If darwins theory is just a theory why do so many people believe it to be true?
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
100842
coz, the it is vary rare and only beacuse it is rare people think it is true
860655
It's stated as a "theory" becuase that is a scientific way of saying things.  You believe in the THEORY of aerodynamics if you've ever been on a plane, but that too is worded as a theory.  Ditto the THEORY of gravity.\n\nThis article, "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" is good\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
210421
Everything but Darwinian evolution "theory" has pretty much fallen by the wayside.  Lamarck is easy to refute; it is the selection process every time, which is observable.  Spontaneous generation is simply absurd; also observable.  Creationism is an attempt to suggest that God did it one way when in fact he did it another; by the motivation of mate selection and child care.  "Mother nature's way," if you will.\n\nNatural selection basically says that mate selection, which determines the available genes, together with survival of the offspring, is what moves evolution.  Success in reproduction is basically viable grandchildren, since having sterile or non-reproducing children means the end of that particular line (like in my family).\n\nWe can see it in small ways on the short term, and we can see it in the fossil record in the long term.  The only reason it is called a theory and not a fact is to placate the creationists.  I suspect one of the reasons fundamentalists are against people marrying who are not of the same skin color is to avoid admitting that people change by that method.  But frankly, some of the most attractive people around are those of mixed heritage.  They tend to get the best traits of both parents; every farmer and animal breeder knows that.
987774
It's the best scientifically tested explaination that we have.  Believe me, scientists aren't so eager to fall into line as you might think.  If someone could get recognition by scientifically disproving the theory of evolution to any great extent, it will be done.
289312
>A lot of people,including myself and a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.\n\n>Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n•According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n•However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n•The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n•Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n•Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n•Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n•It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n•Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n•Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n•Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n•The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n•Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n•The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n•New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n•"Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
629435
They are neither Darwinist nor Evolutionist. Such -isms are indicative only of belief systems, not of processes of fact. You can no more have an 'evolutionist' than you can have a 'gravitationist' or a 'germist'. There simply are no terms for people who accept the available evidence, except perhaps 'cynics'.\n\nWe don't have terms for people who believe in the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease or the theory of evolution. Those things are all simply facts, as far as facts are possible.\n\nDarwinist is completely incorrect since Darwinism as a theory was falsified over 60 years ago. Nobody accepts Darwinsim any more. At an absolute stretch you might be able to apply the term 'neo-Darwinist'.\n\nBut realistically the only correct term I can think of is 'cynic'.
1081012
Well, I believe in the theory of evolution, not exactly Darwin's original model, since that's pretty old and has been revised (DNA, genetics, fossils, etc).\n\nAs to why some folks choose not to believe, there are several reasons I can think of :\n\n1) The idea that man evolved from a non-human creature is near unthinkable. Many people find it ludicrous that we are closely related to some big hairy beast that sits and scratches its butt at the zoo.\n\n2) We like to be in the "center", and evolution tells us that we aren't 'special', whereas religion makes humans THE important species. Kinda like why people didn't believe Galileo at first.\n\n3) Religion. If you grow up learning one thing, it's pretty hard to convince yourself otherwise.\n\n4) If evolution is indeed true, then the BIble can't be taken literally. Adam and Eve is one of the most significant stories in the Bible (as well as the Quran), if that's just a parable, what else is?\n\nProbably some other reasons as well, I can't think of any more right now. Good luck on your research, btw :)
321606
The answers I see to this question sadden me about the state of our country.\n\nThey reject evolution without understanding it.  They think "theory" is a bad word, when it is just an accurate word for a testible mechanism explaning the diversity of life on earth.  Theories are not meant to be proven, so to say that evolution is unproved is a non sequiter.  A theory is an overarching testable explanation for phenomenon.  Repeated test in geology, biology, genetics and other fields do have PROVEN expirements that support the theory.  To claim otherwise is either a lie or ignorance (usually the latter).\n\nThey think all scientists are evil, deceitful and lying, despite the fact that many of them are Christian and not one (not one, mind you) of the millions of scientist have ever come out and said "It was just a hoax!  Evolutionists are all liars!!!".\n\nThey hold that a mere religious belief somehow trumps empirical fact.\n\nAnd worst of all, they bascially say that their God is too incompenant to have used evolution as the mechanism to bring about Man.  They think he has to work like a magician pulling literal rabbits and humans out of a hat, and fail to credit him with the ability to simply create the elegant and simple mechanism of evolution.\n\nIt is indeed sad to see such strawman versions of evolution trumpeted as being the real deal.  Ignorance is not bliss.\n\nAmazingly about 60% of Americans don't accept evolution as a valid theory (again, not a bad word).  In all other industrialized nations, that number is in the teens at the highest.  We are already failing in math and science compared with the rest of the world, and this anacronistic way of thinking will only hasten our downfall as a technological powerhouse.\n\nPerhaps they should all actually study what evolution ACTUALLY is, as opposed to parroting the empty platitudes of creationist websites and ignorant preachers.
999019
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?\nSince the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inan
229992
Yes.  It is typically taught as fact.  In reality evolution should not even be classified as a theory, as it has never gotten out of the hypothesis stage.
41546
I think most scientists believe what they are doing is true, but there is a lot of pressure to succeed and come up with something to please the stock holders.\n\n    It has been learned recently that Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution, was actually lying to us all.   Did you know that he knew that what he was writing was all a lie?   The reason  we know this is that it made him physically sick because he had a vomit basin in his study and he vomitted twice a day into it.
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
1042151
Evolution is a *fact*.  It is not a theory.  The theory part of evolution is related to the *mechanism* of evolution.  The best known theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's, which is called natural selection, or "survival of the fittest."  It is his explanation on how evolution can occur.  This theory may or may not be true (and it most likely is because it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense), but it does not make evolution itself impossible if that particular theory didn't pan out.  \n\nPeople don't want to "believe" in evolution because they feel it is contradicting their particular religious beliefs, which, by the way, is just silly.  Another reason could be that it is difficult for us to comprehend things that happen over a long period of time, like a small stream that has carved out an entire valley.  Evolution of living organisms takes a really really *long* time.  It doesn't happen overnight.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
577976
Whether or not someone "believes" in evolution dosn't change the fact of it.\n\nAging most likely isn't a product of evolution. Living takes energy, and reproduction takes even more. The biological makeup of any organism can only tolerate just so much stress and normal wear and tear. After awhile, the organism begins to undergo chemical and organic breakdown. The differences in life spans between species are most likely the result of the sort of energy expenditures for which the particular species in question were programed for.