Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

1. 53

   boyatdelhiposted 11 years ago

   Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

   replyreport
2. 82

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Evolution is no theory, it exists. It consists essentially of only three facts, none of which is seriously disputed: genetic mutation, transmission of genetic material from generation to generation, and natural selection. Given those things, then that evolution occurs is equally indisputable.
   
   The question is not if evolution is a theory, it is whether or not it is ultimately responsible for the existence of humanity. Some argue so, but just like its theist opponent that is a position based in the end on assumption. The fossil and genetic records provide an empirical argument may be, one persuasive to a materialistic outlook, but they have shown no proof of it. Its existence can only open the possibility.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      tonymac04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution IS a theory - but theory in scientific terms which means an explanatory framework with which to understand what is observed under properly controlled conditions. And there has been plenty of support for the theory.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The theory lies in the conclusion evolution created human beings. That genetic evolution occurs is not theoretical, it is factual. Or so my point goes.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      GeneralHowitzerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      genetic mutation, transmission of genetic material from generation to generation, and natural selection this doesn't exist, sorry my friend. There are no proofs that these materialized.
      
      The fossil that links humans to animals doesn't exist either.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      eternals3ptemberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Howitzer, trololololing us, are you?

      replyreport
3. 71

   tonymac04posted 11 years ago

   Evolution is a theory, a theory is defined as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." Or "an idea accounting for or justifying somethning." As things stand in our knowledge of the world and the life that lives on it the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of how life came about. One point about a theory is that science always works to disprove, not prove, its theories. Thus the robustness and usefulness of theories are always under scrutiny. Thus far evolution has withstood the attempts to disprove it, although in the process over the 150 or so years since Darwin first proposed the modern theory it has undergone many changes. That is the nature of scientific enquiry - it is not dogma but the use of reason and the scientific method to continuously expand our knowledge. There are other attempts at explanation, but these remain in the realm of dogma and faith, not scientific knowledge.
   So the question is actually wrong - evolution is a theory, but not "just" a theory, and it has not been, nor does it require, proof. It stands or falls on the attempts made to disprove it, and the theory has thus far stood.
   It is important to uderstand how the scientific method works. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on it, which I really recommend people read: "The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."
   Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

   replyreport
   1. 68

      GeneralHowitzerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The title alone will imply that the Darwinian evolution is a theory. & will forever be a theory and an imagination bec. you will need an observer for the duration of millions of years to prove the validity of this theory using scientific method.

      replyreport
4. 0

   huckelburyposted 11 years ago

   The danger is conflating the common term "theory" with its scientific definition. Evolution is a theory in the same manner that gravitation is a theory. We can see that an object released in free fall descends at with an acceleration of 9.8 meters/second/second, thanks to Mr. Newton. That is, we can observe the effects explained by the theory. Sure, gaps exist in the fossil record, but from what empirical evidence we have, animal species, including humans, share a common ancestor and a family tree that branched at different periods. How else could we share nearly 99% of our DNA with a chimpanzee, for example?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      GeneralHowitzerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There are no fossil records that could directly link humans with apes... Same with the branching out thing that you said... Proofs will make things facts and that makes a lot of sense...

      replyreport
   2. 0

      huckelburyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously, General? Evolution doesn't posit that humans are descended from apes. Of course there's no "link." There are fossils that show a combination of human and apelike characteristics, however, thus the "branching out thing."

      replyreport
5. 72

   lburmasterposted 11 years ago

   Yes. As with every belief of how the world began. Very little has been proven because we do not have all of the facts as we were not there.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      GeneralHowitzerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed well said...

      replyreport
6. 68

   GeneralHowitzerposted 11 years ago

   The title alone will imply that the Darwinian evolution is a theory. & will forever be a theory and an imagination bec. you will need an observer for the duration of millions of years to prove the validity of this theory using scientific method.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 11 years ago

   This should be a science question, not a political question.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Depends on how it's intended. Responses hinging on the terms of anthropology don't fit in this category, but if the question has a sociopolitical purpose then it's in the right place.

      replyreport