0

I was wandering about darwin's theory which is controversial theory and there are no enough evidence to prove it right or falsify it, since I'm a biology student so i studied basic way of a hypothesis going to be a law ,the last thing to be a law is theory...am i right? Hmmm if yes then it's been about more than 130 years since darwin died and there is still no response to his theory?why this taking so long? Are we supporting Darwin because if we don't then we gonna recreate our basic embryology and evolution? If no then why we aren't making it a scientific law?

fileunderwater
  • 16,670
  • 3
  • 49
  • 88
Zaigham Awan
  • 49
  • 1
  • 5
  • We have Newton's laws and Theory of relativity, but we still don't have Einstein's laws. I personally think it isn't a law because we cannot practically prove it yet. – Brainchild Ho Jan 08 '17 at 18:28
  • Sorry i didn't got your point...Do you mean that the theory of relativity is also pending? – Zaigham Awan Jan 08 '17 at 18:30
  • 2
    Yes. Theory of relatility is controversial. It needs some more modifications to be completed, as well as Darwin's theory. – Brainchild Ho Jan 08 '17 at 18:32
  • Yes it needs but darwin's theory is based on fossil records and till date we have found fossils of a million years ago dino but not the fossils of humans completely even about 30% – Zaigham Awan Jan 08 '17 at 18:36
  • In my opinion, Darwinian theory is like a naive approach, a kind of "-ism" to explain evolution. We also have Lamarck's theory, Kimura's theory and a lot of modern adjustments. None of these are able to fully explain the high diversity of the nature. Maybe we can never prove it, maybe eventually we might be able to prove it, but for now there is not enough evidence and too many opposite critics to make it a law. – Brainchild Ho Jan 08 '17 at 18:50
  • 5
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the definitions of terms such as hypothesis, evidence, theory, law, axiome belong to the field of philosophy of science. You should give it a try at Philosophy.SE. – Remi.b Jan 08 '17 at 18:56
  • 2
    Despite being a subject of philosophy, we already have a post that answer your question here. The post could as well be close as a duplicate. – Remi.b Jan 08 '17 at 18:56
  • 6
    Tho H. Ho is very obviously wrong! I would love to be able to down vote his comments! The theory of evolution (often called "modern evolutionary synthesis") is a theory. A theory is a a set of hypoteses extremely strongly supported by evidences. There is nothing controversial about the theory of evolution, just like there is nothing controversial about the theory of gravity. None of these theories will ever become laws because a law is just something different from a theory (not something better). – Remi.b Jan 08 '17 at 18:58
  • Thank you for your helpful clarification, except your love to voting down my wrong opinion couldn't make anything better. – Brainchild Ho Jan 08 '17 at 19:25
  • Possible duplicate of How do we know that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ape ancestor? – MattDMo Jan 08 '17 at 20:39
  • To me, this is mainly a semantic issue (scientific theory vs scientific law, especially in lack of a clear definition of a scientific 'law'), and therefore opinion-based. As @Remi.b writes, the Q is a bettet fit for philosophy-SE, but too vague for that site as well. – fileunderwater Jan 08 '17 at 21:51
  • 1
    @ThoH.Ho I hope you did not take it with too much offense. If you just google hypothesis, evidence, theory, law you'll get many websites that make short intro to the semantic of these terms. These definitions are a matter of philosophy of science (a very interesting field of philosophy IMO). – Remi.b Jan 08 '17 at 22:43
  • Don't tell me you came here from zakir naik! ;) – Polisetty Jan 09 '17 at 18:15
  • @polisetty why? What he have done to you? – Zaigham Awan Jan 10 '17 at 05:38

1 Answers1

1

Scientific Laws differ from Scientific Theories in that Laws do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. Scientific Laws are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.

Examples are like Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply. Such laws do not explain how and why they work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Darwin's Theory of Evolution in contrast contains both observation, and a proposes an explanation of the phenomena of species formation.

JayCkat
  • 2,926
  • 11
  • 10