Do those who believe Evolution is NOT a THEORY, but a NATURAL LAW:?

Question

I sincerely ask this.

Have you read scientific journals by evolutionists? By evolutionists who decades ago came up with punctuated equilibrium, because the fossil record showed something, and they needed to REWORK their theory. Punctuated equilibrium is but one example. What about Neo-Darwinism? Why did this recently arise, if it was already a LAW. Laws of the universe don't need reworking. When a theory has been confirmed, THEN it becomes a law. That's the way science works.

But they are still working on it. EVOLUTIONISTS themselves believe it to be a theory, and constantly work to improve it. I'm not challenging evolutionists here. I'm challenging those who think it's a "Law" or "Fact"

My post with just a few quotes regarding what they themselves say about it being a theory (Scroll down to the references)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsOabGiiLf6SI0ezcQm1xcbsy6IX?qid=20061218055741AA1YcBx&show=7#profile-info-75e95d5d8f6e203657eeb868afacf67baa

Vehmenent: Yes I can. Because what creation-ISTS (Who are silly) teach something that Genesis does not. So scientists can EASILY blast away creation-ISTS silly arguments, because they misrepresent Genesis.

But I notice something. You didn't reply to the sources of evolutionists problem with their own theory, as stated in that link I provided, nor did you fully explain the challenge I put forth in that post. So, are you using the scientific method vehement_chemical? Or not? If you can provide a rational presentation, rather than name-calling (hardly scientific) then I'd give you a thumbs up, despite disagreeing with you.

For example: CORE. We probably disagree on how life began, but I had to give the guy a thumbs up to his post, because he answered the question rationally. I respect someone trying to use logic, even when we may disagree.

And as britsurfer1 bring out, evolution within species is an obvious given. To try to deny genetic / mendels laws is just silly. But as britsurfer1 mentioned, the "Theory of Evolution" as is used in the vulgate terminology and meaning of the phrase, means something else entirely. It refers to how we all arrived here as a species and an ecology. "micro" evolution is a given. I can create a new breed of dog within a decade, and new breeds can develop by themselves. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is something completely different.

Answer 1

True, but it is a damn hard theory. It is kind of like the theory of gravity. They can't prove it completely into a law, but it is obviously there. Now we can't observe evolution the same way as evolution. But evolution was a hypothesis that was supported by science, so it became a theory. Since the science continues to support evolution, the theory gets re-worked, but it is always evolution. Basically, all the science points to some sort of evolution being the reason humans are here. And there is no science to take away it's theory definition.

Answer 2

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionists" pretty much tells on you... that you're either being knowingly dishonest, willfully ignorant, and/or disingenuous in all your arguments. You more than likely know very little about scientific processes, and are quick to redefine terms and processes to suit your agenda.

Evolution is NOT law... neither is Gravity. Laws of the universe are constant and unchanged... these are things that we KNOW happen and that we can explain fully. For example, laws of physics... it is impossible to be in two places at once, physically.

Evolution, the phenomenon, is a FACT of life on this planet. The explanations and analyses behind this fact are what make the theory. There are no laws of evolution... we do not yet know enough about it to set anything in stone.

Answer 3

yes true some dont give anymore than a ill informed 2 word answer but i have to dissagree with the part about being able to blow our arguements away. take for example the link i gave in the source section. there is a 20 year old spool of wire that is fossilized alongside fossils of shells. take also the hat that has been fossilised also in a relatively short time of 50 years.

Answer 4

Evolution by natural selection of favorable variation (mutation) could be regarded as a natural law. Puntuated equilibrium means just that -- there is a state of equilibrium where selective pressures are relatively constant, followed by a change (usually climactic) where the rules are changed and then a new equillibrium is established. Natural selection remains unchanged in punctuated equilibrium.

This is for all those who conflate ideas such as natural selection and the fossil record, then point out a limit in one and try to use it to disprove the other.

Answer 5

Laws can only be proven by the methods we currently have access to. For example, in the future it may be discovered that what we currently understand about gravity is incorrect, however at this moment in time we understand it as Newton's law.

Evolution is a FACT, you can see it before your very eyes in the case of viruses. Whether or not mankind has come into being by evolution is another matter.

Answer 6

Specific processes within the framework of evolution are still being uncovered and learned about in greater depth. Evolution is the result of random mutation and natural selection, both of which are axiomatically true.

Answer 7

The spirit of law on earth can be given by only one TRUE being... The Human Race.

Have a nice day.

Answer 8

exactly. evolution is just a way to say "hey God, I dont believe in you, i believe in evolution" they think that if they dont believe in God, he wont exist to punish humanity for our sins. evolution disproves itself in many ways. and the only "proof" theyhave is the fossils that scientists say that real evolutionists dont use the fossils to explain evolution anyways so it is 100% theory.

Answer 9

I trust science BECAUSE it changes to include all new evidence. How can you defend Genesis? Retard.

Answer 10

NO we have real intelligence Animals dont