Is Evolution and Natural Selection still a theory? Even with all the evidence supporting it?

Is Evolution and Natural Selection still a theory? Even with all the evidence supporting it?

nothing ever stops being a theory

you keep testing it over and over and over and over

Evolution is a fact, it has been observed in laboratory settings. The theory of evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for the observed fact of evolution.

A scientific theory isn't a guess. Words don't always mean the same thing in science as they do everyday usage. A scientific theory is a model for how something works. The theory is accurate if it matches whats happening in reality.

With evolution there's some confusion because it is a fact that species evolve. The theory of evolution is the model of how and why that happens.

In science, theory is pretty damn solid, it's like a nuclear-powered supercarrier, almost impossible to sink. To become a theory, it has to:

1) explain all observed phenomena

2) predict new phenomena

3) have the predictions verified by testing

A theory is 1+2+3, a hypothesis is 1+2.

It is said that the everyday use of 'theory' is about the same as the scientific definition of 'hypothesis', but I disagree - the everyday usage barely covers (1), and often it doesn't even quite rise to that level.

What does the reality of genetic engineering tell us about speciation?

Wrong.

Think about a grading system for games from 0 to 10. If you never give 10 to any game, it just means 10 doesn't really exist and 9 is the best score.

To answer OP's question:

It is still a theory. It has the following problems that still needs to be verified:
1. Observe chemical evolution happening
2. Find life elsewhere in space, something that doesn't use DNA
3. Find two organisms that are equal but have same DNA
4. Find two organisms that are different but have same DNA
5. Find an environment where no adaptation can give fitness
6. Find an environment where any adaptation gives fitness
7. Observe speciation

This Evolution is a noun, its the name given to changes in allele frequency, it isnt a theory, evolutionary theory aka natural selection, genetic driftng, hitchhiking and mutation, all explain how evolution occurs.

Its only uneducated biblefags who call evolution a theory.

It doesnt have problems that need to be identified you fucking retard, who taught you all that bullshit? Natural selection is a fact as far as the general population is concerned.

Please fuck off if you clearly dont know anything about evolution or science in general.

>only uneducated biblefags who call evolution a theory.

...as do scientists too. For them though, the word has a different meaning, see

>Evolution is a noun, name given to

Discussing etymology and definitions aren't science and don't produce any knowledge. Science is about formulating a statement and discussing what you can deduce from that statement from existing accepted statements, and what REAL-LIFE-PHENOMENA can be explained with that statement. Ideally you want your statements to be as simple as possible, and as few as possible, and as perfect match amongst other statements as possible.

Cell theory states:
'all living organisms are composed of cells, which have DNA code, and come from pre-existing cells getting copied'

Evolution by natural selection states
'all organisms develop over time by random mutations to DNA code, and when resources are limited only those codes that happen to perform best survive'

Or like triangle statement
'three non-collinear points'

Answers questions like "what object is this?"
>Does it have exactly 3 points?
Yes
>Are the 3 points collinear?
No
>Then it is a triangle

And where do you base that claim?

Currently theory of evolution has a problem of being indistinguishable from DNA. Everything evolution does could just be a function of DNA. Evolution would break completely if it were found that DNA catalyzed mutations, and doesn't correct mutations that are beneficial (so DNA would be smart-guy).

Then we would lose the term 'evolution by natural selection' and discuss 'evolution by chemical equilibrium'

Thanks for the lecture you dumb cunt. Why did you respond to me? Evolution is a noun, simple as. Was i implying etymology of words produces knowledge?

Haha, retard. Bite the hand that helps you.

Is OP still a fag?

The answer is yes, as always

Where do i base the claim? Um, my world leading evolutionary biology lecturers.

How would "evolution break" if we found dna catalyses mutations??? what sort of stupid conclusion is that? Also which evolutionary theory would break, natural selection, mutaion, hitchhiking, inbreeding???

You realise not correcting mutations, would be caused by a mutation, which would have been selected for?
You really need to stop talking about shit you dont understand.

How was your comment any help? It didnt even make coherent sense you retard. What was the overall point of the comment?

Discuss an experiment that when I give you ONE of the first organism, which is A MOLECULE of extremely high energy state

that whatever results from it after 3,5 billion years,

isn't just an equilibrium state of that molecule? Lowest energy state. The molecule would just slowly try to reach lowest energy state it has, and the reaction would be extremely slow (3,5 billion years) and catalyze a large series of side reactions (other organisms)

DNA doesnt work like that, if you think youve made a breakthrough in evolution i will read your paper in Human Molecular Genetics or in Nature ok?
PS i will be doing a Phd next year on evolutionary genetics, ive never heard of whatever youre talking about

Biology is just applied chemistry and chemistry is just applied physics. Physics is the standard model and general relativity.

>DNA doesnt work like that
Quantum physically DNA is an entity that increases the probability of some changes and decreases the probability of some changes; just like any other entity.

Quantum physically when you raise a ball 1 meter and let go of it, it makes choices based on the energy difference between it's current state and it's possible future energy states. The more energy difference, the more likely it will choose that decision.

We see the ball drops in a straight line to floor with an acceleration of 9,81 m/s^2. In reality the ball is not forced to take that route; it is just most likely.

Now raise a DNA molecule "1 meter" into the air and drop it. All life would just be series of choices governed by quantum physics. There would be no such thing as "evolution by natural selection". Nah. There would just be a quantum wave function that would precisely describe the path taken by any molecule in any environment.


The more you know!

This is the most interesting thing I've read in all of these bullshit evolution threads. Thanks user. Got any keywords I can Google to read more on the topic?

It's "evolution *by* natural selection," and it's very well supported theory.

You have a wrong conception of how life evolves.
Dont project your knowledge of quantum physics into this matter. There isnt even a consensus between relativity and quantum physics so trying to explain a macroscopic phenomenon with the latter is retarded.

>There would just be a quantum wave function that would precisely describe the path taken by any molecule in any environment.

But people don't describe living organisms in terms wave functions because that would be absurd. The lowest-level that we describe organisms at is the level of the molecule.

He is arguing that DNA is predisposed to generate certain organisms (in particular, man), because this is an inherent property of DNA, and that DNA will only make these particular life forms. Even if it were physically possible for DNA to evolve itself into a more fit lifeforms, he argues, DNA might have some sort of "will" in that it refuses these mutations because it "wants" to be some other ideal form that it perhaps not the most "fit" that it could be. Or something like that.

Regardless, even if DNA has its own mysterious free will, if the environment kills off the things that can't live in the environment, then the will of the DNA will be at least guided by nature into one particular path of evolution.

Theory in a scientific context does not mean the same thing as theory in the colloquial meaning. Wikipedia has an alright definition:

>A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It has to fulfill the following criteria:
>It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
>It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
>It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

Our understanding of gravity is also based on scientific theories, yet nobody would argue gravity doesn't exist. If you don't talk in a scientific context, then you might as well say evolution is a fact. Though I usually prefer to stay in a scientific context when talking about scientific topics and I just explain what the terms actually mean beforehand if the other participants of the conversation don't know already.

Best introduction to quantum physics is
>Introduction to quantum mechanics, by David Griffiths, 2nd edition (2004)
>Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur, by Oxford press

Best recap on advances on quantum physics is
>Exploring the quantum, by Oxford graduate series

Good, but rigorous books that believe in th subject, that I remember, are
>What is life, by Erwin Schrödinger
>Emperor's new mind, by Roger Penrose
>Physics and philosophy, by Werner Heisenberg
>Mathematical literature by A.G.Hamilton generally describes how 'everything' in theory could be described by quantum theories

Oxford university in general prefers quantum physical theories over formation of life, and generally has excellent studies and references on quantum physics.
>global.oup com/academic/series/?cc=fi&lang=en&, their book series

Philosophers that somehow believe in stuff like that: Jeremy Bentham, Karl Popper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Stephen Hawking, the concept of anthropic principle in general, concept of multiverses and alternate timelines, computation limits by Turing

Fun fiction book that have similar feelings: Bunker diary, Do androids dream of electric sheep, Slaughterhouse V, Candide

Best journals on the subject are APS Physical Review Letter D

Please tell me you're just trolling with that post.

Do you think your post has some impact? Or is it just noise?

You do realize that you have to swallow the pills before they help?

Yes, a meme perfectly disproves quantum physics. Thank you for your input.

>It has the following problems that still needs to be verified:
>1. Observe chemical evolution happening
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. The theory starts with single celled organisms. How these came into being is unimportant for the theory. And chemical evolution is only one of several competing explanations for abiogenesis
>2. Find life elsewhere in space, something that doesn't use DNA
How is that relevant?
>3. Find two organisms that are equal but have same DNA
>4. Find two organisms that are different but have same DNA
>5. Find an environment where no adaptation can give fitness
>6. Find an environment where any adaptation gives fitness
What's the point of these? Not sure where you are going with these.
>7. Observe speciation
We did that, though you wouldn't have to observe it fist hand for evolution to be true.

Reading the titles I'm not sure which one of these specifically deals with the biological implications of QM, care to specify? Articles and papers also welcome

>3. 4. 5. 6.
Phylogenecy (tree of life) was constructed by assuming the amount of similarity between two organisms genetic codes define their species and relation of species. So if organisms are 99,99% similar in genetic code, they are of same species. If organisms are 98% similar, they must be closely related, but definitely not same organism.

But in theory, we could have two organisms with 99,999999% similar genetic code, but being ENTIRELY different.

Example DNA
>define development pathway A (30'000 genes) = rabbit
>define development pathway B (30'000 genes) = worm
>if the last letter in sequence is nucleic acid A, undergo developmental pathway A
>otherwise undergo developmental pathway B

Another assumption we make is that genetic code very rarely changes backwards.
Third assumption we make is that genetic code very rarely makes huge changes.
Fourth assumption we make is that chemical evolution occured only once
Fifth is that organism cannot evolve to be non-organism; that non-organism can't later evolve to be organism


There is no accepted physical reason why any of these assumptions should be true. In fact only the 3rd assumption is "too unlikely to be reasonable".

Example problems
>Why isn't there organism that reproduces cyclically, first it makes a copy of itself; the next time it catalyzes mutated organisms of itself
>Why isn't there any organism that has evolved to craft DNA
>Why isn't there any organism that can stimulate non-living environment to spawn life
>Why isn't there any organism that uses some other information medium than DNA

These problems reflect that we still lack large pool of knowledge on these stochastic processes and large bias is that we treat life specially; it is just chemistry

Also in theory two organisms could have same code, but be ENTIRELY different species.

In theory two organisms could have different code but be EXACTLY same species.

No explanations yet to why this doesn't happen.

>Phylogenecy (tree of life) was constructed by assuming the amount of similarity between two organisms genetic codes define their species and relation of species.
The tree of life is a flawed, but useful predictive tool. The percentage of similar genes between different species is used to predict how closely related they are. The assumption is that two species A and B with very similar genes split off from another later, than a third species C with more different genes from both of them. C must have split off earlier from the species that would later become A and B.

Our definition of species is not based on the tree of life though. Two animals are of the same species if they are able to create viable off-spring, how similar their genes are doesn't matter for this. If a worm animal and a lizard animal could create viable off-spring and are inclined to do so naturally then they would be the same species by definition. Though our observations have shown that usually only animals with highly similar genes like your 99.x% similarity can create viable off-spring and are inclined to do so. In theory two different species could evolve to be able to procreate despite having hugely different genes, but the random mutation that would be required to get to that point goes into the 'very highly unlikely' category.

(1/3)

>But in theory, we could have two organisms with 99,999999% similar genetic code, but being ENTIRELY different.
As we have discovered there are control genes that control how other genes are used. For instance the genetic code for 'create an eye here' is the same for spiders and mammals. But the resulting eye will be specific to the species, you won't get a mice eye on the back of a spider, but rather a spider eye on the back of the spider.

So it is true that you could create speciation by changing some small amount of control genes rather than change the bulk of normal genes that code for features. But the two species would still be very similar. They would have the same eyes, hair, bone density, you name it. You would just arrange them differently for example a 10 cm mouse compared to a 50 cm mouse with extremely long claws and bald legs. In nature you wouldn't get a mouse with 10 eyes on its back because they would be useless without the necessary connections to the brain, so natural selection would remove this mutation again.

(2/3)

>Another assumption we make is that genetic code very rarely changes backwards.
Well you can only change 'backwards' if there are still non-active genes in the genetic code of the species that can be reactivated. You can't go back to a feature that has been removed from the genetic code. But a plant that lives underground without sunlight, with deactivated protoplasm genes, could start photosynthesizing again if the genes for this feature are still in the genetic code and if the reactivation wouldn't impair other features that have evolved since the deactivation.

>Third assumption we make is that genetic code very rarely makes huge changes.
Like I said changing control genes can make a huge change. Depends on your definition of 'huge change'. You can't just evolve a fully functioning eye in one step of mutation, that is true.

>Fourth assumption we make is that chemical evolution occured only once
Again back to abiogenesis. This is irrelevant for evolution. Life could have started based on other principles than chemical evolution.

>Fifth is that organism cannot evolve to be non-organism; that non-organism can't later evolve to be organism
Why is that? I mean there is no incentive to do so for an organism, but an organism could create non-organism reproductive molecules that serve a function for the survival of the organism. These helper molecules could then go rogue and evolve into an organism again.

(3/3)

Darwin used valid examples to backup his claim. It was pretty solid to those who actually read his work to begin with

>protoplasm
Brain fart, meant chloroplast

>>Why isn't there organism that reproduces cyclically, first it makes a copy of itself; the next time it catalyzes mutated organisms of itself
>>Why isn't there any organism that has evolved to craft DNA
>>Why isn't there any organism that can stimulate non-living environment to spawn life
>>Why isn't there any organism that uses some other information medium than DNA

Just because these are possible, doesn't mean they MUST happen.

(4/3)

Yes it is a theory, it has never been disproven.

Why don't people try to make them extremely likely to happen in controlled laboratory conditions like the Miller-Urey experiment

Wouldn't a vessel containing the right conditions, nucleotides, certain catalyst cofactors and aminoacids eventually produce proteins in a repeating manner?

I can't think of an environment that would 'favor' (lack of a better term) things like cyclical reproduction or the non-artificial crafting of DNA. If you can think of experiments that would favor this, then I would like to hear it because I might try them. One of the problems here is also reproductive cycles, you can only really do this kind of experiment with simple life forms that reproduce rapidly, otherwise you would end up with experiments that take hundreds, thousands or millions of years.

Scientists who are working on abiogenesis are currently trying to create environments that favor the spawning of life. So that is already happening. If they are successful then they might create life that doesn't use DNA.

Most people at the time (I'm not going to refer to current times because evolution is a wholly accepted theory now) who looked at organs like eyes or other complex things and think they must have been designed tend to not understand just how slowly these things evolved. It was a big problem for people in the church because they thought the earth was 6000 years old.

It took 2100 million years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes. No "intelligent designer" is going to take that fucking long to do this. It happened on its own, after prokaryotes engulfing each other via phagocytosis resulted in membrane-bound organelles performing functions within host cells. Tiny changes continued to take hundreds of millions of years in this fashion. It was so fucking sloooow that the only reasonable explanation is that the thing driving change had no clue what it was doing, because it wasn't a sentient thing in the first place. It was "evolution", random shit happening by chance that made slightly different organisms appear over time.

Funnily enough, someone in my department has just discovered what are probably the oldest fossils ever, which support alkaline hydrothermal vents as the most probable environment for abiogenesis. His names Matthew Dodd if ur interested.

I will look it up, thanks

>Just because these are possible, doesn't mean they MUST happen.
Also if they DO happen they have a very low chance of surviving in a life-rich environment, i.e. they'd just be food.