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*
~

Are you calling me a monkey?!!!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you calling me a monkey?!!!

A bonobo, to be exact.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

A bonobo, to be exact.

I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

That would be a hillarious response.

*Opens jar* *Out pops out an ape!* "Holy shit! Evolution is real I guess!"

~

Evolution is a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.

There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.

One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

First of all I did not bother myself reading all your long post. Looks like you absrobed too much information without analyzing it through.
I disagree with Darwins theory.
I even wrote an essay about it. Ill post it here for your information. Certainly we are not monkeys.
If we would agree with the fact that we live in a machine world as Newton, Descartes and Einstein stated in their works, every human either a random mutation by Darwin’s theory, how can we explain the sudden increase of human intellectuality changed in one century?

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years? Einstein would argue with his notion of atoms, billions small particles that form a physical human being that can randomly mutate and most likely produce cell arrangement.
Cells form thoughts and according to many scientists thought is a reflex of the movements of the atoms, small particles jumping around from one orbit to another. Descartes would explain the fast increase of technology due to some chemical reactions produced in our brains.
But our body is composed of 8 billion atoms and the certainty of atoms each fusing together is one to 8 billion, so it is impossible that the majority of atoms when fuse, create a sudden change in intellectuality, even if this is true it would take billions of years to get to stage where we are. Yes we are composed of atoms, but I disagree on the fact that we act upon some chemical reactions happening in our mind.
Darwin dismissed a fact in his theory that leads to a misunderstanding, if every human being has unique fingerprint and unique DNA and on our planet habited by 8 billions of human beings live, if we were a random mutation, at least one pair of human being would have the same DNA, which is not the case.
If human being origins from apes, how come apes still exist in form of animals if we started to grow and evolve physically in the same environment? Creation started with all living beings surviving together until the state of Earth changed and islands formed from collisions out of space, the story of Big Bang for example. We can assume that after one comet fall on Earth separation occurred in the continents, some species dispersed on different places.
This phase lets assume is called the beginning of the evolvement.
On one side apes live on an island and on the other side of the continent reside the other apes. There is a small probability that these apes on two different continents will evolve in the same way physically, due to their different environment. It is impossible that one island of apes evolves into a human being while the other one does not. Since the evolvement starts at their point when they split up, they should evolve in the same way, maybe in shape differently, but intellectually the same, unless some other factors contribute to their evolvement. They go trough environmental changes possibly differently, but Darwin explains that only one population one an island evolves while the other one doesn’t make a lot of effort. He thought that is why apes still exist. He proclaims as if time stops for one species to evolve mentally while the other evolves too fast. The probability of highly intellectual mutation is low and mutations in a population can be expected to obey more regularities than those among individuals, because of the similarities in survival benefits and the laws of large numbers.
“When a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population, it will tend to carry along nearby base pairs, thereby reducing genetic diversity in its neighborhood. The size of the neighborhood is related to how fast it spreads. If it spreads to the whole population in about 1000 generations, then the size of this neighborhood is about 100,000 base pairs, since crossovers generally occur once in 100 million base pairs and there would be a thousand fold multiplications of them in this time. Thus 30,000 such mutations could essentially eliminate all the genetic diversity in the DNA if they were evenly spaced throughout the DNA and spread rapidly enough. They would have to spread in a total of about 400,000 years to produce the observed low genetic diversity. However, the fact that humans still have considerable genetic diversity (in blood types, for example) suggests that this mechanism has not been operating” (DNA Technology in Forensic Science 1992). This passage clearly states one of the reasons why a random mutation could not occur, eliminating the possibility of highly intellectual mutation of apes.

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

Originally Posted by celestra

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

What a primitive response.... how about you fix your piano and re read it again?
what she said is totally debatable. And its more acceptable than the monkey theory. Especially when it gets to the mixture of our own DNA.
Didnt you know? scientist found out that we have over 24 alien races mixed in our own DNA. I guess your piano, is not there yet to reach it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Our ancestors grew leg like fins in order to leave the ponds they lived in once they dried up, to move to another pond.

I don't want to nitpick, and I'm sure it was just a slip, but this statement demonstrates a major misconception of evolution that only feeds some of the more misbegot arguments against it. Our ancestors didn't grow anything in order to do anything. No one and nothing chooses what mutations or variations occur or how they'll aid survival. To suggest otherwise is anthropomorphisis, and a small step removed from invoking God as explanation.

Originally Posted by L

What a primitive response.... how about you fix your piano and re read it again?

I'm sorry, I tried again and also read O'nus's response, and he only touched upon 1/10 of the irregularities in any given "argument." It still strikes me as a stack of disjointed ideas founded upon ill informed misunderstandings of science and history, in a logicky, not logical, arrangement. Where could "debating" it possibly lead?

But you're right, my response was unproductive--it didn't arise from malice, just incredulity.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

All you have to do is google or go to the Library.

Yes, all you have to do is Google Creationist talking points or look up their sciencey books in the library to be exposed to baseless misinformation they've disseminated with the good intentions of saving souls and the unfortunate effects of clouding scientific discourse, retarding progress, and as determined by the U.S. Government when the USSR beat us into space in the '50s, endangering national security.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

When I read your reply, I’m thinking how primitive a human being can be. Now with your answer you will not get any attention. I’m replying feeling pitty for you. If you are so much into challenge what are your arguments. Instead of writing a stupid remark write some more useful information. NO words
Pathetic.

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years?

You want to apply evolution to a concept that is apart from the human individual (literally and figuratively). I see your point. Still, that doesn't mean I can't provide an explanation to my differing view.

I doubt we can attribute this to the evolution of the brain. We've had the capability for many types of thought for millions of years. Neaderthals had funerals. (Flower petals discovered near grave sites, blah blah blah). People discovered irrigation, writing, complex mathematics. The thought has been there for awhile.

Instead, why not attribute this techno-explosion to the evolution of communication? The evolution of freedom of thought? We can transport our voices to Japan at the speed of light. Thoughts and ideas are shared more rapidly due to this. Also, religious freedoms allow for more even more expression of thought. Perhaps the most important of all is language itself. We speak. We record mathematical proofs, so that others don't have to churn through the thought on their own. In this way, thought builds.

Technology seems to grow exponentially. It's not the work of a single individual. A single individual is not able to build an airplane or a microchip off of instinct, be it caused by brain cells or chemicals. A nation of individuals, coupled with their ability to effectively communicate and absorb thoughts (and mistakes) of the past, can.

Originally Posted by celestra

First of all I did not bother myself reading all your long post. Looks like you absrobed too much information without analyzing it through.

Thank you for your most amazing criticism and advice, O great one. Please, we both know there is no need to say such things.

I disagree with Darwins theory.
I even wrote an essay about it. Ill post it here for your information. Certainly we are not monkeys.

I think that you will find that there is no evolutionist that disagress with this. Humans are humans - not monkeys.

If we would agree with the fact that we live in a machine world as Newton, Descartes and Einstein stated in their works, every human either a random mutation by Darwin’s theory, how can we explain the sudden increase of human intellectuality changed in one century?

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years? Einstein would argue with his notion of atoms, billions small particles that form a physical human being that can randomly mutate and most likely produce cell arrangement.

I do not see how this disputes evolution. This only propogates it.

Descartes would explain the fast increase of technology due to some chemical reactions produced in our brains.
But our body is composed of 8 billion atoms and the certainty of atoms each fusing together is one to 8 billion, so it is impossible that the majority of atoms when fuse, create a sudden change in intellectuality, even if this is true it would take billions of years to get to stage where we are. Yes we are composed of atoms, but I disagree on the fact that we act upon some chemical reactions happening in our mind.

Sorry, but simply disagreeing is not sufficient. The fact is that if you have an increase of dopamine, you will become more excited - this is inarguable. There are various other neurotransmitters that incontrovertably influence your concsiousness. If you can dispute this, I am very willing to read it. However, please pardon me when I say I have a great lack of confidence that you can disprove the entire science of neurology.

Darwin dismissed a fact in his theory that leads to a misunderstanding, if every human being has unique fingerprint and unique DNA and on our planet habited by 8 billions of human beings live, if we were a random mutation, at least one pair of human being would have the same DNA, which is not the case.

Please show me where he disagreed with this because this seems completely opposite to the content of the Origin of Species. Furthermore, chaos theory is an integral function to evolutionary theory in contemporary times.

If human being origins from apes, how come apes still exist in form of animals if we started to grow and evolve physically in the same environment? Creation started with all living beings surviving together until the state of Earth changed and islands formed from collisions out of space, the story of Big Bang for example. We can assume that after one comet fall on Earth separation occurred in the continents, some species dispersed on different places.

...

You think that, becaues one species arises, that all previous species should be extinct? It is survival of the fittest, not replace the obsolete. For someone who claims that I know nothing of what I am talking about, I find it hard to take this seriously.

This phase lets assume is called the beginning of the evolvement.
On one side apes live on an island and on the other side of the continent reside the other apes. There is a small probability that these apes on two different continents will evolve in the same way physically, due to their different environment.

Precisely.

It is impossible that one island of apes evolves into a human being while the other one does not. Since the evolvement starts at their point when they split up, they should evolve in the same way, maybe in shape differently, but intellectually the same, unless some other factors contribute to their evolvement. They go trough environmental changes possibly differently, but Darwin explains that only one population one an island evolves while the other one doesn’t make a lot of effort. He thought that is why apes still exist. He proclaims as if time stops for one species to evolve mentally while the other evolves too fast. The probability of highly intellectual mutation is low and mutations in a population can be expected to obey more regularities than those among individuals, because of the similarities in survival benefits and the laws of large numbers.

No, it is not a matter of effort or deliberate action. Furthermore, your straw-manning the argument by isolating the environmental factors and stochastic system.

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

For the purpose of mutual enlightenment; Likewise.

What do you think...?
~

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys

Originally Posted by Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys

And I think those who refuse to inform themselves of a scientifically validated fact are indistinguishable monkeys. Oh, hahaha! Look how witty that was!

Seriously, add something meaningful, or don't bother.

Originally Posted by Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says. Something tells me that you would have no Earthly idea what to write or else would say things that are just flat out false. Let's see what you can do with it.

After you do that, tell us specifically where your disagreements with it are. I bet you can't do that either. Saying that people deserve punishment for believing in evolution and that the punishment should be that their ancestors are monkeys does not qualify as a debate point.

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

Originally Posted by Korittke

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

That is one of my favorite South Park episodes. Mr. Garrison's understanding of the theory of evolution is really not that different from what most creationists think it says. I bet Mystic and Oneira think what Mr. Garrison said is not that far from what the theory actually does say. If they ever have the nerve to tell us what they think the theory says, I bet they sound a lot like Garrison.

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says.

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

The laws of physics are ultimately theories at the end of the day. Somehow I don't imagine you'll stop getting on planes because our understanding of the physics that keeps them airborne is 'just a theory'

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread? I don't think Oneira and Mystic are able to give a substantially detailed explanation of what the theory of evolution says, yet they make insulting comments toward those who believe in it. What does my ability to say what a religious belief system involves have to do with whether or not they know what they are talking about?

A litle more than six thousand years ago, God existed without the world. He decided to create the world. He did so in six days and then rested on the seventh. In the world he created, he created a man named Adam by blowing clay. Soon afterwards, a woman named Eve came into existence from one of Adam's ribs. They were the first man and woman. Later, a fallen angel named Satan showed up in Adam and Eve's Garden of Eden and tempted Adam to eat a fruit from the tree of knowledge, something God said specifically not to do. Adam ate the fruit any way. As a result, Adam and Eve were no longer naked and sin existed in the world. It has been with humans ever since. However, the sin that resulted from eating the fruit is necessary for the existence of free will. Because of free will and sin, God later spoke to a prophet named Moses. God was in the form of a burning bush. He instructed Moses on his ten big rules for humans to follow in using their free will in order to avoid sin. For a long time, God's rule was that people who use their free will to violate those laws or his other ones do not get into Heaven, and the only other place to go after death is Satan's Hell, a terrible place most commonly believed by Christians to be a place of eternal torture by burning in a fire.

After 4,000 years of Earth's existence, God decided to change the rules on getting into Heaven. He wanted to give people a chance to get into Heaven even if they sin, so he came to Earth in the form of his son and had himself tortured to "death" and resurrected so that people could believe that story and accept God in the form of his son Jesus as their savior from the punishment for sin. That allowed him to change his rule. Jesus is going to come back to Earth in the future and round up those who are allowed to go to Heaven. Many other things happen soon after. The world will end, and Satan and the people not allowed into Heaven will spend eternity in a lake of fire while those in Heaven experience bliss for eternity.

There you go. In case you were asking for their perspective on why only creationism makes sense, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing and that if God did not exist, something would have had to have come from nothing. They also believe that the universe is so fascinating, complicated, complex, and impressive that only something with intelligence could have created it. In case you were asking what the creationist perspective is on why evolution does not make sense, I can only tell you the few arguments I have heard for it. I have never heard one give a solid counterargument to the theory of evolution because every time I hear them try, they give false explanations of what the theory of evolution says. That is why I challenged Mystic and Oneiroa to tell me what it says, and I have a feeling they are not going to do that. Here are some of the arguments I have heard creationists make against evolution.

- Monkeys do not give birth to humans now, so why should we believe that they did at one time? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If humans came from gorillas, then why don't we have hispanic gorillas, Chinese gorillas, Eskimo gorillas, and Indian gorillas? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If animal life can come from non-animal cells, then why don't ants appear in unopened jars of peanut butter? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Evolution would be too much of a coincidental accident to be real. (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Scientists do not know every single step involved in the evolutionary process, therefore they have no reason to believe they have identified any of the steps. (false premise concerning the nature of scientific knowledge)

- 4.5 billion years is not long enough for protein to evolve into humans. (Until people who claim that can explain the theory of evolution, that false statement cannot be debated with them effectively. It is so substanceless there is very little room for even a short conversation about it.)

Does that work for you?

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual.

Wrong. Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's attempt to explain it is a theory, with ample evidence and as of yet no evidence to the contrary, therefore we can assume that it is true.