7 Answers

  1. John, this is Sir Terry Pratchett answering for you personally.

    LITERALLY to your question.

    “…The major organizational propositions of science are theories-coherent systems of ideas that explain a huge number of facts that would otherwise have no connection with each other and that have withstood serious tests, created deliberately to refute them if they do not agree with reality. They were accepted on faith for no reason: scientists have tried to prove them wrong, but they have not yet succeeded. Their failures do not prove the truth of the theory – after all, there are always sources for possible inconsistencies. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, combined with his laws of motion, was – and still is-an accurate and detailed explanation of the motion of planets, asteroids, and other bodies in the solar System. But in a number of contexts, such as in the case of black holes, it has been replaced by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.

    Wait a couple of decades, and some new theory will replace it. There are a lot of signs that not everything is going well in advanced physics today. When cosmologists are forced to introduce the concept of strange ” dark matter “to show why galaxies do not obey the known laws of gravity, and then discard the even stranger” dark energy ” that explains why galaxies are moving away from each other at an increasing rate, despite the fact that the existence of these two dark forces has almost no evidence, then the upcoming paradigm shift literally hangs in the air.

    Science for the most part develops step-by-step, but there are also sharp events in it. Thus, Newton's theory was one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs – not the rain that disturbed the surface of the lake, but the mental storm that raised raging streams. However, the Darwin Clock is dedicated to another mental storm-the theory of evolution. Darwin played a role for biology comparable to that of Newton for physics, but he played it in his own way. Newton developed mathematical equations that allowed physicists to perform calculations and verify them to the nearest decimal point; it was a quantitative theory. And Darwin's idea was expressed in words, not equations, and was qualitative, not numerical. Despite this, it has become no less, and perhaps even more influential, than Newton's theory. The Darwinian flood is still raging today.

    So, evolution is a theory, and one of the most influential, large-scale and important of all that has ever been invented. Here it is worth noting that the word “theory”, often used in a completely different sense, in this case means an idea proposed for verification. Strictly speaking, it would be more logical to call it “hypothesis”, but this pretentious, pedantic-sounding word is usually avoided even by scientists who understand such things. “I came up with a theory,” they say. No, you came up with a hypothesis. It takes years, maybe even centuries of the most severe tests, for it to turn into a theory.

    The theory of evolution was a hypothesis before – now it has rightfully become a theory. Evil tongues find fault with this word, forgetting about its second meaning. “Just a theory,” they say dismissively. But the true theory, which has withstood a thorough test, can not just be ignored. This leads to even more reasons to take the theory of evolution seriously, rather than alternative explanations based on, say, religious beliefs – because religion does not provide justification for these beliefs. In this sense, theories are the most persistent and plausible elements of science. Overall, they also inspire more confidence than most other products of the human mind. So what people think about when they chant should actually be called ” just a hypothesis.”

    At first, after the emergence of the theory of evolution, this position could still be justified, but now it is simply not reasonable. If anything can be considered a fact in principle, it is evolution. It can be inferred based on clues found in rock analysis, and later by comparing the DNA strands of different organisms. It cannot be seen with the naked eye in real time, but you can draw a logical conclusion without it, based on the evidence. And the evidence from many independent sources (such as fossils and DNA) is more than convincing. Evolution is so firmly ingrained that without it, our planet seems completely meaningless. Living creatures can change over time – and they do. Studies of fossils show that over a long period of time, they have undergone such significant changes that we can talk about the emergence of new species. Now you can observe smaller-scale changes that occur in shorter periods – for example, in a year or, in the case of bacteria, in a day.

    Evolution is underway.

    The question that remains relevant, especially for scientists, is: how is it going? Scientific theories themselves evolve, adapting to the results of new research, new discoveries, and new interpretations of old discoveries. Theories are not written on stone tablets. The greatest power of science is that scientists, with enough evidence, change their minds. Even if not all of them – after all, scientists are also people and have the same weaknesses as the rest of us, the main thing is that there are enough of them among them, thanks to which science can develop further…”

    If you are REALLY interested in the answers to your questions: well, here, ” Discworld Science. Book 3. Darwin's Clock”. – The above quote is from Chapter 2, “Paley's Watch”, there is a lot of clear writing before and after the quote, all in response to your question. And in the chapters after that, too. Good science-pop, I understand that the” Birth of Complexity ” by Alexander Markov-science-pop is already without discounts, it will seriously have to be understood. But at Pratchett-in general – “on fingers”. Read it))

  2. I would like to turn to the author of the question: if you are not satisfied with the statement of evolution as truth (let's put aside the epithet “absolute” for now) – what alternatives do you have? What other ideas are you willing to discuss that would be stronger than the theory of natural selection, variability, and the consolidation of species differences? Please suggest them, we are ready to consider them – but do not be offended if they are offered the same strict verification criteria that the synthetic theory of evolution once passed.

  3. Evolution is the history of Natural Selection.

    Some collection of facts tied to time and environment.

    Evolution implies Change, successful or unsuccessful.

    What can be said here?

    To assert as if it were something else … – this is most likely a way of presenting the material.

    Each singer's song sounds different, but everyone perceives the presentation of the material in their own way.

  4. Because this is no longer just an assumption. This is an important area of biology, even the framework of all biology, linking together many facts, small theories, hypotheses, and areas of research.

  5. Because there is no better explanation, for example, for the fact that differences in the genome can establish a family tree from bacteria to humans, and these differences mainly correspond to qualities that adapt to the environment.

  6. John Fischer sometimes just go to Wikipedia.

    Synthetic theory of evolution (also modern evolutionary synthesis) is a modern evolutionary theory that is a synthesis of various disciplines, primarily genetics and Darwinism. STE also draws on paleontology, taxonomy, molecular biology, and others.

    * the basic unit of evolution is the local population;
    * material for evolution are mutation and recombination variability;
    * natural selection is considered as the main reason for the development of adaptation, speciation and the origin of supra-species taxa;
    * genetic drift and the founder principle are the reasons for the formation of neutral signs;
    * a view is a system of populations, reproductive isolated from populations of other species, and each species is ecologically isolated;
    * speciation consists in the emergence of genetic isolation mechanisms and is carried out mainly in conditions of geographical isolation.

    Thus, the synthetic theory of evolution can be characterized as the theory of organic evolution by natural selection of genetically determined traits.

  7. Once again, a statement is inserted instead of a question. “it's just a guess.” And why does the author of the question eat g in the morning … but he doesn't have a big spoon, doesn't he have a small one? And why doesn't it add pepper and mustard? 🙂 Yes, how much can you push brain diarrhea under the guise of “questions”?

    The “question” itself is evidence of ignorance and demagoguery. The desire to push your personal “opinion” under the guise of a question.

Leave a Reply