Why can't science nail down evolution as a solid fact only? It was previously thought that.....?
Why is there always an oops we were wrong but now we know...oops we were wrong again...now it is believed that maybe and possibility exists that we are now correct?
Ooops sorry what was a thought to be a fact was wrong.....but it is correct again...ooooooPs!
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight — and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.
This new discovery demonstrates a major oops in evolution — an error preached for decades as gospel truth. Why was it ever presented as anything more than a guess? Where is the scientific (repeatable, experimental data) evidence for evolutionary principles?
1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.
If any of those turn out to be false, evolution falls to the scrap heap. Yet they’ve all been assumed, simply because they’re required for evolution to occur. But that’s not science.
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
They Think they have by fabricating the evidence and forcing it into a view that conicides with thier Ideological and philiosophical positionSource(s): TLS
- SamwiseLv 79 years ago
Three of your four numbered points have no bearing on evolution whatsoever. The fourth one, "species can change from one to another," is stated in a confusing fashion, and I suspect the confusion is yours. It's descendants of a particular species that can turn out to be an entirely new species, after multiple generations.
Evolution is theory; it's been supported by all the evidence collected for over a century and a half, during which people have actively sought any evidence that might contradict it and have found none.
The details of the descent of any particular species are matters of separate hypotheses, and these get tested and corrected all the time. But they are not the theory; they are minor matters being examined within the context of the theory.
The birds-from-theropods business has been in question for quite a long time. I know it was a popular hypothesis for a while, because the early, apparently transitional species appeared to resemble theropods. But many paleontologists had to be wondering about the fact that theropods are among the saurischian dinosaurs (those with lizard-like pelvic structures) rather than the ornithischians (those with bird-like pelvic structures). I wouldn't be surprised if new evidence regarding feather-like characteristics on a wider variety of dinosaurs, combined with earlier bird-like discoveries, eventually causes the whole notion of the Mesozoic species divisions to split into three separate and roughly equal branches: saurischians (sauropods and theropods), ornithischians, and proto-birds (along with the already-recognized separate mosasaurs, pterosaurs, and other types similar to, but not quite, dinosaurs).
But all this exploration of new details in the relationships is happening in the context of evolutionary theory, and in no way calls it into doubt. It's like discovering someone you thought was a third cousin is actually a second cousin, once removed; they're just in a slightly different place on your family tree. That doesn't deny the existence of a family tree.
- 熊冰冰Lv 79 years ago
Science is supposed to develop new hypotheses as new evidence arises. That's basically how science works. Your first question amounts to "why don't we know everything yet?"
1. Not an evolutionary principle. This is a matter of physics/cosmolgy.
2. Not an evolutionary principle. This one belongs to biochemistry.
3. This has been very well demonstrated. Do some reading.
4. Again, nothing to do with evolution.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Science doesn't deal in absolutes - that's the realm of theism.
As new information comes to light - it will be examined, the findings will be published, experiments will be reproduced, and if it can stand up to the rigorous cross-examination then it will be included as part of our pool of 'scientific knowledge'.
The findings in Oregon don't 'disprove' birds relationship to dinosaurs (even the article that you referred to, but didn't link to doesn't make that claim). Evolution as it is currently understood may very well eventually be proven partially - or even completely wrong - but it will be through the diligent work of scientists, using the scientific method who will be the ones to replace it with a more complete/accurate version.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Evolution is "nailed down" as a fact. We add knowledge by learning new things all the time, which affects the details of the evolution of particular organisms -- that doesn't change the overall fact.
It doesn't demonstrate a major oops in evolution -- it's new information that *may* affect how we think about the lineage of one particular group of organisms. Updating and adding to our knowledge is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. The more we study and learn, the more correct we are.
As for your little list:
1. No scientific theory has ever claimed anything of the sort.
2. No scientific theory has ever claimed anything of the sort ("abiogenesis" isn't "spontaneously becoming alive").
3. Observed fact. Speciation has been directly observed hundreds of times, and determined from fossil records hundreds of thousands of times.
4. No scientific theory has ever claimed any such thing.
And here's the really fun part: even IF science knew absolutely nothing about anything in the universe, that still wouldn't mean "god did it." It would mean we don't know, nothing else. Claiming "god did it" is nothing but an argument from ignorance, fallacious and worthless.
- BenLv 79 years ago
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that matter comes from nothing. Or that explosions produce order.
Speciation, however, does occur. We have seen the speciation of several varieties of fish and insects including sticklebacks and underground mosquito, and new species of fruitflies have been bred in as few as eight generations. In plants, speciation is even more common because plants don't require natural selection to produce a new species.
- AranthealLv 79 years ago
That Evolution happens is a solid fact. It's just that you are too much a victim of propaganda to realize that.
For example, Evolution doesn't claim matter comes from nothing nor that explosions produce order. This is just pure lies. In fact Evolution makes no comment on where matter came from nor on the ever-increasing disorder of the Universe. And speciations are observed all the time. We have seen them with our own eyes. You would know this if you would just read a standard biology textbook.
And news flash, living things do come from non-living things. According to both Christianity and evolution.
- MLv 79 years ago
Evolution has been nailed down as a solid fact since at least the 6th century BCE, (at least 500 years before your Jesus). The only thing that hasn't been nailed down was how and why it happened.
You seem to be confusing natural histories with evolution. Natural histories are ancestries we estimate based on evidence and the knowledge that evolution occurs.
- neil sLv 79 years ago
Evolution is a fact. A scientific theory is used to explain how known facts occur. Theory and fact are not in opposition in science.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Because scientific theories are held to a higher level than scientific facts.
Scientific theories explain facts.