how close is evolution to being right?

Answer 1

Somewhere between 95% and 99.999% right.

Answer 2

Evolution is the best-supported theory to explain the existing evidence. Which is to say, it's nowhere close to being "right".

Science does not "prove" things. It looks at evidence and then comes up with ideas to explain the evidence, then checks to see if further evidence supports those ideas. The evidence that exists strongly supports the idea that life began in one form and diverged over time, with new variations appearing at certain points in the past. It also strongly supports the idea that humans appeared through this same process. But the evidence doesn't "prove" either of those things. Again, science can support or not support, but it cannot prove.

So we can never know, in the philosophical sense, whether evolution is "right". And scientists will continue to refine their model. I once heard a famous paleontologist tell a lecture hall full of people that every book ever written about dinosaurs has been wrong. He said that some of the people in the room (referring specifically to young children in the audience) will write books about dinosaurs in which they show why all the previous books were wrong, but their own books will be wrong, too. His point was not that every book about dinosaurs was complete hogwash, but that every book was bound to contain some errors in it -- errors that later generations will identify.

Folks like W.R. Thompson (quoted in THA's answer) overstate this imperfection of evidence. The first link below has more context for his argument. I'm offering the second link as a rebuttal.

Answer 3

In science, there cannot be any absolute "rights" or "wrongs", only evidence for or against. The question is, how useful is the theory of evolution to deciphering patterns and increasing understanding of the natural world? There is no theory which has been demonstrated through evidence so well as evolution has. There is more evidence for evolution than for the theory of the Big Bang. Science is about testable ideas, evidence to back up those ideas, and has nothing to do with faith.

Answer 4

This is a slightly strange question.

The theory of evolution is what it is ... the best theory that suits the evidence. That body of evidence (the facts that the theory explains) is enormous.

When you ask "how close is it to being right?" you're asking for an assessment of the truth of the theory outside of the evidence it uses to support itself. How can we assess the truth of something beyond the evidence?

In other words, you're asking a non-scientific question. You're asking for a sort of godlike access to TRUTH that science never claims to have. It only claims to put forth a theory that explains the evidence. That's all. It is as good as its evidence ... which in the case of evolution, is VERY VERY VERY GOOD.

...

P.S. When you read a creationist like THA full of handy little quotes capturing evolutionists admitting doubts or despair ... be sure to google the phrase "quote mining." It is a despicable practice ... and THA and his ilk have no shame in using it.

Answer 5

One would have to believe in magic to think there is any other explanation.
We are evolving every day or we would still be riding horses or walking. About 95% of the animals and plants that have lived on this earth are now extinct. Man will become extinct also. Religion is part of the problem, not the solution, because terrorist are being taught from birth that they should be martyrs and go to heaven for killing those who believe in the same God, but worship in a different way. We have gone this route at least five times in the past and had to start all over again. Evolution has its proof in facts and science. God is based on faith and was created by man because he does not want to die. ~

Answer 6

Darwin's theory of evolution is completely correct about how populations change over time. What he said, and what makes perfect sense, is the following.

First, he observed that the characteristics of children (not just human children) are similar, but not the same, as those of their parents.
He also noticed that individuals (not just humans) who have beneficial variations are more likely to survive (and thus more likely to reproduce) than those without beneficial variations.
Thus, he concluded that over time the beneficial characteristics have "added up" over many generations, resulting in species being the way they are today.

Also, this accounts for differences based on location, because most characteristics are beneficial in some places and not in others. This is why the theory is called natural selection- because the environment is the key factor in selecting the traits which survive and reproduce. I don't see what is controversial about this. This theory can easily coexist with creationism (although I personally do not believe that creationism is a valid theory), yet many people seem to think the two contradict. Even if they do, none of the above theory is questionable as far as most people are concerned.

Answer 7

it makes ur know how gradually we human and other things are been created by our GOD almighty.but in evolution,we realise thins just dont grow alone;they grow in response to their environment since the begining of life...

Answer 8

no one knows...we share a lot of traits with other animals, there are several variations of specific species, we DO have special attributes that make life easier, as do other animals, that have progressed over the years..i would say it helps to explain some things, but still not everything...its a personal preference, but it HAS to be going on in some form or another

Answer 9

--The far-fetched possibility decreased every day since its modern conception, about 100 years ago!

--Please note:

*** ce chap. 2 p. 14 Disagreements About Evolution—Why? ***

When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution"

Evolution Under Assault

4 The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . IS NOT ONLY(my caps)under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”2

........7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added......

...... Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, WE STILL HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST (my caps) demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”5

....Newer Theories

17 All of this has led many scientists to champion novel theories for evolution. Science Digest put it this way: “Some scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction.”15

--These well substantiated quotes are but the tip to a very, very large iceberg---This is simply because there are so many OLOGIES that indeed are deminishing all the fraudulent concepts of the evolutionary idea.

--THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION is like the non-substance cloth in the Fairy Tale "THE EMPERORS NEW CLOTHS" in which only the intelligent could see the invisible fabric that was made from a non-substance thread.
--Thus the same arguement is used that 'atheist scientists are smarter' than those scientists that believe in Gods total creation reality, AND of course any common people cannot by any chance see the non-fabric evolution because we do not have intelligence, of the elite kind!

Answer 10

Close?...It is right.