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

I dont want to get in a debate about evolution or creation, I'm just curious about your opinion and the logic behind it

Note: Im not talking about all of evolution, just the evolution from molecules to man.

I know microevolution is a fact - that has been observed. I guess I would be talking about macroevolution

Answer 1

the theory of evolution is evolving so fast that even those that believe it can't keep up.
but the ones that state that evolution is fact are talking about the mutation of viruses,
and since viruses evolve, then that proves the fact of evolution.
or so they think.

Answer 2

I think you're getting confused. Microevolution is fact. It has been observed. Macroevolution (which is how molecules would get to man) is theory.

Wikipedia said:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level [1].

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and nonrandom mating.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.
Contents

---------------------------------------------

In regards to your edit...

Macroevolution, which is what you seem to be referencing, is not fact. It is a theory. There are a lot of theories, including gravity and mathematics, that people take for truth every day. Evolution, which was your original question, is a fact. Like I said, I think you may be getting the two of them mixed up.

Answer 3

I would just like to point out that the principals of microevolution and macroevolution ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

If you constantly take one step after another, how can you not walk a mile?

Evolution is a fact. It is a verified hypothesis. It has made predictions. For the past 150 year, evidence for evolution has been found by scientists around the globe independently. It is inevitable. It is the only unifying scientific theory in biology, no other stand close to it.

However, evolution is also a scientific theory. A scientific theory is different from a hunch theory, which is how the word theory is normally used. Creationism isn't even a theory, it's barely a hypothesis. A theory explains facts. It explain why fossils are in strata of rock that appear gradually changing, why HIV becomes drug resistant, why agricultural crops change, and so on.

Evolution by natural selection is BOTH a fact and a SCIENTIFIC theory, just like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the theory of relativity, germ theory, the theory of friction, quantum theory, and so on.

Lastly, Darwin did not invent "evolution." Evolution was around before Darwin. Lamarck had his theory of evolution too, he was wrong. Darwin became famous for the theory of evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. It is non-random natural selection, the mechanism of evolution, which he is known for. The specifics of evolution, exactly how this mechanism works, is debated by scientists, not evolution itself.

Answer 4

First, you should be aware that there has been pressure from Christian parents on high school biology teachers to emphasize the "only a theory" argument. And of course, some high school biology teachers have been personally reluctant to teach anything stronger than that stand. So, even if you recall being taught that evolution is "only a theory", you should realize that the real community of scientists specializing in biology in academia have for decades considered the modern theory of evolution to be a proven Theory with a capital T, on par with Issac Newton's Theory of Gravity or Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Note that Theories can change in the light of new evidence, which in fact happened when Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (which unified Gravity with Special Relativity) shows that Newton's Theory of Gravity was incomplete. Evolution might go through such corrections in the future, but not that even though Newton's Theory was found to be incomplete, its basic claims remained true. No serious biologist today expects to ever disprove the fundamentals of Evolution.
--- Edit ---
Dze's comment that "new holes show up with every copy of Scientific American" make me wonder if she has ever read even a single copy of Scientific American. That statement is complete fabrication. If she really believes it to be true, she should cite at least one example.
Let me cite one current article from Scientific American:
"Fifteen Answers to Creationist Nonsense"
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular

Answer 5

It is technically a theory, not a fact, but a scientific theory is far more than a guess. It is a way of explaining and describing the facts we observe, and is a generally accepted truth.

In normal conversation, the word "theory" can mean as little as the word "idea," in which case describing the theory of evolution as a fact is more accurate.

Answer 6

Evolution is a fact and a theory. The definition of evolution as a term is a change in a gene pool over time. This is fact. It happens. The theory of evolution is that this mechanism lead to the variety of species we see today.

Answer 7

Looks like it's acceptance was in the 1930's.

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and put forth in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[5] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis.[3] With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[6]

I believe in evolution. Why not?

Answer 8

A theory can be a fact inasmuch as there is so much corroborating evidence that the explanatory system (i.e. the theory) is beyond reasonable doubt (what we usually mean by a fact). If we define facts only in terms of what we can prove absolutely then we might find ourselves with no fact - after all, it would only take one object that does not fall down to the Earth for us to be required to rewrite the theory of gravity, yet we have no problem treating gravity as factual.

When Darwin wrote, fossils of ancestors of human beings had not been found yet, nor had transitional fossils such as archaeopteryx. Darwin's theory predicted them, and their discovery could be considered confirmation of his theory of evolution. Likewise genetics did not exist, but Darwin's theory predicted that there must be an underlying system that transmits characteristics from one generation to the next yet also allows new mutations to arise. Genetics thus provides another confirmation of Darwin's theory. We can also study DNA and confirm for certain that all life on earth is related, and assess the degree of relatedness directly. Now we can also witness bacteria evolving in the lab. We have found every type of puzzle piece Darwin's theory predicted we should, and since it is unrealistic to expect every piece to be found (as that would require that fossils be formed much more frequently than is actually the case), it is fair to say that Darwin's theory has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Are there questions still unanswered? Certainly. Is it possible that new discoveries could require major revisions to our understanding of evolution? Of course. Physicists thought they had the laws of nature under wraps with a Newtonian approach, then quantum mechanics not only required revisions but opened up whole new fields of inquiry that were previously undreamed of. In a similar way to this example, science may find new theories that incorporate evolution through natural selection within a broader framework. But evolution itself has been tested probably more than any other scientific theory and has passed with flying colors, and so if one rejects it when there is so much confirming evidence, one ought to be consistent and reject all other areas of science as well, since few are as certain and as well supported as evolution.

One final point - you do realize that questions about evolution are scientific questions and have nothing to do with religion, don't you? Religions may have issues with what they want to do about the data from the sciences (e.g. embrace them, or stick their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you" as loud as they can), but evolution itself is all about the evidence that the framework for explaining it, or in other words, science.

Answer 9

Like the existence of atoms, evolution is technically a theory. And, like the existence of atoms, it is such a thoroughly supported theory, so completely free of competing alternative scientific theories, that for all intents and purposes it is a fact, and is treated as such by all real biological scientists. Evolutionary theory forms the foundation of the biological sciences, just as atomic theory forms the foundation of the chemical sciences.

Answer 10

Molecules to man evolution has never been shown to be fact. In fact I believe it is too generous to even call it a theory because a theory is supported by facts which this type of evolution has none. Also since we still call it the "theory of gravity" it is a disservice to group it with something called the "theory of evolution".

Answer 11

It's a theory because it can't be proven, but that doesn't mean it can't be generally accepted as fact. It's strength is that it can continually be tested and not contradict itself. Even if one is unwilling to accept evolution as fact, it must be accepted that it is the best explanation of life that we currently have.

The reason it is generally accepted as fact is because recently it has been heavily debated (especially by religious groups) and in the face of such criticism, the concepts still hold water.