Evolution: Theory, Fact, or False?

Theory. Just like quantum mechanics, cell theory, plate tectonics...(although strangely not many choose to claim those are false).

Theory does not connotate "educated guess," it means "accepted by the majority of the scientific community as true," and "supported by evidence."

See definition of theory here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

The Theory of Evolution is just that -- a Theory. It is a false theory which, unfortunately is accepted as fact and presented as fact far too often.

There is not one shred of evidence for the Theory of Evolution to be true! The whole theory is based on what people WANT to think despite all the evidence to the contrary.

True science is Observable, Demonstrable and Repeatable.

"No matter how you look at it, the theory of evolution must trace back to a point where inanimate matter became a living creature...Evolution does not even constitute a bona fide scientific theory!"

Most people instinctively know it is false, despite how it is dumped on us via National Geographic, textbooks, TV, museums, etc.

That is why there are so many who wish and are working toward the schools at least being willing to present other options. It's ludicrous how this Theory has been so blindly accepted and become so forced upon our kids by the closed-minded "elite".

Some fact, some fiction... and, historically, some false.

We can see evolution at work today as changes in diet, the environment, geography, etc. modify or seperate populations. We can study island animals and their mainland equals, we can see moth populations die or thrive based on color, we can see the changes in humans since the Middle Ages, we can see the results of 'intergrade zones' where two subspecies are changing having been introduced to the same ecosystem for whatever reason. (Anti-evolutionists would call this 'micro-evolution' or 'adaptation'- that seems to be a bit of a cop out. Small changes is the key to evolution.)

There are some unknowns- how do the big changes work? How do we explain (fill in the blank)? Why does evolution seem to happen in odd leaps and jumps?

Historically, there have been some things that were believed that no longer are, but that is true of religion and other fields as well.

False, if by "evolution" you mean one species changing into another, either gradually or due to punctuated equilibrium.

What kind of evolution are you talking about? Micro evolution is a fact, as shown by Charles Darwin, where there are seasonal changes in features of a species. On the other hand, macro evolution is, in fact, not even a SCIENTIFIC theory; its merely a hypothesis!!!

Most evolutionists today do NOT believe in darwinian evolution wherein one species GRADUALLY change into another species. Among their reasons are (1) missing links, (2) developed characteristics, e.g. big biceps due to much work, CANNOT be passed on to the offspring genetically, and (3) irreducible complexity. Most evolutionists believe instead, that because of some catastrophic event on Earth, major changes occured in a species that changed it into another species. And THAT is just another hypothesis - what were these catastrophic events? when did they occur? how many are required to completely change one species into another? what evidence is there that this actually happened? etc.

theory and fact. For the 1,000th time, a scientific theory is a framework to explain facts. Evolution is a fact, darwin's version of it is a theory. gravity is a fact, newton's version was a theory, einstein's version was a better theory that built on the previous one.

And facts do not eliminate all argument. Was OJ guilty? Is/was George Bush a criminal? Yes he was, it's a fact, he admitted it. But there are millions of people who will say no he wasn't/isn't.

Oh, some interesting people here. Can you just smell the egotism? "I'm not a monkey." "I'm not an animal." It is man's greatest curse and gift. Arrogance. It is what allowed us to create a rocket to take us to the moon and made men like Hitler think he was right.

As for Hitler liking Darwin, so what? Truth be told he liked "Social Darwinism." Hitler was a whack job who believed that jews were inferior (though he was Jewish himself). Just because Bin Laden believes in the Koran doesn't make it (the Koran) wrong or evil.

As for those who think there is "no evidence." Wow, I'd love to go to your college's biology class (snickers). Seriously, there is way too much evidence to not believe in the notion we evolved from common ancestors. I don't care which mechanism you believe in, it's just obvious.

As for scientists not believing in it, I've seen their lack of credentials. Try http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html (great site with a lot of stuff debunking Creationists claims).

Finally, just because you don't believe in the generation of life from "primordial ooze," doesn't mean evolution is false. Evolution, in no way, ever talks about the generation of life on Earth. That is an entirely different theory (layman read as: fact).

Theory

"Theory" and "fact" mean pretty much the same thing in this case. It is both - there is overwhelming evidence, both in the fossil record and in direct observation, to show that evolution is how life can be be as it is. While it is not complete in the specifics of how every species evolved, no evidence that does not fit the theory has been shown.

Theory that is in fact, false!

It is scientifically and statistically proven that we could not have evolved from apes or anything like it. The evidence for evolution is conspicuously absent from wherever we may fervently search for it.

We are the product of God's creation.

I recommend researching the subject, try:

www.case-creation.org.uk

www.creationscience.com

...... and many others.

Evolution is visible in the world today. It is just the process of some animals surviving to reproduce when others don't. People get really upset, though, when they are confronted with the fact that they are animals at all.

The layman's use of the word "theory" does not have the same meaning as the scientific use of the word "theory." Scientific use of the word theory is closer to a layman's understanding of the word "fact" than it is to a layman's understanding of "theory."

And no - no matter what anyone asserts - no serious "actual" scientist considers Darwin "whack" (to echo that quaint and rather unspecific characterization.)