Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
The graph was supposed to prove what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you just answer the question? I simply asked for your thoughts.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. Colloquially, a theory is a motivated but uncertain provisional explanation. If the theory becomes certain, it ceases to be a theory and simply becomes fact. "Who broke the vase?" "I have a theory - it was the dog." "Yup... here's the pawprint." At this point, it would be odd to continue to speak about the culpability of the dog in terms of a "theory."

The idea of a scientific theory, while closely related, is different.

Re: A blanket reply
 

Exactly, Jeff doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.

Scientific theories don't graduate to facts. That's not how science works.

"What about the germ theory of disease? If it's so strong, why hasn't it become a fact yet."

"What about the theory of gravity?"

Jeff I think you've demonstrated that you don't have much scientific knowledge at all- you don't even know what a scientific theory is, so how can you have any kind of informed opinion on anything scientific? Go learn how science works and why it is practiced that way, then come back and ask all the questions you want.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact?

[/ QUOTE ]
Usually when a person says that evolution is "just a theory," it's because he or she doesn't know what "theory" means in a scientific context. As Stephen J. Gould explained, "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." Not so in science. While usage among scientists isn't always consistent, the essential difference between theories and facts might be framed thus:

theory: an idea that is testable
fact: an idea that is correct

It should be obvious that an idea's testability says nothing about its correctness. Some testable ideas are correct; some are incorrect. Saying that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" is like saying that King Kong Bundy is "bald, not fat." It is possible to be both.

The difference between evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design creationism -- what makes evolution scientific and Intelligent Design unscientific -- is that evolutionary theory is testable. It is in fact being tested all the time. New observations are constantly being made, new experiments being done, that could falsify evolutionary theory as we know it. Many observations would be inconsistent with current evolutionary theory (e.g., "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" -- J.B.S. Haldane), but no possible observation could ever falsify Intelligent Design creationism.

So evolution is a theory. Is it a fact? Scientists really don't speak much of facts (as opposed to data, observations, measurements, or the like), so that's kind of a funny word to use in this context. But evolutionary theory has been tested with great rigor for over a century, and it is the only theory of the origin of species we have that has not yet been falsified. Nothing in science can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but the correctness of evolutionary theory is about as sure a thing as the correctness of atomic theory or of the germ theory of disease.

In other words, yes. It is a fact.

Re: A blanket reply
 

please explain to me how evolutionary theory and atomic theory are on equal plains? what is the primary evidence? I have read a lot on evolutionary theory but am not convinced. Please direct me to the proper sources of info that will put my inquisitiveness to rest.

Re: A blanket reply
 

Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science? I guess b/c posters like this one are told that science is so simply b/c it's testable. whatever. most are not bright, but fancy themselves so. maybe that will be my new signature statement.

Re: A blanket reply
 

I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be. Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? please direct me. why do 'evolutionists' defend their dogma with religious zealotry?
there is no god - atheism reigns. why should i vigorously defend the 'truth' of evolution? no reason. all of this such a joke, but fools will never understand. whatever. joke

Re: A blanket reply
 

tsai you are clearly a douchebag. but i do not feel like explaining why

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be. Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? please direct me. why do 'evolutionists' defend their dogma with religious zealotry?
there is no god - atheism reigns. why should i vigorously defend the 'truth' of evolution? no reason. all of this such a joke, but fools will never understand. whatever. joke

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence for common descent

Human evolution

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you have ever met one - yourself included.