Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.?

Once again I feel the need to clarify a creationist myth. First let's be clear that biological change in the genetic characteristics of species over time is an indisputed fact observed daily ibn laboratories so evolution occurs without question. The evidence for historical evolution comes from an extensive fossil record and genetic similarities between species-it can't be disputed. The "theory" of evolution is only the structure of ideas explaining the mechanisms involved in evolution so Darwinism is a theory of evolution because it deals with a mechanism-natural selection. I hope this clarifies the confusion and shows that evolution is a fact and a theory, although of course I recognise that creationists aren't generally remotely interested in truths like that.

Update:

Tofu Jesus,

Fact in the scientific sense means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." (S.J. Gould). Given the wealth of fossil evidence, physiological similarities between species, and the fact that it is observed occuring in laboratories, do you not agree that it would be perverse to deny the fact that evolution occurs?

Update 2:

free enquiry 1965,

I've been debating them long enough to know that I can't change their views but I don't see why we should concede anything to them and let them freely promote their perverse ideology.

Update 3:

kentgru,

There are over 5 million species of animal in the world at any given time-if we only found one human fossil it would mean nothing. We have thousands of fossils from other species showing evolutionary change and if it's happening to other species it must also be happening to humans. Your argument is just a typical creationist red herring.

Update 4:

ronnysox60,

I'm sure of the weight of evidence supporting evolution-if it's wrong then there are literally hundreds of thousands of scientists who are misguided, deluded or prejudiced. I don't really believe that and be honest-neither do you.

Update 5:

Imam Salim,

Evolution is classed as a change in the genetic structure of any given species over time therefore clearly evolution does take place in laboratories because micro-organisms develop immunity to drugs and insects develop immunity to pesticides. That is small scale evolutionary change-that is all that is necessary because over millenia many small scale adaptations result in the evolution of new species.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Well said.

    Sadly, the morons here will still deny the truth about Evolution. Despite literally millions of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, and the literally millions of fossils (many of which are transitional) in the record.

    Every day, scientists make more and more discoveries that, despite the willingness of creationists to plug thier ears and shout "is not! is not!" pushes the understanding of the evolutionary process further and further along.

    Evolution is science and therefore is based in reality.

    Creationism on the other hand, is mythology, based in fables and imagination.

    If only they were capable of making that simple distinction, but sadly, the vast majority of creationists are intellectually incapable of doing so. look at the moron who wrote about Micro vs. Macro evolution for a fine example.

    Basically his argument is "that's not Evolution, it's Evolution!". Here is a simple explanation for you Cletus; Many, many Micro makes a Macro. Understand now?

  • Lynnie
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Nothing can be both fact and theory, they are two totally separate things. A fact is demonstrable datum, something have has happened and can be shown to have happened, while a theory is an explanation for what happened which can be used to predict future results of similar situations. For example, if we cut someones head off and he dies as a result it would be a fact that decapitation killed that one person. If we cut off a thousand people's heads and they all die we could postulate a Theory of Decapitation to the effect that cutting someones head off will kill them. It will never be a fact that decapitation kills people only a theory, albeit a very good and extensively demonstrated theory, however it would always also remain possible that the next person decapitated might survive, we wouldn't know until after the fact, in which case the fact would be that the theory was still holding true. That is why the Theories of Gravity and Electricity remain theories and can never be facts. It is that failure to understand the meanings of the words "fact" and "theory" that causes so much confusion in discussions of science by laymen, particularly when they try to discard established scientific principles by saying they are "just theories". Evolutionary biology is accepted scientific principle and as new facts come to light we achieve better and better understanding of how the process works, but like any theory it is a work in progress and and always will be.

  • Darwin's theory is not a theory of evolution. He was only talking about natural selection which is a theory of species differentiation. It is the genes that are being selected for.

    There is no laboratory in which evolution takes place. Evolution would happen over a span of many many years. What happens in a laboratory is artificial selection for genetic traits. This is done to map genes and try and explain how the body reads the genes in order to manifest the characteristic or to map alleles. It has nothing to do with evolution.

    Theory and fact may prove only that what is observable can be explained but cannot prove the ultimate truth. What science is, is simply the development of a reasonable theory based on observable fact. It is possible to develop several theories based on the same observable fact, given limitations of the instrumentation used for the observation.

    There are plenty of observations of the world around us that have, over time, been abandoned based on newer observations done with more precise measurement devices.

    However, I would ask just one question in the case of evolution and that is "mimicry". In order for genes to be selected for and become the dominant norm, there must be some kind of selection pressure such as suviveablility of the individual with those genes. Supposedly this pressure is that if a predator either ignores or avoides a certain species it is to the genetic advantage of another species to look like that species and thereby be ignored as well. This is the classic of the bird that "learns" that the monarch caterpillar or butterfly is to be avoided because of the bad taste and chemical poisoning due to the fact that the caterpillar eats milkweed. The viceroy butterfly looks almost exactly like the monarch and the birds avoid it too even though it's caterpillars do not eat milkweed. (There are other types of mimicry as well but i'm just dealing with this for not)

    So my question is this - at what point in the evolution of the Viceroy species did the genetic advantage occur? and was it a random occurence that the Viceroy looked a little like the monarch? Where does evolution fit in with this? How do you get from not looking at all like the Monarch to looking exactly like it through evolution?

    Personally I think there is no problem with evolution, I just happen to think it is divinely guided and an on going process of creation is well within the bounds of what is in the Quran.

    And Allah knows best

    Peace and Blessing

    Salim

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well said. But have you ever heard of Sisyphus? The guy in Greek mythology who was condemned to push a rock up a hill, always to have it fall back down at the crest?

    That's what it is like trying to reason with Creationists/IDers. How do you argue with someone who either has no evidence for their point of view or just makes crap up?

    It's like playing chess with a pigeon. He'll mess up all the pieces, defecate on the board, fly away and tell his flock how he won the game!

    To Wit: A2Z, the previous post

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well, since none of us were there to witness it then I guess it will never be proved beyond any doubt.but I believe in the science of evolution and that of a more scientific view of the universe because it makes more sense and doesn't sound as silly as "and then God created the earth three thousand years ago".

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Truths? Take the "extensive fossil record" for example. Did you know that entire stages of the "human evolution" are derived from a SINGLE bone found?

    All of these fossils are carbon dated to come up with how old they are. Did you know that there are fossils created when Mt St Helens erupted that date millions of years old?

    What about the fact that not all scientists believe in evolution? And Im not even talking about creationist scientists.

    Honestly, it makes way more sense to me that God created the universe than it happening randomly.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, it's a SCIENTIFIC theory. Scientific theories are ideas with have a major consensus in the science community, and are backed up with significant amounts of evidence.

  • 1 decade ago

    Evolution makes God Theory look like a bowl of delusional bilge. GOD THEORY - The accumulated myths and superstitions of your ancestors which have been dogmatized, institutionalized and mounded into the colossal pile of crap you call ultimate truth.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'm with you there buddy. It's hard to believe there are so many gullible people in this world who believe we were created by a god simply because it says so in a book, written by MAN.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Many people try to straddle the fence because they have so much faith in science, they can't take the Bible at its word. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible for many reasons. The main one is this. If God used evolution and took millions or even thousands of years to create the universe, then death existed before The Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. If that is true, and it isn't....then Adam's sin would really have meant nothing. The Bible teaches Adam's sin brought death into the world, but if God used evolution, then Genesis is wrong. God wouldn't contradict Himself. Furthermore, if death existed before Adam's sin, then Christ's sacrifice is equally meaningless. Christ died to defeat sin and death, brought into the world by Adam, but if death existed before Adam's sin and fall....what did Jesus die for?

    http://answersingenesis.org/

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.