Why do people say evolution is fact?

Question

a lot of people on here say evolution is fact, if its a fact than why is it "the theory of evolution"? a theory is something that can't be proven at this time, although evolution has many proven facts that give weight to the theory, its still just a theory. i'm christian and i believe in evolution and i'm not pushing my beliefs i was just wondering why so many people say that as a defense against religion and not just my religion that's a common response to most religions

Answer 1

idk why..Lucy was supposed to be an evolving chimp into a person but we've found bones of humans at 212 million years whereas she was 2.9 million.

people say  whales have vestigial pelvises and that that proves they evolved from a land dwelling creature but in reality those bones are the starting point that holds some muscles.Without they would not be able to reproduce.

Answer 2

Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory is our best explanation for the observed facts of evolution. It is not a defense in any way. Additionally, you don't "believe" in science.

Could you answer my question here please:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Thanks.

Answer 3

there is an argument over what theory actually means.  

Answer 4

It cant be proven, It cant be reproduced. Therefor it is still just a scientific theory. A theory in which Darwin himself said ... that if no fossil evidence of species evolving to another species is found within 100 years of his claim, then his claim would be false.

He didnt say he would believe in creation. just his claims would be false.

Answer 5

Because they fear ridicule if they say otherwise.

Biologist Richard Dawkins bluntly states: “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”

Similarly, Professor René Dubos says: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.”

And scientist H. S. Shelton asserts that the concept of special creation is “too foolish for serious consideration.”

Now THAT's some real scientic reasoning, isn't it?

Answer 6

Best if you don't comment on things you're woefully uneducated about.

You only succeed in making yourself look foolish.

Answer 7

I think it's fact. Well very much more factual than religions.

Answer 8

It is both fact and theory.

You start with facts.  Then you formulate a hypothesis to explain those facts.  After much successful testing of your hypothesis and a consensus of science it becomes a scientific theory.  

The Theory of Evolution is the best supported theory we have.

Answer 9

EEEEEERRRRRRRRR WRONG!!!

Theory doesn't mean guess

Answer 10

You're confusing "theory" with "scientific theory," the latter of which means "compilation of facts." Theories just explain how things happen, and there are no scientific alternatives to evolution. Thus, combined with all the hard evidence, evolution is factual.

Answer 11

ugh.

people ask this every freaking day!

gravity is also a theory.

Answer 12

Because it probably is to some extent at least,

Answer 13

Just look at the work on the DNA sequence, it is conclusive proof that all living things are related.  

Answer 14

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the fact of evolution (i.e. organisms change over time).  

Answer 15

Absolutely nothing in medicine or sciences is a fact. There are facts within theories. Have you actually looked into the scientific definitions of theory and scientific rationale? Just curious.

Answer 16

Form and content are quite different. I find that evolution explains form but can not understand content. I have not encountered any factual theory as yet that applies to conception of living organisms from point zero. There is no conclusive answer to the egg or chicken conundrum.  Making or understanding how to form a brick using a variety of materials and processes does not translate to originating/creating all the components that made it. Science can clearly express form and its properties mostly but can not substantiate its creation (establishing something out of nothing to enable the onset of evolution/growth). I find it more logical to believe the religious "let there be" theory as the source of life as it makes no sense to me that a single entity could explode and produce the diversity that is life considering molecular structure, DNA and genealogy. If on the other hand we argue that the said entity was intelligent and allocated different DNA to the diverse living organisms, we are not far from believing in creation and a higher entity (God).  

Answer 17

Theory, in this case (evolution) is a scientific proposal, to be proved and worked on.

On this specific one is being worked for 150 and so far, it provided plausible explanation of our origin.

Answer 18

You don't understand the word theory when it is applied by science. A scientific theory has to have overwhelming evidence in order to be a theory.

Answer 19

OMFG

*drink*

talkorigins.org

Answer 20

its not a fact people just like to think it is, i guess they need to get their facts straight

Answer 21

because people can be ignorant. it is nothing new. talk to anyone of a profession. plumbers who find tape and glue holding pipes together or teachers who have to deal with lol, or brb all day. people just dont know any better. you are right. Science doesnt ever prove anything. No experiment can prove something, just support the hypothsis. ( i know i cant spell...)  

Answer 22

*drink*

"Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain"

Answer 23

Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact.

Deist with a B.A. in Anthropology (Archaeology)

Answer 24

I can't believe nobody has pointed out the problem here.

You are asking about natural selection causing speciation I assume.  Protosimians turning into simians, then hominids, then humans and all that, right?

But evolution per se is nothing more than change in allele population over time.  All evolution itself says is that cells change.

That's a fact.  Not only is the flu vaccine to name just one proof of this (why does it have to change every year if flu bugs don't?) but you can actually see it happening in any biotech lab you care to visit,

The others covered the scientific definition of theory well enough to not require any comments from me, but you're even missing what evolution IS.

EDIT - the poster above is well named.

Even if we can assume kindly that she meant to write 2 1/2 million years not 212 million (if she DID actually mean 212 million then it's just insanity ) that would a) be almost a million years after Lucy (which dates to 3.2MM not 2.9MM years), where we would assume natural selection to have made hominids more advanced and b) must refer to H. habilis (oldest example is 2.4MM years old), which is more and more likely to be considered an australopithecine (same genus as Lucy) given its lack of cranial development.   In any case even if you consider it to be Homo as a genus, all that means is there was a genus level transition between 3.2 and 2.4 million years ago - which is exactly what natural selection is supposed to do, and furthermore neatly makes habilis the very thing creationists deny exists - a transitional fossil.

Answer 25

it has been scientfically proven over and over and over... youre simply wrong when you say it cant be proven.

you can easily set up the fruitfly experiment and prove that flies evolve to adapt to their foodsource in about 3 months.

get a colony of flies, split it, give one fresh fruit to eat, and the other cornstarch.

in about 3 months (nearly a hundered generations later) the cornstarch flies will not be able to mate with a fruit fly anymore.

hencem scientifically theyve become 2 seperate species of fruitfly.

and then ofcourse, there is the fossil record and the genetic evidence collected by national geographic's genographic program. but also genetic comparisons done between humans and other primates.

and last but definately not least, explain plz why a a dolphin foetus grows feet, and then reobsorbs them and grows flippers before hes born?

Answer 26

Since you have no idea what a "Scientific Theory" is, I'll educate you..."A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. It is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

Answer 27

The overall theory of evolution is a model that fits the evidence that paleontology presents us.  This model asserts certain assumptions given the data at hand.  Sometimes those assumptions are not correct, and when further evidence fills the numerous voids in our knowledge, we must reassess these assumptions in light of the new evidence, and determine if they are confirmed or disproven.  If disproven, new assumptions must be made to fit the new data into the existing theory.

A classic case is that of mitochondrial DNA analysis.  Traditional evolutionary theory postulated a gradual development of humankind from a primate ancestor over a period of about a million years.  Mitochondrial DNA was expected to confirm this.  The results, however, pointed to a single female ancestor approximately 100,000 years ago, which caused theorists to throw out the idea of gradual development and replace it with the model of punctuated equilibrium.

In this way the vast theory of evolution become more refined and better understood.  No serious paleontologists disputes today that birds are of the genus dinosauria, and that they are the only group from that genus to have survived the cataclysm of 65 million years ago.  This was not accepted until about 20 years ago.

The general theory of evolution is a theory that tries to assemble the multitude of facts that we have teased from the fossil, biological and genetic record during the last 150 years into a comprehensive whole.  Is it perfect?  No, or we would stop investigating it.  Is is a fact?  I suppose you cold say it is, except that we are looking at it through a fogged lens, and still tring to interpret what we see.  What we see is undeniable, now we're just working out the details.

Is it a defense against religion?  It is certainly an indictment against the fundamentalist groups who insist that the Bible is the literal word of God and that every single word is exactly as it happened.  This is an absurd claim to make, especially in light of the evidence at hand.  Is it proof that there is no God?  I doubt that you could compile the myriad number of astromically improbable events that had to happen in just the precise order that led to a sentient species debating this question and then state definitively that it was all an accident.  If I was a betting man, I would lay long odds that the Earth as it is today is a fundamental statistical impossibility in a random universe of probabilities.