Is evolution just a "theory"?

Yes it is,,,,Evolution is another sheeple tactic to suppress the truth.Darwin was bought off and we all know it....just like were all being bought off to this day....not me though

That equals up with the belief in religion too.....sorry heavenly ones,I still love ya

reply to post by SarnholeOntarable


The truth being dinosaurs were buried by Satan as a means to trick believers into thinking the Earth isn't 6000 years old?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


There is no satan...Dino's ruled first then we came...we have made up god since the first sight of the sun.

reply to post by introV


It's not a matter of proving it, as we have observed its occurrence. Most notably in Darwin's finches, but amongst other species as well, including our own. For example, variants in skin color and differences of skeletal structure and dental structure amongst different groups of people are products of evolution. Have you wondered why people who live in mountainous or snowy regions are built more stoutly? Why Asians have scooped teeth? Why sex exists? Hint: the purpose of sex is not reproduction, as it is an awful means of propagating a species. All of these things can all be attributed to evolution.

First, evolution is a fancy way of saying that species adapt over time to their environment. Second, it's a theory because modern science knows better than to speak in absolutes. It has been tested, it has held its own when tested, therefore it is a theory. Until it someone comes along and disproves it, it will accepted as true. Because we have observed and documented its occurrence, however, the chances of evolution being disproven are slim to none.

reply to post by SarnholeOntarable


Nope, we actually came tens of millions of years after the dinosaurs. The fate of the dinosaurs is actually quite ironic. The T-Rex, for example, once the apex of predators, has evolved into the modern chicken.

Originally posted by littlefinch
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.

The monkeys to humans debacle is where we turn to the fossil record. On that note, we evolved from apes, not monkeys. Yes, there is a rather large difference, especially in regards to ambulation, and perhaps most obviously, our lack of tails.

We know that at some points, roughly between 6-9 million years ago as the fossil record permits it, ape-human hybrids, scientifically known as Australopithecines, first appeared in Africa. These early ancestors of humanity varied, a lot. Some had human-like faces and chimp-like bodies, some were arboreal, some were bipedal, some were were more gracile and others more robust, and the list goes on. The most famous A. Afarensis fossil, which you may have heard of, is Lucy.

Anyways, fast forward a few million years and we see the rise of our species, Homo. They weren't Homo Sapiens, however, as we only came about ~200,000 years ago, according to the fossil record. Homo has been, for the most part, bipedal and rather intelligent. While Australopithecines have been attributed to primitive tool crafting and use slightly more advanced than that employed by modern chimps, Homo Erectus employed tools like blades fashioned from bone.

Anyways, we're about as close as we can get to proving the occurrence of evolution on both a micro and macro level. All life has to come from something, but it also must adapt to best survive. For example, the first amphibious species was king for a short while, as it had no predators on land. The same thing occurred with seals, for example, before predation by polar bears was introduced into their environment; they were virtually fearless above water because they had no predators prior to the polar bear. Of course, the polar bear comes along and suddenly all those careless seals start getting picked off one by one. The result? Fearful seals survive and have offspring who share the same traits.

One thing to keep in mind regarding evolution is that all success is relative; no evolutionary victory lasts. All life is in a race to remain extant.

Yes evolution is just a faith

All these people telling you evolution is not abiogenesis are putting a roof on a house with no walls or foundation.

We evolved from what?

How did it start

beauty and elegance of life and perhaps above all the powerful illusion of design in living things started from "extreme simplicity." He says the first self - replicating molecule started from "a reasonably complicated chemical beginning". He adds, "You gotta have genetics..Natural Selection can't get going until you have genetics." He admits that getting genetics started is "not a trivial problem; it's a problem that actually HASN'T BEEN SOLVED ...That's one of our gaps at the moment...NOBODY KNOWS HOW [life] started"... . Richard Dawkins with Lawrence Krauss, Origins Project
www.youtube.com...…

You cant have evolution as a fact unless you can explain life, its silly.

Originally posted by danielsil18

We did not come from monkeys.

Actually, you evolve from a FISH. Which is PROVEN by the fact, of watching a fetus grow in a womans womb. The similarity between a fish, a pig and a human. Are an undeniable axiom.

It's a theory. Not a proven fact. There is no 'absolute' proof of evolution. And no .. I"m not a creationist. That's a 'theory' as well. So is life 'seeding' from space or other planets. They are all theories.

ETA .. I kind of lean towards the theory of 'seeded from space' .... but again, I it's a theory and it can't be proven.

Open your mind. You are filtering a theory through your own belief system and making it fact. All and all it is what it is. Just a theory.

evolution is proven... the machanics are still in question, but the whole us changing to fit our surroundings thing. is very well documented. I guess you could say God is pulling the strings. Tho i don't think he's needed. At best for the religiosoes, evolution is the vehicle God used to make everything.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by danielsil18

We did not come from monkeys.

Actually, you evolve from a FISH. Which is PROVEN by the fact, of watching a fetus grow in a womans womb. The similarity between a fish, a pig and a human. Are an undeniable axiom.

Is the axiom the hiccup reflex? I know the hiccup is just a evolutionary leave off from when we were like whales.
We might never have been fish exactly tho. Prob closer to a water rat LOL.

reply to post by danielsil18

Yes...and that was the point I was making in my response you questioned above. That all evolution is fact...not theory...and can be proven.

Conveniently, we are left to argue over it against "grand design" where both points can be seen as valid. So, of course we evolved.

But WHO planned us out in the beginning....to evolve?

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Nobody? What kind of question is that, lol. Evolution is adaption. Why do species adapt? Because some mystical force in the sky deems it so? No, they adapt to remain extant in their environment.

The sheer ignorance displayed in this thread is astounding.

"Just a theory," rofl. To compare scientific theory with religious "theory" is a gross misuse of semantics. Yes, it's the same word, but given the context its meaning differs vastly. Scientific theory is to be construed as fact until proven otherwise. Tell you what, disprove the occurrence of evolution. You know, do your research and submit an essay with your findings to be peer reviewed. If you can't disprove it, don't dismiss it as "just a theory."

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Scientific theory is to be construed as fact until proven otherwise.

So in other words your telling us that science can pretty much make up whatever they want and then call it fact since no one has dis-proven it? If a group of scientist all agreed that elephants are actually pink, are we suppose to take that as fact?

here is the thread. heavily abbreviated and summarized, but it will do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Cant you read? What were YOU addressing? I said....

"That all evolution is fact...not theory...and can be proven"... (That its NOT A THEORY...duh...)

Slow down when you read...and Im ROTFL now....
.

The real issue is not the word "theory", but the word "just".
My original subject was History. In History, there's no such thing as a repeatable experiment to discover the truth, so you have to make do with what evidence you've got.
That's what scientists have done in developing Evolution theory, and there's nothing wrong with that.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


It's not that simple. There is an order to things. For example, if you were to discover elephants we're actually pink, you would have to submit your findings to be peer reviewed. You'd have to basically prove that elephants are pink.

Ironically, color is an illusion, and what to you may seem grey might very well appear as pink to another person or creature.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


The first part of my post addressed to you, the second part was a general response to the thread. I should have clarified, and for that I apologize.