Is evolution a theory?

Kerkut defined the General Theory of Evolution as "all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.", and this is generally what is meant by broad term evolution.

This can be divided into 3 sections

1. Abiogenesis; life appearing spontaneously from non living matter.

2. Microevolution; a change in allele frequency in a population over time, including speciation within a kind.

3. Macroevolution; the appearance of new kinds, genera, phyla.

Of these microevolution is generally accepted as fact, although technically it remains a theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution remain more at the hypothesis level rather than theory due to a lack of sufficient observational evidence.

Like many things there is no actual way of proving that evolution is an absolute fact. Now evolution is also a very broad term, so whilst there are some components that are very widely accepted, there may be some which are more questionable. One of such is in microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is generally very accepted, but macroevolution tends to be contested (evolution to form different species etc.). Perhaps one way you could prove that the speciation which we may learn in the textbooks today did or did not happen is to watch them for millions of years (very hard to do). The only thing that can be somewhat accepted as facts are laws such as the laws governing the universe (laws of thermodynamics etc.).

When you first want to propose an idea that might explain observations, you formulate a hypothesis.

If that hypothesis passes many tests, such as answering the observations you have obtained so far, and can make predictions for future observations, then it is called a theory. In general, for scientific experiments and observations, a theory is usually as close as you can possibly get to a fact, because to actually prove something is rather subjective and rather hard to do. How can you actually prove that there isn't say a highly radioactive material in your pocket right now unless you literally check right now? Suppose we change the situation; how can you prove that there wasn't one in the past? Well, you can check the isotopes/radiation etc. which might suggest it but once you've found that there is particularly high levels of radiation suggesting say that a uranium source was once there how can you actually PROVE it? You can't know for absolute sure unless you literally check in the past or know someone for sure who has checked it in the past or have it on video tape that it was placed there etc. etc. etc.

Now with evolution, you have to take into account many, many more factors than just that example I gave. Once you have the observations/evidence, you test it out with your hypothesis, make predictions and future observations still seem to support the theory. This is the stage at which evolution is at right now. It is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's not credible. As I have mentioned a theory can be one of the most closest things to a fact we can get. It also happens that many components of evolution have theories which are some of the strongest theories in Science.

For example, evolution by natural selection states that the more fit ones for that particular environment are most likely to survive and reproduce and pass their genetic material to their offspring. It doesn't mean that it will always occur, it just states that the ones more fit are MORE LIKELY to survive and hence reproduce. Do you believe that this statement is true? Perhaps. But usually a lot of the contests are components within these theories, rather than the whole big picture of the theory (occasionally this will still occur though).

One of my college science teachers asked us "What is science?" In responding to suggestions from students, she rejected notions that science attempts to prove things or attempts to find facts. "Science," she said, "is a system for making and using theories." So, there is always doubt in science. Nothing is a "proven factual thing."

A scientist and a layman (i.e., non-scientist) regard the word "theory" differently. For the layman, it implies a lot of doubt, uncertainty, guesses. It is synonymous with "hypothesis." To a scientist, it is a well supported hypothesis, one that scientists and others can rely on, and use for more science. The scientist associates much less doubt with the word than the layman. In science, "theory" is usually as good as it gets.

So evolution is a theory. So is the idea that you are made of atoms, most of which are parts of molecules. So is the idea that the Earth's gravity will pull you toward the Earth.

By the way, evolution is the central theory of biology. You can't do good work in biology without some understanding of evolution.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

Furthermore, because of their nature, scientific theories will always remain theories; they do not become laws, and though they may be factual, they do not become "facts." So calling a scientific theory a theory in no way diminishes it.

In fact, a scientific theory can even be superior to a scientific law. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for.

And your GPS unit would not work as accurately as it does if the GPS system did not take into account Einstein's theory of relativity.

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will...

And there are these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/space/05...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11061...

But Einstein's theory of relativity is still called a theory.

Now, there are two things relating to what you said. There is biological evolution itself, which is a fact. And there is the theory of evolution which is an explanation of the process that results in biological evolution.

The fact is that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that is supported by an enormous amount of evidence and never disproved, despite the numerous false claims of creationists otherwise. It has also made numerous successful predictions about what should be found in further lines of research.

I think many areas of evolution are theory. Many of these theories are supported by science, yet they are still theories, not absolute fact. For instance let's look at fingerprints. All sets of fingerprints are unique. Are they? Has someone compared every single fingerprint in the world today and all the fingerprints of deceased humans? But, getting back to evolution, I believe that evolution does exist based on something that we are all familiar with. Flu viruses mutate very quickly. I would think this mutation process is a "watch it happen now" type of evolution.

In science a theory is a collection of facts used to explain some facet of reality. in common English a theory is simply a guess, people who are opposed to evolution have keyed in on this difference in language to suggest that evolution being described as a "theory" somehow makes it unlikely to be true.

Evaluation is not only a theory it is fact also. There's tons of genetic, fossil, and medical evidence that proves evolution is a fact. Without our understanding of it, we wouldn't know that bacteria and viruses evolve and couldn't upgrade our medicines.

Evolution is an observed fact. Natural selection is the theory that explains that fact. In other words, when you understand that the word 'evolution' means 'change in the heritable properties of a population or species . We can *measure* that change, so evolution is an observed fact.And natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution .Why species change over time.

Incidentally, we sometimes refer to natural selection as the "theory of evolution" ... so yes, it is perfectly valid to say that evolution is both a fact AND a theory. But these are referring to two things the 'fact' of evolution refers to the observed fact that species evolve, and the 'theory of evolution' refers to the explanation for WHY that fact occurs

Not actually, its a proven fact that living organisms evolve over a long period of time. Although evolution cannot be observed in a life time, it take millions of years for an organism to evolve. For instance, humans evolved from apes and this can be proved by looking at the homology between the apes and the human. This can be done by studying the fossil remains of the ape like humans and this is how it was concluded that humans actually evolved from ape like creatures.

It's both. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'hunch' like it does in common speech.

yes