Why is the theory of evolution still a theory? Why is the missing link still missing?

Question

If human evolution from apes has been proven why isn't called the fact of evolution?

In response to "eri":

Facts ARE developed from theories. I tewach aerospace technology. I first teach the theory of radar wave propagation. Then I teach the facts that allow us to prove the theory to be accurate.

Atomic theory was proven to be accurate with the atomic bomb.

A theory is basically a question that will hopefully lead to answers someday. Until the answer comes it still remains a question.

I need someone to teach me how to spell...

Answer 1

"a theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences 1998: 7)."

That should give you a little understanding in the Theory of Evolution. In science, a theory is a higher standard than a fact.

The misunderstanding of the term 'scientific theory', is a very commonly made mistake. Gravity is also a scientific theory.

Answer 2

Theories ARE facts. They are the best explaination of all the available data.

Or does the theory of optics mean eye glasses don't work? Or the atomic-molecular theory mean that atoms and molecules don't exist? Or germ theory mean disease doesn't exist?


And what missing link are you looking for? There is a complete fossil record of hominid development from Homo sapien sapiens all the way back not to just our common ancestor (A) with the great ape lineage, but with the common ancestor (B) THAT common ancestor (A) shares with the monkeys.


------

Would anyone claiming Lucy was a fraud care to provide a citation to a reputable palentologocial or anthropological journal documenting it?

------

Ah, okay, so you DO know what a theory is and that theories REMAIN theories no matter what, and clearly understand the scientific method because of it.

What evidence do you require that you do not have to support the theory of evolution?

However, you ARE wrong about 'prove'. Science can never PROVE any theory right. Science can only prove a theory WRONG.

If you teach radar wave propagation, you've been exposed to formal logic. When you say you've proven radar wave propagation, you are claiming a universal -- For all points in space and time in the universe, this theory holds. However, you cannot assert this unless you have literally done just that -- tested it in every single point in the space time continuum. Worse still, you're even including in all possible universes by this method. This is patently false -- there are solutions to the Einstein equations that hold where the electromagnetic permeability of space is variant. That means there are conceivably universes where this universe's theory of radar wave propagation doesn't hold, or holds to slightly modified formulas

You CAN however, say, there exists enough points where we have tested this to rule out alpha statistical error and beta statistical error to the 99.5% or 99.9% or the 99.95% etc. These are existential statements. You have multiple instances where the principles held true. Find one SINGLE existential, one single "There exists this data point such that the theory is not held," and you have proven the theory flawed at best or totally disproven, depending on how much of an outlier the data point is and the duplicatability of that data point.

To put it bluntly, if you do not understand this and speak of proving things scientifically, you are not qualified to teach the sciences, be they avionic or biological. Your mathematical underpinnings are greviously flawed.

Answer 3

Because it is impossible to prove any such thing as the origin of life as a fact. The scientific method cannot absolutely prove any theories about something that happened only once, and which cannot be empirically investigated or for which nobody was around to compile data about. All you can do is speculate drawing logical conclusions from the data we do have access to today.

BTW, that does not by default give more credence to any other explanation, e.g. religious creationist ideas. There is equally no way to prove Creationism. Pointing to the Bible is not a valid argument to prove a scientific theory about the origins of life, because this is not based on empirical data or logical analysis of facts, but on faith in a religious doctrine.

Answer 4

It is proven, but it is such a vast theory it will never be promoted to a PRINCIPLE. Everything would have to be mapped out and testable, obviously, this is not true with evolution, but it has enough evidence, and is one of the strongest scientific theories, that it is considered scientific fact. You could look at it through about 20 different scientific fields, they all point to, and agree on, the basic premises of macro-evolution.

EDIT: Wow to the question above me, that is just sheer ignorance. The basic, most overused middle school level argument against evolution. You make me laugh. How about you take a high school biology class before trying to argue....

Answer 5

I love talking about the Cambrian explosion since it has been brought up. You are absolutely right that we don't know how things progressed that fast. But just to get here you are admitting the basic idea. Life started simple and got more complex. The way you get to the Cambrian explosion is by looking at the order the fossils show up in the layers of rock. There were simpler fossils under the layer you are talking about, and more complex ones over it. This certainly doesn't match Genesis at all. So even if the mechanism of evolution is totally wrong, it still happend somehow and it still doesn't match the Bible.

Answer 6

There is the theory of gravity and the theory of plate tectonics and the heliocentric theory. Real scientists never elevate anything except some mathematical statements (1+1=2 etc) to the level of a fact, and then the proper term isn't fact but "axiom".

A missing link between what and what? If you mean humans and apes, there are plenty of fossils...or are you one of the creationists whose parents homeschooled you and censored Australopithecus and homo habilis and all the other intermediate steps from your education? If so, you can google as well as I can...

Answer 7

A theory in scientific terms does not mean the same thing as "just a theory" when a fundi says it.

A good example is The Theory of Gravity
- Is gravity not a fact? It's a fact and a theory.

-------------------------------------------------

Nunoyvgvn... Awi:

“human genes are closer to the genes of a pig than an ape, PROVEN FACT.”

This is some of the worse misinformation I’ve come across on Y!A

Answer 8

Well, evolution of HUMANS takes eons and the theory is only 150 years old. Hardly time to prove much of anything.

And the missing link is missing and may always be missing. That won't disprove evolution, it will only never prove MAN came from APES.

I don't think Darwin would cry over that.

Answer 9

science doesn't speak that way and the common ancesestors of man and monkey is the idea it has been proved through DNA
analysis but scientists will still say theory take it up in the science venue or learn to read the encyclopedia religion knows very very little of science or reality for that matter.

Answer 10

The theory of evolution has been disproven according to my college biology textbook and Psycology textbook too. but that is the only thing the book said. It didn't say why.