0
Darwin wrote many of the premises of 'The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' by noting differences in the of closely related while studying in the Galapagos Islands?
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Darwins inescapable conclusion about what drives evolution?
"traits will be passed down into successive generations. Natural selection explains how species can change in what we might call an by adaptation to their environment; it is the primary mechanism of evolution. Darwin called this an "inescapable conclusion" that followed from two "self-evident" premises. (1) organisms tend to overpopulate a region and there are only enough resources for some to survive, and (2) every individual is slightly different (posses unique traits). Thus, the individuals within a population that are best suited to a given environment will survive and reproduce and this inheritable trait will become increasingly common in the population over time. Examples Darwin sights are that he observed subtly different varieties of finches on the Galapagos Islands, each adapted to its local environment. In addition, ancient fossils have been found that resemble modern-day animals, but with key differences that support the evolutionary model. Darwin observed that examples of artificial selection, such as dog breeding, can isolate preferred traits in relatively short time spans, and is a sensible analog to natural selection. Natural selection is also becoming a big problem for many kinds of bacteria and viruses that evolve to be drug-resistant."(Churchill)
Why do people believe in the theory of evolution?
Answer 1Because they accept the myriad of evidence that underlines the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.Answer 2Because they relied on evidences, observations, experiments. These are the basic premises of sciences. For an idea to be called a 'theory' in science required more evidences and tests, etc. A theory in science means more than what most lay people realize. A hypothesis in science is closer to what lay people think of as a 'theory' in daily usage. So when you hear the Theory of Evolution, there is substantial evidence behind it, just like there is for the Theory of Relativity or Theory of Gravitation.On the other hand, just because something has lots of evidence behind it does not mean it's correct. However, it takes a lot of counter-evidence to overturn a theory. Remember, it took a long time and substantial evidence to change the theory that the earth was not the center of the universe.
The mos effective control subjects in a test of an experimental treatment are?
These are ones you can keep an eye on. You would have them not take the medication nor would they leave the premises so you can get accurate results.
Why does the Creationist movement accept scientific explanations for every subject except evolution?
That depends entirely on one's point of view. Some opinions follow.One ViewBecause evolution is not genuinely scientific. Evolution is an interpretation of facts (undisputed by creationists) which exist in the present. Creation is an alternate interpretation of those facts, according to a different paradigm or different assumptions. Fossils and geological formations, for example, exist and are studied in the present; they don't come with bronze plaques describing how they got there and when. The answer to that question relies on some untestable assumptions. Evolution itself is not subject to the scientific method, wherein hypotheses are made and tested with repeatable observations. Evolution is an attempt to explain the present with relation to unrepeatable events in the unobservable past. Creation can be described in the same way. They both then are about faith, not science. Creationists have no problem with "operational" science--that is, observations about the world around us. That's why creationists do not believe in a flat earth, as some would claim; the shape of the earth is observable repeatedly in the present. Creationists do have a problem with speculations about how things got this way being presented as equally scientific.For much fuller, better informed and better written answers, check the Related Link "Answers in Genesis Science Q&A" at "Answers in Genesis," my favorite Creationist web site.Obviously, I would take issue with much of what is said in the next answer, but this is certainly not the place. I simply want to say that one might compare and contrast the two websites, talkorigins and answersingenesis, and get a pretty thorough view of both sides of the debate.Another ViewThe short answer is because the scientific evidence posed by evolutionists directly contradicts the creationist point of view, and the Bible they cling to so dearly. Should so basic a tenet of the revealed religions be solidly proven false, then it almost invariably leads to disbelief in the remaining information provided. Another ViewCreationists believe in the literal translation of the Old Testament, so that means they believe that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old. The vast majority of reputible scientists believe that our earth is many thousands of millions of years old. Obviously they can't both be right. Creationists will tell us that the fossil record was layed down after the Great Flood, which means they believe that every animal that has ever lived was on Noah's ark - even dinosaurs! Science tells us that the fossil record was layed down inch by inch over the lifespan of the planet (around four and a half billion years). Evolutionary science is just as valid as any other branch of science in that it only accepts evidence that has been tried and tested thoroughly. Science also has many tools to help date not only the geology of the earth but also carbon based life forms that lived long ago. All of these tools give a much older earth than the creationists would have you believe. You only have to look at the various layers of strata to see that they reveal many fossils that look similar but diffirent to each other, this is because over huge amounts of time animals slowly change ever so gradually into a different form. This process is called evolution, and it is brought about by the need of a particular species to adapt to it's ever changing environment. Creationists dispute this by using their one and only argument which is "there are no transitional fossils". That is, if one animal changes to another, there must be evidence in the fossil record of this. The good news for anyone interested in evolution is that there is evidence, and there is more evidence being discovered all the time. So to answer your question - creationists don't accept evolution because it's a direct threat to their beliefs. Another ViewA whole series of articles in "Science," "Scientific American," "National Geographic" and others (all scientific magazines) posed the question "Is evolution wrong?" in the past year or two. All agreed that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It describes both past events (i.e. the fossil record) and it makes predictions (new species will evolve if they become isolated from the rest of the population). I agree with the second post. Creationists don't accept evolution because it threatens their beliefs. Another ViewDo bear in mind that to be supported, a scientific experiment must be able to be replicated. Many people believe that since humans are not visibly evolving at the moment, evolution must be false. We as a species may not be evolving right now after all, but that is a different discussion altogether. But the fact remains that many organisms ARE currently evolving in an observable manner, much in the way that scientists would expect through the theory of natural selection. For example, the AIDS virus is constantly mutating and taking on different forms. The reason there's no vaccine is because there's not just one strain of virus to kill, but thousands - and this after only the 20 or 30 years since it was discovered! Other organisms evolve as well in our lifetime. Many insect species go through gradual changes over time. It may take hundreds or even thousands of generations for a difference to be noticeable, which is impossible in humans and most animals, but this proof for evolution has been observed in many microorganisms and lower life forms because of their speedy life cycles. Another ViewBecause Creationists have already posited that God created the World, then all proofs that contradict this belief are regarded as false. Another ViewBecause Evolutionists have already posited that God did not create the world, then all evidence that contradicts this belief is regarded as false. Thus we see, with the above two comments that it really depends on a person's presuppositions, as both sides have access to the same body of evidence. The problem is that despite the assertions of the evolutionists, nothing has been found in the creation movement which contradicts science. In fact it is evolution which contradicts known scientific laws such as the two laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis.In fact, the more research that is conducted the more evidence points conclusively to the creator. This is in every field of scientific endeavor and demonstrates the great faith that evolutionists need to continue to believe.Creationists, like the many founders of modern science before them, are seeking to investigate the orderly and amazing universe that God has created. The evidence from science, when interpreted correctly, does not fit evolution. Thus it is rejected because it is not scientific.Another ViewSome people perceive scientific inquiry as incompatible with religion. When modern science was in its infancy, some religious leaders refused to believe that the earth revolved around the sun, or that the planets were worlds just like our own earth. Galileo proved them wrong, to his own cost.Even decyphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs was opposed, because some religious leaders knew that, if they showed the Egyptian civilization to have had existed continuously for thousands of years, this would undermine literal belief in the story of Noah and the Flood.Now, it is the turn of evolution. However, to their credit, some major religions are showing a willingness to accept evolution as a valid theory, as shown by the following two examples:-The position of the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.The position of the Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has said that Darwin's theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."Another ViewCreationism is in the realm of religious belief. Evolution is in the realm of science. The two have always been at odds. We do not seek science in the bible. We do not seek religious affirmation in science. Another ViewThe reason that the creationist movement and the evolutionist scientific community have been at odds, is simply their premises. Creationists start with belief in the Bible and this is their premise. Evolutionists specifically exclude the Bible, and without any investigation, assign it the place of religious myth, many also with atheism as their personal belief and presupposition, even openly so. The creationist movement does not find it scientific, regardless of any presuppositions or premises, to suppress, deny or otherwise avoid any evidence which contradicts the evolutionary paradigm. This is real evidence which is available for anyone to see and test for themselves. Such is not science. The evidence which contradicts evolution is growing by the day, much of which is admitted by evolutionists themselves.The real evidence of modern science has no problem reconciling genuine science with a world-view that incorporates belief in a literal creation and flood. This is also true for a great many of the founders of modern science. Creationism is in one sense a reaction against a wrongful linking of scientific endeavor with atheism. It is also seeking to put forward a fuller picture, unfettered by evolutionary, humanistic or atheistic dogma, regarding the facts of what is. There is no need to deceive or make anything up. Nor is there a need to suggest that creationism is religion and evolution is science. If creation scientists were not engaged in real science, they would have nothing to do. If creation scientists had no real evidence then the evolutionists would be able to successfully refute their arguments. If evolutionists have all the science and creationists only faith then evolutionists would always win the debates with the facts.Another ViewIn simple terms, creationists do not accept evolution for two reasons. Number one is that it contradicts the Bible. If this was all that would be the end of any argument. It would be pure religion. But the Bible is a historical book and is correct also where it touches on scientific matters. Thus, when it comes to science surrounding origins, the creationist scientific arguments have a solid basis in the real world. Personally, (and creationists are also highly self-critical like this as well) I am not interested in anything that is not scientifically defensible. If the Bible does not reflect the world that is, then it cannot be true. Unfortunately many people, unwilling or unable to investigate things for themselves believe all they are taught. In one sense they cannot be blamed for this since they are only ever taught one side of the story as absolute truth, when it is not. When evolutionists frequently resort to straw man arguments to attack creationism they indicate that they neither understand science, nor what creationists are actually saying. If it is necessary to label creationists as 'flat earthers', which none of them teach or believe, since it is false, this reveals a desperate and sad attitude to both science and the proper way to conduct a civilized discussion.Another ViewI don't know where you get the idea the bible is an historic book. It was originally written a minimum of 400 years after the alleged events in it. It has been translated through a minumum of three different languages to get to the current English version (not counting the King James version) and lost 1/3 of the original writings in the 14th century . It makes assertions but doesn't present any evidence apart from its own contents. To say that this gives creationists' scientific arguments a solid basis in the real world is absolute rubbish. It would appear you do not understand science.In science, you start with facts. A theory then takes evidence+experiments+logical arguments to arrive at a conclusion to explain other facts, or predict facts to be found in the future.This is not a static state of affairs. Other scientists come along to try and find fault in this process. If they do, then the theory falls down and eventually another theory is constructed. It is an ongoing process through which we learn more about ourselves and the universe. That is science, not faith.Creationists use the bible to prove the bible. That is faith, not science.Someone earlier stated that evolution contradicted the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis. It doesn't. Evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. I assume you are talking about the Big bang -In which case you should get to know more about quantum mechanics which predicts that matter can be created from nothing.Also the Law of Biogenesis is a slight red-herring. This "law" is from the work of Pasteur, who only said that life cannot be spontaneosly created. He said nothing of Abiogenesis, which proposes that it may be possible to create life from chemical reactions. Also, a "law" which "proves" that something cannot be done is an anathema to science as it is very very difficult to prove a negative. All you can say is that with current technology and knowledge it cannot be done. But what does the future hold ?A few hundred years ago scientists "proved" that man could not fly. The same writer said that the more research is carried out the more it points to a creator. I don't know what journals you're reading, but ALL scientific research has and is reinforcing the theory of evolution.Another ViewTo someone even earlier who also does not appear to understand science. Science does NOT interpret facts. It observes a fact such as a fossil, and then tries to find a theory to explain how it got there. (Evolution?) It then takes other facts (fossils) to see if the same theory also explains how they got there. All of these facts (fossils) are open to examination by anyone (i.e., repeatable). If they can come up with a better theory, then this will be followed by the scientific community and not the first theory. Obviously to try to find the age of the fossils may enhance any theory. So scientists (perhaps not the same ones) will come up with methods (perhaps several) to try to determine the ages. Over time these methods will be refined to date the fossils more accurately. From this a third theory may emerge. And so the scientific process goes on. None of this is faith.I have yet to see a creationist present any up-to-date research or evidence that can be independently examined. I HAVE seen them present parts of 20-, 30-, and 40-year old papers from scientists that have since been disproved by later evidence, sometimes refuted by the original authors.NO MODERN independent research contradicts evolution theory ("by natural selection").Another ViewDating methods themselves are themselves subject to an untestable set of assumptions, such as how much of a given radioactive substance was in a sample at some unobservable point in the distant past. To say that there is scientific support for evolution is to assert that there is repeatable experimental support for a number of hypotheses:1) That non-living materials can organize themselves into a living, reproducing cell.2) That the information content of these cells, primarily the DNA, can be increased by random mutations.3) That these outrageously improbable mutations occur with enough regularity and in just the right order to construct ever more complex organisms for natural selection to operate on. Natural selection itself does not give rise to new structures, organisms, or species; it selects the more fit from those already existing.These are the primary ones that come to mind, and I submit that there is no meaningful experimental support for any of them, and plenty of experimental falsification. The Miller-Urey experiments from the 50's attempted something like #1, but showed only that an intelligently designed apparatus could synthesize a handful of simple amino acids, which would be preserved only if the apparatus isolated them from the environment that produced them.Given the level of improbability of any of the 3 hypotheses above, I'd say that it takes less faith to believe in a Creator God than to believe in them.
When your experimenter results are not what you predicted what should you do?
Double-check your procedure and your lab technique. If they're still not what you predicted after eliminating any potential sources of error, then evidently you've learned that your initial premises were wrong, and you'll have to reject your hypothesis since you've proven that it's false.
Darwins inescapable conclusion about what drives evolution?
"traits will be passed down into successive generations. Natural selection explains how species can change in what we might call an by adaptation to their environment; it is the primary mechanism of evolution. Darwin called this an "inescapable conclusion" that followed from two "self-evident" premises. (1) organisms tend to overpopulate a region and there are only enough resources for some to survive, and (2) every individual is slightly different (posses unique traits). Thus, the individuals within a population that are best suited to a given environment will survive and reproduce and this inheritable trait will become increasingly common in the population over time. Examples Darwin sights are that he observed subtly different varieties of finches on the Galapagos Islands, each adapted to its local environment. In addition, ancient fossils have been found that resemble modern-day animals, but with key differences that support the evolutionary model. Darwin observed that examples of artificial selection, such as dog breeding, can isolate preferred traits in relatively short time spans, and is a sensible analog to natural selection. Natural selection is also becoming a big problem for many kinds of bacteria and viruses that evolve to be drug-resistant."(Churchill)
Any sentence having word permises?
I think you mean premises. Premises has several meanings. For example, you could say,"Sandra was removed from the premises," which means that Sandra was asked to leave the property where she had previously been. Premises can also means a set of assumptions or suppositions, as in "The premises underlying the theory of evolution include the ideas that all life is interrelated and that all species are descended from a common ancestor." If you mean promises, then you are referring to a commitment to do something.
When is it proper to say in premises and on premises?
on the premises
What is an example sentence for premises?
It does not match your Premises. That is how we can use Premises.
How do you spell business premises?
Business premises is correct, just as you have it.
Is it on the office premises or in the office premises?
on
Is premises an asset or liability?
premises is an asset
What is exw price?
You only pay for good in the seller premises and you pay the rest from there premises to your premises
Is it proper to say for this premises or for these premises?
it is these premises as the nopun is considered a plural noun according to the Oxford Dictionary.
Should you say the premises are or the premises is?
You should say "the premises are" because premises is a plural noun, referring to multiple pieces of evidence or information.
What rhymes with premises?
There are no perfect rhymes for the word premises.
What is correct in the premises or on the premises?
"Correct in the premises" is used when referring to something that is accurate or true within a particular setting or situation. "On the premises" typically refers to something physically present or located within a specific place or property.
