Evolution is a fact

Too many missing pieces. Requires faith to believe. Something cannot come from nothing by the physics of this dimension.

I don't know Enough about the subject to make an Informed opinion either way. However, it is my Understanding that this is pretty much the Accepted theory.

"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
~Mark Twain~

I'm skeptical of all facts. Honest education teaches theory.

Think about "absolute" subjects: Math, algebra, calculus...the "base ten" number system we use for teaching these is complete chaos.

Proof: three duckhunters check into a seedy motel. The clerk charges $30 for the night. In a bit, she realizes one of the hunters is sleeping on a cot...she overcharged $5. The belhop is summoned to return the $5. Being industrious, the 'hop hands the hunters 5 $1's. The hunters each take a buck and tell the kid to take $2 for his troubles. Each duck hunter has now paid $9 for his stay. 3 x 9 = $27. The bellhop has $2. 27 + 2 = $29! So, where did the other $1 go?

There are no facts! Only "conventional wisdom" and "accord for convenience." Never be a sheep!

Adaptation may be a fact. Evolution is not a fact, evolution is a theory. Parts of Darwin's original theory have already been discredited. (Miller/Urey experiment comes immediately to mind.) I think that it would be a great idea to teach children evolution as it is the leading theory. But it would be wise to teach them all the scientific theories on all types of subjects so that they may be more well- rounded, better educated and able to make a better contribution to society as adults.

"Mope" here.
Everyone and everything evolves to varying degrees and in varying ways- that much is obvious; and I don't think that is in dispute.
That however, is not what this item is about. It is apparently about Darwin's theories, which are just that folks- theories.
If that is your "religion"....so sorry to offend.

Scrolling through the reviews from some of the anti-evolution mopes on this item, it is crystal clear to me that there are more than a few people around who did not fully evolve.

I don't think evolution really applies to us anymore. Okay it might sound a little harsh to say humankind will no longer evolve, but hear me out. The theory of evolution as laid out by the great Charles Darwin demonstrates how creatures evolve based on external stimuli such as changes in the environment, or by other external forces (such as human interference). One such proof of this is what Charles Darwin observed and noted on the Galapagos Islands with the varying characteristics of the Galapagos Tortoise (Geochelone nigra) between the different islands. If you go to one island where the climate is moist there is plenty of grass and edible vegetation close to the ground - the sub-species of tortoise on these islands have flat ridges on the front of their carapaces whereas tortoises from the drier islands have to reach higher for sustenance - these ones have "saddle"-like carapaces to allow a greater head movement. It is generally accepted by all except the most devout religious people that the theory of evolution is correct, especially as humankind is find more and more evidence to support it as time passes.

However, can we assume that evolution is constant? If there are no reasons for a species to adapt, then the only evolution that is likely will be minor changes to physical appearance such as the average height and size of the species which can be seen subtlety even over the past 100 years of human history. Such external stimuli as described by Darwin no longer exist for humankind, at least not in the manor that will promote mutations beneficial to the advancement of the human race. It is often speculated in science fiction, especially in TV shows such as Heroes that we could eventually evolve to do more such as fly, or read minds. Further evolution of our species, other than minor changes to outward appearance, I believe to be impossible. If there is something that threatens us we build technology which then "evolves" over time instead. If an animal threatens human life then we kill it or ensnare it. If we find one food source dying out (such as a species of fish) we breed more of it.

So let us now consider human evolution so far, going back to when apes first appeared. The apes first came about after the dinosaurs were more or less wiped out by an extinction level event unlike any the world had seen before - this left an opening for mammals to take centre stage, but it also brought about new predators. One type of mammal found that by going up into the trees it could escape those predators, so over many generations the characteristics from mutations that best suited them going up trees were the ones that stuck (those that didn't would have been eaten). Eventually as the landscapes changed apes would have come down out the trees with the need to cross different terrain such as streams and savannah and so over time they're spines straightened to suit their change of environment.

From this perspective I can't see how human evolution can continue without some dramatic change that we couldn't fall back on technology for - but if it was something that dramatic then there would be a fair chance we wouldn't be around afterwards anyway. What will evolve is our understanding of evolution - we have already made improvements upon Darwin's discovery and there is every chance we will continue to learn.

A fact? One thing we do as humans is jump to conclusions. Sometimes these conclusions stay with us for years, decades, probably even thousands of years only later to be proven wrong. In many cases history as I was taught in school has been rewritten, keep in mind it was taught as fact at the time. The longer I live I realize todays today facts, often become tomorrows misinformation. The more we think we know, and accept as absolute fact only leads us more conclusions based on questionable information. Im not opposed to it being taught as a theory, but a fact?

  Now technically it's still a theory, it's taught as a theory just like they teach the theory of gravity. The Hun is right, a scientific theory is much more then an idea or even a conclusion.

Now for those who don't remember their science class how something becomes a thoery is something like this (grossly simplified). I start off with an idea, like I believe everytime I drop a rock it's going to fall. Now to test that theory I drop a rock in a controlled enviroment and when it falls it becomes my conclusion. Now for it to become a scientific theory it needs to be tested and tested and tested. If one time that rock doesn't fall that theory is no longer a theory.

Scientists do not exclude facts from their findings, so if one error is found in that theory it's all called into question. The word theory is misused a lot, scientifically it's only supposed to be used after years of testing, and evidence. Anything else is either a hypothesis or a conclusion. So to call evoloution into question because it's "only a theory" is a ridiculous argument, thank you please try again.

Yeah, and survival of the fittest is supposedly the way to help out the evolution process until the socialists and commies interfered.

Evolution is as much a fact as the easter bunny. Teaching your children that evolution is a fact is misleading them and setting the ground for justification of many wrong doings. After all, if you teach your children that they come from animals, don't get surprised when they act and behave like animals.

IF Macro Evolution is a fact, and we, as humans, evolved from nothing to become what we are today, WHY haven't we continued to "mutate"?  It is actually, scientifically IMPOSSIBLE ~ the theory, or law or science (however you want to put it), of Evolution.  What is being taught in schools today is that Macroevolution is a fact ~ that is very misleading and very wrong.  I don't find it "progressive" to teach my children a lie.

The problem that we encounter here is the nuance that we place on the word "theory." Common parlance of theory is that it is "opinion." In science "theory" is much more. It is a systematic statement of principles involved such as the equations in mathematics, or the theory of gravity, or the the theory of relativity, etc. Beware of the Bible-thumpers who rant on television that evolution is "only a theory." In their ignorance, they are saying "it is a fact." The work on animal progression has gone on through the centuries. The Law of Faunal Succession was established by earlier paleontologists. Some of them were Robert Hooke (1635-1703), William Smith (1769-1839), G. L. LeClerc, Compte de Buffon (1707-1788), Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles) 1731-1892, and finally J. P. A. de Lamarck (1744-1829). These scientists had studied the sedimentary rocks and determined that animal-fossil fauna change steadily upward through the sequence of the ages. At younger levels, the fossils more nearly resembled modern animals. Evolutionary change was the only rational explanation. The early explanations did not hold up well and Darwin's work, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection partially solved the riddle by identifying the general process. He was unable to explain the mechanics, and those mechanisms, gene mutation, isolation, symbiosis, and other phenomena were not identified until the 20th Century. The work continues. I saw Carl Sagan on a science show many years ago and just before his death. He stated "Evolution is a fact." I say to the anti-evolutionists out there to review the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, philosopher. He stated that untimately there can be no conflict between science and faith since both are God's creations. However, faith must give way to scientific fact. This is what happened in Galileo's case when faith, based upon the Bible, dictated the sun revoving around the earth instead of vice versa. You could conclude that evolution is part of God's plan of creation. Of course, you might have to yield on the inerrancy of every jot and tittle in the Good Book!

It's a theory, and by far the best existing explanation for the data.  Just as is the theory of gravitation.  Science is short on "facts" or "truth" as anyone who studies it can tell you.  However, religion has "facts" and "truth."  Examples include that the earth rests on the back of a Great Tortoise; the "fact" that Damballah the Sky Serpent with his 7,000 coils of tail formed the hills and rivers; or that Atum arose from the primordial waters, and the breath from his mouth, and semen from his masturbation created the dry and wet parts of the world (the last is Egyptian, if you're curious).

A solid theory, but fact? I ain't signing off on that. I also won't make the leap that it is auto blasphemy to consider it because a powerful being like God isn't constrained by something like linear time and can change things as he pleases, so if some goofy science guy wants to call something God plotted out random, that's his ass. Science works like a charm but it can't escape His influence and will never disprove God's existence, so I really can't figure why people get so caught up in this particular arguement.

You people are killing me. The fact is that you should never teach someone that something is fact unless it has been proven. i am sorry to say that the theory of evolution is something that has not only not been proven, but has holes in it that are noticeable to people that are not part of a collective that blindly supports it. If you are part of that collective then you are thinking right now about what you would say to me, the jerk that is making you angry with such blasphemy, and you would agree, in your mind, on things to say that you herd from the collective and that you never came up with by yourself. These things may not even have any value more than a fallacy of logic built to destroy weak ideological opponents. Past the crap, here is the problem with the theory of evolution that i see: evolution, as the Darwin theory says, is linear in how it works (i.e. one thing evolves, is tested, and the cycle continues). The problem is that there are many things that would have had to evolve in a horizontal and vertical way such as cilia and flagellums in the cells which require the use of many, inter-working, parts that depend on each other in such a way where all would have had to be evolved at the same time in order to work (otherwise the cell would have dead weight.) another flaw is time frame, probability, the whole if-not-God-then-what-created-all-matter-and-energy-in-the-universe problem, and, not to forget, the annoying how the heck did a bolt of lightning create such a complex thing that could have evolved in the first place. What i am trying to say is that telling a child to blindly support something just because it goes along with the collective, that you blindly support, is wrong. Let the child find out for themselves what they believe and shut the hell up! Teaching one sided politics did not help me out and it won't help any other child out in any way; it only helps the major groups have mindless, blind, foot soldiers who will never change anything. If you read to here, then that meas that you are interested in other opinions and not completely blind. (99.9% of readers will not get this far before they silently curse my ideas and move on to the next review) why don't we just admit we don't know

Either this or the earth is flat, the Apollo moon missions were faked, and G.W. Bush is a great president.

UPDATE....While a bacteria may become resistant or change color it is still a bacterium, it has not changed into another organism. Yawn here we go again update....For all those who dont know the bible is the most documented ancient writing that there is it is way more than a faith document. It was written by over 40 authors over a 1000 year span of time, as for DNA thats a proven fact, darwinian evolution has no basis and no proof, also can you explain to me how evolution created DNA? ignatius.....Listen carefully, nothing that we make is thought to have sprung up by accident, afterall the very idea is ridiculous. If we see a car or building we don't think that it just sprang up out of no where, why believe the most complexed things what we call life are accidental....Oh yeah do a little more research on the so called fossil evidence and oozzze that scientist have supposedly created and you will find that it is a dreadful hoax. The more we delve into the intricacies of life the more we began to wonder how it is an accident. Stop running away from belief in GOD. What evidence is there that disproves belief in a Creator please send it to me. Just because someone says you dont exist doesnt mean you dont prove it!.....Evolution in the Darwinian sense (i.e. things evolving into new creatures) is unproven, has no basis at all. A bacterium while drug resistant is still a bacterium.

Well, it is. Evolution has been observed in bacteria (i.e. different strains) so yes, it is a fact on this level.

Just don't expect me to explain the neighbors' kids.

Evolution meets all the requirements of the current scientific method sufficiently to warrant calling it factual. Parts of evolution can be experienced today, such as mutation and natural selection. What remains a mystery is 'why' evolution happens, what is the initial spark...and some ascribe that to an intelligent being.

Perhaps the different hypotheses in the debate might be understood better if contributors would, from the outset, declare a) a belief in a higher power, b) their agnosticism or c) atheism. No argument can dissuade those who believe that the Divinity creates all the physical world and our innermost human virtues, just as unbelievers cannot fathom such possibilities except under the strictest scientific proof to their complete material satisfaction.

I have waffled on this for years, okay nod ot Kerry. I am unsure of the age of the earth, but there has really been no evidence of evolution. There has been no observable change of one species into another. All the one-cell organisms are still here, they haven't changed. We have seen species come and go. Dinosaurs, for example, but no observable change of dinosaurs into something else. That is a theory. The discoveries of "ancient man" are based on a few bone fragments. Most of which are easily discernible as the differences in modern man. Around the world today, no two humans have the same structure and stature. heck, just at my workplace, if everyone there was discovered 1,000 years from now, someone might make a theory that each was an evolutionary step into the other. Heights range from about 5'0-6'7 skinny builds, thick builds, heavy brows, no brows. So far I have read several comments. IJR: Where did you read that scientists recreated the primoridial ooze? And, since no one has ever seen it before, how do they know what it is? Others have stated that, yeah evolution has occured. And yet, all that has been described has been Adaptation. Evolutionary scientists refer to adaptation as a tool by which they believe evolution occurs. Adaptation is all that has been observed. Evolution, has not. There has been no evidence that it does actually lead to evolving of a new species. Viruses are the best case scenario, and the most likely to evolve, yet they have not. They adapt, but the Flu virus is still the flu virus. As far as Theory verus Law, science is very explicit in the difference of terms. Theories are created when scientists find something and they take a guess as to how it happened. Until that theory can be proven in controlled environment, and recreated demonstratively, it remains a theory. A law, or fact, on the other hand, is where a theory has been demonstratively proven. You will be hard pressed to find even evolutionary scientists who refer to evolution as a law. Yet we do NOT have the "THEORY OF GRAVITY" it is called the "LAW OF GRAVITY" because it has been demonstratively proven in controlled environments. I will state it again, there is no evidence that one species has ever changed into another. If anyone can show me some evidence to the contrary, interspecies transition, etc. I will be glad to reevaluate my position. I used to think that God used evolution as a way to create the earth. After really looking at the facts behind evolution, I discovered that it was only a theory. Observations made of similarities, and then guessing who predeceded who. I think "predeceded" is a word.:P

In my opinion, I think that much of the disagreement that I see is because the word evolution is applied to only the debate of whether everything was created by a divine hand or not so I'll save my thoughts on that for another category. But as I see it, things evolve. When science is able to come up with a cure for a certain disease such as smallpox or polio, the living organisms which caused the illness are affected by the vaccines and therefore they have evolved (or devolved) into a different state. The cross breeding of plants and animals has created new species so in a sense, the old species has evolved. Anthropological evidence such as fossils show that some creatures which now live on land at one time lived in the water. If we put aside the discussion of how everything got started, as well as the "man from ape" debate, I see evolution as a fact and find no conflict with my Christian faith if applied as I have outlined.

The process of evolution is hardly that much of a "progressive ideology"; the general idea is change over time with respect to living creatures, based on mechanisms such as sexual selection and fitness based on environmental situations. The gist of it: if you can't survive in your environment long enough to mate, your genes (and thus your traits) will not pass on. If no one wants to mate with you, your genes will not pass on. Those who can get that far get to pass on their genes, and prevailing traits become more predominant. Not that big of an idea, really. I believe most people are highly confused about what the "Theory" of Evolution is. Evolution is proven; living things do change over time. The "theory" part, though, is HOW this happens; the "Theoretical" part of this is a question of what mechanisms drive evolution. Darwin's theory was that it happens because of "natural selection". What Darwin's theory lacked was the knowledge of genetics, which better explained the phenomenon of evolution. To put it in perspective, take a look at the "Theory" of Gravity; The question is not whether Gravity exists or not (as it certainly DOES), but WHAT Gravity is caused by. Scientific meanings of words differ from common language, which is another problem. "Theory" in common language is a guess. "A theory in science, however, is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests . . . A theory is an idea that has a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study." (http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/phys_math/scienc e.html) Science, as taught in high school, is the tip of the iceberg, at best (*I mean, look at what most adults think: they think that the Big Bang has something to do with Evolution of Species. That's just kind of sad that people confuse cosmology with biology). To be truly up-to-date on the subject, the best thing to do is expand your knowledge by reading articles in various scientific publications on it, follow up on news stories where this topic is discussed, etc. A high school biology class does not teach much anything about evolution; classes in genetics and zoology in the college level would better explain such things. *added note

I think not. Since I am currently enrolled in a science class in an American high school, I am a little more up to date on this issue than the rest of you. Evolution is still being taught as a THEORY meaning, by defintion, that it is NOT fact. Every leading biologist will tell you that evolution is still theory, mounting evidence besides. And you could have all the evidence in the world for evolution, but there are some questions that science just can't answer that the textbooks seem to just, gloss over.

Evolution is a fact. We have evolved as a race since Ive been alive and Im only 35. Look at the average height, size, strength and intelligence of the human race in just 30 years. Too many people associate evolution with fish-ape-people. Evolution is change in any given thing. Who can say we havent evolved as a race. One day you poof! Wow, look a human being just appeared in a garden.look! Another one. And then, they populated the earth. Just dont do this at home kids, its incest people will have to come to your senses. There is absolutely ZERO proof of the existence of a magical being that created us to amuse him and have people to praise him. Furthermore, its a silly story with so many holes in it that ANY rational person with even the slightest ounce of common sense could see right though it. Please, I dont need an ultimate reward or a horrible consequence to do the right thing. Only weak people who need others to help them make the right decisions believe in that crap.

Yeah, thats why we still have monkeys. Don't forget all the remains of the thousands of versions that existed between apes and man over the millions of years between.

Now that's funny. Ever wonder how our science scores are among the lowest among first-world nations? Ain't facts a bitch? Would you foot-washing, snake-handling church illiterates like to use a time-machine and go back and torture Galileo for inventing the telescope? That was another theory that the church didn't buy. . . Oh, and dinosaurs are really 3,000 years old and gravity is also just another 'theory' that you can't prove thus it's false.

There are very few facts entirely provable,and this Theory isn't without it's faults-but it's a better theory than the Myth/Parable of Genesis.

It's scientifically proven that to some degree evolution does exist. Now whether you accept the theory for all animal life is another story. I personally believe in evolution and also accept that Christ was the son of God. I don't find these two incompatible. For those of us who think biblical text is not necessarily literal but metaphor the theories actually coalesce quite well. However, I do believe for children it is important to not teach evolution but Creationism when they are young in an effort to formulate the positive behavioral traits necessary to possess high moral standards. As the child grows I believe the incorporation of evolutionary theory can be accomplished gradually when the child is mature enough to understand.

Evolution is both theory AND fact; works better than anything alse currently going, and is fairly open to correction as information-gathering methods become more sophisticated. Give the tykes a leg up in this arena, and perhaps the rest of the world won't consider us such a brain-dead backwater.

That is one of the most stupidest things to teach your children. How ridiculous does this sound, 'The universe created itself!' We must live in a very efficient universe! I heard one opinion on a debate on some newsgroup, and that was the reason why the devil makes us believe that evolution is fact, is because he wants us to believe that he (the devil) doesn't exist. That means he can attack as many people as he likes. Well that's not the only reason why the devil put the theory into Darwin's mind. I don't know enough about evolution to give you a scientific argument, but I do know a good website that deals with this issue and it is called answersingenesis.org which is written by scientists. Put it this way, scientists get really excited when they listen into their space transmitting telescopes (that sends radio waves into space in the hope that an alien being might tune into it and send us a transmission,) when they even hear, beep, beep beep. Because that could be an intelligent form of life trying to communicate with Earth. They think a few mathematical beeps are symbolic of intelligence. Yet they have the whole DNA code which is far more complex, yet they say they don't believe that an intelligent creator created it. If they really didn't believe in God, then why defend the theory of evolution. What are they afraid of, that maybe their beliefs are wrong and they have to give control of their lives over to a supreme being? Why be so determined to disprove something you don't believe in. Put it this way, I don't go out of my way to disprove father Christmas (Santa's) existance when people say that he doesn't exist. This is because I have nothing to be afraid of. But maybe these evolutionists know that maybe there is a God out there but are afraid of surrendering their lives to Him.

I currently live in the Bible belt and I have never have met more ignorant people. Most don't even KNOW what the theory of evolution is or that there is more than one theory. Most don't know what evidence is out there-why? Because it isn't taught in schools or anywhere else. They're trained to close their ears and their minds to anything about evolution. All we get is the 1 minute little bite of information that a pastor might make while slamming evolution. My favorite was I don't know about you but I'd rather believe that I was made by God than that I come from an ape. Now that's a real argument. I believe in evolution but I'm not so sure that we can't have both. Who's to say that man may have evolved from some kind of organism in the sea but God gave us our souls?

a plain hard core fact. a theory in science is not the same thing as a theory in common conversation. almost all Scientific theories are fact. look, i can understand you folks in Jesusland wanting to teach kids about 7 days and other fairytales, but why can't you do this in your churches or at home? why must you insist on pushing this on a public that doesn't want it? why can't you just be happy in your own faith and leave people alone to make their own decisions?

About the only part I would agree with I sum up like this: Death seeks out the stupid.

Bible- Amazing archaelogical evidence and findings to back it up. My professor right now was an archaeologist in Israel and its amazing to hear some of the sites or documents they excavated and found backing up the some of the sites, kings, currency, etc. mentioned in the Bible. I laugh when somebody tries to say the Bible is fiction. Evolution on the other hand, no archaeological evidence to back it up, the more they dig up, the more evolution has been proven to be false.

Of course evolution is a fact. We just haven't figured out all of its complexities yet. When we didn't know that DNA existed, or how it worked, did it mean that it wasn't a fact? It is a scientific theory supported by observable facts. I just don't get how people can take a faith document such as the Bible and torture it until it screams and agrees to become some type of historical record. Poor Bible.

If my child (when I eventually have one) is presented with the theory of evolution and also has been taught religion, if s/he decides that they believe in God, I won't stifle that. I'm not a religious person and I do believe in the evolution theory, but I'm not going to force my point of views on anyone. Its up to them to decide.

This spark of life as IJR calles it is a protein. Yes, scientists created what they think was the primordial ooze and charged it with the equivalent of lightning. and generated a protein. A protein similar to those found in organisms' cells. Not even a protein found in living cells. Just similar. As for common sense. It is easier to believe, for me anyway, that the some 250 species of dogs that exist today evolved from the two that survived on Noah's ark than frome a puddle of ooze.

Only if you want the kid to be a moron like the parent.

It isn't a fact, per se, but a theory. But then again, creationism is also a theory. It goes back to the phrase, Did God create man or did man invent God? and right now, we can't be completely sure either way. I tend to lean more toward evolution, although I do believe God. I just think we shouldn't think of the Bible as a historical text, because it clearly isn't. The Bible dates the earth to be around 6,000 years old, whereas carbon testing can date the world to billions of years old.

i will let them form their own opinion on evolution. despite all the info out there, i really don't know what to think. not that it keeps me up nights.

The better science teachers (and scientists) know you don't present theory as absolute fact. The better science teachers also do not purposely censor chapters in a textbook. Some parents stress out about the former, others the latter. As for the first type of stress, I have yet to hear a convincing argument to how young people learning about fossils and Darwinian concepts undermines their religious faith. As for the second type of stress, undereducating young people is a definite problem, but it is seldom due to squelched book learning.

Then, why do they still call it a theory and why are the people who worship this theory so afraid of letting the theory of creation enter into the argument? Just wondering.

As certain as I am that we are evolving as a species, there is only one true problem with this theory: how did it start? At least creationists took the time to explain that one. Now what? Numbah, as is usually the case, is correct. Brief, concise and right on target.