In Biology a theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that evolution has occurred, does occur, and will continue. Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas. There is a law of gravity, but there is a theory of gravitation. Because in science gravity and gravitation are slightly different.

The fact that nearly half people think evolution has not been scientifically proven is a proof in itself of how poorly people understand what science is all about. I am inclined to believe that 85% of those who are in favor of evolution know little more than the average high school biology about it. I include myself in that category. As a scientist, I've studied physics not biology. Yet, that little we know make much more sense than any religious alternative. Think about the judeochristian God creating the earth in a seven day creationist marathon or about Brahma starting from a lotus flower or a about the wish list of a native American earth-maker. They are all equal in being legend and myths. Yet, there must be something that people who doubt evolution don't understand and my only answer must be that they simply approach evolution with a close mind, only trying to disproof it. It is too beautiful and simple for the simplest mind not to grasp. So my argument is that if you have not made an honest effort to understand evolution putting aside your religious bias, you cannot have an opinion against it. The mere fact that evolution is taken for granted as truth by every biologists should convince you that science has proven it. Here is a video that give you the basic scientific argument for evolution against creationism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k. I stand for that argument.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that evolution is a scientific fact, with so much observational evidence to support it that the only reason someone would deny it is either because they didn't understand it, or it went against their specific religious views.

I think the only real thing that could be up for debate is the mechanism through which evolution occurs (natural selection), although even this is pretty much scientific fact.

So I would say yes; evolution has been scientifically and observationally proven.

Science doesn't do "proof". It identifies the theories which best support all available evidence. Then tries it's damnedest to prove those new theories wrong.

Since the theory of evolution manages to be compatible with every scientific observation ever made, not to mention the fact that its principles are used to design vaccines, it has come as close to proof as any scientific theory can. The day evolution is proven wrong is the day I'll go back and check on gravity and atomic theory, too. They're all on equal footing at this point.

Evolution is proven every year in fact. The influenza virus, it evolves every year and needs new vaccines, people aren't given the same flu vaccine every year, it's needed re-tailoring to fit the existing virus.

Same goes with all anti-bacterial medicine, all bacteria is constantly evolving on the lower level, why wouldn't it happen on the higher up level? It just takes longer, it's been seen that evolution existed because different animals are evolved to work better in their environment. Human remains have been found and body structures have changed over the time periods in which they existed.

Evolution and speciation as a result of natural selection has been proven and observed many times. The only thing really up for debate is the origin of all known current species from one common ancestor.

Evolution is a scientific fact. The change in organisms is absolutely undisputed, and the genetic evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record (as stated by the head of the Human Genome Project, a Christian).

The THEORY of evolution, how this change occurs (e.g., by natural selection), is what is unproven. But evolution itself is an established fact.

The theory of evolution has been proven both scientifically and logically. On a scientific level, evolution has been observed within species by scientists since Darwin's own observation in the Galapagos Islands, where birds' beaks had mutated to help them utilize different souces of food. Even today, signs of the trend in "survival of the fittest" are all around us. African Americans, whose ancestors in the United States were the strongest from Africa, brought to the US as slaves, now dominate the sports industry. The children of the best and brightest Asians who were able to immigrate to the US during the 70s-80s now happen to be many of the most brilliant in schools and universities. Its not a coincidence.

Just thinking about it for a moment, evolution does, at least at first thought, make sense. Being a programmer, I have seen evolution logically proven as I and others use "code evolution" to evolve our programs. This happens by making copies of the programs and altering some just like creatures mutate, and then combining them two by two to symbolize mating. In the end, we usually end up with about a thousand crap programs and a few super-good programs.

Evolution does logically work out, and thus nothing is stopping it from happening in our society. On another note, I would like to clearly point out that just because evolution is a possible process does not mean that life as we know is a result of it. In fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which theorizes that life is the result of evolution, is weak because it fails to explain how life originated, instead addressing only how it developed. I believe that to connect the process of evolution with the question of "how we got here" was a huge leap in logic, and, personally, I'm not a Darwinist.

It has been proved as much as such a theory CAN be proved, there is enough evidence going for it that all we are missing is actual observation, which is nigh impossible given the topic.

There's pretty much no way evolution is not true. It's been very well proven and is not just a "theory." Believe what you will, but there's no denying that there is a LOT of evidence towards evolution.

While a lot of things in science can't necessarily be "proven", evolution and other theories have a lot of strong evidence to support them. A scientific theory is not like other theories. Gravity is considered a theory. It can't be proven to be 100% true, but there is clearly enough evidence that support it for it to be taken as truth.

Evolution is in the same boat. There are some undeniable evidence of evolution that exists. We have seen species adapt to the environment and change over time. You can't deny that part of evolution. I wish people would stop assuming that a scientific theory means that its a way that someone thinks and has no real evidence.

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Whether or not something is scientifically proven or a theory are simply human conventions that we try to apply to the unexplanable. There are too many natural occurences that we as humans will try to explain and simply fail to explain, which is how I believe creationsim was brought about in the first place. People tried to explain the incomprehensible.

It doesn't need to be proven as there is no underlying math, (in physics there is).

It is widely acknowledged as "what happened" and that is proof enough, it should be taught in schools therefore.

I've studied a lot of Biology and to me evolution has indeed been proved.

The way science uses the word "theory" is not the same as the way its used by the general public.

The general public uses the word "theory" to describe an assumption, something that may or may not be true, something not proved.

Science however, uses it in quite a different context. "Theory" for science is the explanation of how something works. Not an assumption of how it may work, but a thorough and well examined explanation of how it works. Nothing is given the status of a "theory" in science unless it has been tested over and over and over again and proved by other sciences and observation.

Take gravity for example. There is the Law of Gravity, which says that things tend to fall downward. Then there is the Theory of Gravity, which explains what Gravity is, what causes it, and how it works. Its not an "assumption" of how it works. Its a proved explanation of it.

I have come across many religious people that see evolution as a threat to what they believe. They say it contradicts the theory that God created man. But at no point has the theory of evolution ever claimed to know WHO created the building blocks or the why. In my opinion, there is a way to accept both.

If you believe that God created man then evolution is the way by which he went about doing it. What's wrong with that?

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

For (Macro-)Evolution Theory to be valid, laws of nature that are generally accepted as true and standard must be repeatedly denied. The typical outcome of a dramatic mutation is that it: (1) does not reproduce in the mutated form to a successful degree, (2) is often sterile, and (3) has low survivability rates. (Macro-)Evolution Theory supposes that these natural limitations to mutation were repeatedly set aside over innumerable generations in an ever-succeeding pattern that defies the standards known to exist - and, further, that this denial continued successfully over millions of years.

yes,it has been proved

we live in a SCIENCE-FI world and if we don't believe in SCIENCE it is foolishness

Evolution has indeed been scientifically proven. The trick here is to ask ourselves what the constraints of the scientific method is and how that affects our understanding of evolution.

I trust the science that proves evolution, what I don't trust is the derivative opinions on why and how it happens. The how is still a very uncertain subject (due to its complexities) and the why (being a philosophical question, requiring value judgments rather than scientific deduction) is outside of the realm of the scientific method.

That being said, science has a fundamental assumption that influences its outcomes. It is the assumption that it is humanly possible to fully explain nature through analytical study. Whether it can or cannot be done is an entire debate in its own right, but that core assumption is reflected in the conviction that evolution entirely explains the process of life. Which of course it doesn't.

So, the fact that evolution has been scientifically defined, tested and found to be so has very little effect on what we believe the reason and purpose of evolution is. It may be a proven theory, but it is still a very incomplete theory.

The fact that this argument nearly has the dissenting side winning is a great testament to how far this site has to go before it becomes a credible place to argue intellectually.

why doe the flu evolve every year?

Yes, the fossil record provides more than enough evidence. Religious fanatics like to ignore evidence, and repeat nonsense statements such as "It doesn't explain where everything came from in the first place" when evolution is not even an attempt to explain where everything came from. It's the Catholic church and round earth theory all over again...

Well we had to ocme form somewhere not juut out of the blue and DNA don't lie when it says our DNA is 98% the same as a slug. That is a shocker I bet. We are more related to slugs then primates if you go by that. And to say a living thing won't change if it's enviorment does is kinda silly since then it could not surivie an we would not be around or life for that matter,life is always adapting and changing,over tme of course.

I think there is more proof that species evolve than there is that they were created.

It is the best theory we have as of yet, It has been proven to take place, and it has be accepted by the scientific community. So i would say yes.

Evolution is a fact as defined. Technically speaking, proofs only exist in mathematics. I suspect the questioner is confusing the theory of evolution by natural selection with evolution as a concept.

Insofar as any natural phenomenon can be studied, processed, explained and supported through and by the scientific method, evolution has been "proved".

Evolution really is true but as we all know the main reason of how we evolve is because of God our lord. We really doesn't know if what is the specific date God created then World. is it day of the earth? or day of the heaven

No, of course it has not been proven scientifically. Many things have not been proven though that we know for sure to be true. Universal Gravitation has not been proven, but no one would deny that it exists. Similarly, micro evolution, organisms adapting to the environment, definitely exists.

Macro evolution, the evolution of one species to another, and the idea of a common ancestor, is not quite as widely accepted. However, there is a very strong case for it.

Note that evolution does not explain the creation of earth or life, simply the changes of life over enormous amounts of time.

The problem with this question is what is the definition of "evolution" and "proven"?

It is still a theory because it can not be proven in such a small time period. However it is almost absolutely likely to be correct.

No. That's why it is called "Evolutionary Theory," not "The Law of Evolution."

Actually, I'm not sure it's been proven. I do think that human evolution is what scientists say it is, in that we evolved from primates, but it hasn't been proven.

By the way, my good fellow, the word is "proven", not "proved"

The process of evolution is fact. We have provably observed the processes that encompass this term, do not confuse this with theory of a common ancestor. Evolution simply explains the morphing from one genetic makeup to the next.

The theory of a common ancestor, and the term theory doesn't imply uncertainty as quantum theory is yet to be disproved and the theory of gravitation obviously stands, seems right to me. There are plenty of fossil records to show this process and we've mapped enough genes to see the remnants of these transformations. Even if not 100%, it's a fairly clear pointer, wouldn't you think?

As I prepare to answer this question, I realize I have essentially no knowledge about the theory of evolution, besides Darwinism and the title. But the title itself is enough for me to know that it hasn't been scientifically proven: it is the THEORY of evolution. Much like the Big Bang THEORY. While it is probable that these events happened, it is not certain. And while I believe that they have happened, it is not certain.

To say that evolution has been scientifically proved would require that it be first studied then determined scientifically. To do so would require that the question be analyzed for its scientific qualities; those true and those false. Any falsehood would constitute a rejection of the theory as a whole, and the proponents would have to start again from a different hypothesis. This does not in any way speak to any objective measure of the absolute truth or falsehood of the theory itself, but rather the wording and logic behind the theory, as any theory can only be judged on the basis of its wording to be judged objectively, and not subjectively which would only be a matter of opinion. Therefore the rejection of the scientific method is complete in the sense that it cannot be disproven on the basis of absolute knowledge outside the tools of argument available; namely words, which are the basis for any theory or hypothesis being argued, defended, or subjected to tests to find weaknesses in order to reject that theory. Such a theory cannot be truly known or even truly unknown, for to be truly unknown one must first truly know what is not to be known, and surely that itself cannot be known, truly. Really in reality it is difficult to prove with absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty the absolute absurdity or surdity of what is known or what is to be unknown, even at a future date in time. Space. Space, the final frontier, you are already here, but knowing exactly where you are with respect to where you were is certainly uncertain for even a population of sodium atoms at or near absolute zero can not be known in terms of absolute position or velocity, for as the velocity approaches absolute zero, we become more and more certain of that velocity, but must necessarily also become more and more uncertain of its position, each atoms wave function spreading out until it overlaps with its neighbors until it is totally indistinguishable from its neighbors forming a singular blob of matter. But this is only verified by experiment, which is the only and best test to be used by the scientific method, which can only truly be used to reject a hypothesis. That said, a hypothesis may be accepted, but not scientifically, but for all intents and purposes may be treated as absolute truth, baring any contrary evidence; as occums razor would point out the simplest hypothesis which explains the phenomenon is the most likely, again baring any contrary evidence. But when that evidence cannot be explored by conventional methods of observation ie: through the senses directly or indirectly relating to the physical and tangible world, then such a theory cannot be honestly and objectively analyzed or compared to the princeps of our understanding of the world and its phenomenon; it is detached from them. Surely such a word is a word apart from other words in the world of words such a word is subject to suspicion and castigation for being as it is a word not of the other words but another word of that which cannot be known by what other words are known knowingly it is known that what cannot be known cannot be be said while being said to be known for that which is known to be known was already said, or implied, the implication being that the knowledge of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as it was written by the word in words and communicated thusly; by words, cannot be known by the same token, for the token has two sides, each side opposite the other, and each side opposing the direction of the other, without either side facing the other, but rather facing away, as it is when two sides face away from one another but do not look at each other directly. So it is that the argument, whether by proof of evidence or scientific method or any other method, that the theory cannot directly oppose its opposite argument, but can only be described from an outside observer who does not stand and look outwards only from one side or argument. One that holds the token cannot stand upon it. For one cannot at the same time support one side of an argument, and also observe objectively between arguments. Neither can the word be subdivided or separated without losing the intended meaning of the whole. But without deductive reasoning we are lost. But without inductive reasoning we cannot make general statements about the world. But without particulars the general cannot be described. But without apriori knowledge of the general, we cannot be sure of its particulars. And so the scientific method, while a tool used to disprove but said to prove cannot prove but only disprove and then only if the subject is implicitly accepted, and the method of test also being accepted in its general power to come to particular conclusions of what is known to be not true. That the evolution of the scientific method has developed is proof enough that such a theory cannot be disproven. Or has it?

Is it not absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable, therefore, to be truly proven, absence of doubt must be the case.

It has not been proven and i don't think it can be...think about it this way they say humans evolved from apes or whatever right? yet have you ever seen an ape evolve into a human yourself? alot of people debate that what i cannot see i do not believe but i'm almost sure no one has seen an ape evolve into a human we my have similar looks but it doesn't mean we have evolved from apes...yes i believe in god.. and i have never seen him but god makes more sense to me then evolution ever will. show me! a documentary or something when an ape has evolved into a human

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

evolution has never been proven and will never be proven because it never happened. on that note you also can't prove creationism ever took place because it just happened. there is nothing intelligent about the thought you evolved from hydrogen gas or any other non living thing.

Although I firmly believe in evolution, it is only a theory, and even though theories have evidence and are backed up with facts, they are not 100% true and can probably never really be proven, like the Big Bang Theory. But just because something is a theory does not mean people cannot believe in it; I personally believe in both evolution and the Big Bang.

Why is it more reasonable to conclude common descent rather than common design from the similarity we see among species. I would argue that common design is far more reasonable. Here is why. This is a quote from the article and the full article can be found at the link below.

Conclusion

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated, it’s being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

It's all a theory. Scientist don't have a clue when there trying to figure out how life actually got started. Another debunked remember Ida it was supposed to be the missing link and they gave it a huge media plug telling the whole world this is it. Well today they went back on it and said that it's not even close it was some kind of cat. Just like on National Geographic 30 years ago when they showed an ape like skull on the from cover only to find out later that it was a hoax, and it was sold that this is it. It has to make you wonder if there is a agenda behind it.

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes? To evolve is to change and the ape didn't. Evolution only an atheist's delusion.

By way of the scientific method, it cannot be proven in this day of age. It is still a theory.

No, it hasn't been proven. Until you can take me back in time, there is no way to prove it, just like the theory of gravity.

nope, just how gravity wasn't.

it's still just a theory.

If evolution was true, then i pose one question to all of those who agree with the Darwhin(sp?) theory. You look at every other type of evolution, teradactyls to birds or something like that. when the teradactyls evolved, they themselves went extinct. If we came from monkeys, and we have been around for thousands of years, then logically wouldn't the monkeys be extinct? When they supposedly evolved into us then wouldnt they themselves died out? But obviously they did not because their population only started to go down when we started to poach them. I challenge anyone to posed a better argument on the fact that we did come from monkeys

No, evolution has yet to proven. Evolution consists of an organism who progressed into a more complex collection like animals, then into homosapiens,then into what we are today. If this were true, why has the evolution process ceased, why arent there half monkey,half men walking around who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution, why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body? These questions obviously can't be proven. So no, evolution has not yet been proven.

In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven. There is a wealth of evidence to support it but this evidence is not sufficient to be a proof. In a strict sense no scientific idea can be proven. All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable.

It has been proven in the sense that there is no other competing scientific theory that has any scientific merit. The evidence points to evolution being the reason for the diversity of life on Earth.

I have not seen any animal turning into another recently to be honest...

And I'd rather prefer not to think of myself as coming from an ape. Not too regal you see.

The very first thing they teach you in science class . . every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??

If evolution were true, there would not be male and female. Why would we evolve into two sexes??

If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through. One wouldn't have been around without the other.

The most obvious argument is that it cannot be proved scientifically because we can't observe or recreate it.