See how easy it is to make this mistake! You're doing it too!Skipjack wrote:. . .here is a good example for an experiment that proofs evolution in experiment. . .
I'm always serious when I say, "science never proves anything. It disproves the alternatives." That's how science works. You can "validate" a theory and you can "verify" the evidence for that validation, but you can't prove a theory with evidence of any sort. Evolution cannot ever be "proven" in any meaningful sense. That's what makes it a theory. Proof is for less empirical constructs than theories. You can prove an observation by repeating it, and you can prove a rational point of argument with a logical or mathematical proof, but you can't prove a theory. Evolution is always going to suffer the status it has as something available to doubt and criticism. That's the way all scientific theories are. It is not scientifically useful to then say "well yeah but we trust this so much it has the status of fact" because this is precisely the point--theories never have the status of fact. Just as everyone was surprised when GR showed Newton's very accepted theory of gravity was wrong, we will be just as surprised if we find that GR is wrong, or that the Standard Model is wrong. We do and must entertain all legitimate challenges to these theories or we can never grow, and refusing to accept such challenges is one of the hallmarks of pathological science. (This pathology is far more widespread than most realize.)
BTW, while we're on the subject I'll just note to you, it is also very important to be able to precise between scientific "theories" and scientific "models". Theories are much more advanced and require more. Models, not so much. The details here would drag on for many pages, but it is important to note that not every hypothesis qualifies as a scientific theory. Theories don't gain the status of theory until they're fleshed out more than a little, mostly concerning their explanatory function and power. Models permit huge gaps in their ability to explain, because in effect, they are not a "big answer" that a full-fledged theory presents.