is evolution theory scientifically proven?
403935
No theory is ever "scientifically proven".  Anyone who uses language like that doesn't understand science.  What happens is that the body of evidence grows, competing theories are *disproven*, and eventually you reach that point where to withold acceptance would be irrational.  \n\nEvolution theory is *not* quiet on the issue of "intermediary species" (the correct term is 'transitional forms' ... see Source below).\n\nNor is it quiet on the "basic assumption" of irreducible complexity (it is not a basic assumption).  E.g., the eye does not have to be in it's current level of complexity to be useful ... a light-sensitive spot is useful, a light-sensing cup is more useful, a light-sensing fluid-filled cup is more useful; a light-sensing fluid-filled cup with muscles to control focus is more useful ... etc. etc.  The complex bones in the ear were once useful as hinged jawbone in ancestral reptiles.  \n\nEvolution theory is *not* quiet on these issues.  Anyone who told you otherwise just doesn't want you to hear it.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
168123
Physical evidence? As in the sort of evidence that shows evolution is true (fossils, modern animal morphology, distribution of modern animals, DNA, etc.)\n\nNone.\n\nBut, if people want to believe in a god. Or two. Or several. They have that right. And the vast majority of people who do believe do not need the sort of scientific proof to be certain they are right.\n\n\n(And just a comment above, the world and life are very much NOT put together perfectly. Just for starters most of the DNA we have is not good for anything, only a small amount is for genes. This makes sense from the pov of evolution, but not from a instant creation. Unless god is sloppy.)
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
419504
I think you mean evolution?\nI don't think scientists hide facts.  Scientists are paid to publish their findings.  Hiding facts or data would not be to their personal benefit.  Evolution is a scientific theory so yes it is "scientific".  It is a theory just like the atomic theory...you know, the one that is the basis for all modern chemistry.  In my opinion evolution is to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry.  Maybe that isn't the best analogy, but my point is that acceptance of evolution as a mechanism of organismal change, and that organisms have evolved from common ancestors is a fundemental idea underlying numerous aspects of molecular biology and medical genetics.
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
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .
1043983
The theory is still the same- altho every thing has been prooven wrong along time ago! There has never been any scientific proof for evolution!  Dr. Kent Hovind is offering a quarter of a million dollars to whoever can proove the evolution theory! Nobody has yet! As it staes the evolution theory is still a THEORY!
225506
For the most part they do not understand the theory of evolution, or the scientific meaning of the word "theory."  I see people all the time who think they can refute evolution with questions like "If people came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"\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.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embry
361147
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.
881611
Evolution is a fact, backed up by science. God is a hypothesis, 'backed-up' by the bible. The problem is that the bible is not backed-up by anything.
444517
Evolution is fact.  Think about it.
330878
No, I don't belive in it, but we are all Intitled to our own opinions.. If you compair the words of the bible to what modern scientists are coming up then the bible's right and there is no proof of scientests being right.. but yeah.. if your opinion is that evolution is true. .then I'm not trying to push anything at you...
889908
Occam's Razor does not prove evolution. The evidence proves evolution. \n\nYour question is based on a misunderstanding of the principle of Occam's Razor. It is not about how many words it takes to explain, or even "the simplest answer is the correct one", or, but "the answer that explains the evidence best and posits the fewest entities". \n\nCreationism violates Occam's Razor because it takes the same evidence as science does, but posits an extra, infinitely complex, entity - ie God - as necessary to explain it.\n\nScience says "we can explain this without invoking an extra entity which is more complicated than the universe, for which there is no evidence, and which has no explanation".
1159763
The theory of evolution is backed by a lot of scientific proof, while religion isn't. Science is what we teach in schools. If you or your child think that intelligent design is what is correct, you can think of it as being informed as to what the theory of evolution is, not being told what actually happened.
684403
As a scientist, I try not to "believe" in something because it is appealing, but rather to consider the available evidence and use that information to reach a flexable conclusion that will change as additional information becomes available. Based on the available scientific evidence, I think it extremely likely that the principles underlying the theory of evolution are accurate. I therefore "believe" the theory of evolution, but not in the sense that one believes in God, but rather in the sense that I can assume it's true as necessary but I'm prepared to accept an alternate version of the theory or even to reject it if there is scientific evidence that is sufficient to warrent this change. \n\nHere's some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution:\n\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.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the