What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?

Firstly, the "philosophy of science" itself is an interesting thing. And you are right in that that is an important place to start - a lot of (genuine) scientists won't admit or acknowledge there are different approaches to science. For example, many are stuck on the idea that in order for something to be scientific, it needs to be falsifiable. But even that is hard to apply to "evolution."

However, the common theme in science is attempting to explain what happens in the world truthfully, WITHOUT invoking the supernatural. This often means falsifying, it often means predicting, it often means testing, but not always. We can all think of examples that we would consider "science" that do not meet these strict criteria (descriptive scientific observations are a good example). However, you will never find an example of science, where, when something can't be explained, a supernatural cause is provided.

So what can we say about evolution?

Well, we need to define it first. Most broadly defined, evolution theory is simply attempting to explain, in a scientific manner how populations change genetically over time. So the theory itself evolves, and yes, in that way it is not testable, repeated, or recorded. But individual parts of it are. Importantly, a theory implies something that happens broadly - the exact same conditions do not necessarily need to occur, but in that way we can still see general trends.

(True repetition isn't actually necessary to do science. Think about weather prediction - models are never based on exactly the same conditions; but we apply models that have similar occurrences in many different places, and hope that it can make a prediction. Regression for example doesn't require repetition.)

If you have more questions about individual parts of modern evolutionary thought feel free to contact me, or ask more questions here. This answer is long enough as it is.

Don't be discouraged by some of the more militant answers here.

Egad...you don't know the first thing about evolution, physics, biology, or chemistry do you? There isn't a group of people called "evolutionists" the way you have creationists. It's nothing more special than the multiplication table. Evolution only covers the period AFTER life began on earth. It traces the development of life forms, not their formation. That would fall under abiogenesis, another topic entirely. Let's take it from the top...evolution and abiogenesis don't cover the formation of the universe. No, chemicals were not around forever. The evidence you listed above has been known for about 20-30 years, since the time of Edwin Hubble. What we have found recently is that the structure of reality might not even be consistent. Don't jump so quickly to "supernatural." "If we can't explain it, it must be supernatural!" Well can you explain how a computer screen works? If not, it must be supernatural! There IS such a thing as not knowing...yet. And sometimes you have to be fine with that. Yes there are plenty of failed dials. Mars, Venus, Mercury, and every planet besides earth. Enough debunking. Time for some answers. Big bang started off the universe with extreme expansion. Initial energy density meant atoms couldn't even condense. Think of steam. After a few billion, stars began to form. We know this because light travels slowly enough for some of these events to just reach us now. After few more billion, planet earth formed. Water everywhere, mud, land, etc. Ahh too much to write and too tired. Google it.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?

What I mean is that how can it be considered science if it goes against te very philosophy of science?

My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read excerpts to me. It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none...

"What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?"

Evolution is a fact as it's seen to occur on a daily basis. Populations of organisms change due to descent with modification as acted upon by natural selection, and that's evolution. "Scientifically proven fact" means nothing in particular. A fact is a fact.

"It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these things."

As it's observed happening on a daily basis, you're wrong.

"It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something..."

As science isn't about proving things, it's a process of falsification, either you've misunderstood the book, or else it's garbage.

"Since evolution cannot be repeated, tested or recorded..."

Try doing Mendel's pea experiment. Try growing bacteria in stringent conditions for 1,000 generations, compare them to the source strain, then repeat the experiment. Just like the dropping the ball, the experiment has to be repeatable. You don't have to pour a new concrete sidewalk each time. The requirement for repetition applies to experiments, and repeated experiments show extensive evidence for evolution.

"It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something they cannot prove anything." There is always room for error. As for the utility of the information gathered, consider this: you are on a 4th story balcony over a concrete patio. You drop a fragile (but inexpensive) vase off the balcony and it shatters on impact. You have to go to the store to get more vases to repeat the experiment. Based on the information gathered without a repetition, do you leave the building by leaping from the balcony or take the stairs?

Atomic theory and quantum mechanics can't be proven, but you use your computer in which the ideas are critical to semiconductor design. Similarly, the power for you computer probably comes from oil or coal found using evolutionary principles of succession. Your food was grown using pesticides administered on the principle of minimizing the evolution of resistant strains.

>>>>>What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?

Proof is the domain of mathematics. In science, there is only observations. Evolution means change in allele frequency in a population between generations. This is observed. This is measured. This is predictable using the theory that best explains how and why allele frequencies change in populations over time. This has been tested. Evolution by Natural Selection is the foundation of the science of biology.

>>>>>My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read excerpts to me. It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these things.

You are mislead. Being read experts from a book does not provide someone with the proper training in logic, critical thinking and the scientific method. You'll have to try harder than that to understand science. See above. Evolution has withstood 150 years of testing. Repeatedly.

>>>>>It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something they cannot prove anything.

Yes, that is the fundamental limitation of science. We can only model natural phenomenon. This is a problem for some people who demand absolute truth. Maybe that's why religion is so comforting for so many people. It provides them with absolute answers, even if the answers are wrong and useless.

>>>>> (I personally do not believe in evolution but that I do not want to get in an argument about that.)

It really doesn't matter what scientifically illiterate people think. The universe will go on as it will no matter how hard you believe the earth is flat or that deamons and ill humors cause illness of that magic makes allele frequencies change in populations over time.

>>>>>Since evolution cannot be repeated, tested or recorded

Still wrong no matter how many times you repeat this.

>>>>> and since nothing can actually be proved according to the founders of modern science

Scientists try not to use the word "proof" as stated above.

>>>>>What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact of even science?

It is not proven because nothing can be proved to be true in science. Something can only be proven false [see: falsifiable].

However, the phenomenon of evolution is observed. It happens. The theory that best explains how and why and predicts evolution is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It works.

"It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable"

if that's verbatim what it said, it sounds like your dad has been reading a book for 8th graders...

a scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, based on empirical evidence and not counter to any previously known evidence

"Evolution is none of these things."

you don't get to just SAY things and assume they are true... how is evolution none of these things?

you have to demonstrate a statements validity before you can use it as a premise in an argument.

"It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something ... they couldn't prove it unless they actually did it."

yes, science is inductive, not deductive. the only deductive field of knowledge is mathematics.

"Even then some philosophers could argue that they were mistaken and it did not necessarily hit the ground."

but no scientist would... stay on topic here...

"In the same way using evidence scientists can predict guess that evolution occurred but they can't prove it."

yes... the same way they can predict things about gravity, or cells, or atoms... but can't PROVE any of it...

science (as i said) is inductive. induction deals with soundness and cogency... the theory of evolution, like much of the scientific consensus, is sound, cogent knowledge.

if that isn't enough for you, start wishing REAL hard that gravity isn't real either. who knows, maybe you'll float away...

"Since evolution cannot be repeated, tested or recorded and since nothing can actually be proved according to the founders of modern science I pose the same question."

ignoring for the moment that the back half of this sentence is a non sequitur... you still don't get to just say things...

HOW is evolution none of these things? you have to DEMONSTRATE why...

"What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact of even science?"

150 years of direct observation, empirical evidence, and no contradictory evidence found...

"I am genuinely intrigued and am not looking to annoy anyone or insult them."

you sure don't seem interested... you seem to just want to make bald assertions that evolution isn't science without a single argument to back it up...

why don't you learn the basis of philosophy before you worry about what your dad thinks about the philosophy of science... you seem to have a great disparity in your understanding of how both logic and science function

You are right that, in the strictest sense, evolution is not proven, any more than, well, any other theory, including gravity.

But it is testable. It is at least as repeatable as anything in, for example, astronomy. And it is certainly recordable.

It might help for you to become more familiar with Bayesian reasoning. Here's a good introduction, with nice slidey graphs: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

It also might help for you to become more familiar with evolution, here are some semirandom sources (the links I had handy):

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://talkorigins.org/

http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_...

>"My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read some excerpts to me."

What book?

This is part of what's wrong with Creationism. It teaches the concept of Argument from Authority ... saying "it says in this (unnamed) book what science is" ... and this is supposed to add credibility to the rest of your argument.

If you could give the title and author, at least we could check that the "excerpts" he is reading you are not leaving some VERY important things out.

>"It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable."

But this is obviously wrong ... if you just think about it for a half a second.

Example: We think that the craters on the moon were caused by meteors. And yet a meteor striking the moon has never been directly observed. It is not "recordable, testable, or repeatable". Does that make it "not science"? Do we simply conclude that the moon was made in its current, pockmarked form, by the Creator?

There are many branches of science that deal with things that are very large, very distant, and very old. From cosmology, to astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc. And these all study phenomena that are themselves not directly "recordable, testable, or repeatable."

So to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand as "not science" ... only illustrates a very narrow understanding of what science is.

Here's the key: It is OBSERVATIONS that need to be "recordable, testable, repeatable."

And evolution IS supported by OBSERVATIONS that are "recordable, testable, repeatable". From the discovery of fossils, to DNA and genetic patterns, to the structures of proteins and other bio-molecules, to the development of embryos, to patterns in anatomy and structure, and on and on.

This is why evolution IS science.

But the bigger point is that your example of the ball dropping 5000 times is very good.

But then you fail to grasp what it means!

It shows that NOTHING IS EVER "PROVED" IN SCIENCE. Nothing. EVER. EVER. EVER.

Not even "facts". There is NO SUCH THING as a "proven fact" in science. Facts are *OBSERVED* to be true ... not "proven" to be true.

That is precisely what makes science so strong. Because NOTHING is ever considered "proven" beyond question. Gravity, atoms, molecules, cell theory, germ theory, the theory that the earth goes around the sun. NOTHING. It is all just explanations for the observations we see. And ALL of them are considered only as "true" as our current observations about the world. A fact could appear tomorrow that disproves all of them. Then we will sit down and re-examine all those theories. That is what makes good science.

The problem with Creationism is that teaches you to look at evolution first, and then to understand "science" in a way that makes evolution look uncertain.

Instead, you should be learning about *science* first, and THEN applying its concepts to evolution.

If you did so, you would realize that the concept of evolution is accepted by the world's scientific community using exactly the same techniques and thought processes as the sciences of archaeology, geology, and even astronomy and astrophysics.

This is important.

Don't let the religious campaign to undermine the teaching and understanding of evolution ... undermine your entire understanding of how SCIENCE works.

This is important.

In a very short answer, MRSA disproves your supposition. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus has very quickly become resistant to nearly every antibiotic available. In other words it has evolved a resistance to just about everything we have thrown at it in the last decade and the fittest individual bacteria survived.