Errors in the theory of evolution

[LuisDantas]

Are you a troll?

 

[gnostic]

haha scientists. what cracks me up is how sure they are of complete evolution. in my bio textbooks...i constantly run by the phrase "because of/as a result of evolution...."

The reason why scientists are certain about evolution is that they have factual evidences to support the theory.

It is a lot more than the absence of factual evidences to support many of the biblical events that lead me to say that the bible is most myths and legends.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you see some errors in this theory?

Yes, of course.

Do find it to be worth believing and why?

Also yes, of course. Because the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports it. That's the only reason to believe anything. Are you asking what specifically that evidence is?

 

[Autodidact]

And before answering that, why are you questioning me that way (I'm a student of science hoping to gather info on this thread and not to be questioned)? I'm here to ask if you can see any errors about the theory.

sorry, Lawrence, it doesn't work that way. That would be bad manners on your part. These threads are for discussion, not one-way interrogation. If you want people to answer your question, then it's good manners to answer theirs.

 

[Autodidact]

Yap. Besides, it's still just a theory that needs to be proven.

*sigh* How old are you, Lawrence? Do you know what a scientific theory is? Do you know that nothing in science is ever proven, including the fact that the earth rotates around the sun? The Theory of Evolution is one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science, including the theory that the earth rotates around the sun.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry too, but it is still undergoing a lot of improvements to be proven and scientists are still finding evidences to prove it. And hey just a student, hello, I'm working on a relavant info's on it.

Science doesn't ever prove anything. The Theory of Evolution has been a well-established foundation of Biology for over 100 years.

 

[Autodidact]

The theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. This includes the theory that man is developed from the ancestral apes.

According to the scientists," they believe in the evolution theory of man's origin. This theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin, a British Scientist, as published in his book Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. According to Darwin, man was not created by God; he was a product of evolution or development through successive species beginning from the primate apes."

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Stephen J. Gould

Lawrence, save yourself further embarrassment. It's clear that you don't know much about either evolution or science. Would you like to learn, or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

 

[Autodidact]

Seriously, Lawrence how old are you?

Do you know what "quote-mining" is?

 

[Autodidact]

And the next step in the theory is a law.

No, it isn't.

 

[Autodidact]

This a forum. Everyone is free to express ideas. Expressing an idea isn't embarrassing oneself.. End of the story..

It is if it betrays utter ignorance. Now, ignorance itself is not embarrassing, if the poster is willing to rectify it. But putting forth opinions based on ignorance is, or should be, embarrassing to you.

 

[Willamena]

you can't call bones being put together as a puzzle as concete evidence. the only true evidence would be if you could see it before your eyes, and you might be able to see birds having their beaks enlarged but you can't see cavemen or cavemen becoming humans

Evidence is that bit of information that is convincing. If a partially assembled jigsaw puzzle whose pieces continue to fit together is convincing then it is evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm conducting study on paleontological evidences. However, my knowledge about this thing is not that wide( and I don't want to give an opinion on it that can lead to an error). I'm afraid I cannot give you a specific answer this time. I'm working on it.

Well, don't you think that learning what the evidence is that has persuaded the entire world of Biology that this theory is correct would be helpful if you want to question that position?

 

[rojse]

you can't call bones being put together as a puzzle as concete evidence. the only true evidence would be if you could see it before your eyes

And we have.

 

[Autodidact]

Lawrence? Lawrence?

 

[painted wolf]

The paleontological evidence is good enough to have been convincing before we knew about DNA... If anything its only gotten better.

wa:do

 

[anders]

Not quite. Paleontology has made a number of testable predictions that have proven to be true.

For instance, observations of fossils predicted both an old Earth and continental drift.

The prediction aspect is a heavy pro-evolution argument. No alternative theory has matched its value and use.

 

[Renji]

Lawrence? Lawrence?

What? What?

 

[OutOfTime]

some people say that gay people are an error in evolution since they say gay people don't go along with survival of the fittest.

i MIGHT be one of the people who says that, or i might not ^_^

 

[painted wolf]

some people say that gay people are an error in evolution since they say gay people don't go along with survival of the fittest.

Those people don't understand evolution.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

Its not survival of the fittest... its reproduction of those which reproduce, be they mutations in species or not