I think the main flaw in Darwin's theory is the missing link
concept. Archaelogists had yet to unearth fossils of dinosaurs or
animals that are in the transition stage like for example an animal
that is becoming from non airborne to airborne intermediate
species? The crucial missing link is this.
Actually there really is very few missing links as wat u claim
now... IMO, even if all the missing links r found, it is likely tat
a certain percentage of the population to debunk it basically
because it seems to contradict the bible
But Darwin never say God has no part in creating evolution or
making it happen
The process and timeline is different. It do shows
contradiction
so has the theory of evolution been proven as a fact? last i
know its still called THEORY not LAW of evolution.
Tis seems to be one of the most common question posted about
evolution... Actually I think earlier in the thread the answer is
posted...
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a
scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the
middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but
below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific
theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a
law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when
scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic
theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are not
expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that
organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists
cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they
verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the
particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct
observation does not make physicists' conclusions less
certain.
