Evolution just a theory, but why may people think as it is a fact?

Question

The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things to their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of evolutionists.

The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old.

The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts.

A comparison of ant fossil aged 100 million years and an ant living in our day clearly indicates that ants do not have any evolutionary history.

refer question: http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlbrHLzK2MW2jw3Yc1XgC7r44gt.?qid=20061230090120AAhq8yR

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionists have been portraying the Neanderthals, a vanished human race, as semi-ape creatures. The above portrayal of Neanderthals was used as evolutionist propaganda for decades. However, since the 1980s this myth has begun to collapse. Both fossil studies and traces of Neanderthal culture have shown that these people were not semi-apes. For example, this 26,000-year-old needle proved that Neanderthals were civilised humans who possessed the ability to sew. As a result of this, evolutionist publications such as National Geographic had to start portraying them as civilised. One day, evolution also will face the problem.

John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated

The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.

One of the human fossils that has attracted the most attention was one found in Spain in 1995. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.

As we have seen, fossil discoveries give the lie to the claim of "the evolution of man." This claim is presented by some media organizations as if it were a proven fact, whereas all that actually exist are fictitious theories. In fact, evolutionist scientists accept this, and admit that the claim of "the evolution of man" lacks any scientific evidence.

For instance, by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record" the evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villie, E. P. Solomon and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged all of a sudden, in other words with no evolutionary ancestor.

Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, two evolutionist anthropologists were forced to say, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." in an article they wrote in 2000.

"Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting the biological and geological sciences and the discoveries of physics and chemistry." Because in order to make such an inference (here a modus tollens) there need to be some propositions regarding chemical, physical, geological and biological discoveries that imply the theory of evolution. However, the discoveries, or statements of them, do not imply the theory. Therefore, they do not prove it."

It is enough to look at the history of science to realise what an invalid and irrational thing it is to claim that "evolution is the basis of biology." If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution, and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology, such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose on these sciences by force.

Thank You Berry..
I got more fact.
Now i also know the scholar who write the statement about drogon fly and honey bee... evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki. Thanks

Answer 1

I take evolution as merely theory.
I don't believe in evolution, but mutation.
The fact that changes happen to some referral given by others, are not the best proof to say that evolution took place... because the changes are merely on sizes not changing from one species to another like for example from ape to human.
Evolution still confuses me.....

Answer 2

English must not be your first language. You grew up with Spanish perhaps? Or German? Italian? English cannot be your first language. If it was, you would know that many English words have multiple meanings. Theory is one of these.

All Educated Americans and UK Citizens know that Theory has one meaning when used by Scientists and in scientific usage, and another meaning when used in ordinary non-scientific common usage.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behaviour of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

You really need to go to some English Classes and learn English properly before you start posting things that you clearly know nothing about.

Or, perhaps you should go and use the Yahoo answers that is in your language. It is obviously not English.


One thing you have to remember, is when scientists make a theory, they are willing to modify it to fit the facts. Yes, 100 years ago, they thought Neanderthals were brutish ape men, but even then, there were others who suggested otherwise. Now it is difficult to find a scientist that thinks this. And it wasn't specifically evolutionists that were portraying them this manner, it was archaeologists.

The concept of a missing link was developed by the media of the day, and not necessarily scientists. And not all scientists believe we suddenly appeared.

Sorry, I've had a really bad day, of people who should know better asking the same questions over and over again. Perhaps I took it out on you.

Answer 3

You really don't understand the words "theory" or "evolution" or "fact" or "falsify".

As far as fossils, they don't identify any internal structure, therefore to claim that there is no evolutionary difference between modern and fossilized creatures is simply ignorant. The fact that some creatures appear similar, doesn't mean that none of the rest haven't undergone significant changes. The fact that alligators and crocodiles reached an early evolutionary niche doesn't mean that other creatures haven't.

The fundamentalist Christian attacks on evolution are simple-minded and ignore the real facts. They prey on the ignorance of the uneducated, mis-using the word "theory" to mean hypothesis, neglecting that "theory" implies that a great deal of evidence supports it.

"Models" of gigantic human bones based on tales of fragments, tales of information "hidden" or "stolen" by evolutionist militants that would "blow the lid" off of evolution; the repeated (although wholly proven false) recant by Darwin of evolution, and other such disingenuous tactics by Creationists simply show that they have no idea of what real science and honest dispute is about. Creationism is merely an attempt to maintain some hold on fundamentalism in the face of knowledge that disputes what ought to have been seen as allegory for centuries now.

Grow up and quit trying to stuff God in a book; He's far bigger than that.

Edit:
Having read your further information:

A "modern face" appearing on an 800,000 year-old fossil ... Ok, so we have people today that look quite different than the rest. We have children born with tails. There are ALWAYS the exceptions. The fact that a "modern looking" face appears was a surprise precicely because it was an exception. It is not the only face found to date. Others appear quite different.

A needle does not imply civilisation. It implies the use of tools. Monkeys use tools, albeit not quite as sophisticated as modern ones. This does not imply "civilisation". Monkeys and other animals often work together, this does not imply civilisation in the modern sense. Finding a "tool" among human artifacts does in no sense disprove evolution.

And too, looking for "ape-like ancestors" implies that humans came from apes, and this is precicely NOT what evolution states. Evolution states that humans and apes came from a COMMON ancestor; i.e. the ancestor was neither ape nor man.

People say that you never see a transitional species in the present: Evolution states that ALL species we see now are transitional. You don't see a "half this, half that" because everything right now is precicely where it is. We see the transitions in the fossil record. We see "humans" with obviously different bone structure, smaller cranium and other features. These are our forebears. We don't see creatures running around today with these exact features.

In the fossil record, we see different forms of many of the creatures we see today; we see creatures that didn't make it as well. This is all evolution. We see creatures changing over time, and we see others still suited to life on Earth in the forms they took millions of years ago, such as crocodiles and turtles. This makes evolutionary sense. Creatures that have no need to change, don't change.

Humans needed to adapt, and we did so with larger brains; which is why the fossil record shows such growth. Had our brains not grown, allowing for more complex thought, our species would have been unable to adapt. That's how evolution works.

We don't live in a static world. Science can't be completely described in ANY SINGLE BOOK, much less one not intended to do so. Religion and philosophy only deal with the "why"; science deals with the "how". Trying to substitute the "how" with the "why" leads toward ignorance.

Answer 4

You need to study science and the scientific method (not to mention evolution). You clearly cannot grasp the basics.

Evolution is a fact in the same way as gravity is a fact. They are both still being questioned by scientists (it's what scientists do) but there is such a consensus view that they exist that there is no denying it.

The link to gravity is better than this, though. The theory of gravity is called the General Theory of Relativity. It is the scientific *theory* that best explains the *fact* of gravity. Similarly the *theory* of evolution explains the *fact* of evolution.

As to the 'just a theory' remark - a scientific theory os rigorously tested but can never be proven (most of the scientific laws you've heard of are just badly named theories). You don't prove such theories, you disprove them. Or you find a theory that better fits the facts. The theory of evolution has complete support from the scientific community and despite the press releases of the Intelligent Design groups to suggest it's scientifically controversial, there has been no challenge presented to it on scientific grounds.

One last point - if evolutionary theory is debunked. It will be replaced by another theory of evolution (as Einstein's theory replaced Newton's regarding gravity). Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and would not gain acceptance.

Answer 5

Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the use of the word "Theory" as used in this context. This happens quite often because people automatically assume "theory" means "speculation". However, in the context of Evolution "theory" means "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another". This is a description from the dictionary.

Secondly, evolution does not change an organism because it would suit the organism better, or even because the organism wishes really hard that it had wings.

What happens is that every now and again, a mutation will happen to an organism. Most of the time this mutation will not benefit the organism, it may actually be detrimental. This will have a negative impact on the organism's chances for survival, and the gene that cause the mutation will die out when the organism and it's offspring dies.

But, every so often, a mutation occurs that actually benefits the orgasm. This obviously increases it's chances for survival. This beneficial mutation is then passed onto the organism's offspring, who also now have a better chance to thrive.

To use your ant comparison, all one has to do is look at the enormous variety of subspecies of ants around the planet to see that evolution has been at "work". They have all evolved to be well suited to their current environments.

Answer 6

Evolution is a number of things one of which is a historical hypothesis based on scientific theory. This says:

1. The species living organisms have changed over the ages. "Archaic" species have died out and (the key bit) NEW SPECIES HAVE ARISEN. Please note the past tense.

2. The new species have, as some of their direct ancestors, members of archaic species.

3. This change has (past tense again) arisen through diversification and selection.

To show the above to be either true or false we do not need to posit a future direction on evolution. We do not need to show that, to take one of your examples, the honeybee has changed in any particular timescale. The evolutionist claim is that the honey bee, whenever it arose, descended from non-modern honey bees: it did not come into existance (created/intelligently designed/whatever) with no anscestors.

To establish or refute the above we need to show whether or not modern species are descended from archaic species.

Your examples are not claims of evolutionists. The link below is to a claim by an evolutionist. He describes the claim, how his theory would be in big trouble if it were false, how it got tested and the results.

Answer 7

I've seen on the news just in the last few weeks fossil remains that have been found in Australia of 10 ft tall kangaroos and another creature that is something like a wombat, but it isn't. Perhaps an earlier version of the wombat? There would be heaps, if you could be bothered to look. Earlier horses were a lot smaller. Some creatures do change in appearance more quickly - just look at how the domestic cow has changed in size compared to their earlier ancestors (current ones are a lot bigger). Even man through selective breeding (culling the smallest of the litter) can cause a much stronger and larger animal to evolve without any genetic manipulation. This is just a sped-up version of what nature does. Just go to your local museum, I'd be sure that they would have on display some fossil remains of earlier evolved creatures. Also, environmental changes impact on species - some are wiped out, some survive and others adapt. That is why some animals don't appear to evolve, and that is because their physical make-up enables them to survive in many circumstances. I'd say ants and bees would fit that criteria seeing as they exist in every continent on this planet, regardless of its weather and landscape.

Answer 8

There are two GINORMOUS problems with your point:
1) Evolution is just a theory, a theory means different tings in common terms than in scientific terms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ). So you see how your lack of understanding in the English language does not constitute for the fallacy of scientific fact
2)a) You claim that bees, ants and dragonfly's haven't changed, so you talk about insects, what about fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, plants, bacteria, extremophiles and most life on the planet.
b) Actually, look in to how evolution works, these species of ants, and bees, have survived millions of years. This doesn't mean that mutants developed, in fact, research a little more and you should find great diversity in these insect species, bees, hornets, wasps, different subspecies and breeds of them all.
And the old species only disappear if there is a very specific problem in their species.

And to close up, we have seen evolution happen, micro and macro, inside the nucleus and between societies of finches on the Galapagos islands

Ask the Theists, just because you can't see it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :)

Answer 9

Well, you've made some good examples. The Honeybee, the dragon-fly , furthermore, the shark, the eel, the coral, the worm, all have body plans that work REALLY well for what it is that each animal is trying to do.

Worms just eat decaying matter in the soil, and mate, for those tasks the idea of a segmented body, no head and an inability to do jigsaw puzzles is totally a good idea.

Sharks for example are very close to the optimal condition for a predatory fish, they are "the best in the business" and have been for millions of years, with some bigger, some smaller.

However, these are considered evolutionary dead-ends in a way. Sharks couldn't adapt to a difference in sea-chemistry too well, or what happens if the fish upon which they feed go away or are hunted to extinction, well, sharks will disappear from the planet, too.

It's just that simple. It happens all the time, Animals become extinct. They were here, now they're gone. the Sabertooth Tiger for example was the premiere killing organism of the western Americas until the arrival of man, to whom this was a large dangerous "monster" , for our own survivial hunter teams went about eliminating these animals from our environment.

Other animals have been similarly pruned from the tree of life, the virus responsible for Polio may be eliminated from the planet within the decade. Smallpox similarly has been eliminated but is contained to bioweapons facilities in the US and Russia and elsewhere for use in biolological warfare.

Viruses like influenza are constantly evolving, changing just slightly enough in response to how each variant was germinated or the conditions by which it's hosts protiens and structures altered it, that we humans require different shots each year.

H5N1 are variants of the regular flu bug, but are good examples of how one variant can give you a minor illness and the other could kill, from an evolutionary perspective H5N1 isn't likely to be terribly long lived although it may recur from time to time because it is so detrimental to it's host.

HIV, similarly explodes into dozens of variants in each patient. This is why patients require a cocktail of drugs to treat variant A, B and F and hope that variant C, doesn't EVOLVE right in their own bloodstream.

This mechanism it what causes other viruses to mutate and change within single organisms. This is why Penecillin is not generally prescribed anymore, it simply won't work. All the microbes have "evolved" resistance to this drug. When microbes are retrieved from remains of cadavers from 100 years ago, penicillin works just great. So we KNOW there has been a change in the common microbes we fight with antibiotics. Withing the next 20 years, MRSA viruses stand to become commonplace, making nearly 100 years of research and development in the area of drugs, more or less obsolete.

So it's not massive but these changes have only occured in the space of years. Viruses can change characteristics in the space of days or weeks, let alone millions of billions of years.

The same things happen in our environment of business, if I take a programmer from 30 years ago that is the BEST COBOL programmer around, but let's say they will not/cannot adapt to the new environment of fast microcomputers , the internet and the need to learn computer languages every 2-3 years, they will not be employed very long and professionally become "EXTINCT", it's nothing more fancy than that.

Imagine if you look in some companies somewhere, there they are more or less just like they were 30 years ago, COBOL programmers, doing COBOL - Amazing - it's not that the computer industry didn't evolve, it certainly did. its just that these individuals were in a well funded but live in a not very technologically demanding environment which allowed them to stay much as they were 30 years ago. Same thing just with animals and viruses and stuff, they are the bumblebees and the sharks of Computer Science. Great for what they do but possibly doomed if they can't adapt if their environment changes.

I know for myself I grew up on old minicomputers and programming in old-school BASIC and Pascal, well, times have changed, languages have evolved, nobody programs in BASIC anymore (maybe they do I just wouldn't know), because I now program in PHP/Perl and C++/C#, I started working on computers that didn't have operating systems as such, but a small collection of commands you could issue to peripherals.

Now, computers have sophisticated operating systems with pretty images and simple interfaces and easy to use programs. its EVOLUTION, whether you want it to be .... or not.

Answer 10

Gravity is just a theory.

The fossils of a 135 million year old dragonfly, while similar to modern dragonflies, would not match any of the over 5,500 recognized species. The 320 million year old dragonfly fossils do not resemble modern specimens. This indicates evolution.

Preservation of successful forms is evidence for evolution. I used the ant to disprove the hypothesis in your reference question. Next time, I'll do it with the honeybee.