Every theory in science is provisional. We don't believe in theories, we merely accept them as the best explanations available, subject to refutation in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution is enormous, and we have added substantially to the collection over the past 150 years since Darwin's publication of "On the Origin of Species." The fossil record details changes undergone by species since amphibians first crawled out of Devonian seas. These amphibians bore uncanny resemblance to sarcopterygian lungfish of the same era.
Archeopteryx is a Jurassic fossil of a creature very much like a dinosaur, with numerous features of dinosaurs, but one key diagnostic feature of birds--it had feathered wings. We now know of dinosaurs that possessed feathers, which eliminated feathers as the primary diagnostic feature of birds.
Taxonomy is another over arching principle highlighting evolutionary relationships between species. The fact we can create a nested hierarchy of life forms strongly suggests ancestral relationships between species. If we could NOT construct such a tree of life, this would be evidence species had been created independent of one another.
In our own species, we have a variety of earlier ancestors and extinct "cousins." Peering more closely into our genome, we see enormous evidence of relationships, including shared broken gene sequences and endogenous retroviral insertions. These things should only hold true if common ancestry was the correct explanation.
many got upset at first and didn't believe him and others did
Some people may not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution due to conflicting religious beliefs, lack of understanding of the scientific evidence supporting the theory, or personal biases that prevent them from accepting new ideas. Other reasons may include misconceptions about what the theory actually proposes or misinformation spread by individuals or groups with their own agenda.
Darwin's. Duh. Lamarck believed in evolution by acquired traits; i.e., if a blacksmith hammers all day, his arm becomes strong. By Lamarck's theory, the blacksmith's strength would be transferred to his offspring, but this is never observed.
Absolutely not! He abhorred the political applications of his scientific theory.
Charles Darwin is the one usually associated with the theory of evolution, although that is a bit of a simplification. The basics of the idea had been tossed around by others before, and during Darwins work with it.
Some one proves it wrong.
no
A theory.
Not really, if the theory proves to be wrong then it is replaced by something better (using the scientific method)..
Numerous scientific disciplines, such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy, provide evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution. Fossil records show transitional forms between species, genetic studies demonstrate shared ancestry through common DNA sequences, and observations of natural selection in action support the idea of species evolving over time. These various lines of evidence collectively contribute to the scientific consensus on the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution.
A scientific theory explains some observed phenomenon, it makes testable predictions, it is consistent with other scientific and mathematical knowledge.
Scientific theory
which is not part of darwins theory of natural selction
The new knowledge is used to reevaluate the theory
In science, "theory" is the name applied to well-established scientific knowledge. It doesn't mean that there are doubts about the atomic theory.
A guy who had a debate about Darwins theory
It is a theory.