Several years ago, pope John Paul II stated officially that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. Was he right?
'...(the pope..) is not a biologist or even a scientist, and thus not qualified to act as an authority on the subject...'
In fairness, the Vatican employes rigorous and serious scientific research. It also organizes, on a regular basis, seminars and congresses to which both religious and secular speakers are invited. In fact, traditionally, the Church always has displayed a genuine interest towards the practice of science, albeit often not in an objective or truthful way.
You might know that I do not support the catholic doctrine (or any other religious doctrine for that matter) and I certainly do not share the pope's world views on most subjects, but I am convinced that he is well informed by people who have access to modern rational scientific data (this in contrast with many other christian denominations who often promote blunt ignorance as a virtue).
However, dogmatic religiosity, a religious-political agenda and incompatible morality do indeed undermine his position as an authority in the rational world on the subject.
"THere is no thing as "The theory of Gravity" we are witnessing it now, so yeah its a fact."
Yes there is - Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, and Einstein's general and special relativity. Gravity is both a theory (that describes how it works) and a fact (because we can observe it in action). But presumably you don't go around saying it's "just a theory" because you haven't observed it personally happening on other planets.
"Im sorry, but that question had no substantial means to it unless theres some other point you're going to prove after I post this, id like to know."
The point is that evolution is likewise, both a theory and a fact. A fact because we can observe it happening, and a theory because it describes what we expect to happen. And a theory, in scientific terms, is not some vague idea someone thought up - it's something that's been tested repeatedly, and never proven wrong.
Well, here is my opinion about this subject (please note that english is my 3rd language so it may not be very good). I really don't think that the man evolved from an ameoba...but he evolved. You can observe how the environment affected people's skin colour and not only. In the North, where is colder, people are really really white, and their hair is blonde - this has something that has to do with the beta-caroten & how sun affect their skin less (lesser) than in the South, where is very very hot and the people's skin is darker, so does the hair. The man's body evolved a lot - before clothing was invented he had more hair on his body, to protect him. So, my opinion is that man evolved, but not from monkey. He simply evolved and learnt how to use his brain.
well to be an observable theory, someone would have to live ling enough to record several generations of a species.
so it could be observed in species who do not live long such as insects or rodents, but not in things that live longer like turtles or people.
there is lots of evidence that could point to evolution, or even prove it. But I think it is on a much smaller level than some would lead you to believe.
Since written history, man has not changed significantly other than his technological and scientific advances.
but you can see more and more often that people aren't getting wisdom teeth, and little toes seem to be getting smaller and smaller... so to me it's still open for discussion.
I still just look as Evolution as a theory. Sure there is evidence that points to prove it, but that happens with many things, like for instance, murder trials, many times 100% of the evidence points to one person, and they are totally innocent, its one of those things that you would have to see to really know, so sure Evoltion is very plausible but not CERTAIN, and to be quite honest to me a theory is a theory...when you defined a scinetific theory with a common one, they sounded almost exactly the same just the scientific theory sounded more...scientific. lol
I do see evolution as fact, you can see the subtle changes in the fossil records, following a species for thousands of years, the ancestor of the horse for example was quite small in the beginning and has evolved into the forms we see today.
mankind has not evolved FROM a monkey- BUT FROM a common ancestor on the same limb, man and apes and monkeys are all different branches off of that "limb"
depending on which side of the debate you are on- evolving from simple single cell organisms or creation from "dirt" evolution is factual.
***Is gravity a theory or a fact in your mind?
what kind of a question is that?
THere is no thing as "The theory of Gravity" we are witnessing it now, so yeah its a fact.
Im sorry, but that question had no substantial means to it unless theres some other point you're going to prove after I post this, id like to know.
We directly observe speciation both in the lab and in nature, and we directly observe genetic mutations combined with natural selection. We also directly observe the build-up of beneficial mutations.
...all this without ever even looking at a fossil. So yes, we directly observe evolution.
He's right. But really, the pope's opinion on evolution means squat, except possibly to catholics. He's not a biologist or even a scientist, and thus not qualified to act as an authority on the subject.
Sure - he was acknowledging God's creations do indeed evolve/grow/change with time - nothing strange or hard to understand there - one can observe by simply 'looking around'.
*** and to be quite honest to me a theory is a theory
Is gravity a theory or a fact in your mind?
Evolution can not be called a theory if there was no model provided to observe actual changes.
its proven. there are skeletal remains to show for it.