My friend and I are in a debate about what has been scientificly proven about Evolution. She doesn't believe any of it, I believe all of it. She doesn't think any of it has been proven and that it was all proven wrong, does anyone know what HAS been proven? and what HASN'T been proven?
2007-08-07 14:03:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Brent y is actually not right...The good biologists, scientist, etc. do believe wholeheatedly that evolution is true, however, they will tell you in the same breath that it is an unproven theory.
2007-08-07 14:22:12 · answer #1 · answered by kenny p 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok, firstly, i'd like to say in reference to the "Tree of Life", it is part of the theory. people will often say that this helps prove evolution, however, the base of the tree (where it all starts) is based on the assumption that life can spontaneously start. However, the environment for which the theorized first creature was created is uninhabitable, hence, even if it was created, ti would die as quickly as any creature without a sustainable atmosphere for life.
Also, there has been research into the probability of spontaneously creating a self replicating DNA strand. This number (where there are 200 individual compounds) is of the order 1^360, ie, 1 followed by 360 0's. The interesting feature of this number is that it is over 4 fold larger then the theorized number of electrons in the Universe (approximately 1^80).
Correction in this "Numerous fossils of creatures in intermediate forms have been found. There are a few more fossils needed, but molecular techniques bridge the gap for now.". Please name these "so called" intermediate forms. If you are referring to such intermediate forms as "Lucy", "Pit-down Man" and "Neanderthal Man", one was re-created from a tooth, later found to be that of a pig . . ., and another, Lucy to be specific, the supposed evidence for this the pelvis and humerus bones, were found over 2 miles away, and more then 200 feet deeper in the strata. If these are of the same skeleton, then how did they get so far apart, and at different levelos within the earth?
2007-08-07 17:35:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing in science has been "proven". But some scientific theories are so well supported by solid scientific evidence that they can be taken as factual for all practical purposes. The existence of atoms is one such unproven scientific theory. And it happens to be the unproven theory that serves as the unifying foundation of all science. Biological evolution is equally well supported by evidence, and provides the unifying foundation of the life sciences.
Instead of running around saying "it ain't so", why don't some of these anti-evolution people provide an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory that explains the observed facts as well as or better than the theory of evolution? They would be world famous overnight! And they would cast serious doubt on evolutionary theory. Yet so far, no-one has proposed any such theory. Wonder why?
2007-08-07 14:17:14 · answer #3 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First and foremost, the "Tree of Life", the relating living creatures to fossil creatures by anatomy, has been confirmed to a high degree by molecular genetics. As genes not related to structure (e.g. digestive enzymes) show this relationship, it is an independent confirmation.
Propagation of favorable genes through populations has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Expansion and diversification of the genome by mutation has been observed. Numerous fossils of creatures in intermediate forms have been found. There are a few more fossils needed, but molecular techniques bridge the gap for now.
2007-08-07 16:25:52 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is a theory with a large body of evidence to back it up. It has some holes, but buy and large it's a workable theory.
2007-08-07 14:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Evolution within a species has been observed - that is mutations and natural selection from existing genetic information. The observed evolution - finch beaks, antibiotic resistance, etc... is always sideways or loss of information NEVER adding new genetic information. Some claim gene duplication adds information but that is like saying 2 identical newspapers contain twice the information.
So Darwinian evolution has never been observed and has no indisputable evidence to support it.
2007-08-07 14:12:53 · answer #6 · answered by G 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
That's far too lengthy of a question to answer here. Suffice to say that evolution is accepted as fact by pretty much every biologist in the world.
2007-08-07 14:06:14 · answer #7 · answered by Brent Y 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Evolution is a theory, not fact, meaning none of it has been proven.
2007-08-07 14:09:02 · answer #8 · answered by Joy 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
nothing about evolution has been proven. it is a theory. it is virtually untestable in our lifetime. there is evidence supporting the theory though, which is probably what you learned about in school.
2007-08-07 14:05:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Evolution is a fact.
I direct you both to talkorigins.org, particularly
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Pretty much lays it all out for you.
2007-08-07 14:18:42 · answer #10 · answered by Handsome Chuck 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋