Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #20 - shitposts (10/03/2013) [-]
Evolution is "just a theory" though. It's a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence to back it up, but at the end of the day it's just a theory, because we can't 100% prove anything.

note: theory =/= hypothesis.
User avatar #431 to #20 - anonymoose (10/04/2013) [-]
I think it's the just that makes them out to be dumb. They're implying a theory is a term for a loose idea.
#398 to #20 - abortionclinic (10/04/2013) [-]
And if someone thinks that why it cant be proven 100% because we cant travel back in time. Thats why.
User avatar #351 to #20 - turtletroll ONLINE (10/04/2013) [-]
Evolution is a fact.

It`s the process of how we evolved into what we are is what is disputed.

And you can 100% prove anything otherwise we wouldn`t have any facts on any subject.
User avatar #357 to #351 - fitemeirl (10/04/2013) [-]
Please explain using your own words how evolution is a fact.
have you been alive for the past 3 billion years to observe it?

also, as a fun little exercise for the mind. prove to me that you exist. saying "I can see myself in the mirror" doesn't cut it btw.
#502 to #357 - riposter (10/04/2013) [-]
The moment you said "have you been alive for the past 3 billion years to observe it?" and reading your username, I should have stopped myself from answering you, but still.

It is possible to observe evolution during your lifetime in creatures with a shorter life span than ours. I.e: Insects, crops, microscopic organisms, etc.

So cut it up with that cheap ******** of "Have you been alive for x billions of years to observe y? I cringe everytime.
User avatar #509 to #502 - robertolee ONLINE (10/04/2013) [-]
I don't mean to be on the side of the retards, I am certainly not arguing against evolution here but anyway: Observable evolution, such as small changes we can see is micro-evolution and obviously that cannot be disputed and every creationist I've ever met believes in micro-evolution, they just refuse to believe in macro-evolution over a long period of time i.e. the evolution of humans and monkeys from a common ancestor. They believe the changes can be small but not so big they develop into completely different organisms over millions of years. It is a terribly hard thing to grasp in your head trying to understand the billions of changes over the billions of years because that amount of time is hard to understand/grasp but either way their alternative is just ridiculous.
User avatar #306 to #20 - HonkIfIDriveWell (10/04/2013) [-]
A theory in science literally means "currently a fact", which is actually the most sure you can ever be about anything, ever.
#266 to #20 - zynphius (10/04/2013) [-]
Yeah but all this "evidence" to back it up only proves adaption like I can soundly believe that for example a dolphin started completely different and then adapted to what it is today but I still don't get why people can think humans came from apes because you cant get a new thing from 2 completely different species. scientists even tested the genome of the ape to the humans and they thought they found the link just to find a big difference towards the end of their research. and also we share alot of our DNA with bananas but noone thinks we evolved from them .-. the entire thing makes no sense if you think about it. Again though im not saying adaption is impossible because clearly it i all im saying is that one species cant turn into a completely different one
#273 to #266 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
we didn't evolve from bananas or monkies we evolved seperatley.
We just had a common ancestor.
User avatar #238 to #20 - littlefish (10/04/2013) [-]
Proving evolution is like getting a bunch of cats into a suitcase... we've proved like 99% of evolution but there's still like a cat hand sticking out of the suitcase so we can't shut it, and therefor it can't be 100% proven and therefor it's still theory.
#233 to #20 - hailarty (10/04/2013) [-]
You don't get it. The sentence "just a theory " is actually wrong. Since "theory" is the highest term of scientific discovery in that field, saying "JUST a theory" is wrong, because that's like saying "I am ONLY making 5 billion dollars per month"... the actual sentence should be "evolution is a scientific theory" not "just a theory" that is why when someone says "evolution is just a theory" it is safe to assume he or she is an idiot, because they don't know how words work.
#426 to #233 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
The highest form of scientific discovery is actually a scientific law. Please see the difference between a scientific theory, scientific hypothesis and scientific law if you'd like to read more into this.
#462 to #426 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
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.
User avatar #386 to #233 - EnemySpy (10/04/2013) [-]
Just for the record evolution is actually a lot more complicated than most of the internet realizes. It isn't just about genes being passed on based on which animals get to create offspring; the biology of it becomes a lot more complex and difficult to understand, at which point it does become reasonable to call it "just a theory." It's not as concrete as people think.

That said, it's a whole hell of a lot more concrete than the earth being 6000 years old or whatever, I'm no creationist. Just presenting the often misunderstood alternative argument.
User avatar #205 to #20 - garin (10/04/2013) [-]
No no, "The theory of Evolution" is the theory, as in the process of how all life came to be what it is today, Evolution is an observable fact and has been proved. No one will read this but I wanted to throw it out anyway.
User avatar #397 to #205 - Snookbone (10/04/2013) [-]
I always get shat on for trying to say this just because people don't believe it.

Thank you for your scientific literacy.
User avatar #553 to #397 - garin (10/07/2013) [-]
No problem dude, I wasn't sure it was going to end well myself but this time worked out well. Thanks.
User avatar #191 to #20 - buttinspecter (10/04/2013) [-]
If we can never 100% prove anything, then what's the border between theory and law? Because I'd say evolution is a law by now.
User avatar #149 to #20 - trollinggenius (10/04/2013) [-]
well it also implies that a theory is not a big deal in the science world when every product of science is pretty much a theory, its kinda big.
#127 to #20 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
The theory of evolution is just a theory. Evolution is factual. Pretty much all evolution says is that a species can adapt to outside circumstances. A good example would be a martial artist that hits a wall to make his bones stronger and denser.

However, alot of atheists seem to misunderstand that the theory of evolution is not evolution. They are two different entities. This is one of the biggest problem i have with atheists. The theory of evolution states that based on these outside circumstances to adapt that it can cause a species to change into another species. Which you cannot really prove, at all. The only way to prove that the theory of evolution is real is if a species changed into a different species like so. A spider changing into a wasp or crab.

So when people say evolution is just a theory, generally they mean the theory of evolution and not evolution. The theory of evolution is more like an hypothesis honestly.
#269 to #127 - batsbak (10/04/2013) [-]
Wow are you wrong. Species don't adapt to outside circumstances you daft cunt. It's natural selection that makes the best suited survive and reproduce. But that doesn't say the precursor would have just died off, they may still thrive in different circumstances. This **** happens when a population of species gets separated in environments demanding different traits of survival to be needed. This however is almost impossible to observe for it takes many generations of offspring to "complete".

Now i don't see where you fit in a martial artist hitting a wall into evolution, but that is something you call physical conditioning. Surprisingly it works almost the same way as training muscles, you damage them and they grow back stronger. (yes muscles are damaged in process of lifting).

Next time you try to act smart on the internet, actually try to understand what you're talking about before you spew your **** everywhere.
#429 to #269 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
You need to understand what you are talking about. Outside circumstances can be many things. They can range from having to survive from a predator to living in snow, these are outside circumstances. However, I do not think this adapting can result in another species. Your a dumbass, honestly. Outside circumstances is a very broad term and can cover alot of things. These things can range from having no light to having to survive in water. You sir need to get your **** straight, not me. The example with the martial artist is an example of evolution due to him changing because of outside circumstances. It is a very simple form but it is evolution.
#461 to #429 - batsbak (10/04/2013) [-]
ev·o·lu·tion - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Say right there in the dictionary you ignorant ****** . You can't just slap the term evolution on everything that undergoes changes, that's not how this works.

I've had 2 years of studies on evolution, DNA sequencing, isolation and transformation so i know god damn well what I'm talking about.
#505 to #461 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
I think you need to learn something. I will put it as simply as i can. Evolution or the meaning thereof has been bastardized. It used to mean simply put how our ecosystem managed. Put simply, changes due to circumstances. It is a broad term. What i am saying is that these changes cannot result in a new species. You might get different type of lizard but it is still a ******* lizard. A new species would be the difference between a crab and a shark. That is what i am saying. This has little to no proof and most "evidence" is within the same species. It is not from a species changing to a new species.
User avatar #550 to #505 - batsbak (10/05/2013) [-]
Now you might wanna read up on what evolution really is because species DON'T CHANGE! They all evolved from (the common ancestor) simple cells, to more complex multi cellular organisms. They don't change, they branch off further away from each other with every generation.
Now please let this information sink into your thick skull and reevaluate your point. And if that doesn't happen I'm just gonna leave you in your bubble where things "can't happen" without needing any argument.
G'day
User avatar #213 to #127 - doctorhue (10/04/2013) [-]
You are way off.
#161 to #127 - icefall ONLINE (10/04/2013) [-]
As an agnostic I have to concur with you.
I often see people berating Christians for saying OP's statement, when they themselves don't seem to understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Two different things.
User avatar #83 to #20 - lysandrex (10/04/2013) [-]
...It's not the literal meaning behind the the word 'theory' that makes people like OP or me cringe. They use the word theory to belittle the concept of evolution. What they don't understand is the process a hypothesis has to go through in order for it to become a theory in science. A theory in science is a good thing, not a bad thing. People who use that argument think of it as a bad thing.
User avatar #76 to #20 - lfunnymanl (10/04/2013) [-]
gravity is also a theory
User avatar #85 to #76 - mazzyrazzy (10/04/2013) [-]
No, Gravity is law, specifically Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
#166 to #85 - icefall ONLINE (10/04/2013) [-]
No, gravity is a concept, gravity is neither law or theory.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a law.
Einstein's General Relativity is a theory.
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a theory.
Notice how all of these relate to the concept of gravity.
User avatar #384 to #166 - lodisboeg (10/04/2013) [-]
Every "fact" in science is a theory, but in order to get accepted as a good theory it has to be very easy to disprove. Say for example that you manage to conduct an experiment where an object falls upward, and that lots of other people can mimic that experiment and get the same result. That experiment would be enough to make the theories about gravity void.
Of course this is a little unrealistic, but a real life example would be Newtons formulas. With the help of them you can calculate planets orbits pretty well, but not long after Newton people were able to measure a difference between what Newtons formulas predicted and reality. Did everyone stop using Newtons stuff? No, because they still described reality pretty well.
Anyways, that difference between reality and theory was later removed when Einstein came about with his theory of general relativity (or special relativity, cant remember).
So, in short; people knew Newtons formulas weren't 100% correct, but they knew that for the most part they worked (which is why we still use them, they work pretty well), even though they don't describe reality good enough to be a "correct" theory.
The "correct" theory at the moment is Einsteins, but Newtons isn't wrong, it's just that Einsteins describes the same stuff but better.

So, in order to replace a scientific theory, you have to come up with a new theory that describes the same phenomena, but better. And that is how science progresses.
#515 to #384 - icefall ONLINE (10/04/2013) [-]
I know, and I never implied that wasn't the case.
I was pointing out that saying: "gravity is just a theory" is vague and not accurate.
Gravity is a concept, an idea. How we describe and understand gravity are theories.
So to make the sentences more accurate and more precise, they should be something in the lines of "studies related to gravity are just theories". I am not arguing about the nature of the scientific process, I am just pointing out a linguistic misuse.
User avatar #517 to #515 - lodisboeg (10/04/2013) [-]
I wasn't saying that you were wrong
I just expanded on what you were saying
#49 to #20 - norfair (10/03/2013) [-]
We can prove math...
User avatar #44 to #20 - PoopyFaceTomatoNos (10/03/2013) [-]
I understand what your saying and i agree, except i feel 'plenty of evidence' is an understatement. However, the people who say 'just a theory' do not understand what a theory is, how much goes into it, or how subject it is to change.
User avatar #31 to #20 - Maroon ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
Yeah, but every time I've heard a sentence start with that phrase, it was followed up by some creationist nonsense.
#391 to #31 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
Except for just now, many other occasions this is brought up, and the fact that you're an idiot.
#296 to #31 - macbookfan (10/04/2013) [-]
Hence the hypothesis
User avatar #21 to #20 - madsolar ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
i would have written something my self but this is worded well and is just easier.

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words
User avatar #23 to #21 - shitposts (10/03/2013) [-]
I am well aware. but theories (even those in the world of science) are not facts, there are plenty of old and obsolete scientific theories that are no longer the accepted one.

While I doubt that evolution will be disproved any time soon we can not know for sure that it true. It's only the closest thing we've got to the truth so far, not the absolute truth.
User avatar #24 to #23 - madsolar ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
Okay, you are right i won't deny that. the post was more directed towards the people who say evolution is untrue or false solely because the word theory is a part of it.
#45 to #24 - nyxservant (10/03/2013) [-]
That's not the reason people don't believe it. The reason they don't believe it is that they believe in another theory.
#72 to #45 - anonymous (10/04/2013) [-]
Nope, they beliebe in a hypothesis. That is the real problem.
User avatar #26 to #24 - shitposts (10/03/2013) [-]
I know, it was just a poor choice of wording that I felt like addressing. I agree with you, people who disregard everything about evolution simply because of the word "theory" next to it should take a trip back to elementary school.
 Friends (0)