Evolution taught as a fact. Is that the truth?

Question

I am not arguing Evolution here, I am questioning why so many state it is a now a fact.
(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, )
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution.But there was not one thing I knew about it. So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years. you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...

ZERO COOL - Reazd Dawkins. His answers still all start with suppostiions without scientific backing. Such as spontaneous generation and mutations over centuries creating improvements in adaptability. Science proved mutations do not create improvements but cause regressions and Spontaneous generation has no basis in scientific fact, and repeatedly failed when tried

Mullah - Speech made at the American Museum of Natural history in New York City in 1981

MC Hummer - Never claimed Patterson was not an evolutionist, he is. He is also honest enough to admit that evolution is very far from being a proven fact, and is actually closer to being a hypotheisis.

Acud Zebra- I believe CMW answered your question. When Patterson responds to your remark pass it on to the rest of us please

Tentofield- This quote is not taken out of context and was not an attempt by Patterson to disprove evolution. He believes in Evolution. It was simply a question posed to others in the scientific community asking how much they could prove why it was starting to be taught as "fact"

Trevor- I am not at this time disputing evolution only the use of the word fact. What you speak of is evolution within a species, which no one disputes.Man is getting taller but is still a man. Grow a sixth finger and he is still a man. What is disputed is evolution from one species to another. Reptile to Mammal, fish to reptile, etc..etc.. The scientific evidence for this is very hard to find. Neanderthal man is still a man. He has possible evolved but not changed into another species

As for the quote mining. Repeating the words of another does not make them or the statement useless or any less true. Using it out of context I agree does, but this was simply a question asked by one person of science to others. If we cannot use quotes, then can we use anything anyone else has ever said in the past? Or is it only allowed if it fits our side of the story?

Acid- The fact that it was secretly taped does not take away from the fact that the discussion existed and the words were spoken. Or can it only be real if they meant to say it to the public. If thats the case then Nixon should have been reinstated.

Answer 1

Yes, it is taught as a fact, however, it is increasingly hard to prove. In fact, a great deal of information from the last ~50 years has shown that many of the assumptions of Macroevolution are not true.
However, you can see that Microevolution has been proved very well by large amounts of data.

Microevolution is the idea that a species can become specialized through the "Survival of the fittest" idea.


I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at what Coolest Ghoul said.
"Blindness" is not passed on from generation to generation through your genes, and as such cannot be "weeded out".
In addition, people have had very good lives even when blind, and even had children.
Since "blindness" is not genetic, their children could see just as well as I can.
And finally, the inability to see cannot be cured by any current medical processes.

Yes, that includes both glasses and LASIK.

Answer 2

If anyone ever tries to tell you there's a difference between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution', then the person is not really a scientist.

I also find it VERY hard to believe that any true scientist would say that evolution should not be taught in high schools. Maybe they were confused by the wording of your question. If they are really a scientist, they probably taking about Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Back to marcoevolution and microevolution...Primarily religious zealots use those terms, with microevolution supposedly being adaptations that occur in a species that don't change the species into another (ex: breeding dogs). They use macroevolution for changes that occur to turn a species into another (and of course, they dispute it really occurs).

Real scientists will tell you they are one and the same process, but it takes a lot longer for there to be enough changes to turn a species into another. However, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Don't let nonscientists try and convince you that evolution (or macroevolution, however they term it) doesn't exist, or even that there's not enough evidence out there. There is a mountain of evidence from just about every scientific field, from biology to geology, genetics to linguistics, radiology to climatology.

And belief in the Bible and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive!!! I'm a Christian, and I believe evolution is all part of God's plan and his grace. I hate it when people say you can't believe in one if you believe in the other.

Answer 3

I guess it depends how you define 'fact'.

If evolution were put on trial in a court of law then it would be proven to be true based on the probabilities of evidence.

Deciding whether evolution is true is very similar to determining an outcome in a court case. There are often few facts but lots of snippets of information that have to be pieced together to gain a bigger picture. Then based on the evidence to hand a decision is made.

As for Dr Patterson's remarks - I don't know him or know of his work so I can't comment intimately but it appears to be one of many comments that have been taken out of context and distorted.

There are a great many facts regarding evolution that can readily be proven - for example, human beings are getting taller and more upright. You only have to look at skeletons from as recently as 300 years ago to see that and if you look back at the skeletal record over as little as 2000 years there are marked differences that prove conclusively that we are evolving. No one but a complete idiot can dispute that when the evidence is physical and staring them in the face.

As for whether it's taught as fact - I see no reason for it not to be. If evolution can't be taught as fact then the Spanish Civil War, the agricultural revolution, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire etc etc can't be taught as fact either.

Answer 4

training evolution as a reality isn't incorrect. Evolution is actual. technology has shown that it really is actual. What maximum human beings have a venture with is that religious communities do no longer pick to imagine that we developed from something, which incorporates apes. They shouldn't coach faith in a technology classification because there is no clinical info to help it. What they might want to do is have a faith classification and in that classification they discuss all the various religions and their man or woman beliefs in a non-biased, genuine way. technology might want to be left on my own to coach the beliefs of scientists. Now, a instructor who says the bible is incorrect is an fool, by using the undeniable fact that instructor's evaluations are not to any extent further meant to be expressed. instructor's are not to any extent further meant to exhibit their political opinions and that i trust they might want to do an identical about their religious beliefs. it really is going to be non-biased. faculties might want to modern-day the info and then leave the guy to make up their very own ideas.

Answer 5

Evolution is a fact and there have been many forms of evidence for it. When it comes to bones of animals and such, there were Neanderthals before us and then we evolved from them. There is evidence in other animals also. That is why it is considered fact. That is not to say that the world started with evolution and God didn't create it. That is only a theory, not fact. But I believe that theory.

Answer 6

Because it is.

It is the entire basis for all modern biology. There is absolutely no debate about it in scientific circles. Zero, none, nada, zip.

Don't let the fact that it is called a theory throw you. Science still calls gravity a theory and the really funny thing is there is actually a much better understanding of the mechanism for evolution than gravity.

Answer 7

That species evolve is definitely a fact-the biological mechanisms whereby they evolve are theoretical. I should point out that Patterson is a geologist and not a qualified biologist, so it's a bit pretentious for someone unqualified in the field to set himself up as an authority on evolutionary biology.

Answer 8

Young Earth Creationists are fond of quote mining. They find something that someone has said an take it out of context to support their arguments. This has happened to Dr Patterson before. There is a fine example of this here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

I have no doubt that the quotation cited here is also taken out of context.

Answer 9

If Dr Patterson said that, he's a idiot and a liar. I'd stop reading his work.

Evolution is a theory AND a fact. It is a theory because that's the highest level you can attain in science - a theory is like the master folder the facts and laws and observations go into. Evolution contains the FACTS of natural selection, genetic mutation, retroviruses, etc. We can observe it happening. It is a fact.

Answer 10

Evolution as a process (verb) has some evidence in all circles.

Evolution as a Science or Thing (noun) has a long way to go as applied to humans, seeing as how all the experts say it takes millions of years for anything to happen and Darwinsim is 150 years old.