Lamarck's theory of evolution posited that organisms could pass on traits acquired during their lifetimes to their offspring, such as a giraffe stretching its neck to reach higher leaves. However, evidence from genetics and the understanding of heredity demonstrates that traits are inherited through genes, not acquired characteristics. For instance, when a giraffe stretches its neck, the changes do not affect its DNA, so the offspring do not inherit a longer neck. Experiments in modern Biology, such as those involving selective breeding and genetic mutations, further support the principles of Darwinian evolution over Lamarckian ideas.
Morphological evidence.Genetic and genomic evidence.Geographical evidence.
No. There is no real evidence about that
Cuvier was a proponent of catastrophism. Not so much a theory of evolution as an " explanation " of where all the fossil evidence that was being found then came from. Curvier posited that a series of catastrophes to the whole earth happened and every time they happened god repopulated the world with newer type organisms. Totally baseless and refuted by the evidence.
Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics is not widely accepted today. Modern genetics and the principles of evolution, particularly Darwinian natural selection, provide a more robust framework for understanding how traits are passed from one generation to the next. Evidence from genetics shows that traits are inherited through genes rather than through acquired characteristics resulting from an organism's lifestyle or environment. As a result, while Lamarck's ideas were historically significant, they have been largely replaced by more accurate scientific explanations.
You can easily refute the theory of evolution--just as easily as you can refute Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of relativity. You just can't refute these theories using science or evidence with ease, as these theories are extremely well supported. If you could confirm the existence of fossil bunnies in undisturbed Cambrian strata, that would serve as excellent evidence of a fundamental flaw in Darwin's theory. If you could find a natural specie such as Kirk Cameron's crocaduck, evolution could not explain such a chimera, and forces at odds with Darwin's theory would obviously be at play.
There is no single piece of evidence that definitively disproves evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific fields, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Any challenges to the theory of evolution would need to provide substantial evidence and be subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Make me cum daddy~! Make me moan~!
Law and math prove things. Science supports tentative ( more or less ) explanations of natural phenomenon with evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolutionary theory. PS Evolution itself is a observed and observable fact.
That the theory of evolution by natural selection fits the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is based on myriad lives of converging evidence and is the best explanation we have for the adaptive changes leading to speciation in populations of organisms.
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.
Albert Einstein supported the theory of evolution and believed in the scientific evidence that supported it.
Morphological evidence.Genetic and genomic evidence.Geographical evidence.
Yes, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. This means that it can be tested and potentially proven wrong through scientific evidence.
Darwin .
The only theory. The theory that explains the facts of human evolution and is internally consistent, plus supported by massive amounts of evidence.
The only theory. The theory that explains the facts of human evolution and is internally consistent, plus supported by massive amounts of evidence.
The theory of evolution is not supported by incontrovertible evidence.