Is there any evidence that suggests evolution is not real? Is evolution 100% proven or is it just assumed?

Question

because of alot of evidence? What do you think? Do you still believe in god after knowing about evolution?

I thought it wasnt 100% proven..missing links....and the contraversy if should or shouldnt be taught in school..because teachers always told me evolution was a theory?

Answer 1

Evolution is fact. We can't prove macroevolution because we can't go back in time to observe it occurring over the past billion years.

Anyway, if you want to pitch pebbles at the vast concrete bulwark, here are some:
1. The Cambrian Explosion. Was it a real event, or just an artifact from not having good fossils prior to that period?
2. Systems of irreducible complexity. It's hard to imagine how they could have evolved, so maybe they were designed.
3. The paucity of the fossil record. We can't tell from the fossil record what we're descended from, and what are the also-ran extinct cousins.

Answer 2

Plain and simply, evolution is fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is not real.

As with any science, the learning goes on. There may be tiny missing links, etc., in the fossil record, but now with DNA, the missing gaps are easily bridged. This is science. Always learning new things and adding the new knowledge to what came before.

I never did believe in and gods so there has never been a conflict in my mind. Note that "believe" is always used when talking about religion. That word basically means what it says: believing but not necessarily knowing anything.

Answer 3

Look ... in science, *NOTHING* is ever considered 100% "proven". NOTHING. EVER.

Are atoms and molecules real? We think so. It is theory. It explains a *lot* about how chemicals behave. But it is not considered 100% "proven" that atoms exist. There may be a theory proposed someday that may be *better* than atomic theory ... that explains things in a simpler way. It's not likely. But it's always *possible*.

Does gravity exist? We think so. It is a theory. The idea of a "force" of gravity explains a *lot* about how bodies behave (from apples on the earth, to planets moons and stars, to entire clusters of galaxies). But even a so-called "fact" like "all matter attracts" can be questioned (astrophysicists are actually looking for a type of matter that repels instead of attracts).

Is evolution real? It is as real as atoms and gravity.

Even so ... when people ask "Is evolution a fact or a theory?" that depends on whether you mean the *process* of evolution, or the *theory* of evolution. The first is a fact. The second is (obviously) a theory.

The *process* of evolution is just slow change over generations. It is a *fact*. It can be observed in nature. It can be induced in farm animals and champion pumpkins. It can be measured in the lab. It can be seen in fossils. We see more evidence of this slow change in DNA. The *process* of evolution is a *fact* as real as "all matter attracts."

The *theory* of evolution is the theory that explains (a) how that process occurs in nature (natural selection); and (b) how that process explains the origins of every species of life on the planet.

The theory of evolution explains a *lot* about the structures and locations of fossils; the shared DNA (both genetic DNA and junk DNA) between species; the common features in organisms (like why whales have hip-bones, or snakes have leg buds, or all land vertebrates have four limbs; or why we have a big toe and get goosebumps); biogeography (why kangaroos are in Australia and *only* in Australia); embryology (why mammal embryos have gill folds and webbed fingers, why human embryos have tails, why dolphin embryos have leg buds); etc. etc.

The theory of evolution explains *all* of those things ... which is why it is considered one of the strongest theories in the history of science.

But 100% "proven" ... no. It is as "proven" as the theory of gravity or the atomic theory of matter ... but nothing is every 100% "proven."

Creationists bring up the word microevolution. This is because they *know* that the process of evolution is undeniable ... so they try to apply a special word for that process.

But there is absolutely NO fundamental boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. There is NO "genetic boundary" that says that microevolution is not only possible but an admitted fact, but macroevolution is impossible.

Macroevolution is just microevolution on a much longer time scale.

That is the process we call "evolution" (slow change over generations) ... and the idea that explains so much is one of the strongest theories in the history of science.

Answer 4

In a court of law, a criminal case must be based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt while a civil case is based upon the preponderance of evidence. Take your pick. There are fossils available within rock that predate Biblical time, however (for believers) an all-powerful God could have provided such fossils on Day One so that paleontologists would have something to do. It is possible for some to hold strong beliefs that are not founded upon scientific facts.

Answer 5

No scientific theory is ever "100% proven." However, evolutionary theory is very, VERY well-supported. Nearly all scientists (in relevant disciplines, virtually all) accept evolutionary theory.

Also, there is no alternative theory. (Neither creationism nor intelligent design is a scientific theory.)

In other words, there is no scientific controversy to be taught. The controversy is entirely socio-political.

Of course, any scientific theory, no matter how widely-accepted, is open to being challenged. However, the process of challenging the scientific consensus does not begin in the high-school science classroom.

If you want anti-evolution beliefs taught in the classroom, you have a great deal of real science to do first. I wish you good luck.

"Do you still believe in god after knowing about evolution?"

I personally do not, and understanding (basic) evolutionary theory is one of the reasons why I went from Christian to agnostic. It is of course *possible* to believe in both; lots of people do. I just found myself unwilling to jump through the necessary intellectual hoops regarding such isues as Original Sin and the problem of suffering.

Answer 6

All life having evolved from a common ancestor is a pure assumption. It is neither observable, Nor is it experimentally demonstrated.
It isn't even therefore within the modern definition of science.
The changes that occurs within families (kinds) of animals is extrapolated on by evos, into Darwinian evolution. But the evidence better supports Intelligent Design, by light years!

Answer 7

It isn't called the 'Theory of Evolution' for nothing. It is just that there is much evidence that points to evolution(fossils etc). God and Religion can co-exist, to a certain extent. It is only a question of how far back you want to go. Do you want to believe the entire world was evolved from one common ancestor, a bacteria of sorts? If you are a Christian, and believe God created Adam and Eve, and the entire world descended from Noah who descended from them, evolution is very applicable. If we were all descended from one couple, why are we all so different? What about the different races?

It is a fact that humans of darker skin are traditionally found in the tropics. This is due to the fact that there was variation(a range of skin colours), and those with darker skin are better adapted to the sunny environment. As a result of them being better able to adapt(lesser chance of severe sunburn or skin cancer), they survive to reproduce, passing on their genes to their offspring, resulting in a population of people with dark skin.

When we first studied evolution in school, I strongly resisted the idea due to my religious beliefs. But I soon realised that I can, and in fact, do believe in evolution, albeit to a different extent from those who believe all life evolved from bacteria.

After all, even Charles Darwin himself admitted in 'The Origin of Species' that it is difficult to determine how far to extend the theory of evolution.

Answer 8

theory of natural selection (more commonly theory of evolution) is more or less proven. you can easily see the results in breeding experiments.

the controversy lies in whether evolution started life in the world. and whether humans was a product of evolution, not Creation.

microevolution postulates that when there was no life forms on earth, the unique conditions (high temp, pressure, lightning strikes) allow atoms to collide in ways that combined into biomacromolecules: nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates. it is in this way that the first common universal ancestor was formed.

criticism of this are many. for example, one group in the 1980s attempted to show this in the lab, and indeed after several weeks with emulated conditions, they found amino acids. HOWEVER, they found a racemic mixture of the D and L isomers, unlike in nature where only D isomers exist.

Also, religious groups may also attack evidences in many ways. just for example, some believe that fossil records that left there intentionally when God was experimenting with creating species, perfecting them bit by bit and leaving behind the remnants as fossils.

Answer 9

Micro Evolution is a proven fact. only a few hundred years ago there were no Great Dane's or chihuahuas, just a few breeds of dogs. The same can be said for Horse's, cats, finches, etc.etc.
All proofs for evolutionary theory are however within the boundaries of Genetics, ie; Dogs remain dogs, finches remain finches etc. Changes occur by switches in the genetic code which choose from existing Information and design. This is why changes are in size, colour, floppy ears, pointy ears, bigger beaks, smaller beaks, longer hair shorter hair, etc, etc, etc. we call these changes Species, and they can either be engineered by us, or they happen by natural selection.
HOWEVER, the use of these facts as proof of change beyond Genetic boundaries,(eg fish to lizards, dogs to whales, crocks to birds). comes from the lack of understanding of genetics usually, but sometimes from bias unfortunately.
The beleif in changes beyond Kinds (genetic boundaries, Dog, Cat etc,) is called Macro evolution. This is of course hopeful thinking and not only unprovable but proven wrong over and over again.

Hope this helps you.
Bye the way Guys..... Micro evolution is a Theory, all the others are Conjecture's Not Theories.

Answer 10

yes, it is a theory, but a scientific theory has plenty of merit. It is tested and has evidence for it. It is different than the layman's term theory. There is actual evidence to support it. Did you know that gravity is a theory? Of course you aren't going to say that its a "theory" so I don't believe it. And no I don't believe in god anymore, but I stopped believing in him before I studied evolution. Below is a link to a similar question I asked, it talked about how a theory in science has plenty of evidence to support it.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuG2NXrkOoG7TrPyEt1l3pDty6IX?qid=20070730171124AACV5VT