Why is it the THEORY of evolution still?

Question

coolj821- thanks i was begining to think noone would answer

Answer 1

To affirm and extend coolj821's response, let me add the following:

1. Terms in science have specific meanings that differ from the common understandings by non-scientists. Cool (if I may be so familiar as to use his first name) is absolutely correct in that regard.

2. Facts are objective descriptions of natural events. For example, the forelimbs of humans, apes, bats, hippopotomi, and whales all share the same basic structure of five phelanges, a radius, an ulna and a humorus as homologous (similar in form) structures.

3. Laws and principles are descriptions of basic, consistently occurring facts such as the laws of genetic inheritance as described by Gregor Mendel.

4. Hypotheses are testable statements that attempt to account for or relate a set of similar observations. Perhaps the homology described above has a discernable pattern that leads to an understanding of the facts and laws.

5. Finally, theories are highly refined explanations of a wide ranging set of facts and confirmed hypotheses from many sources and disciplines that result in a coherent account of a large body of natural events. For example, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how such homologies came about while accounting for all the facts and laws that bear on the question.

Facts, laws and principles DESCRIBE natural events, theories EXPLAIN natural events. Laws never become theories and theories never become laws; they serve different functions in the practice of science. All statements in science are testable and falsifiable given contradictory facts that can't be accounted for by the accepted theory. In that case, the theory is either modified to accommodate the new information without abandoning the general form of the original theory or the old theory is scrapped for the new one. The demise of Lamark's theory of inheritance in favor of Darwin's is a good example.

This is how the practice of science has progressed for centuries resulting in the massive body of knowledge and the ability to predict outcomes in nature we have today. It seems to have served humankind rather well so far. Do we know and understand everything? Of course not, but note that when confronted with a terrible illness, for example, the vast majority of us turn to a physician trained in the sciences of biology, chemistry and physics instead of a shaman who consults the entrails of a chicken.

Let me recommend to you a little book of fewer than 170 pages of text by Michael Shermer, Ph.D. Dr. Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" is an excellent overview of the development of the theory of evolution and how science differs from religion in matters of understanding the universe and our place in it. One is not better than the other, they just ask different kinds of questions.

I hope this helps.

Answer 2

I think we all know what evolution means, but a theory in science is the explanation that best fits observable natural phenomonon. If you are holding a glass in your hand and let it go, it's most likely going to fall to the floor and break. Newton made the theories of physics which describe how it travels and how fast, but not why it happens. There is still a very poor understanding of what gravity is or actually how it works. Einstein provided more theories, and quantum mechanics still more, but the last word is by no means in. That doesn't mean, however, that gravity doesn't exist or that if you drop the glass it won't fall and break.
So, at it's best, science never claims to have the final word on anything - hence the word theory. If anybody comes up with a better idea for observed phenomenon, science should be open minded enough to consider it.
However, creationists "theories" contain so much misinformation, so much flawed basic science, and so little factual data (actually none) that scientists will never look at them seriously. It's not because anybody is a terrible person or hates Christians or God, it's that none of it rises to the level of scientific discussion.

Answer 3

ok, i will go uncomplicated on you because you're in ordinary terms 13. in the beginning, there's a super bang concept, and there is an evolution concept. the two are thoroughly unrelated, different than that the 1st is mandatory for the 2d to happen. won't be in a position to infrequently have issues evolving if the universe by no ability banged, ideal? 2d, it is >attainable< that some 'god', for loss of a greater effective term, started each thing off, after which merely stepped aside to enable issues take their path. attainable, yet no longer mandatory. merely sayin'. 0.33, there is no evidence that any god exists, neither is there any disproof, and there by no ability would be any. The bible does not coach something, different than that a protracted time in the past some adult men wrote down some stuff and it have been given amassed into one e book that some human beings take as scripture. ultimately, technological know-how might properly be depended on. in case you be attentive to the scientific approach, that's self obvious that that's infallible while suitable used, and while improperly used, the errors is quickly stumbled on by using rival scientists. besides the undeniable fact that, no area of ANY scientific concept says "....and consequently, no god exists." technological know-how bargains in ordinary terms with the organic international, and the supernatural is left to religionists to argue approximately. one element greater - thank you lots for worrying approximately maximum suitable spelling and grammar. this is an extremely uncommon high quality at present (merely take a seem at various the posts in this internet site), and particularly some individuals do savour it.

Answer 4

To simplify things...

A scientific theory is an idea that was tested, retested, and continues to be tested without being disproved. Essentially, it is an idea that no one has been able to find proof it is wrong for.

A scientific law--by comparison--is a theory that scientists have gotten so tired of testing and finding correct that no one will bother arguing about it anymore. Or, another way of looking at it, is that a scientific law is one where scientists have run out of ways to try and falsify it or find it incorrect.

As far as viewing science as "just a theory" itself...

...after a fashion, it is right but it's a self-supporting theory that--if ever proven false--resolves itself...

Answer 5

It has been proven a fact that animals have changed over time as much as anything can be proved. That is what evolution is. That should be enough to say that it has graduated to the fact level in spite of misguided attempts to claim otherwise. It is certainly on my list of undeniable facts. Natural selection as the mechanism behind evolution is easily over 99.9% certain.

Answer 6

In science, a theory is a testable model that describes natural phenomena. Take the Newtonian "falling apple" example. An apple will fall when dropped. This is a fact. WHY the apple falls is gravatational theory.

In a sense, evolution is the same. We can observe change in allele frequencies over time, speciation, etc. Evolution in itself is fact. Why evolution takes place (ie, natural selection) is theory.

Answer 7

Because Christians still protest this. They still think it was done in 7 days. By the way, these are the same boneheads that believe that our planet is the only sign of intelligent life. These are some really arrogant believers.

Answer 8

Everything is a theory you can't proove something in the past beyond it being a fact, because you didn't experience it yourself.

You can't proove something as "real" using science because all science is theory too. (bear in mind any science is not reprovable unless reality is static, as we are never at the same point in the time of timespace (and space itself is always changing it's arrangement) (and it isn't we have yet to find a beginning or end to prove that and history does not support science as a linear trend - however there have been 'specifications' that keep the general common ground - but there is no evidence prooving it is static. beyond two points within a larger time scale or between multiple points , but i cannot account for all points or accurately address historical facts and statements other than by discrediting them and saying that the statements are false because they don't fit with the current theories - with no other validity beyond that.)


I think that in many cases people seem totally devote to some theories.. historically though scientific theory has gotten rewritten time and time again.

There is no long term evidence stating we live in a static and continuous universe. There is however ' a logical' and 'functional' system - which utilizes static theories. It has been useful to some so far, but reality isn't wholely logical if you are a sentient entity.


There are no rules other than the ones you believe in.

beyond any shadow of doubt to the realm of the actual - while it easy to feel shackled everyone will have their recognition of that freedom when they are wholely themselves.

Answer 9

In science, a theory is something that ties together multiple facts. The reason people who don't believe evolution to be true look at the word "theory" so disdainfully, is because they don't realize that a scientific theory is vastly different than a theory in the vernacular. I think i phrased that right....

Answer 10

A theory remains as is since there is no way for it to become a fact. and to do so, experiments must be done. Same goes with the Big Bang theory.. no way to test them out.