How authentic is the evolution theory ?

Question

I am asking this question from a nuetral point of view and i expect an un-biased answer from you
Since not every one is a scientist, i want to know that how does the 'scientific community' rates the evoltion theory and Is it 100 % accepted or are there few question marks
because 90% of the population worldwide believe in existence in HIGHER POWER (GOD) who created us from dust..
Please be professional

Answer 1

Q: "How authentic is the evolution theory?"

A: It is a completely "authentic" scientific theory.



Q: "Since not every one is a scientist, i want to know that how does the 'scientific community' rates the evoltion[sic evolution] theory".

A: There are about 5,8000,000 scientists in the world, and about 700 of those who do not accept evolution.



Q: "Is it 100 % accepted or are there few question marks"

A: See above answer -- the percentage that finds evolution unacceptable are 0.00120689655%



To put that number in perspective -- There are more biologists who have the first name "Steve" than there are scientists of *any* discipline who do not think evolution is supported by the evidence...

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve



Your remarks about what "90% of the population worldwide believes..." are irrelevant. Science is about gathering evidence through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations of phenomena. Science is not determined by popular opinion.



Just because someone believes in a higher-power does not mean that they cannot reconcile observable facts with their beliefs. My brother is a pretty devout Christian who believes that there is a God, and he also accepts that evolution occurred. He often makes the point that God is omnipotent, and therefore could have created the entire universe 1 second ago - complete with 13.7 billion years of backstory... and we would not be able to tell - because that's what omnipotent means...



Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. If you are still asking this question in biology, you are likely failing your class, because you are not paying attention and need to hit the books rather than wasting time on Yahoo! Answers...

Answer 2

It's certainly authentic. Despite some creationists' claims, it's not a big hoax, nor is it some ideological move to marginalize religion. It's real, honest science. Parts of it have been wrong in the past, and as we gather more evidence and increase our understanding, we'll continue to refine the theory in the future. As it stands, though, it's the best explanation for the evidence at hand... which is all science ever is, for *any* topic.



Among the relevant scientific community, acceptance of the theory is very close to 100%. There are those who don't accept it for religious reasons, and that's fine, so long as they're not trying to claim that their position is a scientific one. We all have our biases and our beliefs, and scientists are people just like everyone else. It's important to note that this is the *relevant* scientific community. If you look at those lists of scientists that reject evolution, you'll find that very few of them are actually biologists. There are computer scientists, electrical engineers, physicists, etc. I'd also be hesitant to call MDs qualified to evaluate the theory, since their training focuses so much on fixing problems and rote memory. There are certainly scientist MDs out there, but not every MD is a scientist.



The fact that most of the rest of the world is religious doesn't really matter. I doubt that 90% of the world believes in some sort of direct creationism... there's a difference between believing that God is the architect of the universe, and the belief that God directly created us as-is 6000 years ago. Also, some percentage does believe that they were created by a higher power... but they cancel themselves out, because that percentage can be sub-divided into mutually exclusive faiths. In the end, though, it's irrelevant. It's based on belief, not evidence or science, and boils down to an argument from popularity. Thousands of years ago, most humans believed that illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Even a few centuries ago, a large percentage of the world thought that diseases were just imbalances of the humours. If it's not backed with actual evidence, popularity means nothing.

Answer 3

You have to understand what a theory is. A theory is something that best explains the known facts. It doesn't become a law until all the facts are known and the theory explains them all. Evolution skeptics always point to this as proof that it's false but they are wrong. Relativity is still a theory but that doesn't prevent hydrogen bombs from exploding and you don't hear people saying it's baloney because it's just a theory.



Evolution may never become a law because all the facts may never be known but the chances that it will be replaced by a different theory are almost zero. It will continue to be refined however. It is widely accepted by scientists and almost universally accepted by biologists because nothing else explains biology correctly. You can't do biology without evolution.



Another tactic of the skeptics is the missing link dilemma. Many years ago they wanted evolutionists to prove themselves by finding the missing link between humans and apes because there wasn't any. All the proof for evolution was in animals. Archeologists did find one. The problem is that when you find a missing link between apes and man you are actually creating 2 more missing links. The one between apes and the missing link and the one between the missing link and modern man. You can see where this goes. Every time we fill in a gap we create 2 new ones and we have done that many times. Each time the difference between them gets smaller and smaller but the skeptics keep trying to say there are still missing links. That's why the debate will go on and on and why it will always be a theory. We can never find all the missing links because they don't all exist anymore.

Answer 4

> How authentic is the evolution theory ?

It's an authentic scientific theory all right.



> i expect an un-biased answer from you

You won't get it. We're all biased by our backgrounds and educations.



> Is it 100 % accepted

Nope. Not every scientist is a biologist, and not every scientist has the background needed to make an intelligent assessment on this topic.

There are even a few biologists who don't accept evolution because of "argument from personal incredulity."



> 90% of the population worldwide believe in existence in HIGHER POWER (GOD) who created us from dust..

[citation needed] for the 90% claim.

Also note: Religious sources don't do a good job of explaining fossil hominini.

Answer 5

What do you mean by "authentic"???



If you rate a theory based on the number of observations that were considered and accounted for in getting the theory to the point it is, our current theory of evolution rates very very high. That said, the very best scientific theories and "laws" we have are really only one good observation away from being proven wrong or, at least, being proven to have exceptions. Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so, if you made an observation that you believes shows that, for example, the law of gravity is wrong, you better come loaded for bear.



History provides many examples where new observations have shown that what almost everyone accepted as "law" turns out to be wrong. "Matter can be neither created nor destroyed" is a prime example. This "law" absolutely applies to about 99.99999% of every chemical reaction that takes place on earth every second of every day. But... it is not true. In nuclear reactions, matter is destroyed (well... technically converted to energy but that is pretty much the meaning of destroy). This is what gave us, courtesy of Albert E, E=mC^2. And of course, we now know that most of the "reacting" that takes place every second of every day in the ENTIRE universe involves matter converting to energy (this is what stars do).



Back to your question... There is nothing about believing in a higher power that conflicts with acceptance of the theory of evolution (or of gravity or E=mC^2 or anything else). It is only the blind faith that a religious book is literally, absolutely and scientifically true that conflicts with acceptance of evolution (and a whole lot of other science). This does not mean that any of these theories are perfect (in fact a strong argument can be made that none of them are perfect) but the fact that there are things we do not yet understand is NOT proof that the universe was created at 2:47 pm on a Thursday afternoon 6047 years ago, complete with dinosaurs and humans living together and light travelling towards earth that has all the characteristics of having been travelling at the speed of light for 13 billion years.

Answer 6

The theory is in fact widely accepted among the scientific community, and while it is a theory it has been proven. There have been countless forms of evidence that have formed in both experiments and in the world today because we are changing it so quickly. The theory itself is that over millions of years mutations that are common in every organism at times are more visible and on an even rarer occasion help the species survive to pass on that mutation over an excessive amount of time comes the end organism that would be here today.

Answer 7

Personally, I believe Evolution to be an explanation, with proof, of how things came to be. I'm a biologist and not at all religious what so ever. I don't have anything against God fearing men, but personally, I never was able to grasp it even as a kid. Evolution for the most part in science, is accepted. Question marks might arise in some places like are dinosaur's closest relatives really birds? Do we really have only 3 Domains of life?

But for the most part, anything in science that will be taken seriously and have long lasting effect stems from evidence. Can I prove to you that there were raptors with feathers? Yes. Can I prove to you that eggs came before chickens? Yes. Can I prove to you that evolution really happens and that generations after a mutation may still have the genetic coding to look like their ancestral selves? Yes. Chickens still have the coding for teeth afterall, they also have scale-like legs, and their feathers are keratin based just like scales.



I can't believe in God, because I have the tools to believe in Science. Evolution is not pure speculation. In fact you can reproduce some evolution-projects by yourself! I can prove to you, most things, with science. Besides, what do I care if someone believes in a god. Even if you don't believe in science, it still exists, with hard proof, whether you like it or not.



**In science, sometimes theory is considered just as good as law. Especially physics, Theories are the same as laws. A Theory isn't a question or an idea. It's VERY VERY hard to dispute, it must under go repetitive study, with less than 5% error (imagine how many studies have been done to test Evolution. Just imagine). And so a theory, in most cases, are just as dependable as the truth.

Answer 8

First, off how was existence created? Who thought the first thought? Evolution theory is just a theory. No factual evidence of us evolving. All is pure speculation.