How can one logically argue evolution?

Question

hey, okay! the theory of evolution remains, sadly, a theory because it can't be proven through experiments on a macro scale.
but we see it on a micro scale with bacteria all the time!
so someone tell me how they can argue the theory of evolution with something besides "blind faith"!
If you truly understand evolution it seems like COMMON SENSE rather than a theory. But I'm reluctant to believe in anything so I'd like to hear the opposing side...
(but if you're going to try to convince me of a religion well.. its even more unlikely that I'd believe something that was just written in some ancient book)

Answer 1

You don't understand what a scientific theory is.



As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.



Perhaps this will help you to understand better. There is the fact of gravity, which we experience every day, and there are various theories of gravity, such as the one provided in Einstein's theory of relativity, which provide an explanation of what causes gravity.



Furthermore, scientific theories will always remain theories. So calling a scientific theory a theory in no way diminishes it.



In fact, a scientific theory can even be superior to a scientific law. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for.



By the way, to have the accuracy it does, your GPS system must take into account Einstein's THEORY of relativity, or else it will not work properly.



http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm



But Einstein's theory of relativity is still called a theory.



Now, there are two things relating to what you said. There is biological evolution itself, which is a fact. And there is the theory of evolution which is an explanation of the process that results in biological evolution.



The fact is that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that is supported by an enormous amount of evidence and never disproved, despite the numerous false claims of creationists otherwise. It has also made numerous successful predictions about what should be found in further lines of research.



Creationists, on the other hand, have never made a successful before-the-fact scientific prediction based on their creationism model.





Evolution does not need to be seen on a large scale because of the enormous amount of evidence for it. As I said previously, a valid scientific theory must be able to provide the basis for making verifiable predictions. The theory of evolution has made numerous such predictions. For example.



About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.



That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.



Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525



The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."



http://www.genome.gov/13514624



These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html



No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.



Here are some other examples in which the theory of evolution has been tested and passed with flying colors.



http://www.mathprog.org/Old-Optima-Issues/optima10.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moth-study-backs-classic-test-case-for-darwins-theory-462938.html

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391EvidEvol.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news192882557.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v297/n5863/abs/297197a0.html





So I hope you now have a better understanding of what a scientific theory is, and that you won't dismiss something because you consider it to be just a theory.

Answer 2

>"the theory of evolution remains, sadly, a theory because it can't be proven through experiments on a macro scale."



No. It remains a theory for the same reason cell theory, germ theory, molecular theory, atomic theory, electron theory, photon theory, quantum theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and on and on ... all remain *THEORIES* and always will be!



Because the word "theory" does NOT mean "not-yet-proven."



The word "theory" means *EXPLANATION FOR FACTS*.



So every time Creationism gets you to use phrases like "sadly a theory" ... it only reveals that creationism absolutely depends on people being so scientifically illiterate that they don't know what 'theory' means.





>"so someone tell me how they can argue the theory of evolution with something besides "blind faith"!



By DNA, by proteins, by genetics, by fossils, by morphology, vesigial structures, atavisms, embryology, biogeography and all the other evidence the Creationism teaches you to ignore.





It doesn't matter whether YOU don't think there's any evidence that YOU find convincing. What matters is that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY supports evolution because of all of these things that THEY find convincing ... not "blind faith."



To call it "blind faith" is to insult the scientific community as being a community of morons or frauds. And that is why Creationism is absolutely *dependent* not only on ignorance of science (like what the word 'theory' means ... or that you don't "prove" things in science) ... but utter *CONTEMPT* for science.

Answer 3

"the theory of evolution remains, sadly, a theory because it can't be proven through experiments on a macro scale.

but we see it on a micro scale with bacteria all the time!"

you just contradicted yourself...



exactly what is it you're trying to say?

Answer 4

in case you look on the workd of microbes, you will locate single celled organisms that stay to tell the story their very own. No cooperation with others. They collect meals and reproduce. Then, there's a form of single celled organisms which stay in colonies. There are reward to this affiliation. If one cellular dies, the others interior the colony can easily take up what meals it releases. they may be shielded from harsh circumstances - if something poisonous floats by using, the organisms around the perimeters ought to die yet ones interior the midsection must be risk-free and stay to bypass on the genes of the gang. Then there are organisms which bind at the same time right into a complicated orgainism the place different cells focus on some purposes whilst different cells focus on yet another. there is not any circulatory device with the aid of fact they stay in water and the water carried issues returned and forth. There are organisms that have fluids of their device that don't flow yet only circulate by using convection. There are incredibly common open circulatory platforms that circulate stuff around. There are closed circulatory platforms with incredibly common pumps and vessels. There are comples circulatory platforms. a number of those issues exist NOW. They stay to tell the story at variable states of complexity. it variety of feels common to be sure how they might have developed one to a different with steadily extra complicated morphology and overall performance that allowed the organism to do something the extra handy one ought to not do. Hmmmm?

Answer 5

It wouldnt be a theory then if we could prove it. Their is tons of evidence but sadly if your from america people reject, in fact in recent poll of 32 countries and theory of evolution, I might add these weren't 3rd world countries but super powers like russia, china, uk, france ect, america came in second last that believed in theory of evolution with I think a little more than half rejected it.