Reply #8: You may think of evolution as not a theory [View All]

[HereSince1628]

but the study of evolution is highly theoretical, and evolution probably cannot be understood or even discussed very rewardingly without theory.

And please excuse me whilst I vent...

The thing that seems to go largely misunderstood during threads on evolution is that the events that contributed to biodiversity as well as nonrandom patterns in biogeography, geography, genetics and such that is used as evidence (which I by the way largely accept) make sense mostly through the application of paradigmatic explanations which are the products of theory.

Which is to say that biologists' current communicable level of understanding of the accumulation of biodiversity is a consequence of empirical evidence processed through the mechanics of theory. Whether you call the biotic events evolution or phylogeny is a consequence of theory. Whether you focus on reasonably demonstrable microevolutionary events or puzzle over profoundly difficult to demonstrate macroevolutionary events, even thinking the names of such phenomena invokes concepts derived through the sort of integrative treatment of data that is by definition theory. Which is to say you can't recognize the evidence of an evolutionary bottleneck, or calculate the time back to such events for cheetahs or elephant seals unless you invoke theory.

In short...Biodiversity arose without the assistance of a single word of theory, or a designer to invoke it. But, as a population biologist I know that I can't enter into a conversation about those things without invoking shared theoretical paradigms.

With respect to evolution the population is obviously split in sharing, largely unaware of the theories that are in play, and much more dogmatic than paradigmatic.