Talk:Theory of evolution

Sources?
I have heard of the General Theory of Relativity, but this is the first time I've heard of the General Theory of Evolution. I googled the expression, but couldn't find it used in this sense, except on Creationist websites. Is this a Creationist construct? Can anyone give me any evidence that such a theory actually exists?

As far as I know, there is the biological theory of evolution and, beyond that, a more general concept of evolution as slow change over time, such as Canada gradually changing from a colony to an independent country. (Historians disagree as to the exact point of crossover.) But this general concept is not a scientific theory, so it seems misleading to claim that it is.

--Drlindberg 10:58, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

I added citation needed flags to the theories which seem unrelated to evolution (namely cosmic chronology, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang) and included some citations for common descent, which is patently related to evolution.

Quindraco 11:21, 30 September 2010 (PDT)

Would either of you (especially you, Quindraco) care to elaborate on how uniformitarianism and abiogenesis are not to be related to evolution? Uniformitarianism gives evolution its required time frame, while abiogenesis gives evolution its required starting point.--TemlakosTalk 11:33, 30 September 2010 (PDT)


 * I believe it has always been the consensus among the Creation Scientific community that the Theory of Evolution (AKA General theory) includes the comprehensive materialism worldview, ie uniformitarianism, abiogenesis... These various anticreationist theories are fundamentally interdependent mostly because they assume each other to be true. If there is evidence that creationists now look at this topic in a different way and consider these theories to be separate, then if you can provide significant sources we will go from there. Until then, I have removed the extraneous citation needed tags.--ThinkerTalksee my blog  19:41, 30 September 2010 (PDT)

It is just a theory
Where can I find discussion of the arguments such as or similarly worded arguments?--Bobmd 08:47, 20 December 2006 (EST)
 * "evolution is a theory"
 * "evolution is a fact"
 * "evolution is a fact and a theory"


 * Try google. Scorpionman 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Only: evolution

 * "The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth, which is more formally known as the General Theory of Evolution. It was derived from atheistic, naturalistic presupposition, although some theists now espouse the idea. The theory encompasses the processes of biological evolution, the origin of life, and aspects of cosmic evolution via the Big Bang."

I hate to be a bit negative, but this really is incorrect. All the theory of evolution talks about is the biological evolution of species. Saying evolution is an attempt to explain the beginning of the universe and the origin of life on earth is an all too common, and unfortunate, pitfall I see fellow theists fall into when debating atheists and the like. -- Creationmac 21:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Without taking into account the naturalistic creation of the universe and origin of life, how would evolution work? To be credible in any way shape or form, the theory of evolution needs to take into account those things. The paragraph even details the wording to differentiate between the three forms. That first sentence could be worded a bit better though. --Tony Sommer 02:54, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I think the fact that there are those who believe in a kind of "laissez-faire" God, who just created the universe and then left things to go on their own accord (e.g. allow populations and species to evolve) shows that evolution can be unrelated to everything else.
 * It would be like saying the water cycle needs the big bang, because without the big bang there would be no earth and no existence of the water cycle. While Wikipedia has a reputation for being anti-theist, their article on evolution talks strictly about evolution. The small section within the article titled "Origin of life" begins with the sentence (which I think sums up the issue):
 * "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began."
 * -- Creationmac 08:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
 * So you may not need to understand it, but just as I was meaning, it is a "necessary precursor" and therefore should be talked about within the article. The same natural processes that govern evolution or biological change in organisms are not the same that govern the spontaneous generation of life under evolutionary theory however. --Tony Sommer 13:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

grammar & meaning
It was derived from atheistic, naturalistic presupposition,

This isn't even good grammar, let alone clear about what it means. I'm not sure in what sense even this so-called "general theory of evolution" is supposed to "derive" from natualistic "presuppositions." Can a source be cited on this?--ScottForschler 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The "theory"?
In scientific parlance, a theory is a hypothesis that is well-supported by observable facts, that has been subject to repeatable, rigorous testing, and that is clearly superior to any alternative hypotheses. I don't think that's how we want to characterize it. How about just "Evolution" for the title? ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2012 (PDT)
 * OK, I see we already have a page with that name, but it's unclear to me exactly how the distinction is made. Perhaps this could be merged there. Or if it's important to keep them separate, maybe this one could be Evolutionary hypothesis or some other wording. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2012 (PDT)

Didn't Darwin himself admited the theory isn't true?
I read in some accounts that Darwin himself at the end of his life admitted that the theory of evolution isn't true.


 * Mr. Clark, next time, don't forget to sign your comments.
 * That said: reports of Darwin's deathbed recant of his theory are unreliable. --TemlakosTalk 08:48, 15 October 2013 (EDT)