The evolution theory is generally accepted by all credible scientists to be true.
If the evolution theory is has been deemed to have no significant flaws, has sufficient supporting evidence, and is applicable to most relevant situations, shouldn't it have been a law by this time? Why is it not a law yet, and why are there still a lot of people who are not convinced? (note that I am not one of those who are not convinced, just asking questions here)
The basic mistakes in the evolution theory is that anyone believing evolution either do not understand it or are believing things that are simply belief's not science if you clearly define it.
Only one part of the evolution theory is scientifically proven if you define evolution as variation within the species. Even Darwin said himself, unless we find the missing link between man and animal, the theory will fail.
When you clearly define what you mean by evolution, it becomes clear that there is NO credible evidence for most of it. Here are the categories:
1 Cosmic evolution is the origin of time, space, and matter, i.e. the big bang
2 Chemical evolution is the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3 Stellar and Planetary evolution origin of stars and planets.
4 Organic evolution is the origin of life
5 Macro evolution is the changing from one kind into another
6 Micro Evolution are the variations within kinds.
#6, Micro evolution is really variation within a species and no one can disagree with that, unless they are simply ignorant. There are about 400 different variations of dogs in the world, but they all came from a dog. NO ONE has ever found or presented any credible evidence of a "Missing link" between humans and animals. All of the evidence has been debunked and shown to be a fraud, deceit, or wishful thinking.
So if you define evolution as variation within a species, you should not get any argument and should get a general consensus that evolution is real. But if you include the other 5 categories, then you are in a "Belief" mode, not a scientifically proven mode and the theory falls apart dramatically.
Of course there are mistakes in the theory! However, there is no doubt that evolution continues to occur, everyday. The entire theory only says that animals and plants change and adapt to their environment. But of course they do! That's obvious. When Darwin was examining the animals in the Galapagos, he was only looking at the physical appearance and the change within the varying species. Since DNA analysis was not possible at the time, Darwin's theory does not necessarily correlate with the change in the DNA, which means linking animals together through appearance is faulty. Also, linking species through DNA is also faulty if the appearance is so radically different. This can also be found with the issues regarding taxonomy and the like. Considering this, figuring out the "missing link" would be a challenge. On another note, no species is more evolved than another species. Homo sapiens evolved from the bacteria just as much as felis domesticus did or canis familiaris did.
In science, theories almost never become laws. When an idea reaches the status of theory, it means that it has been proven to the greatest extent possible.
There were some mistakes, or at least gaps in Darwin's original conception of the theory. The biggest one was filled in by Gregor Mendel, who discovered genetics and figured out the mechanism for evolution.
There are also gaps in the fossil record, and there will always be gaps. Every time one gap is filled, two new gaps are created. If we have fossils A and B and then find fossil C between them in the geologic record, we now have to find fossils between A and C and C and B. When those gaps get filled, four more gaps get created, and so on. That's why the "missing link" is a poor term and one not used by scientists - there will always be another missing link by definition.
by Julie Grimes 8 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
by Mark Knowles 9 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmativeThen the...
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Why is evolution still theory and not fact?
by yankeeintexas 6 years ago
What has evolution done for you lately?
by CJ Simonelli 4 years ago
God is the Creator, as revealed to us throughout the living Word, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (1:20-21, Peter). The following are a few of the many proclamations about our Creator in the Word of God: "This is what the LORD says your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD,...
by TruthDebater 8 years ago
Is it possible to know the origin of species without knowing the origin of life? Is to know how life evolves or changes into new species knowing the origin of species? I do not see how understanding the changing of life is understanding the origin of life. Is the origin of species misleading for...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|