Evolution: theory or myth?

Question

Evolution: theory or myth?

Answer 1

You're mistaken on a couple of points.



First, evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life... just the development of it. Most people who accept evolution also accept the abiogenesis hypothesis, but this does not mean that the two are intertwined. Regardless of whether the early earth's chemical environment gave rise to life, or it was planted by aliens, or it was created by God, the theory of evolution stands apart from it.



The second point is that it *is* falsifiable. Not in the simple lab experiment way that you're thinking, though. This is partially because any theory as a whole is rarely falsifiable. Individual components are, and if enough of those supports crumble, then so does the theory, but a true theory is never balanced so precariously that one experiment can send it crashing down. The theory has led to numerous predictions, which can individually be tested. Look at the evolution of bats, for example. It was predicted that flight and echolocation evolved separately... which was later confirmed by fossils that appeared to be capable of flight but lacked the structures necessary for echolocation.



Since evidence is constantly being unearthed, it is entirely possible (and likely) that a discovery will necessitate adjustment of the theory. I find it kind of ironic that the straw man argument that creationists use ("I'll believe evolution when I see a monkey give birth to a human") is a piece of evidence that would nearly invalidate the theory, along with our current understanding of genetics.



Finally, I agree that Intelligent Design is a possibility... it's just not science. Science takes objective information at hand, cross-references it, analyzes it, then comes up with a conclusion, which can later be refined through collection of more evidence. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks "evidence" that supports it, while ignoring anything that contradicts it. What's more, this "evidence" is little more than evolution-bashing (taking quotes out of context, misinterpreting data, assuming that what we don't know now can never be known). In short, it relies on the false dichotomy that if evolution isn't true, then the only other option is ID.



I don't consider science a faith. It does assume that the universe operates on consistent rules, but then builds upon that with objective analysis and constant refinement. It's not faith to say that "every time I've let go of this apple, it has fallen to the ground, so it will also do so the next time." If anything, it's a matter of faith to assume that it *won't.*

Answer 2

"Evolution is a myth. The data support the idea of an intelligent designer just as well (or as poorly) as the idea of macroevolution."



No it doesn't. There is plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Looks at the well known evolution of the horse. We have found fossils showing each stage of the evolution. Clear features such as increase in size and development of the hoof are shown.



"Evolutionists must also have faith that simple life-forms evolved over geological ages into more complex life-forms via the extraordinarily rare mechanism of random beneficial mutations, and that dissimilar life-forms evolved from a common ancestor by the same mechanism."



There is no 'faith' here. There is evidence that suggests it is true. Similarities in DNA of all living animals suggests that there is a common ancestor. Also, genetic mutation is not a rare event, it happens all the time. It is only because the changes or so small and the fact that most mutations are not an advantage that means effects of evolution take 10's of thousands of years to be shown.



"The theory of evolution also fails to meet a critical criterion of a scientific theory: it cannot be falsified. To be considered scientific, it must be possible to devise a controlled test such that a negative result proves the theory false. But no such test exists for evolution."



There have been plenty of tests on the theory of evolution on bacteria etc. You might say "there's nothing to say it will hold for more complicated life", but on the other hand there's nothing to say it won't, and surely it's a lot more logical to say that it will indeed occur in more complicated life-forms.



"Evolutionists exercise faith that living organisms appeared spontaneously from nonliving matter on earth (abiogenesis)—or from extraterrestrial sources. Faith is required because no demonstration of this capability has ever been performed and because probability calculations argue strongly against it."



The fact is that this is NOT what the theory of evolution says. The theory of evolution tells is what happens to life once it has formed, not how it formed in the first place. People form opinions on the formation of life based on what is logical, but that has nothing to do with the creationist vs evolution argument. Neither theory truly explains how life developed in the first place.



In short: evolution has a significant amount of evidence going for it. The fossil record, experiments, computer simulations etc all suggest that the basic theory behind it is correct. The strongest thing it has going for it, in my opinion, is that is it entirely logical, which intelligent design is not.

Answer 3

> "Evolutionists exercise faith that living organisms appeared spontaneously from nonliving matter on earth (abiogenesis)—or from extraterrestrial sources."



Many "evolutionists" do indeed accept abiogenesis or the much less-likely panspermia as valid hypotheses for the origin of life on earth. But not all.

Evolution and the origin of life on earth are SEPARATE fields of biology. Evolution deals with how life changes (and has changed), not how it arose.



> "Faith is required because no demonstration of this capability has ever been performed and because probability calculations argue strongly against it."



Such probability calculations are flawed.

The typical example would be to state that there are 20 natural amino acids, so a 20 amino-acid long polypeptide has 1:20^20 (1.048576x10^26) odds of existing, which can be ignored as negligible.

BUT - this is just the odds of any one particular 20 amino-acid long polypeptide having that particular sequence. It is *not* the odds against it existing!



> "Evolutionists must also have faith that simple life-forms evolved over geological ages into more complex life-forms via the extraordinarily rare mechanism of random beneficial mutations, and that dissimilar life-forms evolved from a common ancestor by the same mechanism."



No faith is required as there is substantial evidence indicating that this is the case. The theory of evolution by natural slection was proposed 150 years ago, and it has gathered virtual mountains of supporting evidence.

For some example evidence, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent



> "The theory of evolution also fails to meet a critical criterion of a scientific theory: it cannot be falsified."



You are quite correct that evolution, in order to be true scientific theory, must be falsifiable.

But you are quite WRONG when you say that it cannot be falsified. Examples findings that would falsify all or some of evolutionary theory:

- a static fossil record;

- true chimeras (organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages, such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis;

- a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

- observations of organisms being created.



> "The data support the idea of an intelligent designer just as well (or as poorly) as the idea of macroevolution"



No it really doesn't.

For one thing - another important criterion of a scientific hypothesis is PARSIMONY, or Occam's Razor. This involves introducing the least number of variables into your hypothesis in order to explain the observations. And introducing a Creator or Designer (who must neccessarily be at least as complex as the objects and systems He is designing/creating) violates this criterion substantially!



> "For the record, I accept the scientific evidence for big bang cosmology, the age of the universe (13.7billion years) and the earth (4.5billion years) and for the evolution of species."



??? If you accept the evidence, why don't you accept the explanation?.



> "I say 'evolution' is a myth because whilst a myth may be true or false, it cannot be proved or disproved with current technology; a myth requires faith. Some people are obviously allergic to the word."



"Evolution" as commonly used for biology means two things:

[1] that organisms change in their phenotypes over time. This is a FACT, it has been observed multiple times from observations of speciation (both in the laboratory and in the wild), to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Industrial Melanism of the Peppered Moth, pesticide resistance in mosquitoes, and many, many more.

[2] the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". This part is (obviously) the theory explaining how and why the above observation happens and describing what the consequences are and have been for the natural world.



So the first part is FACT and is not disputed by even the most rabid "anti-evolutionist" (though they might try to make artificial distinctions between "microevolution" and "macroevolution - which are not terms commonly used by evolutionary biologists).

The second part is THEORY, but it is one of the most well-supported and most widely-accepted theories around. It has much more supporting evidence that the Big Bang theory you accept, for example.



> "Nice to see that at least one respondent has the honesty to acknowledge that intelligent design is a valid option."



Sure.

It is a perfectly valid philosophical (or theological) theory. But it is NOT a valid scientific theory.

It makes no predictions, it is not falsifible, and it is not parsimonious.

Answer 4

First, there is no such thing as an evolutionist - it most definitely isn't a group or religion that you belong to. People who study evolution in one form or another are usually biologists.



Second, evolution is neither theory or myth it is a fact. You can in certain instances see it happen with your own eyes.



The theory part, is how it works. Darwin isn't the only person to have suggested a mechanism - Lamarck is one other, but in terms of organic (i.e. biological) evolution it doesn't work - although it is a good descriptor for other types of evolution such as cultural or the persistence of languages.



Look at a wolf - around 12,000 years ago it was domesticated. There is ample evidence of this in the archaeological record. Look at modern dogs - there is hardly a size or shape that doesn't exist. This is because selection acts to change the genetic makeup of individuals i.e. evolution. If there was no evolution then all we would have after 12,000 years would be wolves, just as their wild ancestors, nothing would have changed. As some breeds originate well within historical records then we can be sure that not all domestic breeds always existed.



Also, a good theory can predict what should happen in the future under particular conditions. You can test that experimentally. If you select the fastest racehorses to breed the next generation then eventually racehorses get faster, until you run out of genetic variation. This is what has happened.



Often, for particular aspects of evolution there are competing theories - good experiments frequently disprove one theory, so evolutionary theories can be tested in both directions.

Answer 5

"Evolutionists exercise faith that living organisms appeared spontaneously from nonliving matter on earth (abiogenesis)—or from extraterrestrial sources."



Wrong. Evolution states that life adapts over time based on genetic mutation and natural selective pressures. There is no dependancy on abiogenesis to assert that evolution happens.



"Faith is required because no demonstration of this capability has ever been performed and because probability calculations argue strongly against it."



Time after time people bring up probability as some sort of hero against abiogenesis. The fact is that nobody actually states that a single cell formed exactly as one looks like today. The actual probability is based on chemical reactions that show a high and almost definate probability.



"Evolutionists must also have faith that simple life-forms evolved over geological ages into more complex life-forms via the extraordinarily rare mechanism of random beneficial mutations, and that dissimilar life-forms evolved from a common ancestor by the same mechanism."



Faith is neither desired nor required. All that is required is evidence, and that is in abundance, even within the human species. Unique beneficial traits have been identified that are localised without families, tribes and races, that bestow such benefits as a natural increase in muscle, an ability to survive easier at higher altitudes, higher bone density, better tolerances to UV rays, even sickle cell has the benefit of making the bearer completely immune to malaria. All of these are beneficial mutations that meet your requirements, so why deny them and state that you must have "faith" to accept that they exist.



"The theory of evolution also fails to meet a critical criterion of a scientific theory: it cannot be falsified. To be considered scientific, it must be possible to devise a controlled test such that a negative result proves the theory false. But no such test exists for evolution."



Complete falisity. A controlled 'test' that would discredit the tree of descent and subsequently evolution itself would be a modern animal found within geological strata that it should not be found in. The tests exist. The fact that evolution passes them all with flying colours, which is the basis for calling it a theory anyway, is not a cause for you to deny it.

Answer 6

And God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith, right?



Believing something is false because you can't prove it true, or true if not proven false is the fallacy of ignorace (no joke). There are countless ways to test theories of evolution. Most have come to us through observation of the natural world, but there are controlled experiments out there.



However, I believe you're more focused on the origin of life. Time is a huge factor in the grand scheme of things. Given the span of some 4.4 Billion years, the abiogenesis of the first organic compounds under the right conditions (take your pick on which theory) is entirely probable.



Evolution is a messy thing, but it exists. It's a random chain of events that have a cause and effect relationship, not a pre-planned ecosystem. Want an example? Consider a population of white insects that live on very black dirt. Let's say a population of birds move into the area and start feeding on our white insects. A random mutation occurs and we start seeing a few black insects in the white insect population. The birds can't see the black ones as well, and while the white ones are being picked off and eaten, the black ones go on, reproducing and making more black insects. Pretty soon, the population has gone from white to black, not because of creationism, but because of natural selection and evolution.



If you want to believe in intelligent design, you'd have to go further back to the creation of the universe. But that's only because we can't understand it, and we as humans worship and revere what we can't understand. Think of civilizations that devoted themselves to the elements, believing the sun to be god, or the rain or an earthquake a punishment from the heavens.

Answer 7

1) Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with Evolution. Evolution makes NO CLAIM AT ALL IN ANY WAY to explain why or how universe, planet or life came to be. It **ONLY** claims to explain how life diversified over the eons. So your whole point there is invalid.



2) "Evolutionists" as you call us, do not need faith as the empirical evidence from over 150 years of research has SHOWN how simple lifeforms evolved over time into more complex lifeforms. There is documented proof...so we rely upon no faith. So your point is invalid.



3) Evolution *IS* falsifiable as even Darwin said if you could find any organ or lifeform which could not have ever come to be by gradual changes over long periods of time then his idea would break down. Just because so far nothing has been shown which proves Evolution false does not mean it is not falsifiable. So your point is invalid.



4) The data supporting ID was reviewed and proved false many times over. Every argument, like Irreducible Complexity, made by ID has been shown to be wrong by documented evidence, unlike Evolution. ID is the idea that is not scientific as it has no way to prove it false as any flaw found "is there by design". So your point there is invalid.





At this time, ID is an interesting philosophy and nothing more. That could change as we learn more but right now that is how it is.



Evolution is a documented fact. (there is no true micro or macro evolution..they are same thing). That could change as we learn more but right now that is how it is.



Be that as it may, think whatever you want....whatever floats your boat.







old know all> Origin of universe+planet are astronomy, origin of life is molecular chemistry, Evolution is biology. 3 seperate fields, saying Evolution needs to start from creation of universe is just silly. Many things are based on reality...such as gravity in Newton's days..he did not explain how Earth came to be..but that did not invalidate gravity. Scientists had come up with sun-centered solar system centuries previous to the Big Bang Theory that did not invalidate Heliocentric model. I understand your point, but you are maaking a miscalculation...science doesn't obey religion's rules and it takes stuff apart to study how things work and figure out the pieces before they figure out the whole..that is how just about all learning works. While PEOPLE may need some starting point Evolution does not..because it does not have to do with origins..only in adaptation..if you want origins then go to the relams of science that explain them...they are easily found but don't blame Evolution because people are too lazy to spend another 2 seconds on a search engine and type a few more words. Otherwise we might take the sum knowledge of humanity...put it all in one unending document and name it "Stuff" and then tell people they have to find what they want themselves instead of breaking it down by topic. Of course this would be inefficient, illogical, unreasonable, wrong, and just plain silly but so is saying that a biological Theory should explain astronomy and chemistry so people don't have to open more than 1 book.

Answer 8

I would just like to say that I really appreciate the intelligence, time, and effort put in this question! That is RARE!





First: Evolution is by definition a THEORY





Second: There are different types of evidence (the fossil record, biogeography, and molecular evidence)





Third: One-Cell Theory

-all organisms are composed of one or more cells

-cells are the smallest living units of all organisms

-cells arise only by division of a previously existing cell



(many believe that the first cell to exist came into existence spontaneously, it is additionally believed that no new cells have spontaneously evolved, this being considered, all life on earth represents a continuous line of descent from the earliest cells (i.e. we are all descendents of the first cell)





Fourth: Molecular Evidence

Our genes contain evolutionary records just as dramatic as the fossil record

With this in mind, if all organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then:

1. We should have the same genetic molecule (we do- DNA)

2. We should use that molecule in the came way [we do- central dogma (DNA-RNA-Proteins)]

3. Portions of our DNA should be the same (it is)

It wont be the same as our ancestral DNA because of mutations

The longer the period of time since two species diverged, the greater the differences in their DNA

In other words, organisms that are close relatives will share large portions of DNA sequences, while organisms that are distant relatives will share smaller portions of DNA sequences





Fifth: As for faith, many believe that there is either creation or evolution. I personally believe that there was creation through evolution!





As you already recognized the Earth is 4.5 million years old! That is plenty of time to evolve through natural selection.

Answer 9

evolution is not a myth.. there's evidence, TESTABLE evidence up the yin-yang!

EVOLUTION IS REAL AND ANYBODY THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN IT DESERVES TIME IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION!!!!



now abiogenesis, on the other hand, is very questionable and i doubt we will see an answer in this lifetime...



but if you know anything about molecular biochemistry (an come on who doesn't, joke) there is some head-scratchingly tantilizing evidence of odd behavior umong what is typically considered 'organic' material.. spontaneously, 'magically', preforming acts that it 'shouldn't' be able to do unless it was already metabolically being used by an organism...



i think within the next 100 years we will have a radically different idea of what it truely means to be considered 'living'..

and i think that will lend abiogenesists* (is that the word for it? people who "believe" in abiogenesis?) a lot of credance and i think creationists will be the ones catching the flack...





P.S. secret sauce, you are now my personal hero :D

Answer 10

I guess we should wait for "jebus" to let us know. I hope you read all the above answers and think a little about them. Some of them give a good explanation of what evolution actually is, and I don't need to repeat what they said. Actually, the concept with no evidence or proof is creationism, but I will concede that it could be possible. Do you concede that evolution has taken place? If not, how do you explain the fossil record?

Answer 11

You are making the classic mistake of thinking of evolution and abiogenesis as the same thing.



They are *extremely* different.



1. Evolution is is about how life *changes*, not how it began. Abiogenesis is the question of how it began.



2. There is a single theory of evolution that is *OVERWHELMINGLY* accepted by the scientific community. There are *several* very plausible hypotheses for abiogenesis, but none have emerged yet as the front-runner accepted by the consensus of the scientific community.



3. Evolution is extremely well-documented and well-understood. Abiogenesis (the origins of life from non-life) is far less well-documented, and far less well-understood.



So I understand the strategy of Creationists to put them together in a blender ... as if the open questions about abiogenesis amount to open questions about evolution. But this is deceit, pure and simple.



>"Evolutionists must also have faith that simple life-forms evolved over geological ages into more complex life-forms via the extraordinarily rare mechanism of random beneficial mutations, and that dissimilar life-forms evolved from a common ancestor by the same mechanism."



Sorry, no faith required. The evidence is abundant. If you actually care about the evidence, then read my answer to this question:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20061114162706AAJ3vs9

But I doubt you will.



>"The theory of evolution also fails to meet a critical criterion of a scientific theory: it cannot be falsified. To be considered scientific, it must be possible to devise a controlled test such that a negative result proves the theory false. But no such test exists for evolution."



Of course it does! You just haven't been paying attention.



* If the discovery of DNA-based genetics ... discovered long *after* Darwin outlined the basic theory, had shown no patterns commonality, no patterns of inherited lineage, no patterns of shared metabolic pathways, then evolution (common descent) would have been thorougly falsified.



* If some organisms were to have left-handed and some right-handed DNA, then they could not have evolved from each other.



* If we were to discover rabbit fossils in the Triassic layers, or trilobites in the Miocene, this would falsify evolution. But of the millions of fossils discovered, not one, NOT ONE, fossil has ever been found in the "wrong layer".



* If we were to find fossil kangaroos in Ethiopia, or fossil giraffes in Australia, this would throw evolution into turmoil. None found.



* If breeding of animals and plants didn't work, then evolution would be falsified. It doesn't matter that you call this 'microevolution' to distinguish it from cross-species 'macroevolution' ... the classic Creationist misunderstanding of these terms. The theory of evolution absolutely requires the ability of organisms to be pliable (changeable) over time. And we verify this pliability at every dairy goat show, state fair, dog show, or Kentucky Derby.



* If we were unable to reproduce speciation in the laboratory, or observe it directly in nature, this would be a setback for evolution ... perhaps not a fatal setback (as we expect speciation to be exceedingly slow), but a setback nonetheless. However, we HAVE been able to reproduce speciation in the laboratory and document it directly in nature.



* If the age of the earth had been established by geologists at (say) less than 1 billion years old, this would have falsified evolution. If Creationists had shown evidence, by several independent means, of an age of the earth of only (say) 600,000,000 years old ... this would have been far too little time for evolution to have occurred. But instead, based entirely on Biblical scripture, Creationists have come up with the number 6,000 years! This is numerically equivalent (I'm not exaggerating) to claiming that the earth is 6 centimeters in diameter!



* If the age of the universe established by astronomers had been less than the age of the earth, this would have disproved the geologists, and by extension the biologists. Again, if you guys had shown an age of the universe of even 2 billion (2,000,000,000) years, this is enough to throw geology and biology into turmoil. But instead Creationists are sticking with the 6,000-year mark ... which is equivalent to ... oh, sorry, the math is just too absurd!



* If there was no junk DNA ... as predicted by long-term evolution and inheritance of DNA from *long* extinct ancestors ... then this would falsify evolution. But as much as 98% of DNA in all living organisms is DNA with no function in the organism ... just long-useless sequences that are there only by being inherited from ancestors.



And on, and on, and on. Since evolution is the *backbone* of modern biology ... just about every single finding in biology is a test of evolution ... so evolution is eminently falsifiable. But it just keeps passing test after test for over 150 years!



You Creationists are just not paying attention!



(I should also point out the amazing irony ... to the point of complete hypocrisy ... of a Creationist community that has site after site, book after book, sermon after sermon claiming to show evidence that "falsifies" evolution ... while at the same time claiming that evolution is not "falsifiable"! For example, why all the bogus photographs of the Paluxy footprints showing how "dinosaurs walked with humans" ... if such a finding would not falsify evolution? You guys need to have better meetings.)





Now, can you give me a test such that a negative result proves that Intelligent Design is false?



---- {edit} -----



.>"Nice to see that at least one respondent has the honesty to acknowledge that intelligent design is a valid option."



Of course Intelligent Design is a valid option! It's just not a *scientifically* valid option. It makes no falsifiable predictions; it leaves vague its mechanism, energy source, and materials; and it doesn't actually *EXPLAIN* anything at all! It may in fact be true ... but it is not *SCIENCE*.



Evolution *IS* science .. in the purest sense of the word. You can call it "myth" all you want, but it has the endorsement of the overwhelming consensus of hundreds of thousands of scientists who live, eat, and breathe science and the scientific method *FOR A LIVING*.

Answer 12

This is pig-ignorant.



For a start, you don't know that abiogenesis's validity has no bearing on whether or not evolution is occuring.



Further, you garble the criteria for a scientific theory and you suggest (parrot?) the notion that it cannot be falsified - which is absurd. One could falsify evolution by merely finding a hominid fossil in the Cambrian.



Quit reading creationist bilge and listening to your preacher (who probably didn't even graduate highschool) and read an actual science book.

Answer 13

How could you devise a controlled test for a negative result in evolution?? Really isn't possible is it. There is an element of guesswork involved yes, but the theory of natural selection to explain the evolution of the species is about the best theory anyone's come up with so far - certainly better than a creationist viewpoint - but then maybe I am actually made from Adam's rib....hmmm now let me think.....

Answer 14

The big problem with the Evolution / Creation argument is that neither side understands the other sides point of view - and they tend to be pretty vague about their own.



Evolution offers no explanation of how the Universe, the Earth or life came about. It only provides a theory of how the species came about. Evolution needs a starting point.



Creation provides a reason for the Universe, Earth and life coming about, but it doesn't explain the mechanism. There are two very different accounts of creation in the Bible. It is not possible to believe that they are both literally true.



Just remember:

God created everything out of nothing.

God created order out of chaos

God made man out of the slime of the Earth.

If you hold a man up to the light, sometimes you see his nothingness, sometimes you see his chaoticness and sometimes you see his slimyness.

Answer 15

You're like my freaking hero.

Thank you!

Like I said in a previous question I answered (check out my profile) I made the point to say that it takes so much faith to believe in evolution because there is so much evidence contradicting it! To say that its a myth is a little extreme... I look at it as an unconfirmed hypothesis. It never really left the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.

Where is the evidence that disproves it??

The Fossil Record

The Geological Column

Structural Homology

Molecular Biology

and The Cambrian Explosion.



Sure, evolutionist try to explain these but they find it pretty difficult. Look them up! You'll be amazed at how the hypothesis of evolution sounds more and more absurd!

Good luck!

Answer 16

Not this again.

Evolution.

Are a lot of people so insecure as to need to believe in the unprovable,and highly elusive?

Answer 17

Well in my opinion, I think that as long as it's a theory, people can't 100% use it as proof for anything, seeing as it has no proof itself. The theory itself may have a fair amount of information backing the theory, but still there is many questions about it yet to be answered.

Also, this isn't a question, it's essentially a debate >.>

Answer 18

It is fact. How else can you explain antibiotic resitance in microbes.

Answer 19

Evolution is a theory just like God. The story of how we came to be is far to intelegent for humans to be able to understand. However Evelution explains how some creatures replace the once that have become extinct.

Answer 20

well, at least jebus is coming to save us all in a little while anyway.

Answer 21

its not a myth.



fossils are proof.....

end of. :)