ARTICLE

Interesting.  I'm not posting this to start another debate on evolution.  If you really feel compelled to, go for it.  It just seems like the more people try to prove the theory of evolution by means of science, the more their foundations are being shaken.  As the article poster said, "Biological evolution only exists as a fact in philosophy, not in science."

Evolution isn't real and is a bunch of nonsense it is just like saying we humans originated from dust which I find kinda insulting.

thenumberone :          From what I have understand you basically are saying that the scientist are always right even with no proof well,scientist were wrong about alot of things such as their theory of there being possibly life on mars well guess what we went to mars and found no sign of life on the planet what makes you think they are right about evolution?One could perhaps made this theory for money.

austipokedude :
Thats not what im saying. I said scientists can admit when their evidence is weak, i never said that evolution was wrong, its not.

The theory of life on mars hasnt been disproven, much like you may say god hasnt.

SoL@R : Science doesn't use the word "theory" lightly. The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Even some of the most fundamental concepts of science, such as gravity, atoms, and cells are given the same title of "theory" as evolution is. Additionally, a theory cannot be "proven," as all theories must be falsifiable. Stating that evolution is not true simply because we do not have a complete fossil record to support it is an argument from ignorance; an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it in no way invalidates any of the positive evidence for evolution.

The article in question is incredibly misleading. Dawkins is not saying that the fossil record is irrelevant or contrary to evolution; he's simply stating that evidence for evolution exists outside the fossil record (unlike what the article claims, Dawkins defined comparative evidence as "looking at modern species and comparing [...] their genes.") and that there are common misconceptions about the fossil record. In the case of Archaeopteryx, while it is certainly not a direct ancestor of modern birds, it's very closely related, and it's not the only fossil we have that demonstrates the evolution of birds. Archaeopteryx is the oldest and the most famous, but evolution as a theory in no way depends on a single fossil. Our fossil record provides far more evidence for evolution than against it (not a single fossil we have discovered has directly contradicted the theory of evolution), and gaps are to be expected anyway due to the highly unlikely conditions that lead to a well-preserved fossil.

Evolution has withstood over a hundred years of scrutiny by the scientific community, and it is still almost unanimously accepted among biologists as well as other scientists. By no stretch of the imagination is it a philosophy that only exists outside the boundaries of science, and the article does nothing to demonstrate that it is.

austipokedude : You are offended at the idea that humans originated from dust (which is NOT what the theory of evolution believes to be what made up the first bits of life on Earth). What was it that the Bible said God made Adam with....... uh... dirt.