• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The part about evolution being a theory is wrong.

    The term they describe is a hypothesis. A theory is actually the highest level of understanding we have to.

    We have basic data. Then we have Laws, which describe how that data behaves. Finally we have Theories, that describe WHY the data behaves like that.

    Conversely a hypothesis is an idea to be tested. First by logic, then by experimentation. Hypotheses produce data, Theories explain and predict data.

      • Ocelot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it is true that for a hypothesis to become a theory it has to be testable, and evolution isn’t.

          • Ocelot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are mistaking evidence of something for a test. In order to move from a hypothesis to a theory, you must be able to reproduce or create experiments. Because evolution is a billions-of-years activity, it can’t be tested. So while it’s likely a fact, we really can’t even call it a theory unless you’ve got a billion years or so to create a test.

            • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude, look up the E. Coli evolution study. It’s an experiment showing evolution in action.

              It is a scientific theory. Just like gravity.

              • Ocelot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Very interesting. Got way too much into the weeds for me to follow all the way through, but point taken.