What would have to happen to prove evolution is true ?

Question

Evolution has much evidence but what must happen or what must someone find to make it fact ?

Answer 1

Evolution is a scientific theory.  A Theory is an EXPLANATION that is supported by so much evidence that it is irrational not to accept it as valid.

If someone could prove it wrong, that is fine.  However, even if it can be proven wrong (and, according to current science it cannot), that does not mean that something else is a default answer.

With that in mind, I find it incredibly interesting that there are fundamental christians that reject the evidence of human life evolving from lower life forms but have no problem believing that humans came from dirt.

Answer 2

If there isn't enough by now, evidence won't convince them it fact. Some never will accept it.    

Answer 3

No matter how many facts are brought forward, religeous people will never believe! Yet they will believe in a mythalogical GOD with no evidence.  

Answer 4

You cannot prove anything with science, that is science 101.

So, to have data support that evolution is true, you would need to show that God is not and has not existed.

Answer 5

You don't "prove" things in science.  Period.

Evolution *IS* a fact ... but in science, even facts are not "proved" to be true ... they are *OBSERVED* to be true.   And since evolution means "change in a species over time", this is definitely something that has been observed to be true.

But evolution is also a theory ... but a theory in the scientific sense of the word theory.   This means an *EXPLANATION* for a fact or set of facts.  So the theory of evolution (ToE) is the *EXPLANATION* for why the observed *fact* of evolution is true ... in other words, why does evolution occur in nature (answer: natural selection).

But again, theories are not "proved".

For example, nobody ever "proved" that the earth moved around the sun, rather than the other way around.   It just slowly became more and more accepted by the scientific world as more and more evidence mounted (the behavior of the other planets, retrograde motions of Mars, the phases of venus, the moons of Jupiter, the predictability of eclipses, and so on).

That's why we talk about *EVIDENCE*, not "proof."

The preponderance of the evidence has been enough to convince the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community since the 1800's.

But there is a contingent of people who call themselves Creationists, who insist that evolution contradicts their religious views, and therefore will not be convinced by *ANY* amount of evidence.

They are precisely the people who continue to use the nonscientific, impossible standard of "proof" rather than *EVIDENCE* ... a standard that is not used for *ANYTHING ELSE* in science.  

They are precisely the people who use phrases like "just a theory", or "only a theory" as if the word "theory" means "unproven."   The word "theory" has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of proof or confidence by the scientific community in its truth.  A "theory" is not "proven" to become a "law."  A "theory" is the highest status an *explanatory* set of statement can achieve.

So in short ... evolution could not be more "proved" that it already is.

Answer 6

Species change ... this has been observed. So evolution is true on a small scale.  

But have we observed evolution on the level of speciation, or have we merely assumed that since species change and there are different species, (some of which admittedly look similar) that evolution causes speciation?

Certainly there are models which look plausible.  Yet we have not observed speciation due to natural selection.  When you consider how very many species there are on the earth, we should be able to estimate a rate of speciation based on our model of time v. approximate number of species.  Science makes models, and bases assumptions on these models then sets out to discover if the assumptions are correct by measurement.  

Has anyone set a rate of speciation?  Based on this rate of speciation, have we found that our assumption has an observed basis?  If the answer is no, then I wonder why not?  Perhaps it's because the answer is ... evolution is not based on good science ... rather it is a sloppy dovetail on Biology ... which is a good science.

So ... that is what I'm looking for out of evolution.  Predicted rates of change from one species to another and verification of such based on observation.

Edit: I must be tired. Forgot to mention the other thing I'm looking for from evolution to satisfy whether it is even good science let alone a valid theory: a measured driving force outside of the oh-so-etherial 'natural selection'.  What I mean is this: Natural selection is satisfactory in explaining why a moth is grey in England when all the trees get dumped on with ash from the factories, then the same species is another color when the trees are not so smudgy.  But to move a species from one to an entirely different species requires more than latent genetics and environmental changes.  Speciation requires NEW code.  How does a new DNA code start?  What drives that change?  These are questions that have never been answered satisfactorily in light of good science tests.  Mistakes in Biology just go bad since biology is a delicate balance of equations, thus in order for one mistake to become a new code, there will have to be a second simultaneous mistake (at least) to balance the equation.  

One mistake on that level is improbable enough considering the safeguards that DNA and RNA have built into them to prevent these from happening ... but study a bit of discrete mathematics as I have and you quickly realize that evolutionary changes of that magnitude ... well, we're still trying to figure out how to push the start of evolution back another billion years to allow for chances that big to happen... unless you find a driving force behind the changes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution for these reasons and more.

FYI ... even if I don't agree with someone's answer, if it makes me think and stays on topic, I give them a good rating.  Similarly, if I agree with someone, philosophically, but the point isn't well made, or lacks substance, I may give a thumbs down.  

I'd like to challenge my fellow answerers to consider doing likewise, for I believe that is the spirit of this webpage.

Answer 7

No theory of what happened in the past can be absolutely proven without the evidence of reliable witnesses and a completely established causal chain. Only that which is immediately and reproducibly observable can be proven absolutely, and that proof is only good until an exception appears.

The absence of absolute proof is not proof of falsity.

Answer 8

The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity

theory meaning fact they are both as real as eachother

You cant believe in one and not the other because science does not play around with lies it true if you want to believe it or not

Answer 9

Webster’s Dictionary defines a “fact” as “something that has actual existence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality”.  Likewise, in science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, a measurement, or other form of evidence taken from the natural world.  However “fact” also refers to a scientific observation or explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to continue testing it. There are certain “facts” accepted by science. The earth rotates around the sun.  A ball, released from the roof of a building, will be acted upon by a force called gravity and will fall to the ground. Matter is composed of atoms that interact with one another to form larger molecules.  These are widely made observations that are no longer questioned at a fundamental level. In addition, they are the basis for scientific theories (Heliocentric, Gravitational, and Atomic theories) that are so well established that it is accepted that no new evidence is likely to alter them significantly.

Outside of the scientific realm, the term “theory” means a hunch or guess. However, within science it is something quite different. The National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence”.  In other words, it is a model made based on a large number of scientific observations that attempts to explain those observations and, in many cases, to make predictions based on them. The concept of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are now confident both that biological evolution has occurred, (i.e. that living organisms have changed over time and that organisms existing today have arisen from a common ancestry over millions of years) and that the basic tenants of Darwin’s Evolutionary theory (which provides a mechanism for how evolution occurred through natural selection) will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, Darwin’s theory of evolution is subject to continuing testing and refinement with regard to issues such as the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and other related questions.