Evolution

The premise of the question is flawed. The questioner is attempting to create an equivalence between one theory and the other, but that equivalence is based on semantics.

First of all, there is no single "theory of gravity". There are, in fact, multiple, contradictory theories of gravity. Including: the Aristotelian theory of Gravity, Newton's theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordstrom's theory of gravitation, Whitehead's theory of gravitation, Einstein's "general relativity theory" (which includes an explanation of gravity), the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, the "induced gravity" theory of Andrei Sakharov, the Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity, Milgrom's "modified Newtonian dynamics", the self-creation cosmology theory of gravity, nonsymmetric gravitational theory, Tensor-vector-scalar gravity, and the theory of quantum gravity. None of these theories is universally accepted (though several have been universally, or almost-universally, rejected).

None of the alternative "theories of gravity" say that "gravity exists". They don't have to. We all know that gravity exists. The existence of gravity is a fact, not a theory. The "theory of gravity" (whichever one you pick) is one of several unproven, contradictory explanations of why gravity exists and/or how it works. The existence of gravity is accepted without question, but none of the alternative theories of gravity are universally accepted.

Now, the "theory of evolution", semantically, is not comparable to the "theory of gravity", in that the "theory of evolution" does say (among other things) that "evolution occurred". (And, like the various theories of gravity, there are several competing theories of evolution that make contradictory claims as to how and why evolution occurred, but they all share the common trait of claiming that evolution, whatever its cause, didoccur.) The question makes it seem that the "theory of gravity", likewise, states that "gravity exists", but as the previous paragraph shows, that is not the case.

To make the comparison valid, you have to consider what fact the "theory of evolution" is attempting to explain. That fact is the existence of life on Earth, in all its variety. That fact is one that we all accept, without question, just like the existence of gravity. The "theory of evolution", therefore, is one of several contradictory, unproven explanations of whyand how that life, and its variety, came into existence. And just like the alternative "theories of gravity", neither the "theory of evolution", nor any alternative theory regarding the origin of life, is universally accepted.

So, in conclusion, there is no difference in acceptance between the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of gravity". Neither theory is universally accepted, though the facts that each attempt to explain are universally accepted.

Very informative, great answer. My answer is much simpler: people believe what they want to believe.

Yeah that's a good answer, the long one, but the reason the theory of gravity is not questioned as much as the theory of evolution is because the theory of gravity does not affect religion as much as the theory of evolution. Like the last person said, people want to believe that Adam and Eve existed, not that we evolved from apes.

Answers 2 and 3 are incorrect. They are red herring attempts to belittle religion. But religion has nothing to do with this. The question is not even valid. As stated in Answer 1, neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of gravity (whichever one you believe) is universally accepted. The facts that both theories attempt to explain are, of course, universally accepted, but the theories themselves are not.

I would like to re-emphasize that there is no single "theory of gravity". There are several theories of gravity, and none of them are universally accepted. In fact, if you picked 10 people at random from the general population, I would wager that 9 of them couldn't even state even one of the alternative theories of gravity. And 8 of them couldn't even name one of the alternative theories. (The person who asked this question is obviously one of those 8. So are the people who provided Answers 2 and 3.) How can anyone think that any "theory of gravity" is universally accepted when 80% of the population doesn't even know the names of any of those theories?

I will grant that people (on both sides) get a lot more adamant about defending their own theories of the origin of life (and attacking other, contradictory theories) than about defending their own theories about gravity. (At least partly because most people don't HAVE a theory about gravity - it's good enough for them that gravity exists - they don't need to know why or how.) And I admit that religion (or lack thereof) and personal prejudice play a large part in this, probably larger than logic and scientific reasoning (again, on both sides). But religion (and even a lack of religion, which is, in a way, a religion itself) is a very personal thing, and people are going to take it personally when they perceive an attack on their religions. Are Christians holding too tightly to a non-scientific theory, based on a literal reading of Genesis, than they should, given the current state of research on life? Probably. Are atheists holding too tightly to a "scientific" theory that has multiple gaps, relies on circular reasoning, and has several steps that could not have taken place without either intelligent design or the realization of probabilities on the order of 10-1,000,000,000? Just as likely. Both have illogical, unscientific, fear-based reasons for holding onto those beliefs. Christians because they are scared of eternal death. Atheists because they are scared of having to face a Creator that they have denied all their lives.

But the point is, neither the "theory of evolution" nor any of the alternative"theories of gravity" is universally accepted. So the question is not valid.

Answer

People mainly accept the theory of gravity because it makes sense to them, but not all people believe in the theory of gravity because it doesn't make sense to them.

the theory of evolution, this theory is mainly argued for the sake of religion, this whole argument begins with Adam (first man on earth). people who believe that the first animals on earth were monkeys humans did not exist, but people who don't believe in the theory believe that Adam was a human, now what they are really trying to say is, are you trying to call Adam a monkey...... now I've actually heard this alot around the whole world where i have been.

I hope you try to get my point, i have just turned thirteen so sorry if my English isn't very high and complicated but hope you understand.

Answer

People who argue about the theory of evolution have inappropriately merged science and religion. There are no competing scientific theories of human evolution.

For an interesting review read the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover that reveals the lack of any scientific data to support creationism and returns it to the realm of religious belief, where it belongs.

Lamarck's folly was that he thought evolution was caused by acquired traits being passed down from parent to offspring. An acquired trait is one which an organism acquires during its lifetime. This theory would suggest that a bodybuilder, who has bulked up during the course of his or her life, could pass a super-muscular physique on to the next generation. Of course we know this is not the case. The only way the bodybuilder's child is going to have a super-muscular physique is if the child also becomes a bodybuilder. The bodybuilder's child could even sit around all day eating Cheetos and playing Video Games, resulting in a very different physique from his or her parents.

Darwin's theory of evolution, the correct one, tells us that evolution is caused by inherited traits passed from parent to offspring. If a parent is naturally more muscular than average, this is a trait resulting from his or her genetics, and its possible that the child will inherit this genetic makeup and also be more muscular than average.

Bakugan

1.dragonoid

2.delta dragonoid

3.ultra dragonoid

4.infinity dragonoid

5.hyper dragonoid

6.neo dragonoid

7.cross dragonoid

8.helix dragonoid

9.lumino dragonoid

10.blitz dragonoid

11.titanium dragonoid 12. mercury dragonoid

In common usage, "theories" are problematic. If I say that "in theory" something is so, you immediately know that I'm not all that sure. There is question.

Scientists use the word in an entirely different context. A scientific theory is an attempt to describe, as accurately as possible, a body of fact that exists independently of the theory. Keep this firmly in mind: good theories explain reality; poor theories bend reality to fit the theory.

Because, Evolution is not a "fact" it is technically just a theory. A theory, in the scientific community, is much more than the generalized term it has become in every day conversation. While evolution is extremely well supported it isn't necessarily treated as a fact because it cannot be implicitly proven despite the great evidence in it's favor. Furthermore, to explain just how much weight a theory holds I'll list some examples which are common to most people Gravity, is technically just a theory even if you experience it all your life. Germ theory (the idea that pathogens and microbes cause illness in individuals), is technically just a theory even though germs causing disease have been isolated and proven to cause disease in other organisms. Cell theory, which states that all living organisms are made of cells, is technically just a theory even though you can observe these cells under a microscope. The reason that these very well established 'facts' (to use it in a liberal fashion) are called 'theories' in science is because scientific 'theory' has a different meaning from a 'theory' in everyday life, which is more accurately called a hypothesis or a conjecture. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has held under the pressure of testing by countless scientists with different methods and can explain a natural phenomenon exceedingly well. It is as close to a 'fact' as it gets in the scientific community.