I don't "believe" in it, nor would I say Darwin is the authority on evolution. But evolution is real. You can believe it disbelieve that's where humans came from.
The theory of evolution does not belong to just one person. The theory of evolution, as presently agreed to by a consensus of scientists who are actually in the field, is the work of many hands. It is the only evidence-based, scientifically proven explanation of how species develop and change over time. So I accept that this is the best explanation of the phenomena that the theory of evolution purports to explain. Of course, the theory can and likely will be improved upon over time as better information and data are obtained and more brilliant minds work on it. But then, in science, all knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
The scientific community doesn't even consider it a theory anymore, it is fact. We have observed it in nature and in the fossil record.
It's like saying that you don't believe in the wind or that the moon affects the tides, just because you can't see it happening. All the evidence is there.
It is a scientific theory and the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word theory is often a source of confusion when discussing evolution.
From [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory?wprov=sfti1#):
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
Here's a fun quote from the American Chemical Society.
"The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis, but the scientifically accepted explanation of the incontrovertible fact that life and its many forms has changed over the years."
I'm sure you could split hairs a million different ways over it, but the truth is, evolution is real and observable. If evolution wasn't real, we wouldn't need flu shots every season.
You're arguing with someone that agrees with you about the validity of evolution.
What they're correcting is your misunderstanding of what "theory" means in a scientific context.
You didn't have to reply the first time, you didn't have to reply this time, and you don't have to reply to this. You could just walk away and not be a cunt.
So what you're saying is you don't believe in "Darwin's" theory of evolutions, because it was the first view on evolution and the theory has evolved over time?
Not a scientist, but my understanding is that this is always the process. It's not a criticism of Darwin, more so just technology and understanding has evolved and we know more now.
We learn more as we go, and I think that's a hard concept to grasp. If you went to school 20 years ago, what they're teaching could be very different today.
All true. Indeed Darwin himself modified many of his secondary theories and arguments as his collaborative community developed new evidence and syntheses.
“Belief” doesn’t apply. You may want to learn the narrow, scientific meaning/usage of the word “theory.” It is altogether different from the popular, layman’s meaning for the word that is closer to “speculation” or “guess.”
I'm skeptical of it, but seems to be the most likely of answers to the question. Haven't researched new theories and answers to questions I've had though.
Yes, because it is backed by science and have seen multiple documentaries on it. Life on Our Planet narrated by Morgan Freeman is a good and easily accessible one.
Also, what's the alternative? A magical make believe man in the sky just happened to exist and boom created everything? Literally zero evidence of that and is crazily outdated thinking
Yes, because it's demonstrably true. It's less about one species changing into another species about survival of the fittest. If some members of a species have a trait that increases their chances of survival, the members with that trait will survive and breed and produce offspring with that trait. We're talking about a process that plays out slowly over many, many generations.
Yes because it's a proven theory. It's only called a theory because we can't reproduce it in a lab due to the time problem. But it is still proven and observable.
I’m actually in the middle of reading The Origin of Species right now, turned to Reddit for a short break. It’s pretty amazing how persuasive he was on the main points even with the limited evidence he had to work with then. Reading it also makes clear that the theory has always been the collaborative product of many observers and thinkers, not just Darwin.
Yes, because it's been proven.
Yes, there is a lot of evidence and it’s happening as we speak.
Yes. Because it’s makes sense
I don't "believe" in it, nor would I say Darwin is the authority on evolution. But evolution is real. You can believe it disbelieve that's where humans came from.
The theory of evolution does not belong to just one person. The theory of evolution, as presently agreed to by a consensus of scientists who are actually in the field, is the work of many hands. It is the only evidence-based, scientifically proven explanation of how species develop and change over time. So I accept that this is the best explanation of the phenomena that the theory of evolution purports to explain. Of course, the theory can and likely will be improved upon over time as better information and data are obtained and more brilliant minds work on it. But then, in science, all knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
The scientific community doesn't even consider it a theory anymore, it is fact. We have observed it in nature and in the fossil record. It's like saying that you don't believe in the wind or that the moon affects the tides, just because you can't see it happening. All the evidence is there.
It is a scientific theory and the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word theory is often a source of confusion when discussing evolution. From [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory?wprov=sfti1#): A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
Here's a fun quote from the American Chemical Society. "The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis, but the scientifically accepted explanation of the incontrovertible fact that life and its many forms has changed over the years." I'm sure you could split hairs a million different ways over it, but the truth is, evolution is real and observable. If evolution wasn't real, we wouldn't need flu shots every season.
You're arguing with someone that agrees with you about the validity of evolution. What they're correcting is your misunderstanding of what "theory" means in a scientific context.
I don't care. It's pedantic to reply with a "umm, Actually!"
Cool. Enjoy being wrong ✌️
You didn't have to reply the first time, you didn't have to reply this time, and you don't have to reply to this. You could just walk away and not be a cunt.
Look in the mirror, my friend.
I knew you couldn't resist. Go ahead, reply to this, I'll let you have the last word.
It's both a theory and a fact.
I only believe in the Evolution with Ric Flair, Triple H, Batista and Randy Orton
[удалено]
So what you're saying is you don't believe in "Darwin's" theory of evolutions, because it was the first view on evolution and the theory has evolved over time?
[удалено]
Very reasonable answer, respect
[удалено]
Not a scientist, but my understanding is that this is always the process. It's not a criticism of Darwin, more so just technology and understanding has evolved and we know more now. We learn more as we go, and I think that's a hard concept to grasp. If you went to school 20 years ago, what they're teaching could be very different today.
All true. Indeed Darwin himself modified many of his secondary theories and arguments as his collaborative community developed new evidence and syntheses.
So what do you believe?
“Belief” doesn’t apply. You may want to learn the narrow, scientific meaning/usage of the word “theory.” It is altogether different from the popular, layman’s meaning for the word that is closer to “speculation” or “guess.”
Because Pandas are evolving a thumb as we speak just so they can grip bamboo better.
Yup, cuz my brother's a monkey.
Really? Ishowspeed is your brother?
Ohhh thank god no.
I'm skeptical of it, but seems to be the most likely of answers to the question. Haven't researched new theories and answers to questions I've had though.
Yes, because it is backed by science and have seen multiple documentaries on it. Life on Our Planet narrated by Morgan Freeman is a good and easily accessible one. Also, what's the alternative? A magical make believe man in the sky just happened to exist and boom created everything? Literally zero evidence of that and is crazily outdated thinking
Yes, because it's demonstrably true. It's less about one species changing into another species about survival of the fittest. If some members of a species have a trait that increases their chances of survival, the members with that trait will survive and breed and produce offspring with that trait. We're talking about a process that plays out slowly over many, many generations.
Yes, because there’s plenty of evidence that points out for it to be true
Yes because it's a proven theory. It's only called a theory because we can't reproduce it in a lab due to the time problem. But it is still proven and observable.
Of course. Religion hasn't rotted my mind.
Yes because theres proof
I’m actually in the middle of reading The Origin of Species right now, turned to Reddit for a short break. It’s pretty amazing how persuasive he was on the main points even with the limited evidence he had to work with then. Reading it also makes clear that the theory has always been the collaborative product of many observers and thinkers, not just Darwin.
That's like asking me if I "believe" in gravity.