Is Evolution real?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$9 Answers
I suggest you begin by reading this page, which will clear up some common misconceptions, before reading the rest of my answer:
Your friend is either lying or was lied to. The percentage of scientists in the relevant fields (as in, life scientists who are actually exposed to evolution in their fields, not like, computer scientists) who "doubt" evolution is about one TENTH of ONE percent, and shrinking.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Evolutionary scientists have responded to the utter silliness of attacking evolution on the basis of a "list of scientists who doubt evolution" or something similar with Project Steve, which can be read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Of course, it's not how many scientists agree with it that determines whether it's real, but the evidence. Which transitions nicely into:
The evidence for evolution is positively overwhelming. It would take several lifetimes to communicate ALL the evidence. I'll put it this way--there are larger problems/questions with the concept of gravity than there are with evolution (and gravity is "just a theory" too, in case you ever hear anyone say that about evolution). So, why aren't people making a big deal about gravity? Simple: they single out evolution simply because they can't come to grips with the fact that the fact of evolution does contradict a LITERAL interpretation of ancient creation myths.Here's just the tip of the iceberg as far as "proof".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Evolution is a fact (and a theory--that first URL will clear that up if it seems confusing). It occurs. It is THROUGH understanding of evolution that things like vaccines are possible. Claiming that evolution isn't "real" in a world that contains vaccines is like taking a deep breath in order to exclaim that air isn't "real". It's really THAT absurd a claim, and invariably made by people who don't understand what evolution even IS, and simply parrot nonsensical talking points from some dishonest anti-science peddler from the Discovery Institute without knowing how nonsensical they are.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Being real science, and with such importance to biology and medicine, the amount of material is great. You would do best to study entire courses in biology. Any brief "proof" does not give you the right picture.
You can, however, do experiments with creatures such as fruit flies in high school to establish with your own eyes how selection works and how the most basic elements of evolution occur. Then read about how similar evolution has be observed occurring in the wild with moths.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Even in our lifetimes, humans and animals have evolved!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
This is a good article from National Geographic called "Was Darwin Wrong?"; if you look at it, click on the pictures and their captions in the ZoomIn box on the left; these photos illustrate the article and really enhance its persuasiveness. This article was included in one of the Year's Best Science Writing books, and it explains evolution - and responses to common objections - very well.
So the answer to the question that the article title asks is "No." Darwin wasn't wrong.
As a side note, I've never heard of any scientists who argue against evolution who are not motivated by strong religious convictions. (There are plenty of strongly religious scientists who believe in evolution, though). Also, religious authorities used to dismiss science until it became clear that 1) convincing a country to abandon science is a losing battle, and 2) the courts made clear that only science can be taught in science class. #2 especially changed the game because suddenly there was an attempt to call creationism and related movements "science" (therefore making it legal to teach in public schools in the science classroom), and to deny that this "science" had any connection to religion (which is illegal to force students to learn). Long story short, the claim that there is a legitimate and active debate over the merits of evolution WITHIN the scientific community is false, and is a very recent tool specifically designed to get around previous court rulings in the US. (See the decision of the Pennsylvania judge who ruled against teaching intelligent design in public shools). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
To those of you who have a problem with this, let me be clear that nothing I have said here indicates that you don't have a right to believe what you want to believe. But I do think this distinction is important: science is not "what is true" but what is observable, measurable, and verifiable. The great spiritual questions are important, but they are not science, because they are not beholden to human observation and manipulation (thank goodness!). If it is true that heaven exists, for example, the fact that it is true does not make the statement scientific. It just makes it true but beyond the observational skills of living humans most likely. Natural history, and the evidence of evolution, can be observed.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Even Pope admits it!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html
Look here for elepahants:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The second picture is very funny, but it's actually a misconception about monkeys. We didn't come from monkeys--both we and monkeys came from a now-extinct ancestor. That's why evolutionary scientists refer to our respective species as "cousins" instead of using a parent-child metaphor.
Just another little common misconception to clear up that many probably aren't aware of.
The better (and more interesting question) to ask is: "Is Reality Evolutionary"
think about it.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$However, many scientists have been moving away from evolution and more to a theory of some sort of creationism. This is not to say God created everything, but to say that something from somewhere else had influence on the creation of beings on earth.
There are many different theories on the origin of life on earth and you may choose which one you want in order to satisfy your inner need. The problem with calling an unproved theory, fact, is that when you do so you assume too many factors which are unprovable. Throughout the ages people have been wrong many times over with such "facts" as the earth being flat or the earth being the center of the universe.
Just because we have made huge leaps in science does not mean we know everything or ever will. A theory is a theory until fully proven from start to finish. If someone could invent a way to go or see back in time, then we may get our answer, but until then evolution will remain a theory just as creationism is a theory. You may "feel" very strongly there is enough evidence one way or the other, but to say that it scientific fact and not be able to present inconclusive evidence from start to finish, makes the term "fact" incorrect.
Evolution is not a fact. You cannot prove the origin of species one way or another no matter how hard anyone tries. There is not a need to argue that point as no one currently alive can do so.
However, many scientists have been moving away from evolution and more to a theory of some sort of creationism. This is not to say God created everything, but to say that something from somewhere else had influence on the creation of beings on earth.
There are many different theories on the origin of life on earth and you may choose which one you want in order to satisfy your inner need. The problem with calling an unproved theory, fact, is that when you do so you assume too many factors which are unprovable. Throughout the ages people have been wrong many times over with such "facts" as the earth being flat or the earth being the center of the universe.
Just because we have made huge leaps in science does not mean we know everything or ever will. A theory is a theory until fully proven from start to finish. If someone could invent a way to go or see back in time, then we may get our answer, but until then evolution will remain a theory just as creationism is a theory. You may "feel" very strongly there is enough evidence one way or the other, but to say that it scientific fact and not be able to present inconclusive evidence from start to finish, makes the term "fact" incorrect.
A good scientist will acknowledge evolution as a theory without using their personal creed or feeling to determine the outcome.
Evolution as a loose term is very real. People evolve to their situations and surroundings as do animals. Computers evolve, ipods evolve and so do the behaviors we change from day to day based on our maturity. Unfortunately, evolution as an explanation to where everything on earth came from is still a theory.
A good scientist will acknowledge evolution as a theory without using their personal creed or feeling to determine the outcome.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
"Evolution is not a fact. You cannot prove the origin of species one way or another no matter how hard anyone tries. There is not a need to argue that point as no one currently alive can do so."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. People like this say "evolution is not a fact" and then proceed to demonstrate their complete and utter ignorance of what evolution even IS.
What do you have to say about this, anzollo?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
"However, many scientists have been moving away from evolution and more to a theory of some sort of creationism."
A complete and utter LIE, plain and simple. When the percentage of life scientists that supports evolution reaches ONE PERCENT, let me know. Right now, it's about 0.15% in the US (since religious influence is arguably much greater in the US than in any other industrialized nation), and under 0.1% everywhere else.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
See, this is why anyone who is paying attention doesn't take people like you seriously; you feel the need to lie to get your point across, and it shows how disingenuous you are.
"There are many different theories on the origin of life on earth and you may choose which one you want in order to satisfy your inner need."
1. Case in point--"the origin of life on earth" has to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. It would help you to figure out WHAT exactly you're criticizing before you start declaring established science "not a fact".
2. There are actually NO theories of abiogenesis yet--the science, and the field ITSELF, is too new. Right now we have a bunch of hypotheses, and as new evidence comes in, that number will be narrowed down until we have only one that fits all the evidence. Then after that one is tested rigorously and stands up to it, THAT is when it will be called a scientific theory. You can try to equivocate "theory" in order to make it sound like scientists are just making random guesses, but nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.notjustatheory.com
3. By what confusion have you determined that picking and choosing whatever "you want in order to satisfy your inner need" is any kind of science, much less good science? Reality is what it is, not what is most SATISFYING to you. That's the kind of thing I was talking about before--evolution denialists invariably turn out to be people unable to cope with the fact that reality isn't always going to line up with their presuppositions.
"The problem with calling an unproved theory, fact, is that when you do so you assume too many factors which are unprovable."
Oi.
1. The problem here is that you have absolutely no idea what "theory" means in science. Read this very carefully--it's worded so that even the most lay of laypeople can understand what it means to be a "theory" in science:
http://www.notjustatheory.com
"Throughout the ages people have been wrong many times over with such "facts" as the earth being flat or the earth being the center of the universe."
Nice try at oversimplifying all of science to "right or wrong". Science is constantly refined, and anything that's erroneous is a result of our limited perception and tools. Do you think it's coincidence that we learned a lot more about astronomy after Hubble was built?
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
It is much better to be wrong and be able to correct oneself (as science is) than it is to presume to be right and REFUSE to examine oneself for errors.
"Just because we have made huge leaps in science does not mean we know everything or ever will."
No one has claimed that, straw man builder.
"A theory is a theory until fully proven from start to finish."
Wrong. In science, a theory is a collection of related scientific facts that come together to explain how and why something happens. It astonishes me how one can combine such arrogance with such ignorance. One more time:
http://www.notjustatheory.com
By the way, want to know what else is 'just a theory'? Well, let's see: genetics, magnetism, gravity, germ theory, Einstein's theory of relativity...do you HONESTLY think we call ALL of these things theories because none of them have been proven? This is ELEMENTARY science. You must have spent a lot of time with your fingers in your ears in school.
"evolution will remain a theory just as creationism is a theory."
Creationism is not a scientific theory. Creationism is not even a scientific HYPOTHESIS. In fact, it's not science AT ALL. For something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, you have to be able to prove it wrong. Now, if you're able to explain to me how one could falsify a SUPERNATURAL INTELLIGENT AGENT, I will Paypal you every cent I have.
Once again, claiming that they're both theories is at BEST a reflection of utter ignorance of what "theory" means in a scientific context, and at worst a BLATANT dishonest deception of equivocation, trying to fool people into thinking that in science, "theory" means the same thing it means in colloquial use (hunch, guess, etc.).
Evolution is not a fact because of anyone's "feeling". It is a fact because of the evidence. Maybe "feelings" are how you determine what's what in your faith, but that's not how science works, so I'd suggest you stop pretending that evolution is some competing religion, because it isn't. NOTHING is taken on faith or decided based on "feeling" when it comes to evolution.
"A good scientist will acknowledge evolution as a theory without using their personal creed or feeling to determine the outcome."
And that's exactly what they do. I'll add that an intellectually honest person, scientist or not, will acknowledge that evolution, along with gravity, genetics, etc. are not "just" theories; they are TRIUMPHANTLY theories. If you only knew how much evidence, how much testing, how much WORK it takes for a scientific theory to be established, you would realize how utterly RIDICULOUS it is to use "theory" as some kind of PEJORATIVE to evolution.
That is a question like asking, does god exist? It will differ in answer from person to person. Personally i believe it does, now you can see it on small levels as well, say in viruses for instants, they are so simple in there system that it only takes them one year to adapt and evolve hints why the common cold and flu are different every year you get them. this is a site that gives some pro's and con's for evolution, check it out:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The video focuses on scientists who 'dared' question Darwinism.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Oh, and one more thing: when the Expelled people were asked why they never talked to Ken Miller, a very active and well-known proponent of evolution, the key witness in the Dover case, about this movie, the response given was that his inclusion would have "confused the movie unnecessarily".
What did they mean? Well, you see, the thing is that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, and including him would have been an inconvenient truth that would have gotten in the way of their 'evolution = atheism' argument.
That movie was panned even by Fox. It has a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes, and is full of blatant, bald-faced lies.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
clarusvisum, you don't have to explain the status of evolution in the scientific community to me, and I am not arguing against the validity of the theory of evolution. However you are not approaching the matter from a scientific perspective while saying that you wish people would approach the matter from a scientific perspective. You don't have to zealously defend evolution. When you belittle people who support creationism and approach the matter from an ideological perspective, then you are approaching the matter the same way it is approached by creationists.
Also to everyone else, many of your arguments are about microevolution. Any debate on evolution is about macroevolution, which is an important distinction.
And just to clarify, I do strongly support the theory of evolution, and I hope that everyone will agree with me on that someday soon. I just disagree convincing them is sometimes approached.
morriss003: I say there is no controversy, meaning that the science is not in dispute. The thing is, creationists act like it IS in dispute, because if this controversy was exposed for what it really is--a bunch of religious people taking offense to science that offends their established beliefs, and declaring it wrong JUST BECAUSE they don't like what it concludes, and not because of any actual weaknesses in the science--no one would really consider it a "controversy". It would be accurately labeled as a fringe group of nuts in denial instead.
"I have faith that the vast majority of scientists in all the different disciplines are honest."
1. Honesty is not necessary. Even assuming all the scientists were lying, the proof is in the pudding. Our vaccines, for one, simply WOULDN'T WORK if we were wrong about evolution.
2. The evidence for evolution does NOT rely on you taking some scientist's word for it. The scientific journals are not locked up in a vault somewhere where you need to have some level of clearance to see them. You don't need to have "faith" in any of it.
3. Even assuming scientists were all dishonest, the process of peer review--the GAUNTLET that all published scientific research has to endure in order to make it into a journal--still works. Truth be told, you will earn a LOT more fame and fortune for overturning established science than you will for confirming it. Scientists have no problem one-upping each other, and MOST things submitted to scientific journals are rejected, as scientists are VERY willing to pick apart your methodology and point out even the slightest flaws in your data or research methods. No honesty is required for any of this to work, but the result is the same--all the stuff that gets published to peer-reviewed journals is SOLID. Really solid.
Your premise is false--no honesty is required to reach the conclusion that evolution's a fact. After all, the applications of that knowledge are all around us! Evolution is literally the cornerstone of modern biology. It's kind of like standing outside in the rain and claiming that water doesn't exist--no honesty required to see how ludicrous a claim it is.
Can you explain this peanut butter thing he was telling me about?
pmacdon1: It gets frustrating to see people lie to try and get their point across. Also, to accuse me to being ideological when I've linked to more evidence than anyone is a bit puzzling. Also, I know how you feel from what you wrote, but you're not the only one reading the comment I wrote in response, so I tried to make the point more general, and not only aimed at you. Sorry if that was confusing.
"You don't have to zealously defend evolution."
No one would have to if it wasn't under attack by groups like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute. But it is, and CONSTANTLY, so people need to. There is no shame in fighting back against deception and dishonest rhetoric, and I do it proudly.
"When you belittle people who support creationism and approach the matter from an ideological perspective"
No, I belittle arrogant ignorance and lying, as they should be belittled. When someone who doesn't even know the correct definition of "evolution" or of "theory" presumes they are in a position to declare the Theory of Evoultion wrong, I WILL correct them, and I'm not going to do it with kid gloves, because it takes a lot of WILLFUL ignorance and just plain dishonesty to do something like that, and I do not respect dishonesty.
As for macroevolution, what people in general need to realize is that "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are the exact same process! The only difference is the time scale. There is no mechanism that magically halts evolution at the species level, and so it's absurd for anyone to claim that one happens and the other doesn't.
pmacdon1: I never said that evolution, or anything in science, is above question. Indeed, it is science's ability to revise itself that makes it such a powerful tool for getting new knowledge.
But the fact is, there is no "controversy" about evolution. It is very well-established. The scientific community IS in consensus that evolution occurs, there is NOT an exodus of scientists abandoning the theory (a false claim mentioned by the original asker's friend--it is irritating for people to spread lies like this, you know), it is not a "theory in crisis" by any stretch of the imagination, and not ONE, not a single ONE, of the arguments the creationists make against it have any basis in evidence at all. That's the reality. There is no "controversy" in the scientific community at ALL. The "controversy" exists only in the minds of people so attached to their beliefs that they feel the need to dismiss out of hand anything and everything that contradicts them. The "controversy" is a total fabrication.
Creationists rely on rhetoric and deception to get their point across, which convinces me that they KNOW they don't have the evidence to overturn evolution (because it takes science to contradict science), and so I treat their dishonest tactics with the contempt and ridicule that they deserve.
Fact is, there is nothing new under the sun for creationists. They just keep rehashing and retrying the same old, debunked arguments over and over and over and OVER. There are still people out there who think that evolution being a "theory" means that it's not a fact! Should anyone be expecting a real, evidence-driven argument against evolution from people so scientifically-ignorant? Most of these people can't even accurately DEFINE the theory they rail so fervently against!
"But the fact is, there is no "controversy" about evolution."
There is a controversy about evolution or else we would not be discussing it. But there is no controversy about evolution in the scientific community. I have no access to a electron microscope. I haven't been to any archeological digs. So why do I believe that the theory of evolution is a sound theory that is backed up by a massive body of facts? Quite simply, I have faith. I have faith that the vast majority of scientists in all the different disciplines are honest. I have faith that the people who use this science to build rockets, find oil, and invent new substances are honest. I have faith that the publishers of scientific journals have reviewed the evidence for this science. I have faith that most teachers who teach this are not interested in an agenda but are interested in truth. I even have faith that most politicians will stand with facts and truth in the face of dogma.
How is this answer unhelpful? It's time to add the feature where you can see who rated answers which way, so that people don't rate stuff maliciously.
The peanut butter thing is the idea that life should spontaneously generate in a jar of peanut butter if the theory of evolution is true.
Here is a video: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/50013/
As an argument against evolution it does even make sense.
I would like to say that in my opinion the answer above and all the links provided approach evolution from a very ideological perspective. The idea that the theory of evolution is so sound that questioning it is unscientific is almost as silly as the peanut butter theory.
If you want to understand the arguments for both sides I would recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
Oh, wow, haven't heard that one in a while. I thought everyone who made that argument had been shamed out of it due to extreme absurdity.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 )"This peanut butter thing" is the most ridiculous attempt at "proof" against evolution since the banana argument ('the banana fits well in human hands, therefore God must have done it and evolution is wrong'--yeah, that's the whole argument), or the "crocoduck" argument (there exists no half-crocodile, half-duck, therefore evolution is wrong).
The argument here is essentially "because life doesn't form in jars of peanut butter, the idea that life can come from non-life is wrong". I can't even fathom the level of confusion and ignorance that would lead to such a conclusion, seriously. On top of that, the Theory of Evolution deals with the progression of life, NOT its origin. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Think about it; the stuff that was going on BEFORE there was life is obviously not going to fall under the field of BIOlogy at all! The "study of living things" doesn't have much to study before there is life. Abiogenesis, the study of life emerging from non-life, is a field of chemistry, not biology. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone making 'the peanut butter argument' to have even the most cursory knowledge of science--the fact that they get the FIELD wrong is hardly surprising.
This friend of yours has been drinking deep from the well of creationist deception. Please let him know that the concept that it is plausible (and SEVERAL scenarios in which it could happen are up in the air now--we're just in the process of narrowing it down right now--abiogenesis (the name for this field of science) is a VERY new science, after all) for life to emerge from non-life is VERY different from saying that life will emerge from any non-living substance hit with "light and heat", ESPECIALLY present/eminent life forms like ants (which are shown crawling on the peanut butter in the YouTube video where this nonsense comes from:
That is an excellent answer. I am not going to try to compete with that.