Does really Theory of Evolution scientifically fullproof at today's date?

Answer 1

I wish it were. The facts are all there, it is a scientifically proven theory backed up with countless examples, yet the religious community, and most of the US still dont accept it.
I understand that the religious community wouldn't want to accept it, because thy believe in the creationist beiefs, but all the facts are there, they just wont look at them.
I am a firm believer in the evolutionary theory of natural selection, and I deliev that Chucky D was way ahead of his time. I study evolutionary decent in insects, and study zoogeography, without evolution and natural selection, none of it makes any sense.

It is a fact of life, even the human race is proof of evolution, we were not created as we are today, if so then why is our appendix useless, why do we have a caecum that serves no function...so many questions left before the creationist theory that have no answers other than "magic" or "faith", and these only work if you want them to and have no cares about the proof!

Answer 2

Theories of almost any kind are not fullproof ... which is why theories can be adjusted or amended to include any new findings or just "evolve" into a newer theory (examine the changes in the theory of relativity as a major example).

Theories must also be proven through series of experiments that are performed in the same conditions and yield the same results. Since genetic mutations are a random event, scientists cannot replicate the exact same responses on a cellular level. Therefore, I would have to say that the foolproof nature of the Theory of Evolution is that it is still a highly touted HYPOTHESIS.

Beyond that, many evolutionists have tried to show a linear development of organisms over time, but evolution is a continual process that may or may not yield improvements for any individual undergoing that process. Also, phylogenetic analysis has shown that evolutionary links can be faulty due to reversals and other forms of convergence.

Any theory (or hypothesis) remains under some form of scrutiny and this is no exception.

Answer 3

The most simple design, which was created
by the God / Nature , is atom of hydrogen.
The most complex design, which was created
by the God / Nature , is the Man.
The Man is alive essence.
Animals, bird, fish are alive essences.
And an atom?
And atom is also alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
Therefore, the one, who creates a general picture of Life,
must consider development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
* * *
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has caught a cold accidentally and has blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some hundreds
(thousands) kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then atom of hydrogen was accidentally formed.
Then complex atom was accidentally formed.
Then was accidentally formed vegetative and fauna.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
=================
http://www.socratus.com

Answer 4

I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a "fact" and that the theory of evolution is the best model to describe how the diversity of life on earth came to be. But it seems that in answering ypur question we all find ourselves vis-a-vis a very basic philosophical problem, namely can science proof something. In other words, can we be certain that science has given us the absolute truth. I fear this is not the case, and I personally have no problem with that. But not, as someone here mentioned, because we haven't seen one species turn into the other; with all due respect, this is a major misunderstanding of the scientific method and of what this entire endeavor is all about. If we only believe what we see, wee would have to assume the earth is statically sitting in the center of the universe while sun and all other celestral bodies are revolving ceaselessly around it. No, what I am referrring to is the problem of induction, which in science most folks try to circumvent by applying Popperian philosophy, that is, by focusing on falsification.

The argument goes soemthing like this: As David Hume pointed out, to believe that the sun has to rise just because we have seenit rise countless times previously is simply not logically necessary. If that were the case, we wouldn't have to worry about accidents of any sort. I have left my bed, gone to work etc. a thousand times over, and had never had an accident... I think you get the drift. Hume's criticism of induction (predicting events on their previous outcome) stood for a long time, and it was Karl Popper who presented a possible solution, namely falsification. Again, Popper's argument is easy to follow. First, he agrees with Hume that induction is not warranted. So, to say all swans are white based on the fact that one has only seen one swan simply does not fly. On the other hand, if I ever were to see a black swan, I could with absolute certainty say that NOT ALL swans are white. I have therefore falsified the theory which I based on induction, that is that all swans are white.

In science today, and particularly in the physiological life sciences, Popper's philosophy is what most accept (hence p<0.05 significant). Of course, for evolution, the situation is slightly more difficult, since evolution cannot make the definitive predictions needed to have a wonderfully falsifiable hypothesis. But nevertheless, even as an "historical science" (Ernst Mayr), evolution still works with concepts of testability and empirical reconstruction.

From the Popperian perspective, a theory in science is only as good as the attempts to topple it are bad. Once new data suggest that the theory is wrong, in other words, the theory has been falsified, a new theory would be required to better describe the data collected. (Footnote: Amazingly, journals still don't like to publish what they call "negative data," when according to the well accepted philosophy in science, negative data are the only data we can trust as - more or less - certain. Of course there is always the possibility of "bad data"...) The theory of evolution (and of course there is more than one Darwinian theory) up to this day is simply the best theory describing how the species on earth came to be.

That said, let me add that I am rather critical of Popperian philosophy and furthermore have no problem whatsoever with religious beliefs. But even from where I stand, I still have to say that the theory of evolution is the best one around. Is it prooved? Well, no, but it has not been falsified, either!

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven yet. Scientists have not yet been able to document and witness the process of one animal evolving into another. Until the process is actually witnessed, evolution will only be a thoery. We see the evidence and results of evolution all around us, but nothing in science is proven until the process is seen in full. It will probably be thousands of years before science can absolutely document evolution in action, since it takes so long for it to occur.

Answer 6

there is NOTHING scientifically proven about evolution. the only thing that keeps it alive is a need to reject the alternative. If you really research and use common sense and reason- there is NO way you can honestly tell me that evolution is a reasonable theory:

I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but 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 7

Science, by definition, is never foolproof. It is always potentially open to contradictory evidence.

The ToE, is, however, extremely well-supported, more so than nearly any other scientific theory.

Answer 8

It's not foolproof, and it (Macroevolution) can't ever really be proven. It's simply the best explanation for what we can observe around us.

Answer 9

You mean if it's foolproof? Obviously not since a lot of fools don't understand it.

Answer 10

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY!