Honestly, is the theory that life occurred naturally (ie, natural selection) still a hypothesis?

Question

1. Assume the fossil record is correct, and thus biological change has occurred, just as the data shows it does.

2. Assume that micro evolution (genetics, breeding, mutations, etc.) is a proven and demonstated science.

3. This question is focused on macro evolution (unique new biological functions and species). Do we truly know how it happened? Can it be observed or demostrated?

If it still is a hypothesis, then isn't belief in this hypothesis based on faith?

Ronin,

As per your link, I used hypothesis correctly. Natural selection is a theory and a hypothesis. That is why it is so confusing to many people. Natural selection does describe many aspects of biological change. That part, the theory is right. However, is cannot explain macro evolution, thus it is still a hypothesis.

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a law uses a handful of fundamental concepts and equations to define the rules governing a set of phenomena.

Answer 1

The problem with evolution as a theory is that it is in two parts one part has been beaten to death while the other has been conveniently ignored.
The two parts are

1- Natural selection - common sense proven through eons of animal husbandry and beaten to death.
2 - Novel *beneficial* characteristics appearing through genetic mutation - statistically impossible, never proven and conveniently avoided by all those who promote evolution as a sound theory.

In order to prove # 2, you would have to do complete gene sequencing on an entire population (say a container of fruit flies) and promote or wait for a novel beneficial characteristic to appear in one or more members of the population. Then you would have to gene sequence that member to prove that it is in fact, a new characteristic and not just the appearance of an old recessive one.
This has never been done.

Ironically, many who argue the cause of evolution, use examples of #1 to prove #2 indicating that they are a): avoiding the issue, or b): don't fully understand the issue, or c): are so brainwashed that they assume #2 is a given.

On another front, scientists use creationist principles every day in other aspects of science.
An archeologist goes to to the north pole and notices 3 stone columns in a row and says to himself. "Why this is order and indicates intelligent design, therefore people have colonized this region before"
Or
A scientist searches the sky with a billion dollar radio telescope for the faintest hint of an electromagnetic pattern hoping to be able to say one day "This series of amplitude or frequency changes is not random, and indicates intelligent design, therefore, there MUST be intelligent life out there."

Interesting.

Answer 2

OK, assume that evolution can probably answer 90% of the questions. There are no questions that have so far knocked it off course, and all the evidence that comes in only strengthens it.

Now, compare this to religion/faith/deism whatever you like, apply the same rigorous standards of proof to your own beleifs. You can't. You rely on faith ultimately. You cannot explain your beleifs. This is fine if you are satisfied with this, but anyone who is serious about the question should seriously look at the answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only idea that works, which is why I go for it over any other answer. I would change my mind if there were some contadictory evidence (real scientific evidence...not faith based 'evidence), but every bit of research just keeps backing it up. You can't say the same of any other idea.

Answer 3

A theory is an explanation for the evidence. The theory must include ALL known evidence, not some or most. If it can't explain everything, either you reject the theory or you _change_the_theory_ to fit the evidence. That's how science works: theories *can* be disproven.

Creationism is a claim that explains nothing. The claimants reject any evidence that doesn't fit. If they can't explain somethign, they ignore it or attack those who discovered it, but they NEVER change their claim to fit the evidence. That's how religion works: claims *cannot* be disproven.

The big bang, abiogenesis (life from nothing) and evolution are theories. Currently, those theories and all other scientific theories explain all the evidence of the known universe. If something came along that showed the theories to be wrong, the theory would be changed or the theory would be rejected.

Religious crap, on the other hand, is forced time and again to admit it was wrong, yet when it is shown to be wrong, the religious claim, "god revealed it to us!" Bu**sh**. Catholic crap is bad enough that is takes them centuries to deal with the facts (evolution, heliocentrism, infinity in space, etc.) but cretinist - oops, creationists are worse. No matter what the evidence is, the Idiotically Deluded (the IDers) refuse to deal with the facts.

Science is not based on faith. It is based on collecting bricks of facts and building structures; religion huffs and puffs, but it can't blow the house down.

Religion is not based on facts. It is based on collecting cards of fairy tales and building its house from them. Just the slightest breeze of reason knocks it down, yet the religious pretend their building still stands.


.

Answer 4

There is no simple answer to this question. Your best bet is to research all the opinions and make the best informed decision you can. Heres how I made my decision, and I hope it provides some insight. You should research everything for yourself and form your own opinion.
Basically, Darwin's theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms slowly evolved into complex life forms and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man)So this being the case, we should be able to find fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition, Like maybe a half fish, half frog or something of this sort, fossilised. As of yet, there is not one fossil record pointing to this. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.

Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" If you read Darwin, he himself said he could be proved wrong if there were no fossil records in transition found.Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin's predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory
So I can not say how we got here, or how life began, but I can say that in my humble opinion (and Darwins himself) its not from evolution. So really, we can not assume the fossil record is correct, since no evidence points towards this.
As for your second and third question, I think what you are referring to is punctuated equilibrium, which I am not qualified enough to form an opinion on since I know too little about it. What I do remember and researched was how over time cattle that were bred in different enviornmental situations were no longer able to breed with each other over time due to the changes the species underwent being apart from the other. So In answer to your question, I suppose all theories require you to have faith in something or another, otherwise it would be solid fact.

Answer 5

I'll answer your last question first, 'cause it pretty much takes care of the others.

Here's how science works (unlike faith-based belief systems like religion): A hypothesis is proposed that attempts to explain some observed phenomena. Additional observations, experiments, and test are conducted to see how well the hypothesis matches observable (and repeatable) fact. If the hypothesis matches the new observations, and isn't contradicted by any of them, then it moves to the status of "theory." If it doesn't match, it's discarded (or modifed) and the whole process starts over again. If a theory continues to do a good job explaining observations and tests, eventualy it becomes either a "law" (such as the law of gravity) or a "principle", both of which mean that the evidence supporting the theory is so overwhelming that it is now considered by scientists to be a fact. Even then, however, it's still open to challenges and revision -- because science has no dogma, no law, fact, or principle that will be held on to in the face of good evidence to the contrary, no matter what it is. Einstein challenged the law of gravity with relativity, and successfully -- what he proposed didn't change the "law" expressed by Newton of the observable effects of gravity, but it *did* better explain how it works. There is no faith required in any of that, just results of observations and experiments that anyone can repeat and verify for themselves. There is some degree of "trust" (NOT faith), in that you trust the scientists reporting their observations to not have lied about the results...but that's really only an issue when there are only a few observations or experiments, once the number of confirming tests gets large it's a given that not everyone (with different motivations, cultures, etc.) would lie about the same thing.

So, now on to the evolution of life on this planet through evolution by natural selection. Since Darwin proposed this theory nearly 150 years ago, there have literally been hundreds of thousands of valid scientific observations, experiments, and tests conducted by scientists all over the world to test its validity. Every single one -- EVERY SINGLE ONE -- has confirmed that Darwin's theory is correct, and that it explains how life on earth came to be. Yes, there have been refinements of the theory (mainly to fill in additional details), and yes scientists who focus their careers on evolution still argue about some of the details of those details -- but the FACT of evolution by natural selection has never once been challenged by any properly conducted experiment or observable evidence.

So see, you don't have to *assume* that the fossil record is correct, it's been verified correct by thousands of finds, experiments, dating methods, correlations with geology and earth sciences, etc. You don't have to assume that micro evolution is a proven science, there are hundreds of thousands of observations and experiments that prove that it is (and none to prove it isn't). And yes, macro evolution has been observed and demonstated hundreds of times, for hundreds of species. This is all available in the scientific literature on the subject. Almost all of the literature is available to the public, you can go read it anytime you want to in a good library. Many of the fossils that have been accumulated, dated, mapped as to changes over time, etc. that prove macro evolution can be examined (or at least viewed) by the public. There's no need for faith -- faith calls for a belief in something that's NOT observable, testable, or demonstrable. Evolution most certainly IS observable, testable, demonstrable...and proven to the point that it is considered a fact, and there is no other theory or hypothesis (most certainly including "creationism" or "ID" which is simply a statement that there are things we don't know yet [duh]) can match evolution's demonstrated proofs or valid description of how life came to be on this planet.

Answer 6

Natural selection is based on the principle that the strongest examples in a group has the best chance of survival and passing on their genes to successive generations. If we are to accept this as the truth, we should have better examples of each species than previously existed. What we will NOT have are entirely NEW species popping up from those "stronger/better" predecessors. In other words, you might conceivably be able to get a stronger/better deer with a fortuitous mutation (although nearly all mutations we observe in nature tend to be detrimental to the organism), but your stronger/better deer aren't going to be giving birth to elephants.

A good example of natural selection at work can be seen with certain types of moths, where a mutation in the coloration makes the mutant organism blend in better with its background, making it harder for birds (predators) to see. Because the original variety is easy to spot, it gets eaten more frequently, and the mutation thrives. But remember, it is still the same moth SPECIES, just with a better color scheme. It's not a bird.

Responses to your numbered statements above:

1. The fossil record is the fossil record. Fossils are there for us to see, and many go back many millions of years. The point to keep in mind is that how we interpret the data may or may not be correct, just like our interpretations of scripture. Many believe the world is only 6,000 years old, which is false and is not supported by scripture, and is definitely not supported by the fossil record.

2. We cannot assume that micro evolution is proven and demostrated because it isn't. Evolution is a "model", not a theory or proven law. It cannot be correctly labeled a "theory" because it cannot fit the parameters of the Scientific Method.

3. It hasn't happened. There is no evidence to support it, only suppositions and guesses.

Belief in evolution is based (in the masses) on misinformation. In smaller groups, it is based on a desire to accept anything that excludes God, no matter how intangible or mathematically impossible. If you want to examine evolution models side by side with the models of Creation, I recommend THE EVOLUTION-CREATION CONTROVERSY by Wysong. It lays them both out, scientifically, side by side for the reader to consider and form his/her own opinion.

Good luck with your research.

Answer 7

Examples abound, both in the 'world' and in the laboratory. One of the most interesting examples, and the most enlightening, has to do with a kind of bird (plovers, if my memory is correct) that occupies adjacent habitats all the way from Siberia to Britain. Because of environmental differences in these adjacent habitats (topology, food availability, competitor species, predators, vegetation), natural selection has produced genetic differences between the populations in these adjacent habitats. Birds in adjacent habitats can still mate with each other... the genetic differences are small. However, the birds from the Eastern-most reaches of Siberia CAN NOT mate with those from Britain. Over the reach of MANY habitats, the accumulation of genetic differences makes them a DIFFERENT SPECIES.

Answer 8

macroevolution is just the cumulative effect of many many many years worth of microevolution.

natural selection is not "life occurring naturally," but rather that certain adaptations will increase a species' chance of survival over the years.

It is not a mere hypothesis but rather a full blown theory, which means that all the evidence points to it being true but that we cannot observe it actually happening (because it takes millions of years).

Answer 9

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Trilobite-Eyewitness-Evolution-Richard-Fortey/dp/0375706216/sr=8-4/qid=1159821605/ref=sr_1_4/103-4568091-2076600?ie=UTF8&s=books

In it Fortey discusses the fossil evidence for new species of trilobites arising from earlier species.

Answer 10

Natural selection is a fact.