is it true, that darwins theory of evolution, has never really been proved?

Answer 1

It has never been proven because there is no proof:
I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 2

Yes, this is true, but that is the very nature of theories
One definition of the word THEORY is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world".
In order to prove Darwin's theory of evolution, you would have to travel back in time to observe and document ALL the changes that have happened throughout animal history, and this is (not yet) possible. When this has been accomplished, Darwin's theory will become FACT.

Answer 3

No, the theory of Evolution HAS been proven several times through small scale laboratory experiments, direct observation, and computer models. Most recently it was found that finches on the Galapagos islands are still evolving to make use of new food sources as competition for food among different species has increased (see attached link).

HOWEVER, there are also a number of observations, laboratory studies, etc that also DISPROVE Darwin's theory! Because contrary evidence does exist, Darwin's theory will never be regarded as scientific fact!

Answer 4

The theory of gravity has also never really been proved. Scientific theories are those which can be tested. Through extensive testing either a theory is disproved, or it moves forward and amounts lots of evidence. Thus far, the theory of evolution has not been disproved, and has surmounted much evidence to support it. Scientists will continue to study it and conduct studies to either disprove or prove it again, at least through that one study. As soon as something concrete disproves evolution, an experiment which can be duplicated multiple times to disprove evolution, it will be the reigning theory. If it never gets disproved... like thus far the theory of gravity, it will become a law or a principle. Things in science are rarely FACTS, because scientist always keep an open mind to the unknown and to things that may not be feasible to test right now, but may be so in the future.

Answer 5

That is correct. But the only reason it is correct is that NO scientific theory can ever be proved to be correct: there is always the possibility that, lurking somewhere in the universe and not yet found, is a counterexample. Scientific theories become "established" when they go into general use by workers in the field to make predictions that they rely on because they are correct. In this sense, evolution is one of the most solidly established theories in all of science.

This matter has been discussed at much more length elsewhere in this forum, and it would be useful for you to do a search on "evolution" and read some answers. You will find two different sorts: one from religious zealots who do not know how to do science, and one from scientists who do. Happy hunting!

Answer 6

It is true. Darwinian theory pre supposes that there will be changes in plants and creatures with succeeding generations. Candidates for this have proven not to support this.

MRSA - It has been suggested that this virus is adapting, becoming resistant to anti-biotics. This is not, in fact, the case. What has happened is that those strains that are not resistant to anti-biotics have been to an extent killed off, leaving resistant strains. So this is a case of selection, not evolution.

Flu Virus - There are a huge number of these. They are opportunistic. When conditions are right, they spread, but they are always around. The current bird flu scare is a case of adaptation, not evolution. Those people who catch it are people that work with birds on a regular basis. They can catch bird diseases and become carriers. These diseases, in themselves, are harmless to humans. However, the bird flu virus is able to latch onto them and so the person becomes infected.

Some to the key arguments against Evolution are the species which have close relationships. A study of orchids can be very instructive here. For instance, there are species of orchids that can only be serviced by a particular species of hummingbird, Other orchids mimic insects, right down to smell, so that insects are tricked into pollinating them.

These relationships are too precise to be coincidental or accidental, and show no variation.

Another piece of evidence is the number of chromosomes between species. Evolution cannot explain this variation. Especially when you consider that a single celled creature, the Aulacantha, has 1600 chromosomes and humans 46.

Then there is blood. Our red cells are haemoglobin. That is iron based. Plants have a remarkably similar substance based on magnesium. King Crabs blood is based on copper.

Answer 7

Scientific theories are never proven in the sense that they cannot be replaced by another theory with accumulation of more evidence. Science is not like mathematics in that regard.

Evolution by natural selection is accepted by biologists as the explanation for how all species on Earth came to be what they are, and is the foundational theory of all modern biology.

Someday it may be supplanted by another theory, in the same way Newton's mechanics have be supplanted by Einstein's. Note that Newton's ideas are still used by physicists and are now considered to be a special case of the more generally applicable Einstein mechanics.

Evolution is so strongly supported by interlocking evidence from multiple sources that there is no chance that it will be discarded, only that it will be refined and perhaps generalized by some future theory.

Answer 8

Darwins theory was regarding the evolution of species by natural selection. The theory was that the diversity we now see in different species arose from common ancestors. As it is impossible to reproduce and measure the random events that happened over billions of years, it is impossible to state with certainty how any given species evolved. However, the evidence that we all came from common ancestors is overwhelming.

Beware of those who have some agenda in their "science". Darwin was motivated by the persistent urge to study and understand the world around him. He didn't even publish his work for a decade because he was afraid of the notoriety and scorn to which he would be exposed.

A lot of the people pushing alternative "theories" to evolution have little understanding of biology, and rely on you to have less. Furthermore, they frequently study biology with the intention of reinforcing a pre-existing fantasy about some supreme being.

Answer 9

Take Pythagoras' Theory. I take it you have met it before, that the square on the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum on the other two sides of a triangle? And we've used that 'Theory' for some TWO THOUSAND YEARS or so, and never has there ben an exception found, yet it is still called a 'Theory' rather than a 'Law'. Darwins' 'Theory' seems every bit as robust. And that's about it.

Answer 10

Evolution is considered a very sound theory. We can witness evolution in species of animals that go through generations very quickly. So, we have a general glimpse of the process at work.

Macro-evolution is basically taking the tenets of evolution that we do see playing out, and projecting them further back beyond the timespan that we can sit around and watch firsthand. While science will constantly tweak things as new evidence materializes, fossil evidence suggests we are on the right track, at least.

Answer 11

No, it's never been proven to be 100% true. There are elements of truth in it. For a large list of scientists who actively dispute the theory check out...http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html The page has a brief commentary on Evolutionism and then lists the scientists names with biographical notes on many. Darwinism is only a small part of the whole theory of evolution.