What are the facts about evolution?

Answer 1

With regard to 'facts' this is still a very subjective question. That some form of evolution occurs there is no doubt. However, there are still many unanswered questions about the natureof evolution. There are similar problems, for example, over gravity; we know gravity exists but the mechanism by which it works is still not completely understood. There are theories about gravity 'particles', 'waves', and, of course, the warping of spacetime as postulated by Einstein. But, despite all these theories having a great deal of merit, the exact 'factual' means by which gravity works is still not fully understood. In the same way, evolution, though evidence supports its existence, is still not fully understood, and until it is, facts about it cannot be cited without some doubt. The word 'fact' can be either irrefutable mathematical evidence (eg 2 + 2 = 4) but can also mean an idea for which there is overwhelming evidence - until something else comes along and improves or modifies it, that is! As an example, Newton's laws of motion were 'fact' for hundreds of years until Einstein realised that they break down at speeds near the speed of light. This is not to say Newton was wrong - only limited. In the same way, we are still groping with Darwin and, although it is unlikely that Darwin will be 'proved' wrong, it is almost certain that the current 'facts' will be modified as new evidence comes along. With regard to Darwinian 'facts', there are two extremes, both of which are rather untenable. Firstly there are those, like Richard Dawkins, who accept Darwin as irrefutable fact. He once stated "Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.'Whilst he may be eventually shown to be correct, there are many questions about evolution that Darwin simply does not answer at the moment, and so such a statement by Dawkins is rather foolish and cavalier. There are some intermediary species that havebeen found, but, considering the multitude of different creatures that have existed since life began, there simply aren't nearly enough, even if we discovered many, many more. Also, rather than a gradual process of evolution as suggested by Darwin, the records suggest that it happened, in some cases, in leaps and bounds. Why? There are also many unanswered questions such as the unlikelihood of complex structures like the eye or the feather being formed by chance, and the great improbability of a complex code like DNA being formed also by chance, even in the most primitive of bacteria. While these unanswered problems and others like them, may eventually be solved, to stick ones neck out and claim that evolution, at this moment, is irrefutable, is as silly as Fred Hoyle's insistence in the Steady State Universe, until Wilson and Penzias came along and discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang, causing Hoyle's Steady State to be shelved overnight. Secondly there are those who deny evolution totally and who insist on an earth that is just a few thousand years old, where all species were created together. Creationists have formulated their own explanations of life's formation surrounding the 'falsified' evidence of Darwinism, and usually rely on scripture to dispute Darwin's theories out of hand. This rigid approach is equally untenable as there is clear evidence of the immense age of the earth, and clear, and overwhelming, evidence that some form of evolution through natural selection does actually take place. Creationists seem, also, to forget that the Darwin they demonise, despite some wobbly episodes, lived and died a Christian. He was once famously quoted as saying he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. Even his Origin of Species ends with the words "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. " In truth, then when asking about the 'facts' of evolution it is very presumptuous to either accept evolution as irrefurtable or deny it out of hand. It seems the truth lies somewhere in between. Until more evidence comes to light, until more theories and speculations come and go and until scientists and naturalists understand much (much) more about the workings of DNA, the facts about evolution will still be rather nebulous and controversial.

Answer 2

Evolution of species is the process by which each species developed from earlier species. It has now been demonstrated by numerous fossil finds, and supported by DNA evidence.
Theories of evolution pre-date Darwin's ground-breaking work, but it was Charles Darwin who recognised how and why evolution occurs, in his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
In the early to mid-nineteenth century, Darwin recognised the limitations of the fossil record as then known to him. Although there was already a great deal of fossil evidence for evolution, there was no evidence of transitional species that demonstrated the actual evolution of a new species or genus.

Today, there are many transitional species in the known record.
One example of a clearly transitional species is the 380 million-year-old fossil of a primitive fish, Gogonasus. It had fins strong enough to support its weight in shallow water and propel itself along. A scan of the fossil, using a three-dimensional X-ray microscope, revealed its skeleton had several features that were more like those of a four-legged land animal, or tetrapod, than a fish. They included thestructure of its middle ear and the existence of precursors of the forearm bones in its fins: the radius and ulna. Here was a fish that had already evolved to a point where it had much in common with later land animals