0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
If Darwin believed we came from apes then where did apes originate from?
Charles Darwin believed that apes evolved from earlier, more primitive species, which in turn evolved from even earlier species. Ultimately, all mammals, including the apes and humans, evolved from the first mammal species, which in turn evolved from earlier species, and so on back to the beginning of life on Earth.
Where did Herbert Spencer use the term survival of the fittest?
Herbert Spencer did not actually use the term "survival of the fittest"; that phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer's contemporary, Charles Darwin. Spencer, however, adopted Darwin's ideas of natural selection and social evolution in his own works.
How long have humans been evolving?
Homo sapiens, as a species, have existed for about 300,000 years.
Hominids as a whole have existed for about 14,000,000 years.
Who were the first two people in the world?
The book of Genisis in the Christian Scriptures tell us that God made Adam, the first man. When He realized that Adam may be lonely in the Garden of Eden, he waited till Adam was sleeping and took from him a rib bone and from this He created Eve, the first woman, to be Adam's companion. I cannot speak for any other for other religious belief systems.
What are the other theories to arrival of the first American?
Other theories for the arrival of the first Americans include the coastal migration theory, which suggests humans migrated along the Pacific coastline using boats or land bridges. The Solutrean hypothesis posits that Europeans arrived by crossing the North Atlantic from Western Europe. The Beringia Land Bridge Theory is the most widely accepted, suggesting that humans crossed a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska during the last Ice Age.
When did humans first appear on earth?
According to some geneologists (working from the Bible and using estimates of lifespan) around 6000 years ago.
According to some other groups, somewhat before that, usually agreeing with the third group;
According to current paleological work, modern humans appeared around 200 thousand years ago.
When did human evolution begin?
Humans first arrival into history was 5,000,000 years ago when Australipithicus Affarensis first appeared on earth modern man (homo sapien) has been here for 50,000 years
Rebutting the second answer, if you believe that the Bible is true, human history began when Adam was created on the 6th day of the universe's existence.
History means recorded events, prehistoric means before writing or drawings were invented. Early cave drawings have dated as far back as 7500-7250 b.c..
How long have people been alive?
A long time that's for sure.
Answer:
If you only include members of genus homo going back through the archaic types (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis ) then you are looking at a period beginning 500,000 years into the past. Including hominid ancestors would put the earliest types back to 4 million yeas before the present. Only including "anatomically modern" humans limits you to about 200,000 years ago. Further limiting yourself to socially and culturally modern humans decreases the history to 50,000 years before the present.
While humans can communicate with animals through body language, vocal cues, and training, animals do not have the ability to understand human language in the same way that humans do. However, there are some ways to establish a basic form of communication and understanding between humans and certain animals through training and bonding.
Scientific evidence says that the first modern humans, Homo sapiens, appeared more than 200,000 years ago. Some fossils from the middle Pleistocene period (about 400,000 years ago), referred to as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis, may be archaic Homo sapiens - a transitional species. The earliest known fossil of a human ancestor, a female Ardipithecus ramidusspecimen nicknamed "Ardi," is 3.2 million years old.
What theory did Charles Darwin help to explain?
Charles Darwin helped to explain the theory of evolution through natural selection. This theory proposes that species with characteristics better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, leading to changes in the characteristics of populations over time.
Is everyone related to each other?
Biblically Speaking
Yes. According to the bible, God created a man named Adam and a woman named Eve and told them to populate the earth. Therefore, from a biblical perspective, our ancestors came from Adam and Eve, so we are all related.
Non-Creationist View
Yes. Studies of mitochindrial DNA indicate that all current humans had a single "mother", or common ancestor, whose DNA pattern has been replicated in all Homo sapiens on Earth.
In fact according to evolution, not only are all humans related to each other through a single common ancestor (that lived ca. 2.5 million years age, with modern humans having a common ancestor only a couple 100,000 years ago if not sooner), but every living thing is related to every living thing through a single common ancestor (that lived ca. 3.4 billion years ago).
The evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from earlier ape ancestors is one of the central topics within evolutionary biology. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, and genetics.
The exact lineage that traces humans back to their ancestors is still unclear, and the classification of humans and their relatives has changed considerably through time. Genetic evidence suggests that the human lineage split from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees around 8 million years ago. The genus Australopithecus, which first appeared around 4 million years ago, is now thought to be the ancestor of the genus Homo, to which we belong. Australopithecus was an evolutionary milestone for humans, because they are the earliest known apes to begin walking upright. Walking upright lead to many advantages, including the further development of the brain. Australopithecus gave rise to the Homogenus.
Homo habilis lived about 2 million years ago and is called the "handy man" because he is currently the earliest known hominid to manufacture primitive stone tools. There is still some debate on whether habilis should be considered a separate species. He may have instead been a late Australopithecine or an early erectus. Homo erectus evolved an even more complex brain that was similar to humans, so complex that it is believed he developed speech. He also made weapons, discovered fire and used it to cook his food. Homo heidelbergensis may or may not be the direct common ancestor of both Homo sapiensand Homo neanderthalensis. Anatomically and behaviorally modern humans are believed to have first appeared between 50,000-100,000 years ago.
The mental and social capacities of humans have evolved too. From the beginning, the ancestors of humans were social animals. An individual ape was never strong enough nor fast enough to fend for itself or be safe from predators, so they had to rely on living in cooperative groups to protect from the dangers of a hostile world. Many of the social characteristics of humans, including compassion, cooperation, curiosity, inventiveness and competitiveness existed well before Homo sapiens emerged and some ape species of today also have them. As we became smarter, we came up with social structures that were more organized and more complex, assigning leaders to groups and establishing primitive government systems to ensure the well-being of all members. Early Homo sapienswere nomadic hunter-gatherers who lived in small social groups. The invention of agriculture gave rise to modern, structured communities.
Human evolution is not one continuous series, as illustrations you may have seen would have you believe. Rather, human evolution is more like a branching tree containing many different ape species that have appeared and long since died out. We are still trying to figure out exactly how humans are related to these species.
Evidence for human evolution is found not only from the transitional fossils we uncover but our genetic and anatomical similarities with our ape relatives. We share between 95-99% of our genome with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. Fossils of several different hominid species have been found, and upon being closely examined and dated, show relatedness to humans at varying degrees. Paleontologists have always been hard at work piecing together the puzzle and connecting the dots fossil by fossil, in order to reconstruct the evolutionary history of humans as accurately as possible. There have been great strides in the study of human evolution, and while many questions remain, they continue to be answered as more research is done.
There are some questions regarding humans that the theory of evolution itself may not be able to answer, especially moral and existential questions. The role of science is to explain how we came to be, not why we exist or what our purpose is. The answers to these questions lie in philosophy and religion, not science. Nevertheless, there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that humans are descended from earlier prehistoric apes, and that we are closely related to other apes of today, and the gaps in the human lineage continue to be filled as more research is done and more fossils are uncovered.
In the beginning humans were apes and kept on evolving because the environment was forcing them to change.They kept evolving until the way they look today, so if they keep on evolving(today they stand upright)and maybe a thousand years from now we will be looking straight up.
Human evolution is one of the central topics within evolutionary biology. It attempts to explain the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominids, great apes and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.
While we have made great strides in the study of human evolution, there remains many unanswered questions. Just because these questions remain unanswered for now does not mean we will not find the answers in the future with more hard work and research.
One thing is for sure, humans evolved from earlier primate ancestors. The exact lineage that traces humans back to their ancestors is still unclear, and the classification of humans and their relatives has changed considerably through time. The genus Australopithecus is now thought to be the ancestor of the genus Homo, to which we belong. Australopithecus was an evolutionary milestone for humans, because they are the earliest apes to begin walking upright, and walking upright lead to many advantages, including the ability to develop more intelligence. Australopithecus gave rise to Homo species such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and ultimately Homo sapiens.
Human evolution is not one continuous series, as illustrations you may have seen would have you believe. Rather, human evolution is more like a branching tree containing many different primate species that have appeared and long since died out. We are still trying to figure out how exactly humans are related to these species.
It is believed that the mental and social capacities of humans evolved too, as the ancestors of humans developed larger, more complex brains, and social structures also became more complex. Humans rely on living in groups to survive which is why it was essential for us to develop beneficial and cooperative social behaviors and structures that ensured the success of our species.
There are some questions the theory of evolution itself may not be able to answer, especially moral and existential questions. The answers to these questions lie in philosophy and religion, not science. Nevertheless, there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that humans are descended from earlier prehistoric apes, and that we are closely related to other apes of today, and the gaps in the human lineage continue to be filled as more research is done and more fossils are uncovered.
Why is Charles Darwin's theory disputed?
Opinion
Darwinism is "disputed" for religious reasons. Most religious people think that because it contradicts the story of creation in the bible then natural selection and the evolution of species is unacceptable. Elaborate pseudo-scientific disputations have been developed simply because it contradicts the bible.
The Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, first suggested by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace is not disputed among scientists, who have masses of evidence and expertise. It is disputed among laypeople who do not know enough to really have a standpoint. It is disputed by religious people (maybe fundamentalist) who are unable to reconcile the discoveries of biology and genetics and palaeontology with literal readings of religious texts and such text's creation stories.
The religious, whether creationist or Intelligent Design proponent or straightforward religious have tried to give a picture of controversy between creationism and evolution. This may be due to 'moral outrage' as Richard Dawkins puts it, rather than real factual objection. If religious bible-living people think their bible is the work of all morality, then the apparently godless world of evolution and abiogenesis may become (by spoken word among fellows) drummed up as 'heretical'. In such a case, moral objection would occur. Or if there is a desperate desire or belief that a god did indeed create everything, the idea of 'self-producing' life may seem difficult to swallow. Religious/Creationist or moral objection may be the ancient reason for the attacks on today's science of evolution.
But today, with the Internet and such hypercommunication as that, there is much confusion, whether stemming from religious objection or the addition of 'Creation Science' and 'Intelligent Design theory' 'science' into the public's eyes. Laymen are too ready to jump on this bandwagon of pseudoscience, giving the idea of controversy between creation and evolution. Creationism is an ancient story, now classified a creation myth. Intelligent Design and Creation Science are political nonsense. All this generates confusion and from that stems dispute and debate. Some of the confusion is right here on this very page. By this I mean the tired recitals of objectors to evolution. (The big bang may have to do with the 'evolution'/development of the Universe but has nothing to do with the Evolution of life. Yes, there are negative mutations. There are also neutral mutations and positive mutations. There is no objection to Evolution among scientists. There are most definitely transitional fossils. Evolution most certainly does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.)
What can be done to remove all this confusion and and thus confused dispute? The answer is that everyone should learn about Earth and its multitudinous and extraordinary life. 'Look at the evidence'. 'Just go and look' are Richard Dawkins' insistings. 'Isn't this lovely?' says David Attenborough, regarding the beauty and complexity of life. Well, if it is lovely, let us learn about it and learning will vanquish all this confusion.
Anyone interested and willing to gain a better understanding of this opinion should take the time to read Kitzmiller V. Dover at the related link.
What are the Theories of Charles Darwin?
Charles Darwin is known for his theory of evolution through natural selection, which suggests that species evolve over time through the process of adapting to their environment. He also proposed the theory of common descent, stating that all living organisms are related and share a common ancestor. Additionally, Darwin's theory of sexual selection explains how certain traits can be favored in mate selection and lead to evolutionary changes.
Answer 1
Current thinking is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and scientists are getting closer and closer to telling us that story of our origins.
On October 9, 2009 scientists announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor to date. It has taken the spotlight off "Lucy", who walked the earth 3.2 million years ago. The discovery was made in Ethiopia. Researchers say it will put to rest the earlier hypothesis of a "missing link" ape that would be found "at the root of the human family tree". The skeleton offers a basis for researchers of what the common ancestor of apes and humans might have been like. There have been astounding archeological discoveries in the last decade that have enabled evolutionists to discard older suppositions and add more information to the story of evolution.
On May 7, 2010 scientists announced they had documented the Neanderthal genome and revealed some interesting facts. We have traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA, proving that earlier ancestors assimilated with other early humans.
The study of human evolution is not static. It is going on every day at universities and archeological sights around the world. As new information is discovered the story becomes more accurate. Anyone who can ignore the abundant results of that research is missing out on a treasure trove of interesting information about where we came from.
In 2012 scientists completed the genome of the bonobo, an African ape. When added to the genomes that have already been completed for orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees we now have a complete DNA catalogue of the great apes. The studies show that humans are most closely related to bonobos and chimpanzees. The three are more closely related to each other than any is to gorillas.
Answer 2
In addition to the previous answer, it should be noted that according to classical Linnaean taxonomy and modern cladistics, humans are apes. And since we share that distinction with a number of other species, it must therefore logically be true that the ancestors we and those other species of ape evolved from was also an ape.
This does not mean that they were any species of modern ape, of course. Modern species of ape are derived from the basal clade of apes.
Who did Charles Darwin work with?
Charles Darwin collaborated with many scientists and researchers during his career, including Joseph Hooker, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Thomas Huxley. He corresponded extensively with various individuals to discuss his ideas and findings related to evolutionary theory.
Can the Theory of Evolution explain Human properties?
Many of the properties of modern humans can be explained through biology. For instance, most physiological traits, such as the shape of the skeleton, the route that the major arteries and nerves follow throughout the body, blood types, and so on, and so forth, can be explained in terms of common ancestry with the other Great Apes.
When it comes to behaviour, however, humans are a more complicated case. This is because our behaviour, as well as the way our behaviour has changed over time, is not just a matter of nature (genetics), but also of nurture (culture). Usually, it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins - they may even affect one another on occasion.
As an example, take morality. We Apes, being social animals living in tribes, have evolved elaborate instinctive codes of conduct (moral codes) to deal with the complexities of intra-tribal and inter-tribal relations. But in humans, with their big brains, these instinctive morals are expanded upon (and sometimes counteracted) by conscious reflection. Our morals are not just affected by the genes we inherit from our parents, but also by the ideas we inherit from relatives and society in general. We may, for instance, feel instinctively predisposed to act in ways benefiting our tribe. But what we consider to be our tribe (eg. just the family, or the village, or the country, or perhaps even the entire human species) may be largely determined through cultural induction.
Answer 2
Man and the apes have developed from the same ancestors, although the main differences between them are man's larger brain and his ability to walk upright and speak.
The process by which modern man developed from his early ancestors is called Evolution. Through fossils, very old bones preserved in layers of rock, we can imagine how man developed and changed from an ape-like creature to modern man, over a period of several hundred thousand years. Until recently, the oldest man-like fossil anyone had discovered was called Australopithecus, about 1,750,000 years old. Then, in 1972, Dr. Richard Leekey found a fossil skull in Kenya that had a much larger brain than the Australopithecus. This fossil was about 2,600,000 years old.
Several other fossils have been found which look more like a modern man. One of these, called Pithecanthropus, was very like us although he had jutting-out ridges over his eyes and some ape-like features. Other remains such as Java man and Peking man are called Homo erectus. All the known fossils in this group are at least 400,000 years old, and from this creature, several types of man seem have developed. One was Neanderthal man, who looked very primitive with his thick, stocky body and jutting eye ridges, but he did have a large brain. The Neanderthals used stone tools and buried their dead. They lived in Europe about 35,000 years ago, when men just like ourselves replaced them. This change happened too quickly for modern man to have developed from Neanderthal man, so he must have evolved separately. We call modern man Homo sapiens ('Thinking man').
Some of the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens are over 100,000 years old. Among the most famous are the fossils found at Cro-Magnon in France. These early men lived in caves which they decorated with drawings, so they were the first known artist.
All modern men are placed in the family of Homo sapiens. Howerever, because some people have similar features , they are often divided into groups, or races. These groups are usually: the Caucasoid (white-skinned); Negroid (black-skinned); Mongoloid (yellow-skinned and including the American Indians); Australoid (the Australian Aborigines); and Capoid ( the bushmen of South Africa).
Race is often confused with nationality, the nation a person belongs to. But the people of any one country are often descended from many races so race is much wider description that nationality.
Caucasoid
The Englishman, Italian and Indian are Caucasians. This racial group is widespread in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and India, and they have skin colours ranging from fair to dark.
Australoid
Although they have different facial characteristic and features, the Mbotgote man from Malekula Island, the Fijian and the Australian Aborigine are all Australoid peoples with dark skins.
Mongoloid
With their yellowish skin, dark brown eyes and straight black hair the Eskimo, Burmese man and Chinese are all Mongoloids.
Other opinions
Many scientists do not believe that the Darwin theory of evolution explains everything about the evolution of humans. First of all, Alfred Russel Wallace (the man who FIRST published the theory of evolution before Darwin) in his publication 'The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man', Alfred Russel Wallace argues that human morality, altruism, higher intellectual etc have been the result of an intelligent designer. Nowadays many modern scientists believe the same thing.
For example, primitive people have a brain that is the same as our own, that they are not at all using in their everyday tasks. Why would that happen? The Darwin theory of evolution cannot answer that.
Moreover, why do people do altruistic actions (i.e. risk their own existence/lives to save an unknown person and do not expect to get any recognition or reward for that), if the 'survival of the fittest' model applies?
The controversy is ongoing. The book 'Dissent Over Descent' of Steve Fuller offers great insight into the matter. Wallace publication came before Darwin's and as in most cases, the second does explain evolution better than the first.
Steve Fuller is a religious creationist.
Lamarck's theory of evolution, known as Lamarckism, proposed that acquired characteristics could be passed down to offspring. This idea suggested that organisms could develop new traits during their lifetime and then pass them on to their offspring. However, this theory has been largely discredited in favor of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which emphasizes the role of genetic variation and environmental factors in driving evolutionary change.
What is Atomic theory of evolution of human?
Atomic theory is a theory about the nature of matter and related phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory). The evolution of Humans is not strongly related (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)
What is the Christian position on the teaching of evolution in schools?
There is no single take, but I'd like to present an argument for a more enlightened approach to the problem this conflict of perception presents.
A group view is often a perception created by mass media for the general public's consumption of news information. In the case of evolution instruction in public education, the news media perception is that Christians outrightly reject evolution and have recently promoted "intelligent design" as a viable option. But, of course, you can find many different views within the Christian community on this subject for which the news media hasn't enough time to present. For economic reasons the mass media must condense information, and the result is very often a perception that opposing viewpoints have no common ground. For example, one can easily conclude that a Theologian can't accept evolution, or that a Scientist can't believe in God, because of how the public's access to information is presented in the media. This phenomenom is compounded by each group's defensive reaction to overly simplistic news reporting which causes unnecessary partisanship. The affected parties begin to construct borders and man them with thought police.
My answer to your question, "What is the Christianity take on the teaching of evolution in schools?", is based on the presumption you mean taxpayer funded education. The teaching of evolution theory in taxpayer funded education should be held to the same standard as teaching mathematics, for example. That is, since most of the taxpaying public can agree that 1+1=2, mathematics has no problem with the people who pay for its teaching (except for when little Johnny is given a pass if he thinks 1+1=3 because we shouldn't hurt his feelings). My point is that education funded by a broad base of taxpayers should reflect broadly accepted consensus views, such as 1+1=2. And my contention, along with many other Christians, is that the theory of evolution is not presented to public school children with all of its problems. It seems that the scientific community has decided that since good Science cannot be guided by a belief in God, which I agree with, and since evolution theory is their best explanation of life's origins, they conclude that it is the best explanation, although ironically, this position seems to require as much faith as believing in God. That evolution theory's flaws are avoided when educating children is the fault of your local and national educators and the people they represent, that is, you.
AnswerIt depends on which Christian Denomination. Some denomination reject the story of Creation as Literal; the Catholics for example.And some will adhere that the story of Creation is literal;
ex; At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."
Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."
Another narration that is being debated; whether it's Literal or Allegorical is the story of "Noah's Deluge."
Does Darwin's Theory of Evolution explain why the human brain is so big?
Darwin's theory specifies descent with modification through natural selection. What that means essentially (and as an over simplification) is that DNA - which we now know to be the engine of change in species - is copied wrong, on occasion, leading to a modified gene. Sometimes those modifications have consequences for the animal. In the case of human brain size, perhaps some early hominid had a gene coding for the additional split of neurons during it's prenatal life (all animals, even ants and beetles, have the same basic brain chemistry. The main difference is that, during development, higher animals' brains are told to keep producing neurons, thus increasing in size to accommodate. Our brains produce the most neurons per overall surface area). So this hominid, and it's offspring, and maybe some relatives all have slightly better brains than their contemporaries allowing them greater powers of abstract thought, communication, and organization...MAYBE. They soon start out competing their neighbors for natural resources thereby increasing their numbers though better food, shelter, etc (again, this is all hypothetical and oversimplified). Soon their numbers are so great, they completely overwhelm the competing populations whose numbers crash. They are, unwittingly, moving toward becoming a new species, over thousands of generations, with slightly bigger brains. With the better food (mostly protein) comes the fuel to support the development of such large brains.
The same is true for all modifications from giraffe necks to whale spouts. They developed overtime through a series of accidents that worked in the animal's favor environmentally.
When did man first walk on earth?
Note: This question was originally placed in the Science category and generated both science and religion based responses. Subsequently, the original poster reiterated his desire that the question be answered in a scientific rather than a religious context. Quote: I put it in here, because I want a scientific answer. Unquote
Considering the fact that this question was placed in the Science and Environment FAQs rather than in the Religion and Spirituality FAQs, an appropriate response would be that "hominoids," which belong to the Hominoidea super-family of primates and include apes and humans, are thought to have first walked on earth around 6 million years ago.
For those who are looking for an answer based on religious teachings, please see related questions in those categories.
Answer We are not really sure when and how it ever started, and therefore we have very little idea where it's going; thus no no way of knowing where it will end.
Answer Evolution is constant and forever continuous. It isn't some kind event. It's a name for the explanation of how living things become different over time. As long as there is life, evolution will be there. Answer Some believe that evolution does not only relate to 'living' things, but to all things from the creation of the universe, to the galaxies, to the planets, to all the little complex elements which finally evolved into life. As long as the laws of physics exist and there is movement in the Universe (on any scale), evolution will be there. Answer: Evolution will progress until the infinite is achieved and it can, thus, progress no further which, by definition, is when God is created.
