Quote Originally Posted by R13 View Post
Why wouldn't they? That's what scientist do, you should know there's no such thing as "case closed" in science. Of course things are tested and experimented on, there's things discovered everyday to be tested..they have to be, there's no assuming. That's really an easy question, I've said a million times that not all in clear, not all has been uncovered, it's constantly on going as it should be. And observing evolution in present day is part of that, it will always be experimented on. It stands as where we came from right now, it's not even close to being debunked...anyone have any alternative theories(that are backed up)? Like I said, it's not close to being debunked, it's only been solidified with all of these experiments. There may be another theory in the future that explains it better, but the basic principles will hold true.
See, now there you go. You're starting to come towards what I was trying to tell you earlier in this thread. I'm proud of you. It is a theory that's still being experimented upon, and while it may be "accepted", it isn't fact b/c it's not 100% proven. For instance, 100 times out of 100 times that you put Hydrochloric acid on a strip of magnesium, it's going to cause an exothermic reaction. That's a fact that you can base theories off of. If I theorize that Nitric Acid will have the same effect on magnesium, test it, it won't work. So my theory's disproven. I can test it an infinite number of times, but unless I introduce something that will react with magnesium other than Nitric Acid, or replace magnesium with something else (say, copper), that will react in a volatile way. Then I test that several times in controlled circumstances, and it can eventually be proven as fact.

I know that's all simple chemistry, but the very same scientific principles apply as it pertains to large-scale theories like evolution. We have to find some things that work 100% of the time, and test it strenuously, and then present it as fact. The one variable that tends to get in the way that NO ONE has really talked about as far as really proving evolution is genetic mutations. Genetic mutations can be explained by environmental or internal chemical issues that change the way DNA gets replicated through generations. See...now there's a fact. Genes CAN mutate given a certain set of circumstances. We know the things that can cause this, there's much more solid research that's been done on the human genome and mutations thereof than that of solid research on evolution. That ultimately decides exactly how much we can trust that theory.

The only things that we can theorize right now that we can theorize that causes evolution are time and possibly environment--but we haven't even proven that yet. There are people also, such as myself, that will argue that adaptation =/= evolution because of the environmental factors that cause adaptation to occur...the theory of evolution in and of itself is much more complex and should be independent of outside factors. Otherwise, any change in a species can likely be proven to be the result of genetic mutation and/or adaptation to environment as opposed to evolution.