evolution close to being a law of science?

[mollykins]

When a theory is proven and all arguments against it have been disproven the theory becomes a law.

How close is the theory of evolution to being a law?

Would it be Darwins first law of evolution?

[naughtyboy]

Trouble is its not proven, there is evidence but is not proven.

[jake-the-peg]

Where did you get that definition of a law and a theory from?

A scientific law is normally a relatively simple observation relating factors that are believe to be true.

Hence Newtons third law - Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

Or Boyles law: The volume of a fixed mass of gas at a fixed temperature is inversely proportional to it's volume.

Theories are explanations of related observations based on a hypothesis.

The terms in English might sound as if they are related to the degree of confidence people have in them but that is a mistake.

Nice explanation here:
http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

[fo3nix]

I have to agree with jake.

This isn't the definition of a law.

Calling something in science a 'theory' doesn't mean that it's just an idea, or that it's been proven or not. It's still the theory of gravity, yet I doubt you'd call it a theory under your definition.

Somebody has an idea, and gives it a name. This is their theory for some physical phenomenon. Then over the course of history, evidence is collected in the open (and in controlled experiemnts) for or against this theory.

Eventually, some theories become accepted as the probable cause for the phenomenon they set out to explain.

Someone may also find some simple way of explaining this phenomenon, utilising this theory. It may even have some elegant, simple maths associated. This kind of thing is often caused a law (but it's not a strict definition).

[Captain Spod]

Oh brave Mollykins,
What have you done?
You do realise that you will now have to go to church, say three Hail Marys and turn round four times (or whatever else these people do) otherwise you will be STRUCK DOWN as a heretic?

Law indeed!

Pah!

[R1Geezer]

In reality there is no such thing as "law" in science, it's a human term often proven mathmatically but what we are really saying is that, given all tests and current examples it would seem that a certain result can be predicted. Eg I'm pretty sure that if I drop something it will fall to the ground and that experiment has been repeated millions of times but gravity is still a theory.

[jake-the-peg]

really Geezer?

Newton will be miffed he has 3 of them!

Can you think of an example where a law of science used to work but suddenly has not?

Nor can I

In reality what tends to happen is that laws are broken in extreme conditions.

For example it's not that things stops obeying Newton's laws on the Third thursday of every month but rather when Velocities get very high, or gravitational fields get very strong.

The fact that you cannot perform the same experiment everywhere at every time is erroneous.

Science is in fact a very powerful tool for predicting the future or determining what happened in the past. If you could do the same experiment everywhere at everytime there would be no point in science because you would have measured everything empirically.

You are still trying to make a relationship between the word theory and the element of doubt because of what you think the word Theory ought to mean.

Here's a dictionary definition:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Just because in some contexts the word is used in sense 6 or 7 doesn't mean that's the case in all context.

Any more

[R1Geezer]

steady on jake! All I'm saying is that we can not be sure 100% of cases will forever obey the "law" as we do not yet have it all worked out. That's why projects like the LHC etc are going on and scientists continue to search for the GUT. It's why religions of all sorts can hold on to their faith as they say, "Science hasn't explaned everything".

[chakka35]

They're all right, mollykins, but they're making too much of it.

Evolution is a theory, as all scientific principles are: the best theory we can find so far.

But when a theory makes an enormous amount of sense (as evolution does), is supported by mountains of evidence (as evolution is), has not a shred of evidence counting against it (which applies to evolution) and there is no other theory within a million miles of rivaling it (which is evolution's happy state), then it is reasonable for all practical purposes to assume that that theory represents the truth. Whether you then dignify that state by calling it a law is up to you; that's just semantics.

[mollykins]

Oh. My science teacher said that when a theory is completely and utterly proven and there is nothing that is still disproving it, it is a law (under normal conditions ie gravity isn't the same on the moon ect). So realy all laws should say on earth every action ha and equal and oposite reaction ect.

So now that the missing link between humans and apes has been found does that prove evolution?

If it does it came at the right time because we did about evolution in the biology exam and some of it would be wrong if it was after now and they didn't have time to change it.

[nix-j-c]

theres a link here mollykins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/0 5/090519-missing-link-found.html

It was found yesterday :D.

Does that mean that Darwinians have won the argument over evolution completely ?

[mollykins]

Maybe. Maybe.

I think that the only evidence that religious people had against evolution was this 'missing link' which as you say has now been found.

But if laws have to be believed by everyone does that mean that it still won't be unless everyone in the world becomes an atheist?

[mollykins]

I was getting excited aswell.

But if the thing about laws having to be believed by everyone is true, even if the other 'missing links' are found will everyone in the world have to be athiest before it becomes a law?

[nix-j-c]

But scientists have to say lots of maybes when soemthing is first discovered ese they could be proved wrong and they look like an idiot. (wouldn't they?)

Even though it sounds like many tests have been doneon her there still may be more to do which could prove the link stronger eh?

[fo3nix]

Just to clarify some things:

It's not anything official that makes something a law. It just slowly develops over history. Some theory becomes very well established and seems pretty fundamental, and that it applies to situations that weren't originally thought about (cf. Newton's laws, which have a place in modern mesoscopic physics, something developed a few hundred years after Newton).

Also Molly, you say:

"My science teacher said that when a theory is completely and utterly proven and there is nothing that is still disproving it, it is a law (under normal conditions ie gravity isn't the same on the moon ect)."

The theory of gravity (any theory, hopefully), is no different on the Moon than it is on Earth. The difference is the strength of gravity, because the Moon is a good deal lighter than the Earth (it has less mass to be specific). But the same theory of gravity still applies. The best theory of gravitation that we have currently is General Relativity, developed by a certain Prof. Einstein.

[nix-j-c]

I guess that that tells me aswell as molly.

I think that we were both getting excited about it a bit too much.

[Tim123]

The problem is that, as Jake points out, the word 'theory' has two pretty much contradictory definitions. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and as such the definition "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" applies. Those who object to evolution on religious grounds mischievously, and totally incorrectly, choose to apply the definition "guess or conjecture". They don't fool any scientists.

It should be remembered that Newton's laws aren't actually true. Einstein showed that they break down at speeds approaching c.