When did evolution become a fact and not a theory?

Question

I'm talking about the evolution from simple molecules to man - when we learned about evolution in biology this was always taught as the theory of evolution, but now, 10 years later people are arguing saying it is a fact and others saying its a theory...

I looked up the scientific definition of "fact" on Wikipedia and here's what it said:

"In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts."

Now I know that no scientist (or anyone) has observed the evolution of man from molecules (no one can survive that long), however we do have fossils of many animals that once existed that look similar to one another.

So the facts are the existence of these fossils that look similar, and the theory to explain these facts is that they evolved from one another.

Thats my opinion, for those who believe that molecules to man evolution is a fact, could you point out the error in my logic? Thanks

Answer 1

Well as far as I know evolution is still just a theory.. For the scientist still don't agree about its possibilities...........................

Answer 2

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Answer 3

Evolution is still considered a theory.  However, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest evolution is a viable explanation for life on earth.

Answer 4

Most people obviously havent learned anything in a formal calssroom- have only heard biased news in the media and spews it back out.  this is why public school should really include anthropology in their coursework...

anyway, as a graduate in anthropology, and a keen interest in biological anthropology, the most accepted point of view is this:

the PROCESSES of evolution are theory.

this includes: evolution by natural selection (darwin and wallace's theory), mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. These processes theoretically lead to MACROVOLUTION and leads to speciation (you know... one species evolves out of another)

however, microevolution has been deemed a scientific fact because the process of very small-scaled changes in the ALLELE frequencies (little codes in the DNA) have been observed.

so, we get confused on the issue of whether or not it is a fact or a theory, cause... while evolution is FACT, Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection is a THEORY because it is one of the PROCESSES that apparently LEADS to macroevolution.

Answer 5

It NEVER was a fact - it's a theory.  Evolution is a puzzle which scientist try to put the pieces together as logically as possible.  Nobody know for sure, so that is why it's a THEORY.

Answer 6

It is still a theory and not a fact. Hundred of years ago, during the dark age, Christians believe that the earth was the center of the universe and that's their fact (even though many people have proven them wrong, but they just ignorant).

So until very conclusive evidences are available, the fact is evolution is still a theory. And if somebody else have better evidences using better technology to claim something else, then evolution theory will be obsolete. Refer to Aristotle

Answer 7

It is neither fact nor theory.  It is a hypothesis and one never quite proven because there are so many inconsistencies in the hypothesis.  If man evolved from monkey's or fish then why are both still around and there is no evidence of "in betweeners" .  In other words, if evolution is a fact, then when did it stop since there are no fish walking out of the sea anymore, not growing legs, and no monkey transitioning to men, etc.  Also the fossil record has no consistency of "evolution" where there is a smooth evolution, rather the fossil record shows the opposite!  There are sudden catastrophic changes that appear in the fossil record that belies the fact that evolution is not a fact.  Lots of questions left open--but your inquiry is an outstanding intellectual starting point--good luck on your quest!  Write back when you get to the weirdness and madness of quantum theory!!!  Peace my friend!

Answer 8

It is not a fact, and never has been.  Evolution is still a theory.  People have the right to believe in that theory, but I don't think they should discount those who disagree with it.  It is, of course, non-verifiable.

As far as how long evolution has been considered fact, I would argue that the 1960s (when supreme court cases ruled that creationism could no longer be taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution) was when people generally ceased to percieve evolution as a theory and began to percieve it as fact.

Answer 9

It's still a theory.

Answer 10

Evolution became a fact about fourteen to fifteen billion years ago. Here on earth it became a known fact about a hundred years ago. The theories have evolved darn near as well as God's creation has. Sooner or later we are going to be able to prove a lot more of what God did in the past and how His evolution will work towards the future.

Answer 11

It's considered fact by some that feel it is the most logical of any explanation brought forth to answer man's existence on earth. Man evolved with a mental capability limited to about his own lifetime, so it is extremely difficult for any individual to try and mentally visualize all the time that evolution has had to (through very tiny gradual changes) reach the point that we are today.

Evolution, I feel, is a fact that can be very clearly observed in organisms with short lifespans such as bacteria, over time a colony of bacteria can be observed mutating, forming new strains, and becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. The fact that all this change can occur in just a few hundred generations of bacteria are a clear indicator that evolution is a sound and scientifically feasible explanation to man's current situation. If you'd like more examples I suggest reading the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins which is a fantastic view on the evolutionary perspective.

Answer 12

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, which in science, means that it is almost a fact.  A theory is a conclusion based on a lot of evidence.  There is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution.  There is fossil evidence, genetic evidence, physiological evidence, embryology, and also the fact that evolution has been observed in viruses and bacteria.

Answer 13

The 23 answers so far show a remarkable number of thoughtful and honest descriptions of "evolution".  I enjoyed reading them all.

However, if any of the readers want to dispel "theory" and produce "facts", then, as a doctor may I give you just two "facts" which surprised me when I first SAW them with my own eyes:

(1)  In Anatomy, when we are disecting the human eye we found a growth at the anterior aspect of the inner sulcus. By pulling on this with our forceps we could easily extend this tissue distally but not entirely across the eye since it was not fully exendable.

In the texts and from our instructors it was generally agreed that this tissue was the vestigal remains of a THIRD eyelid. Certainly one would agree there is no other apparent use for this membrane.

So, if you are willing to accept this known fact  then I can only ask any doubtors " why would a human require a third eyelid unless it was a remnant of an organ required earlier in our evolution, perhaps under water?"    Each of us can ponder this fact.

(2)  I spent only three weeks in the study of embryology I believe, at least some old notes show the references to which I am now referring. The human embroyos whch were cut in thin slices so that we could examine them under a microscope and in those about 15 days old or perhaps a little older we could defintely see the presence of "gill slits", which are organs that allow water to pass through them and extract oxygen it does so.

We were all quite surprised to see these gill slits which of course become less and less apparent as the embryo grows and until none are seen in a foetus.  So, again, I would simply ask the doiubtors, "why would a human child in the early development require "gill slits" which are only needed by creatures who live in the oceans?

There are many many other things I saw with my own eyes and therefore became "facts" to me.

However, I think some folks do not wish to accept any belief except what their parents or their pastor tells them. For example one could place the slides and evidence of a hundred examples of what I have mentioned, in the hand of people like Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggert or maybe even woinderful men like Billy Graham and they would just NOT believe it, or perhaps choose NOT to even look at it.  

Instead they would bless you and say " Please don't confuse me with the FACTS, My mind is made up.

Answer 14

You must be from Kansas.

Answer 15

I didn't know that it had became a fact, I thought scientist still couldn't agree. Well to me it will always be a theory, just like the creationism is a theory.

Answer 16

it will soon be  accepted fact IF the missing link was been revealed and studied.....But it will never be fact because evolution really never occur.......because as Charles Darwin discuss this thing he only shows proof of mutated creature and undiscover species likely to human. and that's not reliable source for fact.he died no thriumph seeking the missing link.

Answer 17

Facts are observations of natural events. Theories are used to explain the facts.  Some theories are more credible than others.  The theory of evolution is more credible than the belief in intelligent design because ID or creationism have very little in the way of observations which support them.

Some people say that evolution is "only a theory".  That's like saying a Corvette is only a car.  In scientific terms, a theory has undergone quite a lot of testing before reaching this status.  When a scientist makes an observation he or she may create several hypotheses to describe the observed facts.   After rigorous testing by multiple observers, the hypothesis may be elevated to "theory-hood" when the scientific community is fairly certain that it is true.

Answer 18

It should be called a theory because no matter how much supporting evidence there is always a little doubt.  With evolution it is almost 99.9999999999999 per cent true.

Answer 19

It's fact because it has been shown to be a logical take on the issue of "how did life get the way it is now" question. No other logical theory has been presented, therefore we can assume that by the facts (fossils and anatomy of current animals) shown to us that evolution is true; it presents a valid argument and there is no other theory (that makes any sense) to compete with it. There is no such thing as a missing link because evolution is a gradual change. This doesn't have to conflict with religion, people agree with me that god could have just started things out and then let evolution take over. In conclusion, I claim it as fact due to the fact of it being the only valid explanation that has actual evidence.(as opposed to every thing just appeared and dinosaur bones are just a myth put out there by the EAC)

Answer 20

I think you mean "accepted as fact".  Something's either a fact or it's not.

For evolution, it started with Charles Darwin's publication "On the Origin of Species", and the postulation of basically "may the best animal win".

It wasn't accepted immediately, of course, but that was the turning point.

Sadly, there are still some pinheads (mainly in Kansas, methinks) who consider it theory, but anyone who has normal powers of observation and reason consider evolution to be fact.

Answer 21

As I teach in my Biological Anthropology class - Evolution is both fact and theory - and you have already been provided with excellent examples of both by various previous answers.  



On the fact side - To put it simply - the fossil record and our own observations over the last several hundred years have shown that evolution is taking place - it is a fact - species either change or die out - dinosaurs are gone - mammals that existed during the time of dinosaurs no longer exist, but their descendants have evolved into many modern forms.

With regard to theory - it is an attempt to explain the observed facts in a way that best fits the available data.  A To stand up as a scientific theory it must be tested and not proved false.  specific hypotheses are put forward to test a theory - and they are examined to determine if the theory holds up.  in some cases a specific hypothesis may not hold, but that does not negate the whole theory - you simply reconsider the hypothesis - present another alternative, test that and continue the process.  If a major flaw was to be found (i.e. a dinosaur fossil with a human fossil in his mouth) then the theory would have to be reconsidered, and possibly rejected. So far this has not happened.

Answer 22

There is a missing link in that theory and all the attempts to fill that link have been disproven by science. DNA testing has been done on the bone artifacts and they have tried to pass off a collection of bones from different animals as the link between monkey and man. It is only a theory.

Answer 23

Evolution itself is a fact, much like gravity is a fact.  You drop a pencil, the pencil falls.  We _know_ evolution happens, due to watching short-lived life forms like bacteria, or from looking at the fossil record as you said.

A theory, in science, is an explanation of the facts, like you said.  So the theory here would be how, exactly, evolution works.  We've got a bit worked out, but we're still working on it.  For instance, do species tend to slowly evolve, or do they change in a relatively short period of time?  This is sort of like how we're not really sure what causes gravity, even though we know about the terminal velocity and all those equations, except we know what causes evolution, but just not necessarily all of the equations for it.

Answer 24

Its still both; fact and theory. You posted the scientific definition of a theory, but I don't think you understood it.

Answer 25

Evolution explain by Darwin is not a complete one, but yet explain part of the process.

The fact about evolution that you may want to learn, is that since the end of Genome project, it has been found that 41% of our DNA is coming from virus alone! Mitochondria were also another bacteria absorb by our cells to produce energy, it is why they show a different variant of our own cell DNA.

All in all, I suggest you to read about symbiogenesis, this is the second part of the evolution process that will take over Darwin in the next decade or so...

Answer 26

Many scientists think it is smart to say it is just a theory.  That is like saying that the Earth is not flat is a theory.  You have to come up with bizarre scenarios like the matrix movie or believe our life is a dream to deny it.  It sounds to me like you know where the only possible question lies but it is not a huge mystery.  The only gap would be the first probably 100 million years or whatever it took to get to the point of the most primitive life on Earth.  I don't have any problem believing that a complex molecule could form on Earth that was able to reproduce itself and eventually evolve into primitive life.  Many of the so call experts on intelligent design say that DNA cannot spontaneously generate but it would be stupid to assume that it probably did.  More likely, far more primitive systems existed that evolved into systems using something similar to RNA for enzymes and it was eventually used as a code to create proteins out of.  It didn't start out complicated.  I notice that most of the Intelligent Design people aren't suggesting that God created primitive bacteria 4 billion years ago so I don't know what the actual point of that argument is.  

We have direct evidence of evolution from bacteria to man.  Before that all we have is theory about how it happened.  The extreme complexity of the chemistry is not a reasonable argument that it didn't occur in my opinion.

Answer 27

The scientific definition of "theory" is what you should concerning yourself with.  A theory in science is not a guess like it is in common english usage.  To quote the Wikipedia as you did:

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

Fact and theory don't work in opposition by the scientific definition.

A couple samples (of many) of theories that you may have heard of that are so prevelant and accepted that they are considered "facts" to normal people.

The theory of Plate Techtonics: Describing the movement of the "plates" of the earths crust that move and create mountains/volcanoes etc.

The theory of Special Relativity: Describing (among other things) the movement of the planets around the sun.

The theory of General Relativity: Describing (among other things) gravity.

and of course,

The theory of Evolution: Describing the process of natural selection.

Yes, I'm sure there are some of you here that belive that the jury is still out on the heliocentrism but for the VAST majority of people it's a no brainer.  The evidence is in.  If you want to deny the millions of examples of evolution ranging from verifiable cell mutation to fossil evidence to speciation and more feel free to do so but please bear in mind that it may make you look silly.