English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-22 19:26:44 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

26 answers

Evolution is both a scientific fact and a theory. It is a fact in that we observe it in the real world as evidenced by the fossil record and genetic research.

It is also a scientific theory – the most powerful general explanatory theory in all of science. It is the foundation and basis for every life science. Without the theory of evolution, every life science collapses and all biological knowledge is false. This includes medical science. If evolution is false then modern medicine has no more validity than the voodoo practiced by Witch Doctors.

---------------------
risk17lbcc ---

Your ‘benefit’ is scientific illiteracy and ignorance since you obviously know nothing about either evolution or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We do not live in a closed system. Further, as in the case of bipedalism, evolution may increase energy use efficiency and conservation.

The 4004 BC date for creation was made up by Bishop James Ussher sometime in the 1600s and first appeared in a Bible in 1701. It was later determined to be Oct 23 at 9:00 AM. Riddle me this Batman: Why did God create everything right in the middle of football season? How retarded is that?

2007-07-22 19:38:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

it is a model of an aspect of reality.

-----------------------------------
sugrnspyce4

theory yes and it is complety normal that a theory is not accurate. A theory evolves over time.

you are mentioning some points that are definately not correct :

2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
How did we get 92 elements from hydrogen, plus the synthetic ones? No one knows.

WRONG we do know.

5. Macro-evolution - changing from one kind of animal to another
There is no evidence of any intermediary stages of evolution (aka - "missing links").
Example: No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog.
There are big dogs, little dogs, coyotes, dingos, etc., but in the end they're all still dogs. Again, no evidence.

WRONG
bacterias can split into new species in a very short time.

Finally you come up with a biologic teacher and a statement of Einstein token out of its context, these are no arguments.

2007-07-23 02:29:10 · answer #2 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 2 1

Could be both. But a theory, however well accepted, is still not known to be fact. But that still doesn't prove that it isn't factual or at least parts of it anyways. Being called a "theory" does not mean that it is the same thing as a guess or even a hypothesis.

My position is that parts of evolutionary theory are correct, but not all of it. There is no evidence IMO of a species ever changing into another species.

2007-07-23 02:30:20 · answer #3 · answered by sharky 4 · 2 4

Evolution is a scientific theory, as is gravity. Few people doubt the theory of gravity. Many who doubt the "theory" of evolution don't understand that, in scientific terms, gravity and evolution are equally provable.

2007-07-23 03:46:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Well, there's a reason they call it the "theory of evolution." And a theory that's full of a ridiculous amount of holes and flaws at that. Here are a few examples...

Five out of the six kinds of evolution have never been proven or observed (and the sixth kind isn't really evolution at all).

1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter; i.e. - "Big Bang"
The "Big Bang" theory goes against the "conservation of angular momentum" law; space matter is not evenly distributed, etc. No evidence.

2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
How did we get 92 elements from hydrogen, plus the synthetic ones? No one knows.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets
No one has ever seen a star or planet form. There's evidence of star deaths (novas and supernovas), but what about star births? No evidence.

4. Organic evolution - origin of life
How did life get started from non-living material? No one has ever observed this occurrence. No evidence.

5. Macro-evolution - changing from one kind of animal to another
There is no evidence of any intermediary stages of evolution (aka - "missing links"). Example: No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. There are big dogs, little dogs, coyotes, dingos, etc., but in the end they're all still dogs. Again, no evidence.

6. Micro-evolution - variations within kinds of living things
The description "variations" rather than "micro-evolution" is really more accurate since it's the same kind of plant or animal with varying features (i.e - different kinds of roses, different kinds of finches, etc.), but this is the one and only event that has ever been observed.

You can get this and more info from the link below (from a guy who was a biology teacher for 15 years, interestingly enough).

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/527827460

A wise man once said:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

The man who said this? Albert Einstein.

2007-07-23 02:47:29 · answer #5 · answered by SugrNspyce4 :) 6 · 2 4

It's a theory backed up by a lot of facts.
Stephan Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins have updated Charles Darwin and future research will help explain more. Science deals in theories. Theories can change. See "Scientific method"

2007-07-23 02:41:24 · answer #6 · answered by hairypotto 6 · 3 3

Evolution is a theory backed by tons of evidence
The same as gravity,
The term theory does not mean it’s not proven,

2007-07-23 02:30:56 · answer #7 · answered by citizen of lala land 6 · 6 2

all animals (including us) in the world have a common ancestor, that's a fact. all animals gradually change in characteristics, that's also a fact. so: diversification and change (=evolution) are easily observable facts.

why does diversification occur? that's where we enter the realm of theory. the theory which explains diversification best is the theory of natural selection of random mutations.

is Intelligent Design a serious alternative to evolution? well no, because even the people involved in that are not that dim that they deny evolution. is it an alternative to natural selection? no, just watch this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

2007-07-23 02:41:37 · answer #8 · answered by Ray Patterson - The dude abides 6 · 4 3

It's a fact, and though some like to call it a theory, the bible doesn't fall under theory or fact. Even theories have some form of evidence.

2007-07-23 02:35:44 · answer #9 · answered by Tanjo22 3 · 3 4

Evolution is a scientifically proved fact.
The confusion lies in the use of the word "theory"
The scientific definition of this word is
"A formal statement of rules on which a subject of study is based"
Most people think of it only in the common definition as in being a guess or an idea.

2007-07-23 03:00:25 · answer #10 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers