- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,943
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Really? How so? A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess. Theories are generally much stronger in that several educated guesses stemming from the root hypothesis have proven accurate or that some form of experimentation or observable phenomenon has given weight to the original hypothesis.
A scientific theory has been tested to the point that the only way to refute it is to come up with some new, previously unknown facts. In the case of the theory of evolution, it has been tested now for a century and a half, and every new fact that has been found has confirmed it. It is difficult to imagine what new facts could possibly come to light that would refute it.
Yes, it is in fact a scientific term. By all means look it up if you think otherwise.
Dang, you're right. I hate when that happens.
It just has a different meaning for biologists as opposed to creationists:
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
I explain it as humans and chimps sharing similar biological features that would merit the similarity in basic genetic structure. :mrgreen:
Yes they share similar biological features as well. The reason is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that existed only a short time ago on an evolutionary time scale.