Darwins theory of evolution ?

Question

Darwins theory of evolution seems pretty water tight to me, so how come its still just a theory ? I was under the impression we had found all the bones in the chain from prehistoric apes to modern day man.
what is this "supposed" missing link ?
(please no religious answers, ...its just too far fetched)

Answer 1

Actually, you need to understand that in science, nothing is "just" a theory. The word "theory" is not the same thing as "opinion", which is what people seem to mistake it for.
Read this for a more accurate description of what a scientific "theory" is:
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm

As for "missing links", that is really something that creationists use to try to challenge the theory of evolution. It's really a false premise. What they are trying to demand, is some species that is half ape-like creature, and half-human, or something else that can be absolutely proven to be a descendant of our ancient origins, and and ancestor of what we are now. It's not that easy. By definition, any "link" that we find is going to automatically create two NEW gaps. To explain it better, imagine that we find an ancient fossil I'll call "Joe". Then there's us, who I'll call "Bob". Then say we find a link between Joe and Bob, and I'll call him "Dave". Now there's a gap between Joe and Dave, and Dave and Bob. See what I mean? Two new gaps. This is something that IS actually happening. They HAVE found links between ancient species and modern species, but everytime they find a link, the creationists start hollering about two NEW gaps, and the "missing links" from those gaps. The only possible way to avoid this is to find every single descendant of an ancient fossil. That, as we all know, is not possible.
See here for some examples of transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

For information about the theory of evolution, see this web site. It's the best one out there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Whatever you do, please try to use scientific sources for information. If you listen to something that a creationist tells you, you're going to get a lot of misinformation about what the theory of evolution actually says. (Example: saying that there should be half man half apes around, or that "apes should still be evolving", or "Darwin recanted on his deathbed"--which isn't true, as well as incorrectly defining the word "theory", and other things like that. That is common and popular creationist misinformation.)
See here for a list of typical misinformation that is spread by creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Answer 2

Wow ... so many answers, I doubt anybody will read mine ... but here goes.

>"Darwins theory of evolution seems pretty water tight to me, ..."

It also seems pretty water tight to the overwhelming consensus of scientists ... both within biological sciences, and out. ... So you are in the company of the brightest PhD's in the world.

>" ... so how come its still just a theory ?"

Because in science, an explanation doesn't graduate to something higher than "theory". A 'theory' in science means an *explanation with evidence*. Everything that qualifies as an explanation in science is called a theory. The germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory of the solar system, the big bang theory of the universe, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the atomic theory of matter, the molecular theory of chemistry, the electron theory of molecules, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and on and on ... all called 'theories' even though most scientists consider them all pretty "water tight."

>"I was under the impression we had found all the bones in the chain from prehistoric apes to modern day man"

First, that woud be impossible. And second, there is no "chain" ... life is a branching *tree*, not a "chain."

Creationists would like you to believe that every single intermediate form must be found, century-by-century, species-by-species to establish "proof" of progression from apes to humans. We have identified dozens of intermediate species spanning 3-5 million years since the split. But this is like finding a shoebox with a photographs of a developing child. We see several photos of the child at 3-years-old, several more at ages 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16. But a creationist would point to that and say "there's no photograph at age 6, or at age 10, so where is the 'missing link' that 'proves' that this is the same child?"

Hope that helps.

{P.S.}

When someone repeats the demonstrably *FALSE* "Darwin recanted" story ... this says more about the person repeating the story than about Darwin. I.e. it shows that they are either gullible, or deceitful to the point of baldfaced lies. The fact that craigd actually believes that any of Darwin's speeches or his "last words" support that ridiculous story that he "rejected his theory", tells me that craigd is among the gullible category ... i.e. a victim of the lies he's been told by other creationists.

Answer 3

This is because of a common misunderstanding of the scientific use of the word theory as opposed to the lay person use of the word. Many people are unfamiliar with the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory, and
a hypothesis.

Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In short if it can not be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then it is still a theory and not a law. Also, keep in mind it was decades before gravity was accepted as a law and not a theory.

Answer 4

The reason is because scientists and non-scientists use the term theory in different ways. A theory in science is considered to be something that has such a weight of evidence behind it that it is accepted as fact. Just as an aside, Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested a mechansism (natural selection) by which adaptive evolution could occur.

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

They thought a few times they found the missing link. But if the world came out and said that Darwin is right, there would be a lot of pissed off religion groups. I personally have always believed in the Theory of Evolution and most of the proof came from Darwin.

Answer 6

The problem here is that the scientific use of the word theory and the general use is that the scientific use implies some thing which has been tested, has evidence supporting it and has not yet been disproved or contradicted by any new evidence.

The general use is more like what a scientific hypothesis is, which is a claim with little or no supporting evidence.

Answer 7

A theory is added to and revised as people learn more about something. Sometimes something is disproved, sometimes something is confirmed even more. Just because something is a "theory" doesn't mean it isn't right, it just means that we don't know everything about it yet and that there is more to learn or more confirming to do.

(Besides, I think it would be arrogant and narrow-minded to declare that we do know everything.)

Darwin started the theory~he had his "part" in it. That doesn't mean that everything he first said was true and complete.

Also, just because a person recants their theory doesn't mean their theory is wrong. Albert Einstein fought himself over his ideas of physics.

Chimpanzee genes are about 95% the same as ours by a recent determination~link enough there for me. If you think paternity tests work, then why deny that chimps are our closest relatives?

Answer 8

A friend's daughter recently said that her teacher told them that evolution is a proven fact, just as "proven" as 2+2=4, that the two statements are equivalently true. I beg to differ.

Here's a simple experiment to verify one of the statements. Extend two fingers on your left hand, and then extend two on your right hand. Lay them all on the table in front of you, and count them. You should get four. If you are careful, every time you count them, you will get four. It's an observational fact.

Now devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one... but I guarantee you will be unable to propose an experiment to verify evolution like I verified 2+2=4.

Evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4.

Evolution, at the most, is a "theory" about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present.

If you can't prove it, it's not fact, therefore only a theory.

You say no religious answers, which is ironic because evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. (Yes, atheism is a religion.) Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. This, by definition, is a religion.

Answer 9

Actually, Jacko, Darwin wrote a book (one of many) called "Origin of Species" where he explains how evolution works. The actual idea of evolution goes back about 2 000 years.

If you read the book, or even just look at Darwin's work" you'll be impressed with how obvious it is. Like Thomas Huxley said after he read it "How stupid of me not to have thought of it myself"

Answer 10

Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on folks, you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists. Notice that I didn't call them "scientists" because there is NOTHING scientific about evolution. Science by it's very definition means "the study of." To "study" something, it must be observable. Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab. Do you realize that evolutionists CANNOT display even ONE single proof of evolution...NOT ONE! Dinosaur fossils don't prove anything except that they existed. Whether dinosaurs existed in Biblical times or during a pre-Adamic period is debatable amongst theologians. Many preachers believe that Lucifer operated a kingdom upon the earth prior to Genesis 1:2. The Bible does support this theory with credible evidence. This is commonly known as the "gap theory." Regardless, the fact that dinosaurs once inhabited this earth adds no credibility to the THEORY of evolution.