As I understand it (and anyone who wants to correct me is welcome to, but it would be appreciated if they could cite sources so I can check them myself), this whole idea that evolution is "only a theory" is a fallacy on more than one set of grounds, but most notably in that Darwin's theory was actually the theory of evolution by natural selection. As far as science is concerned, evolution is fact: the absence of so many modern species from the fossil record indicates that they simply weren't around in the past. The "theory" part of Darwin's work was the bit about natural selection being the process through which evolution happened. That is why (for example) the Galapagos Islands finches were so crucial to Darwin's work.Howlitzer wrote:I mean, in certain situations, to prevent any big stink, it's reasonable to present that evolution is only a theory (and it IS only a theory, this is true, but it explains things very well).
Pastafarianism
-
Howlitzer
- Legendary
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:57 pm
- Custom Title: yradnegeL
- Gender: Male
- Location: Places
- Contact:
True, i should have made that distinction...but even so... there is no way to 100% prove it unless you can actually collect data, as it comes, not through fossils, over that type of timescale.
I'm not saying I don't believe in natural selection wholeheartedly, because I do...but there's always a smidge of uncertainty, which is why even the most well tested, obviously "correct" explanations are STILL called "theories" in many cases.
I'm not saying I don't believe in natural selection wholeheartedly, because I do...but there's always a smidge of uncertainty, which is why even the most well tested, obviously "correct" explanations are STILL called "theories" in many cases.