Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is evolution just a "theory"?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Why do some religious people call it just a "theory"?

They call evolution a hypothesis, an idea, or just a "theory". They make it seem like if it was just some random thought from someone.

So that's what I'm interested about. Why call evolution just a "theory".

Also for those who call it just a "theory", how much do you know about evolution?
edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
It's really trying to hit a low hanging fruit, I think.

They know there are 2 main definitions of Theory, and they always try to use the non-scientific one to suit their need. Never mind when you try to point it out, they will have none of it.

The only thing we can hope, is that they feel the same about gravity, and they can float the # away.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I spent a lot of time researching this yesterday.

It is simply a theory because it cannot be proven.

No scientist can prove it, and no experiment has successfully created life from non-living material.

There are some "theories" that can be proven such as the type of (macro?) evolution where you can breed different kinds of dogs to make a different kind of dog. But its never been proven that you can breed dogs forever and some day it morphs into a new species. Before you say "Ape's evolved into man". It has never, and cannot be proven. "Missing link" evidence gets debunked all the time.

Nobody can prove we all originated from 1 cell that evolved into a human.

There's tons of videos of atheists admitting that evolution is far from being proven. And it's almost extremely improbable that a couple amino acids formed DNA. The odds are something like 1 in 10^64.
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by introV
 





It is simply a theory because it cannot be proven.



What do you mean by proven? What is there to prove?




No scientist can prove it, and no experiment has successfully created life from non-living material.


We are talking about Evolution, not Abiogenesis.




There are some "theories" that can be proven such as the type of (macro?) evolution where you can breed different kinds of dogs to make a different kind of dog.


That's one part of the Theory of Evolution. There is no such thing as "some theories"




But nobody can prove we all originated from 1 cell that evolved into a human.



What proof are you looking for? There are vast amounts of scientific evidence though.




There's tons of videos of atheists admitting that evolution is far from being proven. And it's almost extremely improbable that a couple amino acids formed DNA. The odds are something like 1 in 10^64.


That's Abiogenesis. Different from Evolution.
edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Daniels, care to explain which definition of evolution you want to use.

Apes evolving into man type evolution? Aka, a single cell evolving into man?

Its never been proven.
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by introV
Daniels, care to explain which definition of evolution you want to use.

Apes evolving into man type evolution?


There is only one definition of Evolution. I don't think you have "researched" enough if you think there are many definitions.

Abiogenesis is one thing, Evolution is another thing.

And again, Evolution only has one definition. I don't know where you got that it has many definitions.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by introV
Daniels, care to explain which definition of evolution you want to use.

Apes evolving into man type evolution?


There is only one definition of Evolution. I don't think you have "researched" enough if you think there are many definitions.

Abiogenesis is one thing, Evolution is another thing.

And again, Evolution only has one definition. I don't know where you got that it has many definitions.





There are many different kinds of evolution sir.

Cosmic Evolution
Divergent Evolution
Convergent Evolution
Parallel Evolution

If you want to sum them all up with the webster dictionary definition, then so be it. Sorry I brought up your dreaded Abiogenesis (sorry it can't be proven).

The fact that evolution cannot precisely be proven, by experiment OR observation, alludes to the fact of why there are so many theories and questions in the complexity of how we came to be. The big bang, followed by our solar system forming, getting to the point some amino acids turned into DNA, which SOMEHOW evolved (using your plain, unprecise definition) into us humans here today.

Prove it. I'm not saying it's not true. But it is STILL a theory.


That's one part of the Theory of Evolution. There is no such thing as "some theories"


I put the quotation marks around Theories in my sentence, because evolution of two different breeds making a new breed is possible and proven. That does not prove that two dogs can mate until they make a new species entirely. That's where the problem lies, and breaks your single evolution theory. There are many facets.

Calm down killer.
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 


"Evolution only has one definition." Not trying to nitpick here, but I really dont think there's any one word that only has one definition. What everyone else is referring to (I think) is the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Charles D-man, the guy who popularized and sort of solidified the theory of evolution (but not the first to put the idea forward), started his whole thing by studying finches on the gallapagos islands. He noted that the finches had gained certain traits to better match their specific island habitat, but they had all stemmed from the same species, thus they had evolved through the "survival of the fittest" method. The weak get singled out, the strong thrive, with the traits that they need. Anyways, that evolution could be viewed over a few generations, making it micro evolution. That has been proven.

Now since humans have only been around for so long, we have no way of witnessing Macro evolution (monkeys ----> humans) I'm not saying that Macro evolution isn't real. It just hasn't been scientifically proven yet, but it's considered to be the most accurate theory to explain why we've gotten here so far. Maybe someone else will come along and provide another theory that becomes the accepted truth, but i don't see that happening anytime soon.

Evolution is a theory like Newton's laws of physics are a theory.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 
Since even scientists publicly call it the "Theory of Evolution" that says that said theory hasn't been completely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise it would just be referred to as "Evolution". Even the majority of religious people believe that life evolves over time and with varying conditions, they (we) just aren't convinced that man evolved from another species. There are no doubts that man has evolved as a species- science just can't prove that we come from apes or monkeys. When and if the "theory" is proven it won't be called a theory any more.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I think for the reality of it to really dawn on you, you really have to see and understand it for yourself.

I was a biology student at one time and really did look into the underlying processes of life; look into the structures and development of beings; look into the structures and processes of DNA, etc.

Once one does that, then he has to put it together with the realities realized about dating sedimentary layers and the fossils found in the particular layers. I guess this would fall into Geology, and whatever other science.

The point being - not many people have the will to do any such investigation.

It takes a special kind of person to seek objective truth.

---

Also, I think many people have a great fear of breaking the infinite variations of fairy tales they have in their heads. To objectively seek the truth opens the possibility of destroying these fairy tales.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
Why do some religious people call it just a "theory"?

They call evolution a hypothesis, an idea, or just a "theory". They make it seem like if it was just some random thought from someone.

So that's what I'm interested about. Why call evolution just a "theory".

Also for those who call it just a "theory", how much do you know about evolution?
edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)


The next time somebody calls evolution a theory in an effort to dismiss it, just demonstrate the theory of impetus or one of the many theories covering cause and effect and gently push that person aside and keep walking.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
Why do some religious people call it just a "theory"?

Probably because it IS a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean there is no evidence for something, it just means that it is not a law, nor is it an hypothesis. People get their dander up at times because they believe that calling something a theory somehow weakens the argument, which it does not.

This might help: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by introV
 





There are many different kinds of evolution sir.

Cosmic Evolution
Divergent Evolution
Convergent Evolution
Parallel Evolution


Are you serious? What does cosmic evolution have to do with this?

and the other are evolutionary trends, not theories.




If you want to sum them all up with the webster dictionary definition, then so be it. Sorry I brought up your dreaded Abiogenesis (sorry it can't be proven).


We are not summing anything up. and Abiogenesis is not dreaded either. It can't be proven, but if you are religious and believe in a God, I wonder if you ask yourself the same thing.




The fact that evolution cannot precisely be proven, by experiment OR observation, alludes to the fact of why there are so many theories and questions in the complexity of how we came to be. The big bang, followed by our solar system forming, getting to the point some amino acids turned into DNA, which SOMEHOW evolved (using your plain, unprecise definition) into us humans here today.


Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation there is because it couldn't be disproven for more than 100 years.

Evolution has been observed. You obviously haven't studied about evolution.

Prove it. I'm not saying it's not true. But it is STILL a theory.

What do you want as proof? Be more precise, what kind of "proof" are you looking for?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by introV
 




That does not prove that two dogs can mate until they make a new species entirely. That's where the problem lies, and breaks your single evolution theory. There are many facets.

Calm down killer.


Study before commenting. No wonder you call it just a "theory".
edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Are you serious? What does cosmic evolution have to do with this?


It can't be proven, but if you are religious and believe in a God, I wonder if you ask yourself the same thing.


What does religion have anything to do with this?

You are extremely hostile.

Show me proof of amino acids evolving into DNA. Until you can do that, I am going to keep interpreting your responses as something similar to a child putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "nananananana" over logic
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by littlefinch
 





"Evolution only has one definition." Not trying to nitpick here, but I really dont think there's any one word that only has one definition. What everyone else is referring to (I think) is the difference between micro and macro evolution.


You know that micro and macro evolution are in Theory of evolution. They are not two different theories. All of it is in the Theory of Evolution and Evolution has one definition.





Now since humans have only been around for so long, we have no way of witnessing Macro evolution (monkeys ----> humans) I'm not saying that Macro evolution isn't real.


We did not come from monkeys.




Evolution is a theory like Newton's laws of physics are a theory.


The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Gravity. Laws and Theories are not the same.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by introV

Are you serious? What does cosmic evolution have to do with this?


It can't be proven, but if you are religious and believe in a God, I wonder if you ask yourself the same thing.


What does religion have anything to do with this?

You are extremely hostile.

Show me proof of amino acids evolving into DNA. Until you can do that, I am going to keep interpreting your responses as something similar to a child putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "nananananana" over logic
edit on 5-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)


I just didn't get why you mention cosmic evolution since that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

As for amino acids creating DNA, that's Abiogenesis.

You are not logical in anyway. I don't know how clear I have to be so you can understand that I'm talking about Evolution, not Abigenesis.
edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: typo



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 


The naturalist Charles Darwin proposed this THEORY based on observation of species that he had seen during his travels, a lot of this observation was made on the Galapagos islands but he travelled fairly extensively.
He postulated that species adapted to there environment and this gave rise to new species, his assertion that humans were related to apes met with great anger and astonishment in Victorian England when he returned and published his work but it was so well thought out and researched that it became accepted scientific dogma too the point were anyone questioning the theory is regarded as an imbecile and that prevents it being freely challenged as much as it may otherwise be.

You could in essence view the fossil record used in support of the theory as a collection of unrelated bones that seem to form a pattern that leads from ape like creatures to human being's but in between each truly different piece is a vast period of at least several tens of thousands of years, there have over time been allegations of tampering and the destruction or removal of more ancient fully human specimens that may disprove the standard model (though this does not disprove evolution it would the model used),. Modern science is now being used to match DNA fragments that correlate between these species but is biased in that it is not being used to see were these species do not correlate.

I hope this helps.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 





Since even scientists publicly call it the "Theory of Evolution" that says that said theory hasn't been completely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt


I know it's a theory. But religious people call it "just a theory", like if it was just an idea.




they (we) just aren't convinced that man evolved from another species. There are no doubts that man has evolved as a species- science just can't prove that we come from apes or monkeys.


We didn't evolve from apes or monkeys.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by danielsil18
Why do some religious people call it just a "theory"?

Probably because it IS a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean there is no evidence for something, it just means that it is not a law, nor is it an hypothesis. People get their dander up at times because they believe that calling something a theory somehow weakens the argument, which it does not.

This might help: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions


That's my point. I know it's a theory but some people say it's "just a theory" like if it was just an idea.






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join