When Science is refering to the Evolutionits Theory ,does it mean Biology or Physics?
553531
To most people, evolution means Darwin's theory on the origin of species. But astronomers also speak of stellar evolution, meaning the changes that stars undergo during their lifetime. The dictionary meaning of the word is a gradual change from one form to another, and could be applied to many things.
159591
Do you mean "Is evolution in contradiction to Genesis (the Biblical version)?"?  If so, they are not in competition.  You can believe in creation and evolution.  Evolution is the change in alelle frequency in a population over time.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  That is a matter for abiogenisists to worry about.  Evolution works no matter what the origin of life actually is.
1167871
Pure science is just theory.\n\nApplied science is the application of this theory as a method for investigation.
706932
Evolution is a science in which the principles are continuously questioned, tested, and revised as new information is acquired.  The fact that some religions such as Hinduism are more compatible with evolutionary theory does not make it a product of the religion.    Secular Humanism, if you even qualify it as a religion, has adopted it, but did not create it.  If a pastor felt that Newtonian physics should be taught alongside the Ten Commandments, it would not make it religious doctrine.  Evolution can be studied without any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.\n\nIn summary, enough of your meaningless rhetoric.  Evolution belongs in schools, the Bible belongs in religious classes and parochial schools, and "Scientific" Creationism (but not Creationism) belongs in the trash.
310797
Evolution is a theory developed by Charles Darwin to explain the creation of life. \n\nHe believed that man originated from a single-celled organism that combined with another single-celled organism to create the first dual-celled organism.
889208
Its not.\n\nThe word evolved implies evolution, the definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development.\nOr more specifically in biology, change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.\n\nHumans did not however evolve from the apes alive today, we simply share a common ancestor.
677385
Creationist stories were written to explain what could no be explained by science, specifically, where we came from.  Science has since explained this with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is what really happened; creationism was simply created to fill the holes until we figured it out.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, bu
1153218
You are Right, Evolution is true.\n\nThose who dont just happen to take references from their Holy Books to seriously. We must all understand that these Holy Books are a matter of faith and should not be involved in the studies of Science. \nScience on the other hand is hard cold truth. The truth in Science is always backed by facts and numbers.
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    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. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And 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. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
1006928
THEORIES OF EVOLUTION\n\nEvolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:\n\n1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."\n\n2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.\n\n3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man.\n\n4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and animals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--the most baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were convincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the chief purpose of this book.\n\n5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that al1 species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.\n\nThis book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. There are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to the arguments of evolutionists.
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
101179
No theory in science is "true". The theory of gravity is not "true". \n\nA theory in science is just the explanation that we have for the observations. If one theory explains more of the observations than another, then it becomes accepted, at least until it is superceded by something that explains more data. \n\nThe true things in science we have are observations, at least with some error bars. Data corresponds to the facts that the theories try to explain.\n\nGiven that, evolution is the most accepted theory currently to explain the data we have and our observations. It makes predictions we can verify and use.
76003
Science is a methodology - a way to go about finding information.  Below I've posted two blogs I've written.  The first one deals with creationism and science - I include it because it describes what is science and what is not. The second blog is an essay on the theory of evolution. Check out the links in the cited section for pictures and links to additional information.\n\n------------------\nIn the news today, evolution and creationism are once again on trail.  This time the lawsuit is taking place in Harrisburg Penn over the addition of creationism’s latest offering – Intelligent Design theory – into school text books. \n\n \n\nAccording to this report, intelligent design purports to be an ‘alternative theory’ to the theory of evolution.  In fact, according to the article, intelligent design purports to:\n\n \n\n"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.\n\nWith respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”[1]\n\nOn the face of it, this part of the disclaimer seems reasonable.  The question is – is intelligent design an explanation of the origin of life?  Is it actually a competing scientific theory?\n\n \n\nThe answer is, unequivocally, no.\n\n \n\nFor a start, intelligent design has no positive evidence in favor of their ‘theory’.  Intelligent Design advocates attempt to present evidence by pointing out supposed flaws in evolutionary theory – as though there was a legitimate dichotomy to choose from. \n\nAn expert biologist who was giving testimony during yesterday’s trial said the following in an MSN’s article: \n\n”Under questioning from American Civil Liberties Union attorney Witold Walczak, Miller said he wasn’t even sure that Behe had done research on intelligent design.\n\n“I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design,” he said.”[2]\n\nThis is further corroborated by the utter lack of attempts to submit papers for peer review by creationists:\n\n \n\n“The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135, 000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985). \n\nIn the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.”[3]\n\n \n\nAside from lack of positive evidence, there is a bigger problem here.  One that is ignored by creationists and one that ultimately shows intelligent design to be nothing more then an appeal to magic – which, needless to say, doesn’t constitute a ‘scientific theory’.\n\n \n\nWhat is a scientific theory?  According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory, in the context of biology, is: \n\n \n\n“A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional
733252
Physics to biology. \n\n\nBiology has realtivly little to offer to physics, however because of the way in which physics can explain things on a very small scale ( the interactions of particles and such), it would have more to offer to biology.
1047752
The term "evolution" originally refered to a very different idea.  The idea was that Eve was created with egg cells, which contained new human beings.  Inside the mini-females were even tinier egg cells, some of which contained females with yet still tinier egg cells...\n\nIn short, Eve contained at creation every human being who would ever be born.  God had even known who each of those women would sleep with so that he could give them egg cells containing children that just happened to look like the father!\n\nBy the time Darwin worked out natural selection, evolution was a discredited theory, along with the parallel homunculus idea which was sort of the same thing only with Adam containing all the later generations of humans...  With the idea it referred to rejected, the term "evolution" was left hanging.  Few people really spend a lot of time referring to discounted theories..\n\nDarwin did not use the term evolution at all in the first several printings of his book.  he used "descent with modification".  Well "descent with modification" is, while accurate, not eactly easy on the tongue.  It's just too much.  People started to use the term evolution (or, sometimes "the new evolution") to cover it.  Darwin personally hated the term, since his theory was specifically NOT evolution, since there was no pre-defined scroll to unroll.  It was exactly that connotation that he wanted to avoid!\n\nHe fought the use of the term for years before giving up and recognizing that, appropriate or no, there is no arguing with linguistic descent with modification, and including it in some of the later editions of "Origin of Species".\n\nIronically, "creationism" originally referred to something else as well.  It first refered to the doctrine that souls were created by god specifically for each human, as opposed to the idea that God created souls at the dawn of time (or whenever) and kept them in storage until a new child was formed.\n\nIt amuses me that original creationism is quite compatible with evolution, but original evolution is a creationist doctrine.\n\nFor more information on creationism and evolution, see:\n\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
953850
Physics is the study of science\nReligion is the study of philosophy\nJust before the Dark ages they had a parting of the ways