The misinterpretation of evolution

[Olrod]

Poe's Law: More than "just a theory".

 

[oktalist]

We are talking about millions of years here. Millions-of-years. Do you seriously believe that in that time, some drastical change is impossible to have happened?

If it is "impossible" for change to happen over the course of millions of years, the why has the fish Coelacanth been living with very little change since it's fossil ancestors during te Paleozoic Era, which btw was about 350 million years ago?

The coelacanths are not a single species but rather an order, like bats, rodents or primates. The first known coelacanth species appeared 400myo and died out 360myo. The two coelacanth species living today diverged 40myo. Between 400myo and today, at least sixty species of coelacanth have appeared and subsequently died out, most lasting no more than 30 million years each.

 

[oktalist]

Because yours is the most reasonable response ill reply to yours.

Whose response was that?

Basically all are observed with limitations to 5 & 8.

What are you talking about?

LOL thats my issue too

What's your issue too?

BTW sorry I still havent figured out how to quote yet. Forum posters must be getting a bit confused by now.

There's a button on each post, labelled "quote".

Sadly the hubris of many wont accept that we cant truly know & instead promote their theories as a fact.

Personally Im a Creationist out of convenience & this is plausible since you cant truly prove anything from the past.

You are right, we can't truly prove anything from the past. Like the Romans for instance, all we have to go on are these old bits of pottery and coins and ancient buildings, they could be anything. It's very unlikely that they are the result of an advanced society of people living thousands of years ago. That stuff was more likely just put there by magic.

Hell, I can't even prove what I had for breakfast this morning. I believe I had cornflakes, but that memory of eating cornflakes could have been implanted in my mind by the creator when she created the universe 12 minutes ago.

Im happy to accept that 'God dunnit' but I wanna know how he done it. But its happening on the other spectrum too with 'Evolution dunnit'. Dont tell me it evolved tell me how it evolved.

We may not know how it evolved (whatever "it" is), but since we have good evidence for how a lot of other things evolved, and no evidence for any alternative, it's reasonable to assume that "it" did evolve unless you have evidence to the contrary. ("It looks irriducibly complex" is not evidence.)

[EDIT] An "irriducably" complex system in an earlier, slightly less complex form, might not have worked for the same function it has now, but might still have been useful for some other function. There are lots of evolved things which once looked irreducibly complex, or failed to be explained by natural selection for some other reason, but which we now understand the evolution of, like the eye, or altruism. Science is littered with things which we once weren't sure about, but later gained a better understanding of. [/EDIT]

"God did it" means nothing, because God is a made-up word, and words are not things, they are just words. You might as well just blow raspberries. Evolution is a thing; even if it were not true, it does at least have a well-defined meaning based on observable phenomena.

I can conceive of lots of evidence that might possibly come to light and disprove evolution. A human fossil dated to earlier than the earliest primate, for example. That would be pretty good evidence, huh? But I can conceive of no evidence that might possibly come to light and disprove the assertion that God created something. Because that assertion relates to no observable phenomena.

It would be nice if God made everything, and everything had a purpose, part of some important plan. But the niceness of a proposition is no basis for believing it.

Its out of the evidence that I use to reveal flaws to the theory of evolution, which evolutionists themselves should be screening for. This is how science perfects itself, through self critisicm.

Also, you need to quote this evidence. Please. If you have ANY evidence that *disproves* evolution, Science REALLY REALLY wants to know it, you'll be famous and win a Nobel prize!

This. A million times this.

 

[Asita]

I guess an obvious troll isn't as obvious as I'd thought :s

I was jesting in regards to the previous post, which mentioned those people who make these silly "BUF IF EVOLUTION IS REAL.. THEN WHY CAN'T ROCKS SPEAK" claims.

Yeah, my apologies for that, but unfortunately I have seen people use that bit seriously, so it's easy for Poe's Law to get me like that

 

[sergnb]

We are talking about millions of years here. Millions-of-years. Do you seriously believe that in that time, some drastical change is impossible to have happened?

If it is "impossible" for change to happen over the course of millions of years, the why has the fish Coelacanth been living with very little change since it's fossil ancestors during te Paleozoic Era, which btw was about 350 million years ago?

You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say, or you worded it poorly.

Evolution does NOT MEAN THAT ALL ANIMALS EVOLVE. This is the "if we evolve from monkeys, then why monkeys still exist" argument all over again.

Fact is, when a species is adapted to its environment, few changes are to happen. It's the seeking of optimal adaptation what causes evolution.

So yes, one species can live for millions of years without changing, and other species can evolve into a completely different thing. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[McMullen]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Are you suggesting that old ideas have some sort of advantage over newer ones in terms of how close they are to the truth?

No, it is not fair that an unscientific idea is taught in science classes. ID is not science. It is built on a foundation of logical fallacies and non-falsifiable claims, and every argument that can be made in its favor rests on those foundations, which crumble easily under scrutiny. It has no place in a science class, except as an example of a conclusion based on something other than the scientific method. It has a place in theology, maybe philosophy (also as an example of how not to do things), but not science.

I have no problem with people believing in creationism. I think it's kind of sad that there's a whole other (and in my opinion, grander and more inspiring) picture of the cosmos that they are denying themselves simply because they do not understand it or are for some reason afraid of it, but I don't have a problem with it. That said, creationist's attempts to inject their beliefs into the school system under the blatant lie of teaching it as science is as disgusting and unwelcome as an overzealous atheist barging into a Sunday mass and commandeering the pulpit.

 

[Rensenhito]

This is the way evolution works, for anyone who's interested:
A theoretical species of giraffe has, on average, relatively short necks. This wouldn't be a problem, except that the trees in their area are, on average, quite tall. Now, note that I said "on average." I said this because there is natural variation in every population, meaning some giraffes have shorter-than-average necks, and others' necks are slightly longer. Because of this set of circumstances, the longer-necked giraffes will be able to eat more and be healthier, so when mating time comes, they will be better able to pass on their genome. Over time, the average neck length in the population will change, due to the fact that the long-necked giraffes have a better chance of surviving.

This is the way it DOESN'T work:
A population of giraffes has short necks. Unfortunately, the trees in the area are tall! So what do the giraffes do? They harness the magical power of evolution, lengthening their necks to reach the leaves! SCIENCE!

There still seems to be a huge misconception about evolution. Animals are not Pokemon. It's not mysterious. It's what HAS TO HAPPEN for life to survive.

 

[sageoftruth]

From the Book of Forums, Science 3:48;

"Lo, men and women of forums shall never know what Evolution is, nor what causes it, for they do not wish to know. Those that do wish to understand may understand ONLY through ancient right of Biology classes and intense study; for the young who claim to understand Evolution cannot truly understand it."

TL;DR: Study it.

Simply beautiful. Can I call you Socratoasty?

 

[Bearadox_42]

I agree completely. It is absolutely absurd that 50% of the country doesn't believe in evolution. It's just silly.

 

[Bearadox_42]

There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.[/quote]

Aside from the fact Creationism, unlike Evolution, has no physical evidence....

 

[Ritter315]

Well starting at the most common problems: 1. Speciation is part of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Most of evolution is accepted, the problem thing not proven at all is that a species can evolve into a higher form of life, which has never been seen before.
2. Naturalistic explaination usually includes evolution. Rarely will someone belief in evolution but NOT in abiogenisis, the big bang etc.
3. Yes paleontology as of yet does not prove that evolution occured because there has been no solid water-tight connection that these are not simply different species of animals rather than related to one another. Because if
4. Again terminology. I understand that higher form of life is not the technical term and that creatures can evolve into lower forms of life (As the theory goes) THAT kind of works in the ID advocates favor, NOT the evolutionists favor because that make it even LESS likely that humans evolved in this manner, and it makes it more problematic since we havnt seen EITHER a creature evolving into a SUPERIOR or INFERIOR form of life. Yes I understand the concept is to evolve to better survive, but so far we've seen NEITHER one happen.
And if you argue speciation at this point, I would remind you that a dog turning into a different type of dog and eventually a wolf or a chihuahua (Whatever) doesnt turn it into a pseudo-ape or primape-like mammal creature (it doesnt follow the chain) And it doesnt branch off into another chain of NEW animal kinds, so speciation doesnt work here.
5. MOST the majority of evolutionists I've talked to: Look down upon and consider themselves superior to non-evolutionist and often polarize them before they even heard their arguements and often resort to sterotypes like "Goddunnit" Which I've never heard ONE ID advocate say, or other such childish nonsense, but I've RARELY seen an ID advocate or creationist or simply someone who doesnt believe in evolution like myself, act in the same manner.
Part of that is what leads me to belief that evolution is not true, simply by the way evolutionists almost NEED To marginalize non-evolutionists.

 

[Flac00]

snip

You say that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, but that's not true. intelligent design is just one FORM of creationism, not a representation of what all creationist believe.

My knowledge of evolution is pretty basic, but I have never thought that the theory of evolution is in anyway incompatible with creationism. Evolution simply tries to explain how things evolved on the planet, not where matter itself came from.

As a creationist my personal beliefs are not the beliefs of any one faith or denomination as I don't belong to any religious organizations, but I see the creator, G-d, or whatever you would like to call it as a prime mover that bought the universe into existence. Life may very well have evolved by happenstance without the creator pushing it in one direction or the other or not, I'm personally fine with either idea.

One reason creationism seems logical to me is this: I believe to explain the existence of the universe you have to start at zero, at nothing, before the existence of matter and precede from there, and this is what science has yet to do.

That is not the issue though. Creationism is fine for me when it does not tread on evolution's "turf". However, Creationism is not an alternative to Evolution, that is the issue. In all honesty, you believing that the origins of life, matter, ect was created by God, or any other "Intelligent Designer", is not an issue. The idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that all DNA and all the animals right now in existence were created by an "ID", that is not scientifically arguable.

Finally, in use in the "anti-evolution" arguments, Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Maybe Creationism is a broader choice, but it still implies the same subject.

 

[Flac00]

created us through evolution.

And this would be why your not a creationist.
Creationism and Evolution are opposite beliefs and you cannot believe in both.
If you think something guided Evolution your still not a Creationist.

I don't mean to sound harsh by linking web definitions and would normally use a dictionary (to late sadly XD)

The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Creationism is the religious doctrine, opposed to naturalistic evolution, that life on this planet was created by a special, unique act of God. Creationism goes beyond this traditional religious belief, however, in asserting that this belief can be proven empirically and scientifically. (there is a second section to this definition however it is not nice for any believers so I left it out)

"Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."

It is creationism.
Creationism doesnt dictate, "Poof humans existed". It dictates that through the supernatural beings power, humans exist, even if its through evolution.

But the problem there is that it is not a science. You can't scientifically prove or disprove god, therefore creationism can't be a science.

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

Sure you can, its just that the theory has held up so well. In fact, because no one has been able to disprove it shows that the theory is on very very very solid ground.

 

[Flac00]

snip

Hold on, intelligent design does NOT conflict with evolution - it simply stats that the world is too complex without there being some hyper-intelligent beings having helped spur things along - be it aliens or God. Whether that indicates the world is a few thousand years old or a few billion is irrelevant to intelligent design as a whole.

As for Creationism, yes there is evidence for it, no I won't show it to you, and no I don't care about your arguments about how I'm a right wing nut job, oppressing religious idiot who refuses logic. I have found in my two years here on this forum that ya'll are INSANELY aggressive when it comes to the topic and convincing you that there is a SHRED OF DIGNITY in the presentation of the theory (if you feel as though it deserves such an honor...) is about as productive as digging to china with a plastic spoon.

As for evolution - OBVIOUSLY there is evidence for it. Hell, look at micro organisms. They're literally constantly evolving and some of the best evidence of evolution comes from the COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE CHANGE of one bacterium to another. Outside of that, mitochondrial DNA is a strong indicator for evolution as well.


Go ahead, disagree. And that's fine. I COMPLETELY understand that there are so many holes in these types of logic (For one thing, if the whole world was covered in water, how did fresh and salt water fish come about? Wouldn't you have killed one or the other off completely?)... but my point is that at least I'm willing to listen to both sides.

Thats fine, just not in a science classroom. Creationism is purly an idea, while evolution is a science. The distinction between the two are immense. Your beliefs, my beliefs, and many other people's beliefs don't matter in the eyes of fact. There may be some evidence for creationism (I won't pressure you for it since you said you would refuse), but the 150 years of constant evidence and criticism of evolution has left it bordering on fact.

This post was originally about the misconceptions of evolution (as the title proposes) and my mentioning of ID and Creationism was because many of the major proponents of it use misconceptions of evolution as their argument. Simple lack of understanding of what the scientific theory says has swayed people, and that is not right.

PS: I don't consider every anti-evolutionist as a right wing nut job. You definitly arn't one since they are usually not very eloquent and have a habit of using certain calling card words like "Obamacare" or something like that.

 

[Flac00]

Is it because of the rise of Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing)

Are they? If I were you, I'd make sure before making such statements as to avoid coming across as ignorant as those I'm condemning. Just saying.

I am very sure in fact. Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Creationism is the idea that every living creature was created by some supernatural being (god in most cases). Intelligent Design is the idea that every living creature was created by some intelligent being (both supernatural and probably god). What few differences between them are small and meaningless.

If you say so. I always thought Creationism was pretty much the belief in the Bible's version of creation. You know the whole Garden of Eden thing, but whatever. I was just saying that don't want to go accusing people of ignorance and then end up with your foot in your mouth.

Yes, you are right that Creationism's foundations are the Garden of Eden sort of stuff. However the modern version (both by the same name and Intelligent Design) puts forward the idea I said. They say things in a general way that way they can have their same beliefs and claim that it is an "option".

 

[spacecowboy86]

A few things to clarify after my last post. less than 10 minutes after that post I said "oh yeah, plants. that explains the advantage." I feel really foolish for that..

A common question is "what use is half an eye?" The answer is that there's a whole lot of use. A single photoreceptor might mean the difference between life and death in some small cases, and that's enough to select for it and spread it throughout the population. More photoreceptors are more effective, so these would be selected for, too. On and on it goes, and millions years later, we have eyes.

the man that discussed the evolution of the eye was fascinating, but i'm yet to hear a detailed description on how lungs evolved, and i'm leaving that up to you guys because you obviously know better sources off-hand than me.

You're going to try and pull the "uncertainty principle" as an argument against a mechanistic, deterministic universe? Sorry: does not apply. (It's like when evolution deniers like to cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics, only to forget that living things aren't closed systems.) In the case of the uncertainty principle, the observer effect, and quantum indeterminacy, well, those things are quantum phenomena. They happen on the sub-atomic level. They do NOT generally govern how matter acts on the chemical level. Once you're talking about atoms and molecules (DNA included), a certain degree of certainty is an emergent property of the smaller, admittedly wierder, quantum scale. And genes -- which are stretches of DNA, often scattered throughout the genome -- are VERY LARGE molecules, even as molecules go. There isn't any quantum anything that could possibly subject mutations to the type of "uncertainty" you're talking about. It's just irrelevant.

I don't know if it says it on the wikipedia page, but I'm certain that it also applies to electrons, which are part of atoms, so you cannot say that it no longer applies beyond quantum mechanics.

Getting back to evolution, what you're offering here is the "argument from ignorance." Because you, personally, can't imagine or understand how evolution happened, it didn't happen. This fallacy pops up all the time, but it's easily dispelled. All it takes is an explanation from someone who does understand (or simply can imagine) a pathway by which the evolution occurred.

no, you are speaking out of arrogance. recall my first post and the man I quoted.

I am a Catholic, but I still know that evolution exists, and I agree that it is appalling that most people don't don't know about it. However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them? Intelligent design is still a possible theory, as is the theory of evolution, I think God guided evolution but, I'm not going to go around and try and make people teach this in schools everywhere.

yes, this exactly. The reason I believe in this is because I find it to be a ridiculous theory that a fish was randomly born with nubs and the ability to breath air, and it was somehow able to use that to survive better.

now, to reiterate for those who muddled my opinion over multiple posts:

I believe In evolution! I know the vast majority of it is scientifically proven! I never said a animal could not adapt new traits over generations for survivability's sake! stop putting words in my mouth!

I admit I never fully made myself clear, and instead used a crappy example, so for you more intelligent people let me clarify one last time: all I believe is that it is not theory that disproves the possible existance of a god (unlike this atheist jack-ass that keeps treating my opinions like trash seems to believe). evolution happens, I believe that! I just also believe that a god exists and for all you evolutionist experts, i'm going to finish this post with one question. maybe you'll answer it, maybe you won't, but I'm not going to remember my freshman year of highschool started with a internet debate on the origin of every species ever (i'm only 14, I know that doesn't give me an excuse for arguing, but that's why I don't have a solid comprehension on all forms of science and may have gotten some concepts mixed up.) I admit it was pretty stupid of me to try to argue quantum physics. but my original intent with that was confused by you, demonstrated by you're coin argument. if god intervened in that situation in my opinion, he wouldn't do something like make tails come up 60% of the time, he has a gentler touch in the universe, which is why quantum mechanics is an interesting take on god. I think god is the one who determines which orderof the 500 of those flips are tails and when the 500 heads occur, which can effect things more than meets the eye of unobservant folks like you. let's use an example from evolution. The average adult human has about 206 bones. Each of those bones had a use at one point or another in our history as a species. each one of those bones, if I understand you correctly on evolution took thousands, if not millions of years to fully develop, and all organisms, correct me if i'm wrong (but please, be polite), originated from single-celled ancestors. Furthermore, according to you, traits are made all the time that are useless and are destroyed by it's host being killed or stored as "junk". If all that is true, over millions, nay, billions of years a single-celled organisms has succefully produced over 206 bones, 5 senses to help us successfully percieve the universe, and around (according to wikipedia) 639 muscles. According to almost everyone of you who told me about how fish evolved, evolution is capable of things we can't even concieve, so of all the possibilities of how an organism can look and act, after billions of years, we're here. Humans, capable of complex thought strong enough to have devised, not only the technologies to move faster, keep ourselves alive longer, and communicate over great distances, as we currently are doing right now on this forum, but also to have discovered the route early-life took from those cells to our current forms. And there's so much diversity among humans between nations and races! Now I don't know exactly what the chances are of an organism like us being created, but it certainly seems like a slim chance to me that we'd turn out exactly like we did and even be able to have this argument. Either way, my last question is this:

where did the very first cell ever come from? because I, as a christian that believes in evolution, as my original post said, believe that the very first cell ever was created by god. Not put on earth by a giant hand from the sky or anything ridiculous like that. but i believe that some seriously, inconcievably, unlikely things had to occur for the first cells ever to be created. my science classes have certainly never told me that, and I believe god is a force at work everywhere in the universe that makes the improbable, likely. (that's one of the many reasons I find quantum physics fascinating, but if there's one thing this forum has taught me, it's that wikipedia and "through the wormhole with morgan freeman" can't hold up in higher level discussions)

 

[Flac00]

snip

I would say -
(1) Darwin happened up upon an idea of how the basic mechanism of evolution worked. He didn't discover it as such, he recognized it. Whether humans recognize how evolution is working or not does not change the truth that it is constantly happening all around us every day. So I wouldn't worry too much that people "Don't get it". It's still working.

(2) Why should evolution not apply to humans? This is the most common misconception I come across. I have read Origin of the Species cover to cover (and it took some time). Darwin does hint that humans are part of it, but it was too difficult for him at the time to out-rightly say what he really thought so he could only imply it. Why wouldn't we be part of it?

Social Darwinism is a perversion of his theory, but only in that people think we can choose what is right. The environment is the only thing that will choose what is right, but other than that, humans are involved in an extremely complex evolutionary process. (Bobbity is right in that mutations are a driving force of evolution but environmental selection is such a huge part of it so it's contribution to the shape of life should not be discounted. Also, consider that to an individual, every other individual on the planet constitutes part of their environment).

Which brings me to answer your question - Where has these misinterpretations come from? From it being a very complex concept, that has incredible ramifications for our existence, and one that is very hard to conceptualize because of our short life spans and the fact when are inside the process itself.

I am very understanding of people who believe in god and religion when faced with the theory of evolution. It can be extremely overwhelming to face, understand and comprehend it. Also, it's not necessary for everyone to understand how it works. I don't understand fully how the human brain works but I live happily with one. And so it will be with evolution. Some will study it and learn more about it, others will go through their whole lives ignorant of it. Which brings me back to point (1); it doesn't matter that some people ?don't get it?. Those who need and want to, do. And it's working fine whether we know it or not. Any complete theory of evolution should be able to explain religion anyway right? And it does.

I don't expect evolution to stop cause of a few humans, dont worry about that. I'm more worried about the ramifications of this.
1: The fact that this is possible shows a deeper meaning of ignorance and lack of understanding of much of anything in society (over all of history)
2: The doubt in evolution commonly leads to doubting many other very important things, like medical science, and global warming. Loosing touch with those ideas can have catastrophic effects.

 

[AMMO Kid]

You may need to provide some of this "evidence" that you claim exists.

To quote Wikipedia: CITATION NEEDED.

There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation.

No, there is far more evidence, which is why people still believe in Creationism. Take the Grand Canyon for example. Evolution says that it evolved over million of years, but based on what we really know, it is impossible for the sediment to settle in the way it did in the grand canyon over a long period of time. The only real answer is that it must have happened over a few short weeks. In fact, the grand canyon perfectly fits the profile of a worldwide flood. Evolution explains it away, but based on what you can find in any geology book, the explanation that evolution gives makes no sense.

And I respect your need for citation, but if you are going to require it from me then please also do it for comments such as "There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation." Especially since that is anything but the case. You can argue that the evidence that Creationism has is worthless, but nevertheless it has much more ground than any of the other religions in the past.

One source I don't really look at but is nevertheless a good source is called answersingenesis.com. You might want to look at a few articles to really grasp the evidence that Creationist have, since you seem to be so far out of the loop.

 

[Jon Quixote]

Does someone want to explain to me why it's always "arrogance" when an atheist points out that religions don't have enough evidence to justify their claims; but religions can still claim to know the truth behind reality, and this gets to be called "humility"?

 

[KoalaKid]

created us through evolution.

And this would be why your not a creationist.
Creationism and Evolution are opposite beliefs and you cannot believe in both.
If you think something guided Evolution your still not a Creationist.

I don't mean to sound harsh by linking web definitions and would normally use a dictionary (to late sadly XD)

The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Creationism is the religious doctrine, opposed to naturalistic evolution, that life on this planet was created by a special, unique act of God. Creationism goes beyond this traditional religious belief, however, in asserting that this belief can be proven empirically and scientifically. (there is a second section to this definition however it is not nice for any believers so I left it out)

"Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."

It is creationism.
Creationism doesnt dictate, "Poof humans existed". It dictates that through the supernatural beings power, humans exist, even if its through evolution.

But the problem there is that it is not a science. You can't scientifically prove or disprove god, therefore creationism can't be a science.

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

Sure you can, its just that the theory has held up so well. In fact, because no one has been able to disprove it shows that the theory is on very very very solid ground.

sigh... just Google "can science prove or disprove anything"