Its proven. I would love to wrike a 3000 word summary to disprove your position, but if you read the Origin of Species by Darwin you will understand. We have even more proof of evolution since the discovery of genetics. If you ask any freshman in highschool they will tell you the supporting evidence to evolution. Anyway its the only theory that really can be proven and makes sense. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-proof-of-evolution-faq.htm
2007-08-25 13:04:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by dudas_91 4
·
3⤊
4⤋
Weird question. The theory of evolution "happened" the first time - and every time - someone ponders it as an explanation for lifeforms seen around them. No ... evolution was never proven and nor can it ever be, because it relies on evidence that does not exist... That is:~ Examples in the fossil record of gradation of change from one species into another separate species. Not even ONE example has ever been found, so the THEORY of evolution will remain a theory.
2016-05-17 23:00:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
To answer your question, Yes, I have seen it occur right before my very eyes.
Microorganisms are among the most numerous lifeforms on the planet (2nd most if you wish to count Viruses). If you wish to see an excellent example you can read a paper in which the ideology of "Social Cheaters" was established. Pseudomonas, a bacteria species, was grown in a test tube with a small volume. After a few days growing at room temperature and not moving the test tube, the researcher did several platings and noticed that there were several different colony morphologies on the plate.
These different morphologies each specialized in different things. The small smooth round colonies were efficient in making an exopolysaccharide, which means they could make biofilms more efficently. The downside was that they consumed more oxygen and thus, were limited to growing at the top of the media. The next morphology noticed was a "wrinkly spreader" morphology, which when reintroduced to fresh broth, occupied the bottom of the tube. This indicated that this morphologies dependency on oxygen was lower, and that it was more efficient at growing at in anaerobic environments than the Small smooth colonies. And a third morphology was noticed a swell. A large spreader, which was deemed a social cheater. It was able to use the polysaccharide produced by the Small smooth colonies without having to do the work to produce it.
Remember, this experiment started out with one species of Psuedomonas, not several.
If that doesn't put a notch in evolutions favor, I'm sure several billion antibiotic resistant bacteria sure will.
Hope this helps.
2007-08-25 15:25:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Robert N 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
There is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for any alternate "theory".
The way science works is that if you don't think the evidence provided proves evolution is fact, then it is your responsibility to provide some evidence for an alternative theory. It doesn't work to just cop out and say it was never proven.
And, there is a big difference in believing and thinking. Thinking involves looking at facts and coming to conclusions. Believing involves taking the easy way out and believing whatever someone tells you or what might be in one single mythical book.
Scientists don't "believe" in evolution. They look at the evidence and facts and sort out what looks like the best and most reasonable explanation. If you come up with some evidence and facts to prove some other theory or hypothesis, people will look at it seriously. To date, no one has done that.
2007-08-25 15:00:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joan H 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
No scientific theory is ever proven. That is the nature of science. We still have the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity etc. As for believing in evolution I understand evolution I do not believe in it. You do see the difference? Believing in something is faith,understanding is knowledge.
2007-08-25 13:59:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stainless Steel Rat 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Many theories are never proven. However, with evolution, there is a lot of scientific data to back up that theory. I find it no harder to believe in evolution than I do to believe in the wave/particle theory of light.
2007-08-25 13:05:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by JelliclePat 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
The thumbs down for the response given by secretsauce is completely uncalled for. The explanation of a theory by secretsauce is totally accurate. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. This simple definition is at the heart of all science.
2007-08-25 16:51:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by rgomezam 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Theories are not " proved " as they are explanations of fact and include law. You are thinking theories get " promoted " to law, or some such nonsense. Theory is the highest concept in science and the theory of evolution by natural selection is the well supported by the evidence backbone of biology.
It is not a matter of belief, but of the evidence.
You are a very confused, ignorant person. To begin educating yourself go here.
http://www.talkorigins.org
2007-08-25 14:22:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The proof is overwhelming.
Calling it a theory is not a knock. calling it a theory is honoring the overwhelming data collected.
now time on the other hand - we've never really proved that this actually exists and is not a construct of human consciousness .......but I really don't see much argument about that.
2007-08-26 03:17:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by eastacademic 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
*NO* THEORY IS EVER "PROVEN."
That's why they call them 'theories.'
The theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory of matter, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the big bang theory, the acretion disk theory of the solar system, the theory of electromagnetism, cell theory, etc. ...
... and yes the theory of evolution ...
... all of them with huge amounts of *EVIDENCE*, and all of them are called THEORIES, and always will be.
People who try to isolate evolution among all these theories as somehow being more in doubt ... demonstrate that they question an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, while lacking even High School understanding of science ... like what the word "theory" means ... or the difference between "proof" and "evidence."
2007-08-25 15:26:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by secretsauce 7
·
7⤊
1⤋