Is the theory of evolution correct?

It is apparently too complex to be understood by a large portion of the American populace.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=problems+with+evolutionary+theory&oq=problems+with+evolution&gs_l=serp.1.2.0l4.0.0.1.1720.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c..9.psy-ab.2zSKtcHas_k&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=881634b057f61f73&biw=1182&bih=647

Sure there are problems with evolution but nonetheless the theory is very convincing

..and besides what are you going to replace it with

I know of no problems with evolution. There seem to be, however, serious problems with the understanding of what theory means to scientists, and why scientists who study life sciences do not question the theory of evolution.

So if you understand that there are "gaps" in the theory, why are you here asking us? Your fortune and fame are made if you will just publish your evidence of the gaps in a manner which will convince the scientific community.

People say there are gaps. I know of no gap thats why i am asking.

An intriguing aspect of evolution suggests there's a "plan" to it. Although it's a perfectly "natural "process conditions seem to have been set up to make Man, probably the most complex object in the Universe, possible

The constants sem to have been "adjusted," in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to make evolution possible

Yes it's Intuition not Science. But how pointless and dreary the Universe without us top appreciate it, view it with awe

At university, i had a double major in history and literature. That meant that i studied what were (one hoped) indisputable facts, as well as what were undoubtedly not factual. We were taught in history classes, among many, many other things, methods of historiography. That involved a critical analysis of the reliability of testimony on historical events. It is applicable to many other critical examination of claims other than just history.

What people say there are gaps? Upon what basis do they say that? Can any benefit accrue to them in saying so? If, for example, someone is wedded to the idea that the bible is an inerrant record of unassailable truth, the theory of evolution is a direct challenge to their belief. Therefore, they would be assiduous in finding, or claiming to find, "gaps" or flaws in the theory of evolution. That will not be because they have as dispassionately as possible examined all the available evidence and come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is wrong. It will be because they have started with a premise with is contradicted by the theory of evolution and therefore will want to find reasons to discredit that theory.

"People say so," or even "everybody says so" are not reliable bases to believe something or to discredit something.

You would do well to take note that Dale is just as stuffed full of sh*t as the proverbial Christmas goose.

No dale, the reverse of what you are saying is true. Conditions have not been "set up to make Man......blah blah blah"

Evolution is change over time. All species of plants, animals, viruses and bacteria are subjected to changes in their environments. The offspring of the species which adapt best to the changing conditions survive and, if they have offspring, keep the chain of life going. Depending on the changes in the environment, those offspring can be bigger, smaller, different colors or not changed at all.
There is no plan, there are only results.

The Theory of Evolution provides a framework to examine the changes and to make testable predictions about both the past and the future about a particular species.

Joe(No guiding hand needed or in evidence)Nation

If one watches Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, where the assembly line speeds up, then one can understand how evolution can occur as quickly as it did.

I agree absolutely that evolution is a perfectly natural process. My suggestion that Man plays a special part is purely intuitional

….suggested by the observation that evolution of the most complex organism in the Universe would have been impossible given the slightest difference in some of the physical constants

Agin, not a scientific conclusion by any means. But don't belittle Intuition, it can sometimes put us onto the track of significant scientific advancement. For instance its's generally acknowledged that Einstein's theories were constructed largely through suggestions of the Intuition

That's approximately what Hitler said about Einstein

Godwin's law confirmed on page one. No surprise there.

Saying that the evolution of man would not have been possible if one of the "constants" (that kind of sh*t cracks me up) were changed shows a profound ignorance of the principle of evolutionary theory as well as an incredible ignorance of the implications of circumstance. Mankind evolved as it did because of the conditions that were present. Any significant change in the conditions would either have extinguished mankind, or would have resulted in a significantly different outcome.

I take back the disobliging remarks i made about Christmas geese. It seems to me that it would not be possible to stuff that much sh*t in a goose.

Basically, what Joe Nation said. Talking about the "theory of evolution" we so easily forget that evolution per se is not a "theory." It is a demonstrable fact. All the talk about "evolutionary theory" is about just how it happens, not about whether it occurs. Before you can ask whether the theory of evolution is correct, you have to explain which particular theory you're talking about -- Darwin's? Lamarck's? Some other?

Sorry Set for my profound ignorance, but the second two sentences of your posting #….483 seems to contradict the first

Of course, and one of those conditions is the value of various physical constants

Maybe we understand "physical constants" differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

I maintain merely the notion that if Man, doubtless the Universe's most complex object, is at all significant, that it seems the constants might have been "adjusted" to permit his evolution. Not "Science" by any means, merely an intuitive suggestion of vaguely pantheistic origin

The universe is amazing, Subhan Allah !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

Once again, i only wish for my friends to call me Set, and that doesn't include you. My screen name is also not "Anta," you snide son of a bitch.

I have every reason to doubt that you know, or even have a reasonable basis for assuming that humans are the most complex objects in the cosmos. Your entire performance in this thread reeks of smug theism, no matter what obscure and self-congratulatory labels you put on yourself.

Oops sorry about that

Indeed it's only speculation, intuition

Smug maybe but the apodicticdal existential pantheist doesn't maintain the conventional view of The Unknown, but including everything, God too if you like, as a natural phenom,

Tan you sound angry, upset
Why should the ponderings of a complete stranger at a remote website so rile you

Getting back to the original qBeyond life, I speculate that that the Entire Megillah evolves, maybe even the physical constants like the speed of light and the grav constant, to make the entire Universe what it is

…..all in a perfectly natural sequence of events. If Man's place in the Big Picture is of special importance, however, I'll have to concede that the mechanism by which the necessary "adjustment" were made, remains very mysterious

Nothing "supernatural," still there may be factors as yet unknown, unfathomable