What are three reasons that support the fact that evolution is a valid process?

Answer 1

The word 'evolution' can refer to both established fact, and to the theoretical model explaining observations in terms of what we know about that fact.

Evolution, the fact, refers to the observed phenomenon of the changing of allele frequencies in populations.

Evolution, the theory, refers to the theory that evolution (the fact) is a result of reproductive variation (eg. mutations), and is mediated by differential reproductive success (natural selection) to produce new forms.

Evolution, the theory, is as close to fact as any science can come. Note that the term 'scientific theory' does not have the same meaning as the popular vernacular 'theory'. In everyday use, the word 'theory' may be used to describe a mere hunch or speculation - whereas in science, a theory is a comprehensive, well-supported explanatory model, consisting of multiply verified hypotheses and independently verifiable facts and laws.

Evolutionary theory encompasses the central hypotheses of common descent and natural selection.

Answer 2

== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==

== == == == == == == == == == == == == == The theory of the origin of species via evolution, as originally proposed by Charles Darwin, does not have as many facts in its support as some would like, because it addresses events that happened many years ago. However, many facts do support this theory. It is controversial mainly because some people feel that this theory conflicts with their religious beliefs. The problem is, the crucial stages that persons like Charles Darwin supported are simply hypothetical... if i.e. eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells have equal or similar items... you can't just say "they developed out of the same ancestor, but, oh yes, this happened .... years ago". You simply can't demonstrate that. The facts like mutations in the sequences of the DNA, RNA in genes/proteins... they can also be the product of some kind of intelligent design... i.e. the religious point of view with God as the creator. In exact science you can't just say "this is proven", if more than one theory could be basic for the real results. That's why nobody can call the theory of evolution as something that has been proven. Other theories would explain the same in an equivalent manner. I'm not sure any available data argue against ideas like "Intelligent Design," but I'm not sure exactly what the concept means. Hard data to support evolutionary changes that happened millions of years ago are (not surprisingly) sparse and incomplete. A reasonable person could argue that this evidence is unconvincing. But a lot of evidence strongly supports many aspects of evolution, ranging from logic (obviously, offspring resemble their parents, and obviously, if the children die before reproducing, the traits they uniquely possess will disappear from the population), to direct experimental evidence (if you grow bacteria in the presence of low concentration of an antibiotic, eventually the remaining bacterial offspring will be highly resistant to that antibiotic. This is a particularly simple example of modification of a species by (experimenter-controlled) "natural" selection.

There are real facts for evolution, genomic data, the fossil record, and changes in populations as we have witnessed are all facts for evolution.

Answer 3

Evolution isn't fact. Scientific view point: Evolution is based in fact because evolution has happened throughout the history of all life on earth, and is still going on today. The theory of evolution is based on the science done and evidence collected in Paleontology and Biology to create a working theory on how and why these processes have happened in the past, and how they happen in the future.

Answer 4

Science does not prove things, but even if there were no scientists, or even humans on earth, evolution,

the change in allele frequency in a population of organisms over time,

would still be a fact of nature.

Answer 5

It's not wrong. The Theory of Evolution is the only accepted science that explains how we got here. It is accepted all over the world and happens all around us every day. It is especially helpful in formulating those flu shots we get every year. Of course there are gaps and questions. Those exist in any scientific study. That's why scientists keep on doing research. They will never answer everything but they add to what we know every day. Just look at how many questions have been answered that befuddled early leaders. More "unexplainable" happenings are explained every day. You only need to keep your mind open to new knowledge.

Another AnswerThere is a great temptation to accept any theory on the basis that it is "logical." Frequently, great theories are fundamentally wrong and fall by the wayside. The theory of evolution has been supporting itself for over 100 years by feeding upon itself; that is, those who believe in it try to find examples that support the theory. Just like the "Big Bang" theory, it is an attempt to explain observed phenomena with logic.

Observations frequently come with assumptions which depend on the observer's agenda. No matter who the observer is, s/he will always have preconceived ideas about how the phenomena should fit into his/her own theory. It is a rare observer who does not seek to fit the observation to the theory. So the theory of evolution is self feeding because those who report on aspects of their findings will tend to tailor their reports to fit the theory.

The theory of evolution depends on the idea that there is a common ancestor of current species. The problem with this theory is that, by the logic applied, the most logical prime ancestor would be the amoeba. However it is observable that the single cell amoeba is still a primary creature today and it is essentially unchanged over the course of time. Therefore, a "primary creature" would seem to be a myth.

It is a tempting theory to try to explain how the human being "came to be" without using the explanations promulgated by religions, which was the whole beginning exercise of the theory. However, it is a great disservice to the scientific process to try to fit all observable phenomena into this theory rather than to observe the seeming contradictions and promulgate a new theory to fit the facts. So far, the scientific community has not done that.

Answer 6

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is effectively a theorem, which is what the layman would call a theory (complicated, I know), which has been rigorously tested and is believed to be true.

Answer 7

The single true fact about evolution, and the only real one required, is that it happened.

We can see this in the fossil record, see leftovers in genetic material (most easily our own), see it in the homlogous structures of multiple organisms, and notably see it - physically watch it with our own eyes - happen in the laboratory.

Answer 8

Here is one. Chromosome number two in humans is the result of head to head fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes. The genes along these chromosomes are very, very similar in form and expression and the number two chromosome has telomere material in the middle and two centromeres. ( one inactivated ) No other explanation but very recent common ancestry with chimps explains this as well as evolutionary theory.

Remember. We do not so much ' believe ' in evolution by natural selection, but are convinced by the evidence.

Answer 9

Evolution is the best model we have to explain what generations of researchers have observed. It is not a theory that predicts the future like Newton's Laws in physics, nor can it be proven true like mathematical theorems. As far as scientific theories go, evolution is at the weaker end of the spectrum.

Answer

We consider evolution (The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection/Neo-Darwinism/The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or whatever you want to call it) right because of evidence. There are transitional fossils between humans and ancient apes. There are transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds. There is a transitional fossil between an ancient wasp and ants. There are vestigial organs/structures only explainable sensibly if evolution has occurred. Skinks lose their legs, generation by generation and drag their stumps of leg behind them. Whales and pythons have vestigial leg bones. Biologists have managed to plot the path of evolution of very much of the life on the planet. We can hypothesise not only where certain taxa evolved but when and also how. Now, spectacularly, we have DNA evidence. And the relationships between organisms hypothesised on solely morphological evidence is now confirmed or refuted by DNA evidence. Science in progress, the ability to support a hypothesis or refute it. There is constant discussion, hypotheses flourish and die, and with the scientific method, we hope the best theory always wins.

One of the strongest evidences of evolution is of course the transitional fossils, the feathered dinosaurs, the 'limb-fin' fish and the 'fin-limb' amphibians, the small-skull australopithecines and the large-skull early humans. Another superstrong evidence is that of homology. All mammals share the same limb bones. Bats, camels, cats, dogs, beavers, platypuses, dolphins, wallaroos, spider monkeys, humans, dugongs, lions, elephants, tenrecs and colugos all share the same limb bones - phalanges, ulnas, radii (or is that radiuses?) and so on. Why would they all have the same bones unless all such bones have been inherited from a common ancestor? Homologous structures (such as these limb bones) suggest common ancestry. Other homologous structures include the reproductive parts of angiosperms - the flowers. Lilies and cacti, grasses and aloes, geraniums, roses, daisies, mesembryanthemums, ericas and apple trees all have the same reproductive structures, the stamens and filaments and petals and sepals and carpels. Again, these should be the same if they are inherited from a common ancestor.

Another strong evidence for evolution is biogeography. And certainly the distribution of certain Flightless Birds gives evidence for Natural Selection. The Nannopterum flightless cormorant of the Galapagos has tiny flight-unhelpful wings, unhelpful in the extreme. The cormorant can only survive because there are no predators on the Galapagos capable of causing the extinction of a flight-incapable (and thus predator-vulnerable) bird. To save energy, Natural Selection has molded a cormorant that does not grow wings. This example shows that evolution is not always 'up', into what many may see as magnificent 'improvement'. Evolution does not aim for the magnificent, the pearl-ensphered creation of a hyperintelligent designer. What survives can survive, what dies obviously could not survive. Very simple, so simple it is a pity to anthropomorphise Natural Selection to stand in place of that simple explanation. The cormorants are not dead from predators, nor can they be, so Natural Selection can cut down on energy use needed to produce wings. It is the same reason why cave-fish and moles have lost their eyesight. The energy-use is of no advantage so Natural Selection cuts down on it. The constant upward improvement and decoration of life that might be expected of an omnipotence is not present. The simple, mechanical, natural explanation of Natural Selection is a much more elegant and energy-efficient explanation. Of course, one should not pit Evolution against Intelligent Design or creationism as though there is a false dichotomy worth talking about. Supernatural explanations for life's diveristy have no evidence and the very word 'supernatural' seems to equal 'complete fantasy'. Evolution is mechanical and natural and we have much evidence for it. Evolution is strong in that it is boiled and churned by the scientific method: wrong hypotheses are discarded as dismissively as Einstein discarded the physicist's luminiferous ether. Good hypotheses (in that they have evidence and can make predictions) are of course kept and improved upon and improved upon. The constant questioning and fidgeting through theories, with a readiness to discard wrong ideas (a command of the scientific method) is what makes science strong and likely to get answers. Evolution is like all science, 'feeling in the dark' for answers and making predictions like prophecies. Remarkable vindications of Evolution are instances where these 'prophecies' have turned out to be true. Shubin's discovery of a fish-tetrapod transition is a true-finding of a 'prophecy' in that the fossil was found exactly where it was expected and another 'prophecy' (that of there existed feathered dinosaurs closely related to Tyrannosaurus itelf) has also been seen to be true. And of course, the fused chromosome of humans shows that we are descended from a chimpanzee-human common ancestor, no question about it.

Answer 10

In order to answer the questions that were posed to my answers on this question, I will be adding my answers after each part of the answer.

Fossil records give a lot of evidence to support evolution. (what evidence?)

1. the fossil records from our genetic ancestors, such as the skeleton known as Lucy show a mammal that walked on 2 legs, was closer in size to chimps, had a larger brain then chimps but smaller then humans, and enough other similarities to both chimp and human that it would be pointless to try to include them all here. If you wish to see more on Lucy, simply do a search for "Lucy Evolution" or go to your local library and look up info about Lucy, and you'll find hundreds of pages detailing better then I can how Lucy is evidence of evolution and going into much more detail then could be done here. There are a few species we have discovered in the fossil record that are also between us and chimps in evolution.

2. Studying Fossils of extinct animals has shown a remarkable similarity to many modern animals.

I cannot include every reason, but there are many resources online and in your local library that can give much more detail then there is room for here.

If you look at modern dogs, they are an excellent demonstration of evolution put on a fast track. From wolves, though our own selection rather then natural selection, we have createdeverything from a great Dane, to a chiuaua. Neither looks much like a wolf, but we have created them though selective breeding. This produces the same type of effects that happen though natural selection. The only difference is that with natural selection it takes longer, and provides better chance for the animal to survive and breed while our own hand in it has caused things like the chiuaua. (evolution doesn't have anything to do about you creating something)

As I already stated, this is the same results as natural evolution put on a fast track. I already stated that this is something we have done, but that it shows how evolution works over a much longer time. However, Even though we caused this to happen, it IS still evolution, and dogs are by scientific definitions and standards EVOLVED from wolves. Just because we caused it to happen, does not mean it is not evolution, just that it is not NATURAL evolution.

Also look at common illnesses. These are caused by bacteria and viruses. New forms of old diseases are evolving all the time. The flu is a good example. Influenza, common stomach flu, bird flu, H1N1, etc.