Theory of evolution

[katie tully]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by 1bpcsmem

While the theory of evolution consist of a series of evidence such as comparative biochemistry, comparative embryology, comparative anatomy, bio-geographical distribution, evidence from fossil record to support its claim. It cannot not be taken completely as a scientific law due to varied inconsistencies, the theory of biological evolution as expressed by Charles Darwin and Wallace is a scientific interpretation of observed phenomenon, it is hypothetically not backed up by actual scientific testing and thus cannot be expressed as a scientific law. Other various forms of theory of biological evolution derived from different culture and religion also exist within the sophisticated intellects of the scientific community which provides further reason why the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution cannot be taken as the correct interpretation of the evolving nature of many species. Other infamous theories evident in the fields of science include those formulated by cosmologist to explain the formation of the universe (E.g. Big Bang theory, Steady State theory etc.) which are classified as theories and NOT scientific laws despite the astounding evidence retrieved as proof of them. The reason for this is similar to the reason why the theory of biological evolution is classified by scientists as a theory and NOT a scientifc law.

I hope I was capable in answering your question. =]

I just killed myself.

[katie tully]

Originally Posted by alcalder

The scientific method dictates that something must be reproducible for it to be proven.

Evolution, as a theory, is no more provable that creation (another valid interpretation of the available evidence - and the same evidence, not different evidnce).

If you have been led to believe that evolution is a fact, rather than the theory of a disaffected group of people who have interpreted evidence with one basic premise in mind "there is no God" and therefore "everything must have come about over millions of years gradually" then you need to open your mind and read more.

Can I suggest (to open a MASSIVE can of worms which usually continues with name calling and someone calling me ignorant and so on, because that realy helps the discussion - even Richard Dawkins name calls, so there you go, it must be OK) you have a look at Creation Ministries International - Bible Evolution Intelligent Design for the stuff you will not be told at school or read in any scientific jornal because they won't put it in (because they get lambasted for doing so, even if the science is completely correct and written by non-creationists - believe me it happens!).

Just a thought.

But even the ig Bang cannot be proven and there are many different theories that could explain it.

We have all just been blinded by one powerfully supported theory (in the form of evolution) to the idea that there may be other possibilities.

I just killed my dead self.

[terminator69]

Originally Posted by Kwayera

I wouldn't ascribe it as unreliable (the mechanisms of evolution (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc) are pretty well understood, and themselves pretty predictable), but unpredictable? Sure. You'd never be able to PREDICT the product of evolution.

If you can't predict the outcome, how could evolution be reliable? (not the processes, but the individual/overall outcome)

Anyway, should the question have been marked correct if I had left out the word 'unreliable'?

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by terminator69

If you can't predict the outcome, how could evolution be reliable? (not the processes, but the individual/overall outcome)

Anyway, should the question have been marked correct if I had left out the word 'unreliable'?

That's what I mean. It's reliable because its processes are - evolution will always occur in biological systems. You just can't predict what will happen.

And I have no idea