Why do "scientists" try to pass off evolution as being true?

Question

"Science n. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

How can one "observe" something that supposedly happened millions/billions of years ago?

I am a creationist, but I don't run around trying to say that creation is a "science" because it can't be actively observed. One can see evidence of it, but anyone can twist evidence their own way to say what they want.
It just irritates me that people of any sort try to pass off microevolution as being a "science" when it's unobservable. If we evolved from monkies, why are there still monkies around? wouldn't they all be humans?
I just wish that schools would put more stress on evolution being a theory as opposed to fact.
And I wish those people with the darwin-fish on the back of their cars would evolve themselves some working eyes and some more brains, they still seem a bit too much like primates to me.

Answer 1

Speciation of mammals has already been observed on the field in the past decades, we don't need to infer from the past that speciation has happened as a consequence of evolution. Speciation of microbes due to evolutionary pressure is a straightfoward, commonplace experiment. Furthermore, computer simulations thoroughly test the the principle of evolution, as optimization on the fitness landscape via feedback. And today we have commerical applications of this useful engineering fact. Why do scientists pass off evolution as true? I think we should stay competitive with the rest of the world which apparently have no problems in accepting the fact of evolution and finding commerical uses for it. A better question would be, "Is there a correlation between United States' long side from technical pre-eminence in the global market and the fact the United State now has the highest proportion of people that are creationists?"

Answer 2

Okay, I'm going to put this simply because your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject shows you have as little interest in science as you seem to think these "evolutionists" have.

Evolution CAN be observed in species that move through generations at a high rate - bacteria & viruses primarily but also certain insects. When bacteria develops a resistance to an antibiotic that was previously fatal to it, that's evolution in effect. When insects become immune to pesticide, that's evolution in effect.

And don't throw that "micro-evolution" crap at me, any idiot can realise that lots of small changes result in at least one big change.

The answer to your "why are there still monkeys around?" question is simple - not all life develops into the same result. Why do you think there are still single-celled organisms? Why aren't all members of the feline genus all the same? Evolution takes whatever turn is available. Monkeys HAVE evolved since back before our species existed, they just haven't evolved the same way we did.

Oh and by the way, humans and all primates evolved from a common ancestor, not one from the other.

One last thing, I love how you said that evolution is "just a theory". Obviously you don't know that in science, theory is just a technical term. I suppose you disagree with the theory of gravity (not the law of gravity, two seperate things) being taught in schools too.

Answer 3

DOn't let jargon confuse you. The observations is by seing animals alive today, noticing ways animals fit environments they live in, noticing fossils show the extinction and appearence of new species, and puting all that information together to explain all of it. THat's science. It's the use of observation and experimentation to make the best conjecture you can based on all the information you have with the understanding that more information might arise to revise the conjecture.

Monkey's are still around according to the theory, because not every monkey underwent the same change at once, nor would anyone think they would.

YOur belief in a Creation is based on a theory that you are party to information the scientific community has failed to observe, namely that a mountain exploded with divine fire and the Creator told Moses he made the world.

If you are correct, then you are correct. But because that event cannot be shown again through experimentation, it doesn't enter into the theory right now.

Instead of getting angry that your school teaches evolution as fact, relize they teach it as Scientific Fact - a fact that all available observable and verifiable information leads us to believe is true.

(BTW, your means of collecting information by trusting that trustworthy people told you the truth isn't inferior; it's simply different. YOu have pretty sturdy proof. You were converted by someone to Christianity, who was cnverted by someone, on and on, until about 80 names back we hit... who was converted by Saul of Tarsus who was converted by Jesus. THat has as much or greater likelihood of being true as believing through admitedly incomplete information we can succesfully deduce the biological process as it occurred out of our site millions of years ago. One is Scientific Fact, the other is Religious Fact.)

Answer 4

We can learn about things that have happened in the past in several ways, one by studying the fossil records and also by comparative genetics. Both support evolution.

Scientist support the teaching of evolution because all of the evidence we have supports it. That is, in a nutshell, the answer to your question.

Evolution is called a fact and a theory. The problem is, many people do not understand what a theory is in scientific usage.

A fact is something that is observed, or is known to happen, to such a degree that it would be foolish to deny it. Evolution is both observed and understood. That makes it a fact.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for how it occurs. The standard theory of evolution now is called 'neo-Darwinism'. This combines Darwin's Natural Selection with the newer discoveries of genetics.

As for your question about monkeys, it shows a misunderstanding of evolution. It is like saying "the US population came from Europe, so why are their still Europeans". See how that works?
Also, humans are considered 'apes' not monkeys. Humans, the other apes, and monkeys all share a common ancestor. Humans did not 'come from monkeys' we share a common ancestry.

This question brings out my biggest complaint with the so called 'creation scientist' or 'ID scientist'. The information they spread about is wrong. Conclusively, decisively, outrageously wrong. What they do is spread misinformation in the name of religion in order to attack science. In the process, they mislead and misinform countless people.

Answer 5

I hope you realize that science is not limited to what is *directly* observed. Otherwise we would say precious little about the world.

For example, when you walk in the woods and see a deer, how do you know that the deer was once born of a mother deer, and God did not just create that deer in its adult form five minutes before you saw it? Nobody was there five years ago to "observe" the deer being born. The answer is that we have observed other deer being born, and we extrapolate from that that this is how ALL deer are created. Would you agree?

The same applies to all of science, including evolution. There is so much observed evidence (fossils, genetics, molecular patterns in the DNA, embryology, vestigial organs, homologous structures, virology, bacteriology, immunology, pesticide-resistance of insects, biogeography, etc. etc.), that ALL points to evolution.

I would agree that some schools don't stress the 'theoretical' nature of science enough. But this applies to ALL science. How do we know that things are built of atoms when they are not directly observable? Because they are *indirectly* observable. How do we know that the sun, or distant stars, have certain amounts of hydrogen, helium, etc. since we cannot take samples and observe them? Because we can indirectly observe these properties from the nature of the light that comes from them.

ALL of science is theory. But in science, "theory" doesn't mean "wild-*** guess" ... in the same vein that we use "theory" in everyday life, as in "I have a theory where I lost my wallet." It means a hypothesis that is supported by a substantial amount of evidence.

"If we evolved from monkies, why are there still monkies around? wouldn't they all be humans?"

Answer. No. Why would you think that?

First, NOBODY says that "we evolved from monkeys." Why do creationists insist on revealing a total lack of science background by repeating that that ridiculous 2nd-grader CARTOON version of evolution?

But more important, two species can co-exist after they have split from a single species ... it is not required for one of them to become extinct. One species splits into two when two subpopulations become separated. Then both subpopulations evolve in two completely different directions ... 25 million years later, they are as different as humans and monkeys are today.

Answer 6

We can't travel to the sun, but this doesn't stop us from measuring the chemical properties of it. We can detect gases as light travels through them, and then see what wavelenghts have been absorbed in the process. Same thing with things that happened on earth millions of years ago; we can deduce the event by studying its effects on other things. Like fossils, for instance. Science is not restricted in time; all it takes is a recognized method and you're set.

And, to be frank, since you're using the "why are there still monkeys"-argument, you haven't actually studied this subject. Evolution IS a theory, a scientific theory. It is not fact; scientific theories are used to explain facts.

Answer 7

You don't really want an answer --- your mind is already made up. You just used this forum to air your own point of view. You aren't looking for knowledge. It's obvious your mind is closed.

For other people who come to this question to get an answer, here is mine.

Evolution is still taking place. For example, there is a moth that lives on birch trees in New England. In the 1800's, most of the moths were white. This was because the bark on which they would rest was also white. Blending into their backround kept them from being eaten. As industrialization began polluting the air, soot would be deposited on the birch bark. Nowadays, most of the moths are darkly colored --- again because blending into their backround keeps them from being eaten.

Something the ignoramus who posed this question forgot ---- an evolutionary change does not automatically mean the demise of the original species. As along as there are sufficiently diverse niches, multiple species can co-exist.

If the change does not affect survival, individuals can exhibit various examples of these changes. For example, over time, human earlobes have gotten shorter. A longer earlobe improved hearing (and survival). Nowadays, you are not likely to have a predatory animal sneak up on you. Acute hearing is not as necessary for survival as it used to be.

I know the asker will ignore these examples. His mind is closed and he doesn't want examples that don't agree with his limited view of the world.

Answer 8

first of all i do no longer believe you, you look adimant that the influenza virus isn't evolving, yet you have no longer any data to decrease back it up. 2nd, i do no longer believe the guy you cite as a prominant creation scientist is unquestionably very prominant. 0.33 you're saying your self you do get a clean flu shot each and every 12 months and you someway assume me to believe this is a spending shot. Fourth, THE FLU VIRUS IS EVOLVING, which you have no longer proved incorrect, as a result if i exploit a similar logic you do this should propose evolution exists.

Answer 9

Microevolution observed (1972):

Answer 10

Why do "people" try to pass off creationism as being true?

How did the people who wrote the bible know about something that happened before people existed?

Why are you irritated by things you don't understand?