If evolution is so factual, then why is it always subject to change, and do what they call, re-test itself?

Question

Eventually and even now the original theory has been debunked to many times to have a solid foundation. So through new findings the family tree has to be re vamped. If it was fact it would never change. So how can it be both ways, without a bunch of new theories in the name of re-testing itself, be fact in the first place. You really do need much more faith in evolution than the consistant fact of creation. Look at the new findings always thwarting the old theory, and testing and re-testing and re thinking of ways to keep the faith alive. This is what the so called intellctual part of this belief comes from, alway thinking of ways to keep evolution alive.That re creating evolution again and again is the only true evolution taking place. There is no solid foundation, and without that, the house falls. Well the house has fallin and all you are doing is rummaging through the rubble of fallen theory trying to rebuild with an occasional new 2x4 that does not fit anywhere. Fact is not fact!

Answer 1

You see the lame excuses above and below. This is proof that evolution is subject to change. How can fact change? and then change, then change? and then change again and again? It had to become a non fact when discovery of new findings exposed the lie. So until you have all parts of your scattered puzzle, don't try and pitch it as fact. By the time all the pieces are put together it won't be called evolution anymore. It will probably be called creationism or something like it. At least that is the trend right now.

Answer 2

The original theory, that the inherited characteristics of parents that survive due to variations in their advantageous characters are passed onto their offspring, and this results in an overall change in the frequency of those characteristics in a population has not changed appreciably, or been 'debunked' since it was first proposed by Darwin and Wallace more than 150 years ago.

There have been modifications and clarifications to certain aspects of it, such as when the actual mechanism of inheritance was discovered (genes and DNA), and certain mechanisms of the source of variations understood (genetic mutations).

Findings of fossil evidence that detail how that evolutionary history played out for an individual species have not in any way, shape or form invalidated the theory.

As we piece together the fragmentary clues that show us human history, the fact that these human ancestors evolved is never in doubt.

It's like finding a broken body at the bottom of a building. Some investigators have found a broken railing and a dropped towel on the 15th floor, and interpret this to mean he slipped from there. Other investigators have found blood on the railing on the 10th floor, and interpret this to mean he was killed there and thrown off the balcony. Another investigator thinks he probably slipped from the 15th, and hit his head on the 10th floor. Each has their own interpretation of the evidence that might be factual, and can be confirmed or repudiated with further evidence.

You, however, take their inability to agree as evidence that the Theory of Gravity is wrong, and never existed, and obviously unicorns killed the man.

Answer 3

Consider evolution to be a puzzle. We gain pieces over the years and make new guesses on what the whole picture looks like. We did not start out with all the pieces, so we could not accurately say what the entire picture was. There were many guesses, and some of them were wrong. Science allows for addition of new information (pieces to the puzzle) and the removal of false ideas once the new information proves to be true. You might need faith in a guess of something that may or may not have happened within evolution. You do not need faith to understand the basic concept. All you need is a capable and open mind. Most creationists are either incapable of understanding the concept ("why are there still monkeys?") or unopen to seriously understanding ("consistant fact of creation").

Beware of the false dichotomy (or false dilemma) logical fallacy. Just because one thing might be wrong does not mean that something else must definitely be right. Both could be wrong and both could be partially right. If evolution is absolutely 100% wrong, that is still no reason to claim that creation is correct. That part still needs to be proven, which it has not and cannot. It takes faith to believe in talking snakes and global floods. It only takes a basic understanding of science to believe that things on this planet change over time, especially long periods of time (millions of years).

Answer 4

You have answered your own question. Evolution is not a fact, but rather a "theory". In scientific terms, a theory is a framework that is supported by facts.

As new facts come in, the theory must adjust slightly, but the basic foundation has been proven as thoroughly as the theory of gravity (which is also being adjusted as new discoveries are made).

Just as a flexible foundation makes a building stronger in an earthquake, a flexible theory allows for new discoveries and accounts for the fact that we can never know everything. This does not mean that the theory is not true, just that it is incomplete.

Religion relies upon “dogma”, a fixed set of absolute truths which are inflexible and unchanging. Any new facts that challenge dogma must be dismissed or suppressed (as in the Spanish Inquisition).

Dogma provides a certain amount of comfort and certainty to believers, but open-minded religious people can honestly struggle with apparent inconsistencies in scripture.

Even dogma is subject to interpretation and revision. Catholics and Baptists both base their faith on the same book, but they have chosen different ways to worship. Religious practices also change with the times. For example, human sacrifice and witch-burning are no longer practiced by Christians.

Answer 5

(Keep in mind that even if the Theory of Evolution didn't exist, you still have no proof of creation. One thing isn't proven merely by disproving another. Evolution and creation aren't the only options. Even if we somehow narrowed it down to the supernatural, how exactly would you prove that something was done by "God" and not ghosts, for example?)

Fact != ultimate truth. The things we learn from science in general are always provisional and subject to new knowledge. This includes evolution. It also includes gravity.

The Theory of Evolution has never been "debunked"--only fine details of it have been revised. The foundational parts of it have yet to be challenged by any evidence.

"You really do need much more faith in evolution than the consistant fact of creation."

Uh, two things:

1. If science wasn't constantly refining itself, no refinement would occur because creationism sure as hell can't do it.
2. Just because creationism is static doesn't mean it's a fact. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF CREATION! Yet you call it a fact? What are you smoking?

"There is no solid foundation"

Yes, there is. Once again, only the fine details of evolution have changed (what evolved exactly when, etc.). Notice how THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE THAT HAS SUGGESTED:

"Evolution does not take place."

When THAT arrives, then you can say its foundation is gone. Until then, you're just plain lying.

Answer 6

Evolution is a theory or model. When you get new data, the model is revised. I'd much rather get updated, new theories than believe that, say, dinosaurs were just big lizards that dragged themselves along. This is an exciting, stimulating speculation on how life on earth evolved. The evolution of man alone has me on the edge of my seat just waiting for the next discovery. Exploring the mysteries of creation fascinates me. If you are more comfortable with creationism, stay there.

Answer 7

Evolution is not a fact. It’s a hypothesis that has never been proved.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth

Answer 8

Many people fail to realize that everything in science has room for doubt and change, because over the years, things change. As things in the world change, that we can't necessarily control, we change our theories and add to it. Science doesn't make any claim that it's 100% true or that it's "all-knowing" like religion does, which to me, is a pretty ballsy claim. If you can make a claim and say, "I believe this because it's mostly true, but there's room for doubt," you're making a bold claim. You're admitting that you think you're right, but you accept t he possibility that you could be wrong.

Religion makes no such claim and anyone or anything that makes the claim that they're 100% right on every single issue, unchanging, no room for question or doubt, it very, very narcissistic.

But here's where you're wrong - fact DOES change! Facts are only good for the time something is - when he changes, so do the facts. It's a fact that humans weren't nearly as smart as we are now, back when we were very primitive. We only knew how to use simple tools and that was the fact - but now, humans are much different and the facts about is have changed.

Things change. :)

Answer 9

Because that is the beauty of a Theory, it is subject to change at any given time, Only when it is made into a Fact will it stay

But I guess you could say that Evolution is going through a change, it is dare I say Evolving

Answer 10

Science isn't dogmatic. It is flexible. Current theories are based on the evidence at hand. If new evidence arises then the theory is modified. In other words, it "evolves". If you think this is contradictory or inconsistent then you really don't understand science.

Fact is not fact? Hmmm, now who's employing relativism?

Answer 11

the beauty of science and the scientific community is that it lives and breathes. people do research, they find something worthwhile, and publish their results. someone else can use these results to prove something else. someone else can come along and prove the original research wrong, revise it. then people look at the consequences of the original research being wrong and revise the subsequent research. it is not faith. it is in a constant state of improvement and revision. theories are theories and that's it. they can be proven wrong, but even an not completely correct theory can provide tremendous insight to a topic. take for example Newton's law of mechanics. which was not entirely correct, because relativity was not understood then. nevertheless, it suffices for a large part of science today.