Errors in the theory of evolution

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

I would suggest that you read articles about this theory written by a biologist instead of an historian.

That would hardly be supportive of a commitment to willful ignorance.

[Troublemane]

ignorance is bliss.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Yes. I just posted it.

Ok, good. Moving on.

Do you also realize that absolutely nothing in science is ever proven beyond all doubt? And do you realize that although not proven beyond doubt, an idea must have substantial proof behind it before it can even be called a theory in the scientific sense? And do you realize that the theory of evolution in particular has a great deal of proof behind it and is an extremely useful theory in biology?

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

Ok, good. Moving on.

Do you also realize that absolutely nothing in science is ever proven beyond all doubt? And do you realize that although not proven beyond doubt, an idea must have substantial proof behind it before it can even be called a theory in the scientific sense? And do you realize that the theory of evolution in particular has a great deal of proof behind it and is an extremely useful theory in biology?

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

The main points of the theory have not changed since Darwin wrote it.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

As much as anything can be considered a fact, yes.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The main points of the theory have not changed since Darwin wrote it.

I think I generally disagree. At its inception, the theory was not a substantial improvement over LaMarck's until genetic models began to develop as the explanatory mechanism for transmitting change affected by natural selection over generations. Darwin largely had no specific mechanism for the transmittal of change from one generation to the next.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

At its inception, the theory was not a substantial improvement over LaMarck's until genetic models began to develop as the explanatory mechanism for transmitting change affected by natural selection over generations. Darwin largely had no specific mechanism for the transmittal of change from one generation to the next.

I agree. But still, the main points of his theory of evolution, and really they are very simple (variation acted upon by natural selection) are the heart of the theory and they still stand at the center of the ToE.