[siunevada]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years. The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible. Not just unlikely but impossible.

One of the things I find curious is that for natural selection to work at the present time both nucleic acids and proteins must be present. Theoretically, they must have 'evolved' at the same time since they function interdependently, not independently.

[Strategerist]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

And there's a reason why Relativity is still called "The Theory of Relativity" though it's been experimentally proven and has a wide variety of practical uses in science.

The basic problem is the scientific definition of "theory" has little resemblance to the misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" to the scientifically illiterate public.

What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory.

[My2Cents]

BTW, I love to sit back and watch the paleontologists duke it out with the mircobiologists over various unproveable assumptions of evolution.

[narby]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

They still have classes in "music theory" too. You going to propose that there is no such thing as "music".

[RadioAstronomer]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

In science, a theory will ALWAYS remain a theory no matter how much evidence is accumulated.

[_Jim]

The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible.

Funny - at the most basic levels, there are more things that are in common than 'things' that are different.

I guess that's a matter of the way you do science and the way real scientists do 'science' ...

[Dimensio]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

What else would we call it? Are you suggesting that a theory can become something else?

The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible. Not just unlikely but impossible.

What "beginning"?

One of the things I find curious is that for natural selection to work at the present time both nucleic acids and proteins must be present. Theoretically, they must have 'evolved' at the same time since they function interdependently, not independently.

What are you talking about? Natural selection simply requires that parents produce offspring with small but measurable genetic differences that can create a reproductive advantage amongst certain members within the population.