Muadit Muanqady
Evolution is not just a theory.

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
  • 1 Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary 
  • 2 Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press 
  • 3 A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman 
  • 4 Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between 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. Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould 
  • 5 The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer


 myself am a science student and I can explain it in a much better way. Not just a theory.  It is actually just a theory, clear from the name 'theory of evolution'.

Theory does become a law if it is proven while it remains as a theory even if it is disproven. (
scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiableproperties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logicwhose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
)

Theory is just a kind of hypothesis which has some kind of support. It is proposed to explain an observed phenomenon.
Now everyone can propose his theory and all of them retain their status of theories even if they are discarded. And if they are proven they are called laws. Now this straight away explains your example of Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. But what you produced was a wrong information, Newton proposed the theory which was experimentally verified and turned into law and it is now the law of gravitation. Einstein's theory of relativity is again just a theory, it hasn't been proven right (absolutely) but it can't even be wrong. It solves our problems we accept it. No exception to it has been found.

Now let me give you an example, Newton gave the corpuscular theory of light, it was discarded yet it is called Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

Again a wrong information which you put forward is that it is widely accepted, to this statement of yours there are at least 4 billion exceptions (2.3 billion Christians and 1.7 billion Muslims).

Now why cant we accept it as a law or fact has got a hell many reasons. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution should have made organisms simpler but it has made them complex which is impossible. Entropy should increase but in case of evolution it decreases. The missing links have not yet been found. In nature glucose tends to break but yet in evolution this doesn't happen. Another major problem with it is that DNA replication requires enzymes which are in turn created by DNA only. Thus to make a DNA you require an enzyme and to make that enzyme you require a DNA molecule.. Another point worth mentioning is that why did life originate only on earth, you give the reasons that earth conditions are suitable for life. But the truth is that earth conditions are good for the life it contains, other planets could have had other life forms which would have been adapted to those condition.




  • Marco Airaghi And you're daring calling OTHERS bad students=? you have neither the fundaments to define a scientific theory.
    about an hour ago · 

  • Marco Airaghi It violates the third law of thermodynamics// and neither of organic chemicals
    about an hour ago · 

  • Marco Airaghi why did life originate only on earth, u give the reasons that earth conditions are suitable for life//there are growing facts suggesting that organic stuff can ALSO have an origin in the space.
    about an hour ago · 

  • Saaib Ahmed not a single answer he he..... I feel sorry for u.... U must have ***** in pants.... U better change ua diapers and answer me instaed of giving these pussy cat threats...
    about an hour ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Marco Airaghi ‎??? you're a moron
    about an hour ago · 
THIS WAS THE FIRST PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ON ANOTHER THREAD


Atavism is the Greatest Irrefutable Proof of Evolution



What is Atavism? 
Atavism is defined as the tendency to revert to ancestral type. In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago. Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them.

Why is Atavism Irrefutable?

Atavism is irrefutable because it has been observed in human beings and animals. It is unexplainable using any other theory or model except Evolution. The fact that these traits show up in humans is not by chance mutation as chance mutation cannot cause perfectly form organs to appear.

What does it all mean?

It means that humans and other animals possess genes in their bodies that are from their evolutionary ancestors. Just like humans have the Vitamin C generation gene that is turned off, while other animals have it turned on, the humans also have genes responsible for development of other organs in humans such as tails, and other atavistic traits.There are significant genetic similarities between humans and other animals with similar or same genetic ancestors. It is not merely by chance or coincidence but this is due to the fact that they evolved from a common ancestor. The dormant genes that are inherited from common ancestors can be activated by chance during some attempted reproductions. This results in the display of atavistic traits inherited from the ancestral type. 

Has Atavism been observed in humans?

Yes, it has been observed in many humans including those humans who are born with tails, humans that are born with snake's heart, or ape-like dental signature. Here are some studies from the National Institute of Health detailing the occurrences of Atavism in human beings:

Detailing Human Tail:

Snake Heart: A case of Atavism in a Human:

Those of you who have access to JSTOR can look up the journals on it to see documentary evidence of Atavism in various animals and humans. There is already too much science available on it.

Has Atavism been observed in other animals?

Yes, it has been observed in animals such as chickens with teeth, dolphins and snakes with hind legs to name a few. Typically, Mammals can display atavistic traits from their progenitor mammals and reptiles, where as birds display atavistic traits from their progenitor birds and reptiles, and reptiles display atavistic traits from amphibians.These occurrences of Atavism are very well documented by the scientists. There is significant documentary evidence of Atavism even occurring in human beings. 

Combined support for wholesale taxic atavism in gavialine crocodylians

Skeletal atavism in a miniature horse

What does it all mean?

It means that Evolution is not just a theory but the truth and denial of this truth is nothing more than a serious delusion which in the long run will lead to failure of those who live in this denial in the world of science. Humans are no different than other animals and evolved just like all the rest of them from primordial soup.There are already over 29+ concrete pieces of evidence of Evolution, and Atavism is just one of these pieces of evidence. The idea that the scientists who came up with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Big Bang are plain nuts or have an agenda sounds a tad bit tin-foil-headed coming from the people who have no expertise in this subject. The apologists have tried very hard to disprove Evolution but they have failed miserably.

There is resistance to learn science amongst some cultures and groups of humans who prefer their perpetual ignorance and inter-generational beliefs. In our new world that is driven by scientific facts and discovery, we cannot perpetuate ignorance and denial.

Where can you learn more:

<span>29+ Evidences of Macro-Evolution</span> : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 


Saaib Ahmed Atavism is refutable if you have complete knowledge of evolution, in fact it disproves (doesn't prove) evolution. If u read complete theory of evolution you read one of its postulates that evolution is always progressive and a lost character cant be acquired back and that means that evolution hasn't got a a reverse process (PROOF HERE). Now tell me where does this fit in.
3 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Nathan Harris ‎"If u read complete theory of eveolution u read one of its postulates that evolution is always progressive "
    Evolution is progressive? Define progressive. And don't think of it as a progressive ladder, but think of it as a tree. Species branch off from their common ancestor.

    3 hours ago · 

  • Saaib Ahmed Yes and I already know it. You don't need to teach me what I already know. Progressive doesn't mean progressive ladder that is progressive in one dimension. It has to be progressive with every step no matter what the direction is. A species can give rise to hundreds but all of them will have to be better than what they came from and they wont acquire the lost characters. My stand still stands correct.
    3 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Nathan Harris 
    ‎"yes and i already know it..... u dont need to teach me what i already know."
    Oh really..? Lets see..


    "It has to be progressive with every step no matter what the direction"
    DEFINE PROGRESSIVE.

    "A species can give rise to hundreds but all of them will have to be better than what they came from and they wont acquire the lost characters."
    Wrong. Evolution doesn't say that at all. Unless you have your own theory. Evolution is just descent with modification or the change of allelic frequencies over time, to be precise. Dollows law of irreversibility says that though, and it is a hypothesis, not a theory.

    PS: The term "better" is arbitrary.

    2 hours ago · 

  • Saaib Ahmed Your knowledge of evolution is wrong I think. I hope you know survival to the fittest. Now if evolution goes negative the new species will get eliminated (LESS ADAPTED) and the older will stand.
    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Nathan Harris 
    ‎"ua knowledge of evolution is wrong i think"
    Pretty tall claim. I'm a biology student, FWIW.


    "I hope u know survival to the fittest"
    Yes I do.

    "Now if evolution goes negative the new species will get eliminated and the older will stand..."
    You don't have a clue what evolution is. Animals don't make "progress" the way you say, they just "adapt" to their environment in the best possible way. That's all. Rest are just branches of Evolutionary biology which further goes into the details. As I said above, you might be talking about Dollow's law, not theory of evolution as such.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Dollo's_law_of_irrevers​ibility 

    en.wikipedia.org
    Dollo's law of irreversibility (also known as Dollo's law and Dollo's principle)...See More

    2 hours ago ·  ·  1 person

  • Saaib Ahmed Nathan bro, animals adapt and whats that adaptation, a positive change or a negative change. You are a biology student and I am a student of Medical Sciences.
    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Muadit Muanqady Saaib explain to us why would whales or sales grow well formed hind legs in the creationist model? How would the bodies of the whale know to do that?
    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Nathan Harris ‎"nathan bro, animals adapt and whats that adaptation, a positive change or a negative change"
    Depends on what you mean by "positive" change. For example, the white color and thick fur is advantageous for a polar bear in antartica, but put them in Sahara, and would you call "positive"? It's all about environmental and selection pressures.

    2 hours ago · 

  • Muadit Muanqady ‎... Snakes...
    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Muadit Muanqady Likewise the birds whose embryos atavistically grow reptilian teeth in their mouths how would they know how to do that in the creationist model.
    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · 

  • Muadit Muanqady the question is not just how but also why they would do that?

    Mere simple genetic mutations cannot create well-formed organs or bones or limbs in just one generation, but genes that already present can definitely do that. Those genes are already present because these creatures evolved from earlier creatures.

    2 hours ago via Facebook Mobile ·  ·  1 person

  • Saaib Ahmed 
    ‎@nathan.. Yo must be a weak bio student. Yo put them in Sahara... Whom, the evolved bears or the primitive bears. The evolved bears wont survive there but primitive (DEPENDS) will if they existed.... Let me give you an example to clear your concepts. In New Delhi India when mosquito population reached epidemic levels, Delhi government used a mass removal of mosquitoes program in which they used ddt im water bodies and the formula worked. What happened later was that after a few years the mosquitoes had developed a resistance to DDT.The evolutionists put forward this point which proved evolution. But this just proves lack of knowledge. What actually happened was as follows. The mosquitos were already of two types, one having resistance to ddt and other lacking it. When ddt program was used it killed all the ddt resistance lacking ones leaving the resistance possesing ones alive. They grew in number and we had a different problem. This aint evolution baby, this is natural selection and i dont have any problem with that. The problem i have is i start running fas and i become a leopard....... He he....

    @muadit: Similarities don't prove evolution....... If it was so, how come do we have males and females in same species. This is again a concept which u wont have an answer to. Males and females have evolved simultaneously (if they really evolved) but the difference throughout the kingdoms is of one gene, now this means that the same change took place in every species which have two sexes and the probability of this being true is 1 divided by number of polymorphic species and it commes to be 0.

    about an hour ago via Facebook Mobile · 

I LEFT THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T READY TO ACCEPT ANYTHING.
THIS IS AN UNBIASED BUT EDITED VERSION OF THE DISCUSSION.

POINT OUT THE MISTAKES IN THE DISCUSSION (IF ANY)
Reactions: 
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Response to "Saaib's discussion on Evolution (EDITED VERSION)"

  1. Muadit Muanqady Said,

    ‎Saaib Ahmed ... My question still stays unanswered which you conveniently removed all but one instance of. If evolution is not true then how do you explain Atavisms, such as:

    1. Whales, dolphins and snakes who are born with well-formed hind legs.

    2. Bird embryos that are formed with teeth.

    3. Humans that are born with snake's heart, tails, or ape like signature.

    Where does the genetic material to do this come from? Why does this happen if these creatures did not evolve sequentially from lower classes, such as mammals evolved from reptiles, and birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles evolved from amphibians.

    Can you prove why this even happens?

    Posted on 14 August 2011 at 07:06

     
  2. Anonymous Said,

    i think i answered this point of yours....

    Posted on 16 August 2011 at 10:45

     
  3. Anonymous Said,

    Saaib Ahmed, you are a fraud! Allah is going to roast you in hell for misleading believers.

    Posted on 10 September 2011 at 14:33

     

Post a Comment