Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

"It really happened"

Intro (Yes, its a long read, look here first):

This is intended to examine the problems with "its just a theory" and explain evolution as simply as possible. Focus on the certain sections as you see fit. At most, consider the videos at the bottom of this post.

"It's just a theory"
A theory is a coherent system of primitive concepts, axioms, and rules of inferene from which
theorems may be drived. It is a proposition or set of propositions offered as a conjectured
explanation for an observed phenomnenon, state of affairs, or event. (Colman, A. 2001).

Let's first look at what the phrase "it's just a theory" offers:
- That the theory should not be considered because it is a theory
- Implies an alternative explanation or none at all
- States that the theory is obviously not a fact.

Let's assume for a moment that evolution is just a "theory".

When evolutionists hear the phrase "it's just a theory", what they would like to hear are these alternative explanations or empirical disproval for the theory. Scientists endure to find out the true nature of things and how the world works. We strive to find the empirical nature of our existance, thus, truth prevails over pride.

Let us examine how this phrase disputes our "theory" Darwin`s approach began as a hypothesis and then came to fruition as fact, keep this in mind as we examine the following under the pretense that everything he said is "just a theory". So let us consider these key conceptual titles from "The Origin of Species" by Darwin himself to see his approach to evolution as a simple explanation or opinion of things:
- Variation under domestication
- Variation un der nature
- Struggle for existance
- Natural Selection: Or the Survival of the Fittest
- Law of Variation
- Difficulties of the Theory
- Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection
- Instinct
- Hybridism
- On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
- On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
- Geographical Distribution
- Mutual Affinities of Organic beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs

When the creationist rebuffs these with "it's just a theory" they little often take note of what is actually being said. The phrase does not actually offer any substantial criticism to what is being said and rests entirely on the idea that the theory is not a fact and can not be systematically disproven.
With this pretense, let us take key conceptual points from Darwin and see how this response works.
So, what I am going to do is take a key conceptual point from Darwin and respond with "that's just a theory" with the idea in mind that, it is not a fact and cannot be systematically observed (in others, can not be proven):

First lines from the "Origin of Species" read: "When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strike us is, that they generally differ from each other than do individuals of any one species or
variety in a state of nature."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This denies that there is a variation in nature. Of course, this is silly and they will continue to say that a God caused the variation, that the variation was with 'purpose' for a final end.

Wide ranging, much diffused, and common species vary most."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Again, they would likely make the step that this variation was with a purpose other than evolution.

Struggle for life most severe between species of the same genus.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This is simple fact and incontrovertable. The theist will have problems responding to this one because it asks of them to explain why God will let some species die and suffer while still being a good God. What has to be explained is why a God would cause so much suffering and death between
species. Of course, this is entirely conjecture and an opinion. It cannot be proven unless a God himself reveals itself and shows how they can cause all this pain and death. On this premise, I can also prove a pink elephant in my room with the same reasoning (ie. "i see a pink elephant" "but I do not" "yes, but I see it. Therefore, it is real"). Darwin offers this as a function of
natural selection.

Parts developed in an unusual manner are highly variable; specific characters more variable than
generic.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- How can a creationist explain the variations between species? Explain that this form of evolution is, in fact, the working of God. That God caused this evolutionary step. So now, in the words of Ted Haggard himself, "you are accepting some of the facts, but not the whole, to support yourself".

The absence of intermediate varieties at the presentday.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Just a theory? Just a theory that neanderthals existed? There are clear fossil records and mounds of species (and their bones) to show the variety amongst species which we have established earlier. The only thing that a creationist can respond with is to try and integrate God somehow to say that is was Gods idea to do this when we have clearly established that this works
entirely and completely on its own without any supernatural influence.

Let's elaborate this one, because you may find humour in it.
My point here is that, the creationist is saying that God intended these steps of evolution. However, there is no reason to doubt then that this can happen without a God. God is not required for any of the abovementioned processes (and the creationist accepted this!) and there is no denying this because it's evidence of prolific and paramount in every environment. The only room for debate here is for the beginning
of existance itself.

There are many other arguments held within the Origin of Species, such as modification and rates of modification. However, because of stubborn creationists, these arguments have barely (if at all) come to fruition in the public sector. I dream of the day that our people look back and see how
this fact was held back from the world in the exact same way that the heliocentric system was.

Conclusion; next time you say or hear someone say "that's just a theory" ask them to explain the alternative explanation because evolution does not account for the beginning of time.

Evolution is a Fact
After Darwins adventure on the HMS Beagle, he reaped a paramount of evidence for the evolutionary theory. In the years to come, a plethora of work has been done with fossil records and systematic observations. In the end, we have come to show how it is a fact and that the system of evolution
is the quintessential operating system of life itself. To say it is not a fact is to deny diversity, death, natural selection, hybridism, and more. If you still hold it is not a fact, you would have to show how the whole being of existance is actually the exact samething and that there is no diversity of intermediate species within any genus.

Edit:

I realized I should elaborate. Many creationists deny the age of the Earth, they argue that it is 10 000 years old or 5000 years old. However, the fact is that it is significantly older than that. Also, these same creationists fail to explain the existance of dinosaurs. This point itself is the very achilles heel of creationists which, it seems, is never paid attention. Or, at the most, accredited to God employing the evolutionary theory. But as we stated earlier, God is not required for this to occur. And because of that, even if this God existed, we do not need him. The further implications of this is what typically leads to the result of the majority of scientists being atheistic.

Mechanisms of Evolution:

Natural Selection:
Those things that can not survive in their enviornment, simply die off.
Those that can survive, will continue to reproduce. This is the survival of the fittest.

Mutations are passed on through generations to continue to adapt to perpetually changing
environemtnts.

Example:
- Say we have a large desert, yellow/beige as can be.
- We also have two rats; one beige, one black.
- We also have a hungry owl which routinely flies over the desert looking for something to eat.
- Which rat will be best at surviving?
- Obviously, the beige ones.
- How does this beige rat continue to exist? It learns the growing dangers in the desert, teaches
its young, etc. Those rats that fail at adapting, simply die. Those that adapt, survive and
reproduce.

It is really just as easy as that.

For the best explanation I have ever heard, please consider the great Carl Sagan. No one can explain evolution better themself than Carl Sagan (yes, Darwin is a rather terrible writer).
Please consider, you will enjoy:
Carl Sagan:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0YxEGBf6U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ4eZIC0MJo
(Roughly 17 minutes)

What do you think...?

*Cough* ThisWouldHaveGoneInAScienceForum*Cough*
~