It's a Scientific Theory just like gravity is a Scientific Theory. This is different from just a "theory" used to describe a random prediction. If you don't believe in evolution you really need to get in to touch with reality or actually research it for once. It's really not that hard to understand...
The most direct evident exists here are the millions of fossil record laid out in museums, layered in sequence of burial. That is only a fraction of them, consider how hard it is for fossils to preserve. You can see incremental improvements as time go by.
In labs, you can see microevolutions in real time, that is another direct evidence. Of course time plays a role here. Where did grand canyon come from? Are you seeing it getting 10 meter deep every day?
It is not "just a theory", which refers to a guess. It is a scientific theory which have been proven exists many times like gravity exists, which is also "a theory". Anyone citing that excuse have no idea what they are talking about.
It is funny how some people are citing religion as evidence. First, it is not incompatible. Second, even pope and the catholic church accept it. How backward can some people be?
Evolution means, any change in the heritable traits within a population across generations. When cells in your body duplicate through mitosis and duplicate there DNA some mistakes can occur which modifies the DNA code, this is called DNA mutation. Any change will be passed on to other cells. So in Darwin theory this event could have occurred many times. Evolution! An example of evolution is the prehistoric creature called the ICHTHYOSAUR evolved into the DOLPHIN, this took millions of years but the human race has been alive millions of years aswell.
Evolution describes how animals evolve and change over time to better suit their environment. So what’s there to say that we didn’t come from chimps? I mean humans and chimps have a 98% DNA match. Therefor the chimps could have slowly evolved into what we know today as humans.
Say one day in millions of years the earth is completely covered in water, is god just going to magically give us webbed feet so we can swim a lot better, is he going to give us gills so we can breathe. Or are we going to have to evolve these features.
To start I see some who have said no say it is just a theory, well in the science community a "theory" is that equivalent of saying it's true, basically it happens. Examples of evolution have been seen throughout the years. If you want to see proof stay in water for a long time and your hands get pruny yes? It's not due to lack of oils as many believe, it is in fact your hand evolving and adapting to the water. Your hands become pruny so you can have a better grip while in the water.
People are getting bogged down on semantics - We have evidence that our ancestors had a different physical build-up than we do - Fact.
Humans are now taller than they were say, 200 years ago - Fact.
Evolution is the manipulation of a physical construct to adapt or improve to their surroundings. I can see this on a plethora of scales, bacteria EVOLVING to be immune to antibiotics - that is evolution.
The majority of people I see stating 'NO' are not actually saying they don't believe in the theory - they are just showing that the right string of words have not been put together so they cannot argue against it. The 'facts' can be observed, recorded and stored - thus they are 'Fact'
Look at a Catapillar/Butterfly, is that not a form of evolution, but simply because it happens all over the world, it is somehow less amazing?
Someone would be insane to not accept something like microevolution, speciation, or microbial evolution. Those are established facts and can be observed in both nature and the lab. However, I reject the position of macroevolution and chemical evolution. If someone can give me hard and reliable evidence for macroevolution or chemical evolution, then I will accept them.
I have found that most "evidences" for macroevolution consist of microevolutionary examples. Putting time into an equation does not prove anything. I recommend the book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. This book is written not to favor a different model, but to simply pick apart the modern evolutionary paradigm.
As my supporting headline state's its just a theory. Since it's not a law it has not been proven, but has been tested but no 100% proof. I also find that a person can never prove it out of the fact according to scientists that it takes millions of years. SO thus it cannot be proven using the scientific method and therefore can never become a law and can never be proven. So Technically it has not been proven, and they cannot prove the fossils and bones of the skeletons that resembled Darwins theory that looked like they were slowly "evolving" It is only speculated that they might, but than again they could be a EXTINCT species we never have seen before. There is also the argument of the birds beaks changing shape....Well first things first that is ADAPTATION not a change of kind as Darwin's Theory suggests same for the bacteria that people also like to use as"examples" They are still bateria and birds.. Are they not? So Darwin's Theory is a complete Joke, and even Darwin himself said it was just an idea that can't be proven.
Just like it was stated in the question. Evolution is simply a theory that is widely believed by many people and scientists. Theories are different from Scientific law. Laws are proven scientific facts that are testable and proven by experimentation. Theories are a group of ideas that are used to explain something like where the universe came from or how humans were created. They can not become scientific law until proven by extensive and undeniable experimentation. Therefore Evolution is just another explanation of many of how life began and is not a true fact.
If there were such a thing as evolution, then why do we have monkeys and people, but nothing in between? His theory has never been proven, so there is no evidence to support his statement. The key word in what Darwin believes is "theory", meaning that this is just an idea that he has.
The theory of gravity is never disputed as much as evolution and whether we evolved. Hands that get wrinkly is no evidence for evolution. http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/anatomy/skin-wrinkly-in-water.htm
The reason hands and feet get pruny is because of the thicker skin on both your hands and your feet..
Also humans growing in size is the opposite of what evolution would do. "...Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/
Actually evolution can't explain moths and butterflies. http://creationdesign.org/english/butterfly.html
TK3600 made a good argument on how the fossil record shows slowly improving fossils. However billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. There should be millions of the buggers! http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Macro Evolution is one of the worst scientific theories for evidence. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults
Is it so wrong to believe we were created? There are enough flaws in the theory of evolution to call it Swiss cheese! This is why I don't believe in most of Darwin's theories. I challenge anyone to debate me on this.
I believe in Blavatsky's theory of evolution. Theosophists are able to love more people in their endeavors and don't try to shut anyone out. Evolution by seven races, seven rounds, and seven globes which is helped by 7 archangels, 7 Elohim, and 7 Kumaras explains how angels exist as involving life and how the interactions of two evolving kingdoms can produce a descent into form followed by an ascent out of form periodically.
Darwin did indeed have a theory, as independently had Wallace, which was that different species had arisen gradually by natural selection operating on variation. This he supported by meticulous observation, but the range of evidence available to him was far more limited than what we have today. He lamented the poverty of the then known fossil record, laments that Creationists echo to this day as if nothing had changed. He knew nothing about mutations or even about the existence of specific genes, and so he had no idea how new variants could arise and spread. His assumption of gradualism is in contrast to later ideas such as punctuated equilibrium, and we now know that much if not indeed most variation arises through neutral drift. Thus not only do we know far more facts about evolution than Darwin could have dreamt of, but our theories, too, incorporate numerous additional concepts.
Finally, worst of all, “believe in.” Believing always carries with it the feeling that disbelief is an option. Some members of the jury believe the witness, others don’t. Some people believe that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States, but no one would say they “believe” that Barak Obama is the current incumbent, because no sane person doubts it. I don’t “believe in” atoms, or gravity, or quantum mechanics, because I regard them as established beyond dispute, although our notions about them will no doubt continue to change as we learn more. And exactly the same is true of evolution.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters enormously. Creationists often maintain that evolution and Creation are both beliefs, whose respective advocates differ, not about observable facts, but about how those facts are to be interpreted. They obsess about Darwin, referring to evolution as “Darwinism,” and to those who accept this reality as “Darwinists.” The aim here is to bypass 150 years of experimental and intellectual discoveries, to bog us down in the day disputes of the late 19th century, or even (“Darwin’s doubt,” see here and here) to enlist Darwin himself as an unwitting ally. And they contrast evolution, as “only” a theory, with facts or even with scientific laws, in order to claim that it is far from certain and that different views deserve a hearing.
Most people have not thought long and hard about evolution. And in the US at least, much of what they have heard about it will have come from its theologically motivated opponents. These opponents, whether through “statements of faith” that make obscurantism a virtue, or through “academic freedom bills” that disguise telling lies to children as open intellectual debate, use carefully crafted words to stake spurious claims to the moral high ground.