Why do people insist on calling the Science of Genetics, evolution?
351657
Because they don't understand the difference. And they probably heard someone else's interpretation rather than looking it up themselves.
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
679242
It amazes me that those professing to endorse evolutionary theory are at least as ignorant of it as the Creationists.\n\n\nHumans indisputably are descended from apes. We are apes ourselves. Homo erectus was an ape. H. habilis was an ape. Australopithiecus afarensis was an ape. Ramapitheithecus was an ape. All our recent ancestors have been apes. \n\nNot only were human apes in the past, we are apes today. We belong to the same evolutionary branch as gibbons and orangs and chimps.\n\nWE ARE APES.\n\nAll humans alive to day are apes. All humans that have ever lived were apes.\n\nWe are not some special clade. We belong to the ape clade. You can not draw an evolutionary line around chimps and gibbons without including humans. \n\nWE HUMANS ARE APES AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.\n\nEnd of discussion.
72549
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.
755030
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
471387
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
701731
Because most people will believe what they personally CANNOT test. \n\ni.e. the "theory" of evolution :)
1072372
That is a good question. I believe it is because they are taught this lie in school. Actually evolution is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:\n\n* Cells and DNA\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
733225
Science/evolution is how.\nReligion/God is why.
935289
I think a lot of these questions come from people just vacuously repeating what they read on anti-science websites. This is an argument that is many decades old and based on a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. They seem to believe that every member of one species gradually changes until they are so different that they become a new species and the parent species is entirely converted en masse. They don’t understand that modification with descent involves multiple branching – it’s not a tree it’s a bush. They also think that evolution proceeds merely by mutation and is a purely random process, and so, incapable of forming complex biological systems. In short, they completely misunderstand evolution and are not interested in educating themselves. They may still disagree with evolution if they ever bothered to understand it properly but they have no wish to pursue it and argue from a position of ignorance. \n\nI would also guess that most of these people believe humans are better than all other organisms – the crown jewel of creation – the ultimate species – this is the height of arrogance.
746231
ONLY a theory? hehe! Then those people don't even understand the terminology they're using. Yes a theory is a proven hypothesis (versus disproven).  Only when someone can disprove it will it lose it's status.  So evolution is a theory. :)
633089
wat are you talking about?  Evolution is something that every major scientist agrees with.  It does fit with up-to-date findings.  Hello, we just figured out the last DNA thing and that totally supports the idea of evolution.  Also, a theory must be disproved to be discarded, evolution has not been disproved.  Go back to school!
864933
Obviously by design. This phenomenon, our eyes, etc all shout design. But, some would like to credit  the Art of Evolution for all these things. Why Art and not Science?\n\nBecause Science is exact, art is imaginary. For further info click on my name and look at my postings why evolution is fake.
1143322
yes as many religious zelots do not want to apressiate the way science works...         scientists dont just read in a book like its dogma...    they come up with a theory or hypothosys, and then test it.   skepticism is what rules science...   if you have something you want to prove, you need lots of evidence..  and then others also have to gather evidence and present it before it becomes proven as a law.   The reason evolution is still a theory goes to show the true beauty of the scientific prosses, untill it is difinativly proven it will stay as that.   Religon on the other hand just tells...  they dont test, they dont scrutinize, they say tell how it is...    how is that a more trustworthy system?   sure I could say that a majical lepricon that lives in the trees makes the oxigen we breath, but I would be totally wrong,   why becuase I just made it up!!!  I didnt test the idea, and no one else independantly verified my findings...    yes evolution has some holes, but don't come along and say that a majical white robed man in the sky is a better explination!   evolution is the best theory out there, and it has been verified in many ways that lead alot of scientist to beleive its true...  and again the true beauty of science is that if somthign better comes along, it will be soon adopted, unlike religious zelots who will not change their mind if the truth was right in front of their face!\n\n\nand to the man that said evolution violates laws!  it does not violate laws of thermodynamics you douch!  damn you fools piss me off!  If it clearly violated a law it would have been rejected long ago, unless there was evidence as to why this was true.....dont use science to back up your claims of religon you make yourself sound like an idiot!    GOD violates the laws of thermodynamics!
1081289
People like you give the rest of christianity a bad name. If you don't want to get an education, why don't you just stop telling others what to believe. Evolution is real, live with it. Sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming isn't going to make the truth go away. its just going to make people like you look like morons.\nGod would not be proud of that kind of  juvenile nonsense.