Is the darwinian theory absolute or/and fact (if I may use that word)?

[firedragon]

Two reasons I would like to cite that triggered this question.

1. Many people just say "evolution" referring to the darwinian mechanism.
2. Many things in all kinds of studies are explained using the darwinian mechanism assuming it as absolute or/and fact.

The reason I mentioned two words, absolute and fact is because the definition of the words will come into question and that tangent tends to become the main topic. Sometimes even questioning the philosophical definitions of terms or/and whether the definitions must change.

What I mean by fact is like 2+2 = 4 is fact. By absolute I mean established enough to be disqualified or questioned. I added a poll just for fun.

Peace.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That biological evolution has been observed is a fact. Even creationists will accept that it occurs, though they call it adaptation so they can still pretend the theory is some sort of world view. The theory is not absolute, but a tentative explanation of the evidence that is open to falsification on new data.

 

[Altfish]

Darwin wrote his book over 150 -years ago; he didn't know about DNA.
His hypothesis still holds but has been improved as we have learnt/discovered more. It will continue to 'evolve' and adapt.

 

[exchemist]

Two reasons I would like to cite that triggered this question.

1. Many people just say "evolution" referring to the darwinian mechanism.
2. Many things in all kinds of studies are explained using the darwinian mechanism assuming it as absolute or/and fact.

The reason I mentioned two words, absolute and fact is because the definition of the words will come into question and that tangent tends to become the main topic. Sometimes even questioning the philosophical definitions of terms or/and whether the definitions must change.

What I mean by fact is like 2+2 = 4 is fact. By absolute I mean established enough to be disqualified or questioned. I added a poll just for fun.

Peace.

As @Dan From Smithville says, evolution has been observed, so that much is a fact. The evidence that it is driven by variation within a population and then natural selection is overwhelmingly strong. However I would hesitate to describe any scientific theory as a fact, as it may not be the whole story.

 

[danieldemol]

If a person speaks of biological evolution but does not mean "the Darwinian mechanism" (I assume this is a reference to natural selection) then it looks to me like they are speaking pseudo-science.

The reason why is because if I recall correctly it is scientific consensus that natural selection is the best known explanation for the facts we have.

In my opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

Evolution is observed, is currently being observed.

 

[firedragon]

That biological evolution has been observed is a fact. Even creationists will accept that it occurs, though they call it adaptation so they can still pretend the theory is some sort of world view. The theory is not absolute, but a tentative explanation of the evidence that is open to falsification on new data.

The OP is not talking about evolution. It is talking about the Darwinian mechanism. Biological evolution is a fact. Does that make Darwinian mechanism a fact or/and absolute? Thats the question.

 

[firedragon]

Evolution is observed, is currently being observed.

Thats irrelevant to the OP. I think you should refer to this post #7

 

[firedragon]

If a person speaks of biological evolution but does not mean "the Darwinian mechanism" (I assume this is a reference to natural selection) then it looks to me like they are speaking pseudo-science.

The reason why is because if I recall correctly it is scientific consensus that natural selection is the best known explanation for the facts we have.

In my opinion.

So you are saying anything other than the darwinian mechanism is Pseudo Science?

 

[Justanatheist]

The OP is not talking about evolution. It is talking about the Darwinian mechanism. Biological evolution is a fact. Does that make Darwinian mechanism a fact or/and absolute? Thats the question.

Define the Darwinian Mechanism please.

 

[firedragon]

Darwin wrote his book over 150 -years ago; he didn't know about DNA.
His hypothesis still holds but has been improved as we have learnt/discovered more. It will continue to 'evolve' and adapt.

Did the Darwinian mechanism get debunked because of the DNA being discovered? No. So this is honestly irrelevant to the Question.

 

[danieldemol]

The OP is not talking about evolution. It is talking about the Darwinian mechanism. Biological evolution is a fact. Does that make Darwinian mechanism a fact or/and absolute? Thats the question.

Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution and is as much "fact" as biological evolution is. Although it is possibly more correct to refer to both biological evolution and natural selection as the best hypothesis we have for explaining observed facts according to scientific consensus.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

So you are saying anything other than the darwinian mechanism is Pseudo Science?

According to my understanding that is the case.

Can you name an alternative hypothesis for driving evolution that is considered plausible by the scientific consensus?

 

[firedragon]

Define the Darwinian Mechanism please.

Gradualism, natural selection, tree of life.

 

[firedragon]

According to my understanding that is the case.

Is that scientific to say it is absolute or/and fact?

 

[firedragon]

Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution and is as much "fact"

Is it scientific to say a scientific theory is fact?

 

[ChristineM]

Thats irrelevant to the OP. I think you should refer to this post #7

Interestingly my post was #6 and therefore posted before the OP evolved into post #7

 

[firedragon]

Interestingly my post was #6 and therefore posted before the OP evolved into post #7

It was a response to someone else. Maybe its interesting for some reason to you. Thats great.

 

[PureX]

Two reasons I would like to cite that triggered this question.

1. Many people just say "evolution" referring to the darwinian mechanism.
2. Many things in all kinds of studies are explained using the darwinian mechanism assuming it as absolute or/and fact.

The reason I mentioned two words, absolute and fact is because the definition of the words will come into question and that tangent tends to become the main topic. Sometimes even questioning the philosophical definitions of terms or/and whether the definitions must change.

What I mean by fact is like 2+2 = 4 is fact. By absolute I mean established enough to be disqualified or questioned. I added a poll just for fun.

Peace.

Facts are by their nature, relative. By that I mean they are only true relative to another set of facts. So no fact is absolute. Darwin recognized a biological mechanism that explained an objective mystery for him. It turned out that other mechanisms that he was still unaware of also played a role in explaining that mystery. And even now, still more mechanisms may exist that also play a significant role in explaining that mystery. (The mystery of the origin of life and speciation.) Science does not seek not discover truth. It only seeks and discovers relative physical functionality. So again, no absolutes are involved.

 

[ChristineM]

It was a response to someone else. Maybe its interesting for some reason to you. Thats great.

Interesting in the fact that both you or i cannot read the future.