• @cynar
    link
    181 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.

    • @NPC
      link
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • @Ocelot
        link
        01 year ago

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

        • @archiotterpup
          link
          11 year ago

          It is. It’s a long term e. coli experiment going back decades. Also, you know, genetics and the fossil record.

          • @Ocelot
            link
            01 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
              link
              11 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
                link
                11 year ago

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