (i.e. observed) -- the changes in the genetic structure of organisms as they adapt to new environments, for instance, and the conclusion that such a mechanism (or mechanisms) are sufficient to account for speciation. The first is a narrow reading of 'fact.' The second is a statement about the general consensus of the technicians working with the observations made in the field. If you get a group of Western doctors together and present a patient with a certain list of symptoms they would proceed on the assumptions of modern Western medicine. They would not need to demonstrate that some microorganisms can cause a fever because it is assumed to be a fact. If therefore, the patient has a fever, the doctors assume infection by those microorganisms. They take the presence of those organisms as a fact.

Now, in the same manner, those who see evolution as a fact (in the second sense) want to treat it as a fact of the first sense -- they want to claim that they have observed it. And those who want to reject evolutionary theory (which is what they see it to be if it is only 'fact' in the second sense) insist that the evolutionist proove that the theory is a 'fact' of the first sense. But, as you at least implied, since evolutionary theory cannot be directly observed (partly because of the time scale needed, and partly because there is a lot of fuzziness as to what exactly constitutes a truely evolutionary change), it can only be taken as a fact in the second sense, and because that sense is socially mediated it is a fact to those who are in agreement, and a 'mere' theory to those who are not in agreement.

Thus, to improve the article I suggest you delineate between socially constructed facts and observational facts. You do so, indirectly, and because of the fuzziness of the distinction, the discussion of evolution as 'fact and theory' is inadvertantly muddied.