Humans evolved from orangutans not chimpanzees, new theory says

I would still stick with DNA evidence, just because a human looks like something isnt enough evidence to say they evolved from it.

I like how evolution is being taught in schools as fact when in FACT, it is still a THEORY. Even the "educated" masses that believe in evolution conveniently forget it's a theory still and thusly UNPROVEN.

In science everything is theory. They can observe a heart beating and it is still just theory that a heartbeat is a biological process.

You have to make your sarcasim a little less subtle, unless you are serious, then your a moron.

That's not true actually. There certainly are laws of science that exist.
While there are still several physical theories, there are also many Laws of Physics. Newton's Laws (all 3 of them), Boyle's Law just to name 4 off the top of my head.(I'm not a huge phan of physics).
The reason they are laws is because they have one or more constants. A theory is a supposition(or a set thereof) based on observation without an available constant.

You have to make your sarcasim a little less subtle, unless you are serious, then your a moron.

Really? Care to show me the unequivocal proof of evolution? I have yet to see anything more than supposition and theory. I mean hell, now the evolutionsist can't even agree where we came from. Sounds like a theory that hasn't even been close to proven to me.
Btw, this "moron" knows how to spell sarcasm

To be fair, I can understand why scientists think we evolved from chimps or orangs or whatthefuckever:

You have to make your sarcasim a little less subtle, unless you are serious, then your a moron.

Really? Care to show me the unequivocal proof of evolution? I have yet to see anything more than supposition and theory. I mean hell, now the evolutionsist can't even agree where we came from. Sounds like a theory that hasn't even been close to proven to me.
Btw, this "moron" knows how to spell sarcasm

Evolution is the best explanation given yet that fits the Evidence and can be used to Predict outcomes.

You don't understand what a Scientific Theory is.

Good St. Charles Darwin wrote his gospel down
So keep your eyes turned to the sky and your ears down to the ground.

Hey hey hey hey,
Get your evolution on.

Ya Gravity is a theory also.

There are mountains of geological and DNA evidence proving evolution, Im sorry you skipped your grade 10 Bio glass, please do some reading. Not only will you find out what a scientific theory really is, you will see why evolution is fact. If you dont want to do any reading just go to youtube, there are literally thousands of Evolution Documentaries to choose from.

As a side note if you dont think evolution is a fact how do you explain the diversity of life ?

You might be able to spell sarcasm, but you clearly cannot spell fan. So I'm just tossing your opinion right out the window. As to your use of parenthesis either a statement is good enough to put in a sentence or it isn't. Pick one. And proof?



That seems like a pretty solid example.

Obviously you have a problem with my sense of humour because I spelled phan to match physics but hey, if that's a good enough reason for you to "toss my opinion right out the window" well it seems you have issues. Are you a disgruntled, laid off English teacher per chance?

Do you believe that humans contain DNA that codes the proteins that make their bodies? Do you believe that parts of DNA are passed down from parents to children?

Sorry bud, it's called Newton's Law. Maybe YOU should do some reading before you try and tell me what the fuck a theory is. Here to save you looking I thought maybe YOU need to understand what the differences are:

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.


Mow, if I'm not mistaken, it's STILL called the THEORY of Evolution.
Sorry bud, but grade 10 biology don't cut it in this argument.