Evolution: Fact, Theory, or Nonsense?

Question

I've heard people say it's the theory of evolution (TOE) which is what makes it so hard to argue against (because it can change), it's been a fact for over 100 years, etc. What is so dangerous about the double-edged word choice, being able to be one or the other at any given time? Evolution/adaptation/variation/speciation are indeed all facts, but only when used in the context of a dog producing another dog for example. It has been observed in nature, and in laboratories that you can produce more breeds within a species. That makes 'evolution' a fact. However there are certain arguments within evolution that keeps it a theory. 1 for ex.: Small, gradual changes, moderate jumps, and/or huge leaps. Now if evolution is an undeniable, proven fact why is there still argument over the rate? Because, the 'compelling evidence' can be interpreted in several ways. Scientists don't consider maybe it all happened at once 6,000 years ago, and when Christians do people scoff.

Now here is another question I have for those who believe in evolution. If it is a fact, is proven, is science and not religion, then where are they experimenting on how to create matter from nothing? Isn't empirical evidence, and the ability to reproduce experiments, etc. part of a science? Yet we have not seen the laboratory that has taken a salmon and made it produce anything other then another salmon. And what about the impressive fossil record? People argue about there being gaps, no gaps, etc. but if there weren't any gaps then people would not be arguing over whether or not evolution happens gradually or through large leaps. There wouldn't be the gap available for a large leap to happen. And there seems to be an interesting pattern about any fossil gap that people notice: it happens whenever the proof for evolution is needed. I've heard how people are skeptical of drawings of dinosaurs, but they don't question morphology of reptile/bird fossil links that people spam.

Hahahaha! As I thought, science experts and theists alike are debating over the word choice, but there seems to be the consensus of it being both, which is very beneficial to those who believe in it. It'd be hard enough to argue against one or the other, but now that it covers two fields, it makes it twice as scientific. Honestly though, without PROOF, which as several have said, there exists none for any theory, even gravity (I happen to think gravity is real, but just because evolution is also a theory I should automatically say it is too? That's a false argument) yet so many people believe in evolution. I say believe, because as the fact I know it is true, for the theory I do not believe it to be so. If evolution is part theory I should not be ridiculed for not believing in it, when there is only evidence that might be interpreted to its favor. Plus, I don't care how many scientists agree with the theory, majority opinion in science does not = fact. Earth - flat.

Answer 1

"Adaptation" is not generally debated by knowledgeable people. There is overwhelming evidence that living organisms adapt.

"Evolution" is often debated. Especially when the term is used to mean that all life can be traced to progressively simpler organisms that at some point "spontaneously generated" from non-living materials.

This view of evolution was thought to have been proven a few decades ago when it was announced that someone created life out of non-living materials in a laboratory. That, however, turned out to be a hoax.

So evolution remains a theory when it is used as an explanation of how life began. It has not been proven. In fact, the only real data we have would be considered as proof against it as the mechanism for initiating life: there are no recorded instances of spontaneous generation of life.

Answer 2

It is a hoax.

"but only when used in the context of a dog producing another dog for example. It has been observed in nature, and in laboratories that you can produce more breeds within a species. That makes 'evolution' a fact."

That is a kind producing the same kind, which the Bible states as the natural order of things. When you can provide irrefutable proof of a dog becoming a cat, a reptile becoming a bird, a whale becoming a cow, or a primate becoming a human, then you may have ground to stand on.
It is obviously not "undeniable, proven fact", otherwise there would not be any argument over it. Gravity is a proven fact, we drop something, it hits the ground, time after time. It has been observed, tested, retested and falsified. Evolution cannot stand up to any of these scientific tests.
Evolution is a philosophy, a belief system, a world view, just like creationism. We all have the same evidence, it is a matter of the interpretation of that evidence.
Simply screaming, "IT IS A FACT!" does not make it so.

Answer 3

That the genetic variability within a population of organisms changes over time is a fact. It has been observed. It happens. There's no rational way to deny that it happens. This is evolution.

The scientific explanation as to WHY and HOW that genetic variability arises, is inherited, and the implications that has for the diversity of life on Earth is called the Theory of Evolution.

The validity of this theory as an explanation has been supported by thousands of pieces of independent data from fields as diverse as genetics, paleontology, chemistry, physics, geology, and island biogeography. It is one of the most well supported, important theories in all of science, and is accepted as being as close to fact as any scientific theory can be. There has been no credible evidence from any field that runs contrary to this theory.

UPDATE

Creating matter from nothing would not have anything to do with evolution (which deals solely with changes in the populations of living organisms over time). That would have to do with the Big Bang Theory, stellar formation, and other realms of physics and astrophysics. And they are investigating such things. They've spent billions of dollars constructing facilities like the SuperCollider just to investigate such things.

A salmon producing something other than a salmon is not expected by the theory of evolution (and neither is such fanciful nonsense as the crocoduck). Evolution works on variations of genetic alleles inherited by parents. For evolution to work, you would expect a salmon to have an offspring to be very nearly identical, but have some genetic differences from the parent. This is exactly what we see with every offspring that comes from every parent of every species. Even critters that reproduce through binary fission and parthenogenesis have some variation between generations due to mutation and environmental changes.

Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record. Not every organism that dies gets perfectly preserved. That is what would be required for there to be no gaps. Even then, Creationists probably still wouldn't be satisfied. You could show them a grandmother organism that stands 5'4", a daughter that stands 5'2" and a granddaughter that stands 5'0", and they would refuse to accept that the lineage is getting smaller because there's a "missing link" that should be 5'1". If you refuse to accept the concrete evidence of transitional fossils simply because your preacher told you there aren't any, despite the hundreds of transitional forms that have been shown to exist... whatever.

Answer 4

Its nonsense. To show that there are many variations in the dog family (or finch family) , and then say that proves that whales came from cows and that birds came from the T-Rex is absolutely mindless. Yet this is the very leap we are expected to make.
There are vast variations within the dog family. But they are all dogs. There are no rabbits, cats, or monkeys in there.
This is why "micro"-evolution is such a dirty word. Variation, speciation, and even adaptation are good understandable words. We know what "evolution" means too. But to put "micro" in front of it does not validate the word.

Answer 5

Over the past few centuries, modern science grew out of Christian (especially Catholic) education and scholarship (as well as Islamic science). Religious concepts were at one time assumed to be correct - until evidence arose that suggested otherwise. It took repeated discoveries of evidence by scientists who were generally Christian before the modern framework was created. The whole point of science is to keep evaluating and considering all the evidence. In other words, the 6,000-year concept was disproven, and largely by Christians.

As a Christian, I am proud of how many Christians have helped shape modern science (including Darwin, a Christian himself). Being a Christian does not mean being close-minded, or being stuck in a Medieval mindset.

Answer 6

Evolution is well-proven as a scientific fact. There is some controversy about certian details of it, but no reputable biologist doubts that it is essentially true. It is like my wearing a Tiffany & Co. "Classic" watch today. I know that the watch exists and keeps time well. I know how to wind it and set the time, and I know something about how it works, but I could not repair it or service it. Creationists would say the watch does not exist, because I cannot give all of the details about its exact operation. I could, if i studied watch reapir, and that takes time. Your last sentence destroys the rest of your work here. There is too much evidence against Genesis' two creation myths occurring in 4004 BCE as Bishop Ussher said.

Answer 7

If Gravity is a fact, why are we still arguing over which model is correct? Because, the 'compelling evidence' can be interpreted in several ways.

See how that works?

No theory in science is EVER 100% complete.

Answer 8

The word theory, when used in the sense of being a scientific theory, dose not conflict with the word fact. A scientific theory can be a fact. In this application, it has a different meaning than it has in common speech.

Answer 9

Fact and theory.

Understanding science, very basic science at that, is what many people need to do to understand what a theory entails in science. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution by natural selection, which attempts to explain the mechanisms for which evolution happens. The debate on whether speciation occurs ended long ago.

Answer 10

at wikipedia.com it says under macro-evolution "An example of macro-evolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs." From what i gather this is like saying a regular animal like an elephant can somehow turn into a bird over million's and million's of years. This is not possible and has never been seen and no such transitional fossils exist. If you have faith in evolution then you are just a mistake and are worth nothing.