Yes is makes a great deal of sense. Not perfect yet but bloody impressive. BUT.... It is not a "fact". A fact is a measurement or similar. In the context of evolution it would be the fossil record and so on. Like measuring acceleration due to gravity. The data collected consists of facts (e.g. "it took 10 seconds for an object to fall X distance"). You then use these facts to construct and test a theory ,which is far more powerful. People use the word theory in its everyday sense but in scientific language a theory is as strong as it gets. A theory makes testable prediction which you use facts to verify (well technically you check that they don't contradict the theory, if they do all the worse for your theory but if they don't then it still stands...). So facts support theories, theories don't become facts. Facts aren't really useful in isolation, they are just bits of data. A theory tells you something about what you are trying to understand and most importantly makes testable predictions. It will always be a theory but that doesn't make it weak or any less true. The Theory Of General Relativity is "just a theory" but it is incredibly powerful nevertheless.

Yes. Quite obviously, really.

It is logical, but things do not always work logically. No, I don't think it has enough evidence to become a scientific fact. It has never been observed in action.

I am a Christian and I have no problem at all reconciling evolutionary science with my beliefs. The evidence for evolution is astounding and it does follow a logical process. For the record, evolution has been observed on a microscopic scale in viruses and bacteria.

Every time an animal has a baby that is slightly different from either parent, evolution has just been observed. That animals evolve is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains those facts and observations we see and makes predictions about what we should see - in fossils or DNA history for example. It's quite logical, explains observed phenomena very well and makes very accurate predictions.

A lot of the above answers are uninformed. Evolution (as a mechanism) has been accepted as fact for a long time as it has been observed in lower forms of life such as bacteria, and is backed up from various different scientific tests designed to determine entirely different things.

Although it makes sense, no. We couldn't have evolved eyes. You would have had to have something stay in your eye sockets for so long while being useless until it developed into an eye after say a million years. It's just not possible. I guess evolution is one of the things that Jesus talked about when he said thet Satan would decieve many.

If you agree that Satan evolved from an Angel, then evolution was recorded in the bible.

As the origin of life... no, it's implausible at best. Adaptation of species is supported scientifically, but cannot produce the complexity found today. The theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is entropic, and until they explain to me how it's not, evolution will not be scientifically supportable as anything but a theory... and an implausible theory at that.

Yes.

Being able to evolve is a fact. Bacteria and viruses have been doing it for years. Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434 Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change. Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.

Yes. Evolution has been sufficiently proven time and time again that it can now be safely considered "fact," especially since gene-mapping has come on the scene.

Yup. It's the only explanation and the evidence certainly is overwhelming. Look at viral evolution in real time as well as the fossil record.

negative, i think we are far off in all aspects honestly, but i believe in balance.

Not a fact, but the best scientific theory which can explain the facts. Just like Newton's gravitation in the past and general relativity today. On the contrary, creationism cannot be considered as an alternative scientific theory: it has nothing to do with science.

There is no need to ask for religious beliefs to be put aside - that is a given when dealing with Science. I certainly do think that Evolution makes logical sense, given that Evolution is merely change over time. If you can find a logical flaw in the concept of 'change over time', then I suggest you recheck your reasoning ; ) However, instead of being a pedant, I will assume that you are referring more specifically to Evolution by 'Natural Selection'. This also makes complete logical sense, as Natural Selection merely states the obvious; in a natural environment there are survival pressures, such as food shortages. In such an environment, things that are more suited to surviving the survival pressures will be more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Over vast amounts of time, the genetic information of the most suited things will as such become the most predominant in the population, effectively equalling the playing field for the next change in survivability. This is all obvious though... We do exactly the same thing ourselves whenever we breed animals - we call it 'artificial selection' (the practice that Darwin based a lot of his original work on). Artificial is -exactly- the same process, except we are replacing 'survival pressures' (such as food shortages) with mere forced breeding of the things we consider best. For example, with cows, we have been artificially selecting them for a very long time to produce a lot of milk, such that they now pretty much rely on us to milk them constantly because they produce so much of it. The same can be said of pigs for meat content, dogs for a certain kind of look or proficiency (eg. hunting foxes), etc... The list goes on. Artificial Selection is an indisputable fact, as we do it so frequently and can easily see all the changes we have caused to occur. Natural Selection is -exactly- the same thing, except that it is nature killing off the worse examples, rather than humans selecting the best examples. In our way, we simply only allow the best ones to breed, and use the worse ones for other things. In natures way, the worse ones simply do not survive when competing against the good ones, thus only the good ones are 'able' to breed. On the matter of supporting evidence, anyone who researches the subject will never see the end of the evidence for Evolution. 'Evolution' is a completely established fact; there is simply no other explanation for what we see in the evidence (if you have one, please supply it). As for 'Natural Selection', it is so obvious and so well established that to doubt it at this point in time is to either have no idea what you are talking about, or have possession of some previously unknown evidence (which again, I encourage you to please supply). Evolution is fact, Natural Selection is the only explanation we have, and it fits -all- evidence we currently possess (seriously, if you have something that actually disproves it all, you should let people know... It would be such a help, 'and' you would win dozens of Scientific awards and be remembered in history as the person who found the truth : P ***** Religious beliefs aside, I do think that Evolution makes logical sense enough and has enough supporting evidence to become Scientific fact. Natural Selection is also the only valid Theory currently existing (and before someone makes the stupid mistake about what Theory means, you should look it up properly within the Scientific context it is being used in; Theory is the highest level anything can achieve, it is a coherent system of information and explanation that describes a given phenomenon).

Evidence: Doorways from the 1600's in Salem MA historic buildings are much shorter than the current size. They were not built so humans had to duck down, they were built shorter because people were shorter. Evidence that humans are growing taller (over all) and living longer.

I think, given what is known, that if the Church(es) had not opposed it so much, it would already BE scientific fact. The Catholic Church is a powerful entity, and, when it says that evolution is NOT possible, it has an impact. I think it is a credit to science that this theory has not been squashed more than it has.

I'm assuming that you're including Christianity. With that aside, I couldn't say that evolution really makes that much sense... allow me to explain... All evolution really did(and still does) for me was to just raise more questions. Where did it start? How did thought and feelings come about? Why did they, since they seem to be rather decieving? Where did time come from? How did physical laws come to being(gravity, inertia, etc)? Quite honestly, even if I were an atheist, I couldn't believe the evolutionary theory, it's just too illogical and anti-science. I have no understanding to why people hold so tenaciously to such a rediculous idea. I also don't know why it's the only thing that's non-debatable. I've had many times where I begin to question this "theory" and I'm immediately told that I can't do that. Anything else, that's fine. What's up with that?

Evolution is a fact. How it works, how it happens, the steps taken in the past - these are the realm of theory and hypothesis. But that species change over time is a fact.

No. Our body's anatomy is way to complicated to have "evolved" from monkeys or some one cell organism. I mean really from one cell to an endocrine system??? That does not make logical sense to me. They are going to have to do better than that.

Yes.

you have seen men who look like apes. or gorillas. i havent seen anyone that looked like a chimpanzee. But i have seen ape features in people. what does that tell you? I have seen women who look like horses, too. so there is that as well.

If it made any sense at all. Then if evolution on our part is us coming from the ape. Then I have one question. Where are the apes that are evolving into man?

Meant to be comment, please flag as nonsense.

I dont think so.

sort of ONE sided answer isnt it? how can you not take a religious view of evolution? if you do not believe evolution, then you believe what? Creationism? which is a religious view based on the bible.. or maybe you believe some other religions view of creation, but it seems to me you just wanna stir up some shit... you can see inter species evolution if you look at dogs, its fact that all dogs came from the wolf. its also easy to believe that birds evolved from reptiles, if you look at scales under a micro scope they are feathers.. look at a chickens foot and tell me it doesnt look reptilian. every human was once a zygote, a one celled organism.. why is it so hard to believe the conditions a zygote lives in effects its over all appearence?

What about the missing link? It's not a fact. Their are holes.

This question suggests a misunderstanding of Scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory Evolution is a theory used to interpret facts. As evidence grows, the theory gains more weight, however the theory remains a theory.

Very much so. Life will always adapt. One animal evolved one way because of it's surroundings while the same animal half way around the world would evolve differently because of it's surroundings.

evolution mkes no sense whatsoever. answerbag experts aside..no scientist in his right mind would state as "fact" any evolutionary theory in existence today...except 3 professional fools. and all these experts flunkies on answerbag

I've noticed in this forum and others like it, that many of the participants really don't know what evolution is in it's truest form including those that embrace it, hence all of the arguments and misunderstandings. I have added to such misunderstandings myself. What is evolution? Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor? In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions. It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Until evolution can truly be understood for what it really is, arguments and misunderstandings such as we have in AB will continue to rear their ugly heads. I'm opting out from further discussions and answers on this subject. My first love is Astronomy and Astrophysics, so I'll stick with that and questions about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Bible and anything else that is related to it.

I think it IS a scientific fact. There are a few minor details that need pampering out (e.g. hormones in the womb affect how you grow up, and turn out) but overall the governing idea is good

A fact is something known to be true. Now, the only way evolution makes any sense at all is to claim that it takes millions of years (and someone above mentioned billions) to observe the process. Unfortunately, we only have a few thousand years of recorded history.

No matter the answers you receive, it will never quite satisfy your soul. It's like an incomplete phone number or a meal missing the main entree.

yes with carbon dating, fossils, transitional fossils and DNA/molecular biology it's clear that evolution is entirely true. But I doubt it'll become scientific 'fact' not even gravity is scientific fact it's still a theory because a theory is more malluable and subject to update.

Evolutionary science has a mountain of evidence supporting its theories. More evidence than any other branch of science.

it makes no sense what-so-ever and if anybody tried to convince me to believe it i laugh in their face and walk away.

Absolutely. We see it happen every day.

Okay. Let us get this straight. There is NOT a hierarchy of 'theory' then 'fact'. A scientific theory is NOT a 'wild guess'. Look up the definition of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Criterion_for_scientific_status Furthermore, evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory. It's a FACT in that we KNOW evolution has occurred, and continues to do every time a disease jump from species to another, or a disease develops immunity to treatments, for example. THEORY is HOW evolution occurs. That we don't know. The Darwinian model of beneficial mutations and natural selections is the best explanation we have right now for HOW evolution occurs, but it may not be correct model. Even if, however, the Darwinian model is proven wrong tomorrow, it does not change the fact that evolution is a fact. Just as gravity is a fact. When Einstein's theory of Relativity proved Newton's theory of gravity incorrect, that didn't mean that gravity suddenly stopped working until someone proved Einstein right. Things didn't suddenly drift into the sky, and come plummeting back to Earth suddenly when Einstein was shown to be correct. Gravity kept existing, and kept working. Just as evolution will.

In my opinion, evolution is nothing more than a naturalistic philosophy disguising itself as science. I see room for evolutionary processes in limited instances. But saying that evolution works in some cases is far from showing that it accounts for everything. To put it simply, science is pointing strongly towards design. There have been many years since Darwin. Science has marched on and is now able to accomplish many things but lets face it, the evolutionary theory is weak at best and in many cases, fraudulent and contrived at worse. Macro-evolution is a joke. Evolutionists of the past have given themselves a black eye with their dishonesty and fudging of the facts. Regardless of what many say, evolution is undeniably tied in with first-causes. Until science can find the origins of first causes, the rest of evolution is bankrupt. Without a viable beginning evolution, as a whole, cannot be considered anything but wishful thinking. By trying to keep a designer out of the picture, evolutionists have lost their focus and in desperation have fallen all over themselves trying to come up with many theories to keep a Creator out of the picture. But as I mentioned above, science still points to design and that frustrates a lot of people.

evolution does not make any logical sense. if monkeys evolved into humans, why not cats and other animals? plus it is not prooven in any way, so it can't be a scientific fact. not like newtons law of motion or something!

Evolution has already become an established scientific fact because it is. So to answer your question, yes I do think there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution.

"do you think that evolution makes logical sense" What kind of "logic" are you talking about? When you really look at all the facts of Life on this Earth and then look at the universe, could you logically say everything has its start by an accident? When you break down "Evolution" isn't it a bunch of happy accidents? Show me the scientific report that has replicated life. For something to be a scientific fact it needs to be able to be replicated, Right? For as many Scientific reports about the validity of "Evolution" there are just as many Scientific reports that disprove it. So when you come right down to it, you either believe in "Evolution" or you don't. If you would like to check out this link Life-How did it get here? By Evolution or Creation. It uses the arguments of both sides. I found it very interesting, I hope you do too. https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&pub=ce

I think there is some sort of major disconnect here. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It started out, well over 150 years ago, as a model of species differentiation. Is it a fact that one species can evolve into another species? Of course. We have seen it happen in real time. Is it a fact that our species evolved from some other species? As we, humans, we not around to see it happen, I'm not sure what you want here.