Why is the theory of natural selection taught like it was proven scientific fact?

Question

Scientific subjects should only be taught in schools and colleges if they have been scientifically proven. When it comes to evolution it's as if the wool has been pulled over our eyes because it has not been conclusively proven. The theory of natural selection has many flaws, including:
Why isn't there any fossil evidence of any of the missing links between modern species?
Why don't species that have been endangered for several hundred years simply evolve in order to survive? The obvious example is flightless birds, many of which are dying out. Why don't they simply learn to use their wings to fly and better survive?
Why have some species, such as the tuatara, remained unchanged for millions of years and not evolved in any way?
Why is mutation accepted as a form of adapting to survive, when all evidence of mutation generally results in a weakening of the chance of survival?
If all species are related then why can't they mate?

Answer 1

Whew! Ok. Lets try this:
1. Theories - including that of evolution are called theories BECAUSE they are not proven. School - when used properly - is meant to make people think. If it isn't proven and there are discrepencies that you see think more about it, reseach, do experiments. Hopefully you'll discover something that either turns the theory upside down or restablishes its sense. It's taught because if you understand the concepts and logic, you would be able to intelligently analyse and effectively add to the pool of knowledge with your own discoveries/theories.

2. Not all fossils have been dug up yet. That's why there are still scientists digging around looking for new stuff.

3. If a species has been endangered for several hundred years...wouldn't it be extinct by now?? Think about it.

4. Species that remain unchanged stay unchanged because what they have is working for them. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

5. Mutation is not a form of adapting to survive. Mutation is just a difference in genetic expression. If the creature with the mutation is lucky the difference it has can be helpful in a certain situation. If it's not lucky well- tough.
EXAMPLE: Sickle cell disease is based on a mutation in the shape of red blood cells. In the western and developed world it is a disease to be treated and does no good. But for people living in places where malaria is common, having that mutation that causes your cells to sickle actually decreases your chances of contracting Malaria and dying from that disease. So it actually increases chances of survival depending on the threat.

6. All species are not related. That's why they're divided into species.

Hope that helped quell your angst.

Answer 2

well natural selection is a process which we can see happening now, species which are not well adapted have become extinct and others which are well adapted to their environment have thrived.

The theory of evolution is harder to proove since it requires much more evidence. BUt I will try to answer all the criticisms

->Why isn't there any fossil evidence of any of the missing links between modern species?
Answer: Well genetic mutations could change species dramatically meaning there would not have been an intermediate species or it could have happened quickly meaning there were very few of the intermediate species making their remains harder to find.

->Why don't species that have been endangered for several hundred years simply evolve in order to survive?
Answer: species can not choose to evolve, genetic mutation is a random process, getting the right combination to survive in a particular environment is like winning the lottery, it can take a long time (or not)

->Why have some species, such as the tuatara, remained unchanged for millions of years and not evolved in any way?
Answer: genetic mutations are a random process, it can happen quickly, slowly or not at all. The species you mentioned may have changed slightly in the 700 years but people have not noticed the small changes(or not).

->Why is mutation accepted as a form of adapting to survive, when all evidence of mutation generally results in a weakening of the chance of survival?
Answer: humans generally see any mutation/abnormality as a bad thing, who would know that a third arm might be useful? Also it does not matter if 99% of mutations are bad, evolution only requires that some genetic mutations are good(anything >0%) as natural selection will generally get rid of any bad mutations.

->If all species are related then why can't they mate?
Answer: reproduction generally requires two species with similar genetic material, I think it is DNA chain lengths which are important.

Answer 3

Natural selection is a FACT. Although I agree with your question in part.

It is about certain members of a species being better able to survive in a particular environment NOT to evolve into an 'adaption'.

eg. In one species of moth there may be dark brown & light brown variants occurring naturally. In areas of darkly barked trees or dirt covered buildings the better camouflage ensures that this variant flourishes - eventually the species would become almost entirely dark due to 'natural selection' of the available DNA material. Much the same with Darwin's finches in the Galapagos with the different shaped beaks - each 'adapted' to feed on specific food sources, well not entirely. Birds with short beak DNA in a 'long beak' food environment would die or have a reduced population and vice-versa - NOT evolution, just real world 'natural selection'. The two theories are not the same, to the extent that Darwin believed in a creator.

Small genetic 'variations' CAN be an advantage, but the SPECIES remains the same. The oft cited 'mud skipper' fish, is still a fish, has always been a fish & will always remain a fish. It's 'adaption' of fins that function much like limbs is not a fore-runner to a land based animal, just an advantage (or by design) for that environment.

I often find it ludicrous that the evolutionary theory isn't taken to task over such blatant flights of fantasy. For ANY species to evolve into another intermediary 'link' there MUST be simultaneous genetic changes throughout the existing species, in both the male & female counterparts for these 'advantageous mutations' to propagate and become the dominant DNA material for future generations....the likelihood for this to happen throughout the animal (& plant) kingdoms to all available species is verging on zero.
For those that argue that 'change takes time', I counter - WHY, during GLOBAL changes causing this 'evolution' did only some branches of a species change (still missing those links though....), whilst others remained entirely intact? Is it not plausible that ALL species are independent of each other - and no intermediate links exist?

Answer 4

It is proven. It is one of the best proven scientific theories. The fact that every last detail has not been demonstrated does not invalidate it.

They still teach Newtonian physics despite Einstein's demonstrations of its failings.

As for your questions, you can ask any question in a way that makes the answer you are not looking for seem obscure.

There is plenty of fossil evidence. The fact that you want every skeleton of every creature that ever lived catalogued does not eliminate the links that have been demonstrated.

Extinction is the rule, not the exception. If a niche is eliminated the species occupying the niche is likely to become extinct. Evolution is not a process of will, but a process by which the successful tend to have successful offspring.

The fact that the skeleton of the tuatara has not changed does not mean it has not evolved. It reached a shape that was effective for its niche. It is unfortunately not up to the standards of larger, more competitive ecosystems as faces extinction due to the introduction of weasels and rats into its ecosystem.

Even if most mutations are harmful, some are beneficial, and creatures that gain the benefit pass on the gene. Non-beneficial mutations tend to get marginalized.

The process of speciation is biochemical. The mule demonstrates the process. The horse and the donkey have different chromosome counts, but can mate. Their offspring cannot divide their chromosomes evenly and are therefore sterile.

Answer 5

Because it is a proven fact.
Look at your peer group.
The most intelligent males and females associate with each other whilst the least intelligent also form liaisons.
The least intelligent do not take precautions and reproduce, therefore, hang on a minute I got this wrong, the best are supposed to reproduce and the worst not, perhaps that is what evolution is the survival of the thickest.
Actually stuff Charlie Darwin horse racing and breeding shows evolution in speeded up action.
Evolution and the bible do not conflict.
God made the earth, and all the animals etc in 6 days, and then had Wednesday off. It didn't say he made every single animal, in any case individual animals evolve from babies through adulthood to old age, so only if you believe every animal that has lived and will ever live was created by God in one day during the 6 day creation of the earth can you seriously believe the bible over the overwhelming evidence of the evolutionary theory

Answer 6

It is not taught as fact, ergo the word "theory" in the nomenclature; it is taught because it is the most plausible theory out there (and quite likely IS fact). In response to your "flaws" proposals--highly specialized species (such as flightless birds) evolved that way in response to environmental factors. Many of these species are quite isolated (like the flightless birds of Australia and surrounding islands), and do not have the widespread population (gene pool) or the time to evolve beyond the factors that currenly threaten their species (hunting and land development by man). Species that have not evolved have obviously not needed to--they are successful as they are (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). As far as mutation, some of the most successful species on Earth today are continually mutating, thus ensuring survival of their species (the common cold, influenza).
All species are related only at the most basic levels. The DNA shared by all living things on Earth allows us all to exist within the Earth's environment, and programs our individual species to all follow general Laws of Nature. Beyond that, the DNA of species that cannot cross-populate have become so specialized that it precludes such activity; otherwise, we would all still be amoeba swimming in the primordial soup.
I realize this is pretty over-simplified, but I think it addresses the issues adequately.
For the record, I am also a Creationist follower. I just happen to believe that God gave us the story in parable form, so we could understand it at the time. SOMEONE had to set off the Big Bang...

Answer 7

First up birds can't just "learn" to use their wings, it would take a genetic mutation for them to suddenly be able to fly and if that doesn't happen the species dies out, that's natural selection.

Natural selection is different to evolution. Many people make this mistake and it is why Darwin is often credited with the theory of evolution despite saying nothing about it.

Natural selection simply means that if you can't survive in your environment and have offspring then your DNA will die out. If you can survive and have offspring then your DNA will be passed on and so your succesful genes will be passed on. This is simple logic and is not disputed. That is the theory of natural selection. The ones who survive are those fit to do so.

Whether or not this has caused evolution is not proven and is not fact. Teaching that in schools as fact is wrong but teaching natural selection per se isn't.

Answer 8

Many of the scientific 'facts' taught in schools and colleges are not 'proven' as you put it. In fact, they have simply not been 'disproven'. The two are quite different. True scientists will accept that current best theories are simply the best, and not-yet-disproved, way we have of descibing the natural phenomena we see in the world (universe) around us.

The theory of evolution is no exception to this. It currently seems to be true based on all the evidence found so far. You cannot say that it is not true because some evidence has not yet been found.

The 'truth' or otherwise of the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with proving the existence of God (which I suspect is what you are getting at). Why should God not have allowed species to evolve as part of his Great Plan?

I am not a Christian, but Biblical literalists hammering on about the writings of men thousands of years ago as though they were concrete truth now do nothing for the reputation of Christianity as a whole. Christ was a great man who (as far as the reports of his main follower, Paul, say) spoke a great deal of sense. Don't ruin his message of Love and Tolerance by preaching about Creationism.

Answer 9

Get you facts straight.
1) There are many cases showing evoltion between acient and modern species of the same animal. (ie the horse)
2) Fossil happen only under certain conditions. If a creature doesn't fall in the right enviroment the body will simply decay. Otherwize we would be up to our necks in fossil from all the dead creatures.
3) Evolution is a slow process (most of the time). Many minor changes in a species will not be observed in a human lifetime. Mnay changes are not visible on the phenotype of the creature but on the genotype. Some changes in the enviroment are so quick and so dramatic that some creatures cannot evolve fast enought thus becoming extinct.
4) Some creature remain virtually unchanged because their envirment hasn't changed.
5 ) most mutations do nothing, Many are deadly, but it only takes 1 good mutation that benefits a species to pass that mutation on while the bad mutations usually are weeded out.

Please don't mix religion with science.

Answer 10

There is more evidence to support natural selection than to refute it. The questions you ask are legitimate issues to be understood and resolved (which might require revising the theory of natural selection). However, they do not demonstrate that natural selection has not occurred over the eons. There is too much evidence that it HAS occurred.

A couple responses:
why don't flightless birds learn to fly rather than die out? They possibly could, but evolution/adaptation/natural selection is a very slow process, and sometimes extinction is too fast for it.

If all species are related, then why can't they mate? Because they have evolved over time, so that although they are related, their gene structures are no longer the same, so different species can not reproduce with each other.

I don't expect to get a Best Answer from you, since your question is more of an expression of an opinion than a request for information. But I hope this adds some fodder for further thought.