Question

***Medal for correct answer***


Evolution is

only observable

testable and observable

only testable

not testable or observable

Answer 1

Evolution is testable and observable. Evolution has been tested and observed ever since Darwin proposed his theory.

Answer 2

I don't think this question is relevant because evolution has not been prove, there has been no proof, for example a dog evolving into a bird.

Answer 3

@alphadxg That is a fundamentally flawed understanding of Evolution on your part. 1) Evolution is a theory. This means that preponderance of current evidence supports Evolution and Evolution explains observable data the best. 2) Evolution never, ever meant anything near a dog evolving into a bird. 3) Lack of "proof" does not make a question irrelevant. 3) Evolution theory states that changes in a genomes over time explains the variation in all life. This is the most robust theory that is testable.

You really do not understand Evolution Theory.

Answer 4

@mrdoldum Still no "Observable" Evidence in a change in kinds, for example Ape to Human.

Answer 5

"change in kinds", what is the biological definition of "a kind?" There isn't. This is nonsense fabricated by groups who oppose evolution and want to sound "scientific" to the general population to come off as legitimate.

"Still no "Observable" Evidence [from] Ape to Human."

Humans \(\Huge \sf are\) apes.

Answer 6

@alphadxg You still have a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory. You posted a question quite a bit back about this with the exact same flawed understanding. You want change in kinds? Okay, explain different dog breeds without changes in genotypes. How about cats? Chickens, horses, cattle, apple trees, cherry trees, etc? Want to take that to a speciation level? How long do you think great danes and chihuauas would remain a single species over 100,000 years? 1,000,000? How would the interbreed to remain one species?

Evolution never made any claims about apes to humans or any such nonsense. Evolution states that all extant species exist through genetic changes in their genetic ancestors. In fact, the ancestors are extinct in the theory as well. You are attempting to take two current day species and make a claim that one came from the other, or else Evolution is not a appropriate theory.

If you are having issues with your religious beliefs and Evolution, just remember to two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Yes, there is evidence that life could have/did evolve without a supreme being. However, if it would help you, remember that the bible cannot be taken literally and there is no reason to assume that god's concept of time is the same as ours. So, if you want to merge the two I offer this: if god created the universe and is all powerful and all knowing, he could have made the big bang, and then set back and watched knowing exactly how everything would turn out and not taking an active hand in anything else.

Answer 7

@mrdoldum I don't believe in the bible, all I'm saying is Theory's have been proven wrong, and I can go on and on about what I think, but it's just another theory. And In my religion I can believe in both, but my religious books says to first prove all things first.

Answer 8

@alphadxg I think you are treating theories more like hypothesis. Yes, theories can end up incorrect; that is not in debate and has nothing to do with the fact that you do not understand Evolutionary Theory. As I stated earlier, currently, only Evolutionary Theory provides an explanation for biological diversity that can be observed, tested, and used to make predictions. So far, there has been no research that was performed correctly and has significant results that suggest Evolutionary Theory is wrong.

In fact, in a long running series of experiments with bacteria, it appears that we have great evidence:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

If you do not have any non-scientific objections than you need to read or ask questions. I am sorry to be blunt, but you really do not understand Evolutionary Theory.