0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
Where did the Strepsirrhini monkey come from?
If it is a Strepsirrhine, it is not a monkey. If it is a monkey, it is not a Strepsirrhine.
Why do Evolutionists always argue and split up into different groups?
Because they don't have Jesus in their lives. They haven't even tried to feel his grace and accept his gift of Eternal Life that he has given us, undeserving creatures. They need an answer. Their life is focused on chemical patterns and DNA. Who CARES what we're "made of?" Jesus never talked about this:
1. because the people back then did not know about DNA and all that stuff adn would be troubled
2. and because Jesus (GOD) did not want us to be troubled and wanted us to live happy lives. When we realize what we're "made of" we are troubled and begin to DOUBT and HURT. We want to KNOW.
But we don't have to search!: There's JESUS, there's PROOF, there's ANSWERS, there's LOVE. We just have to look TO Him, not FOR Him. He;s with us ALWAYS. Even the evolutionists, they just haven't recognized Him in their lives yet and accepted Him as their Saviour. Some know about Him, but they're still curious.
HUMANS brought sin upon themselves when they DISOBEYED GOD in the Garden of Eden. THEY HAD ALL THE KNOWLEDGE THEY NEEDED TO LIVE HAPPY LIVES! But they (WE the human race) ate from the Tree of Wisdom and Knowledge, like God demanded them (us) not to! Now we start from scratch, we have to earn knowledge by experiencing pain, "learning lessons" and we have to learn from our mistakes. But, we humans have a Holy Spirit. We do not need to "acquire that." What do you think our conscience is? DO animals have a conscience? No. They kill for food w/o guilt. They fight from thei instincts w/o guilt. They are not evil, they are animals. They are "wired" liek that. That is not what God is like. HUMANS are created in "God's image." But the reason we are not like God, is because we sinned, and God knows no sin. He is perfect, and we are not. But, we are still graced with the Holy Spirit. Just like we chose to eat from the Tree of Wisdom and Knowledge, we can choose to accept Christ, who fuels the Holy Spirit.
And Evolutionists, in my opinion, need physical ANSWERS. As crazy as it sounds, they are denying proof and historical evidence! The bible isn't just a religious book, it is "The Book of Life," "the Truth," "the Word of God!" AND, it's a historically proven HISTORY BOOK. It's real. It's not just "the most morally guiding book in the history of all books," IT IS THE TRUTH. Evolutionists need to accept the facts. Jesus is who He says He is. God tells no lie. The Bible is His Word. The Bible is True.
Monkeys are similar to us, that's not a problem. They may have evolved. We may have evolved. BUT WE DO KNOW FROM THE BIBLE THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CREATION.
(Genesis 1:26-27)- Then God said [on the sixth day of Creation], "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
[ ]= not directly quoted
Animals evolved. We have evolved too! Dark skin, white skin; blonde hair, brown hair, red hair; green eyes, brown eyes, blue eyes, hazal eyes! That may be true. I will give the evolutionists that; but we have been here ever since the beginning. Evolutionists will never just stop with that. They have to KNOW. It has to be right in front of them for them to believe it.
It is; the Bible.
You may be asking about either the human species, or about the lifespan of individual humans. The species, as far as we can tell, has existed for about a half a million years. Individuals in extreme cases have lived to about 130 years of age, but that is very rare.
How are scientists able to explain vestigial structures found in whales and some snakes?
These vestigial structure, hip bones and leg bones, attest to the land dwelling ancestor of whales and the leg bearing ancestor of snakes. The inference is rather simple in whales. How else could a water swimming animal posses vestigial legs.
For light amusement read some of the creationist non explanations for these vestigial markers.
talkorigins.org
Compare and contrast natural selection and artificial selection?
Natural selection is when contemporary species rose from ancestors that survived due to their physical characteristics in their habitats. A well-known example is the Galapagos Islands and how the animals on the islands adapted to their environments. Darwin convinced the biology world that diversity in organisms came from evolution (descent without modification).
Artificial selection is when humans intentionally breed animals for certain traits. Unlike natural selection, where only the fittest survive, artificial selection is for human's likings. Many crops that are grown are part of artificial selection.
What are the various problems with the theory of theistic evolution?
One of the problems Christians who accept evolution as fundamentally accurate face is the following: if the knowledge of our evolutionary history, as established by science, is accurate, then there would have been no literal Adam and Eve, and thus no original sin as the Bible depicts it. If this is so, then why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself?
Problems with theistic evolution are usually theological in nature, rather than scientific. The only real scientific problem with theistic evolution is a single question: is there any evidence to support the thesis that gods were involved with our evolution?
Another View:
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists.
Another answer:"Once you have eliminated the impossible," the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously opined, "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."After all, if evolution is ever disproven, god and creationism would not come out on top. Scientists would look elsewhere for new evidence to explain the origins and diversity of life on this planet.
"God did it," is a cop-out and not based on fact or reason. You would first have to prove god exists and explain god's origins. It cannot come from nothing, yet creationist won't apply this same logic when speaking of their god.
As to the lack of transitional forms: that is not true you can go look for the morphological intermediates that *do* exist within the lineage of trilobites, and how that lineage itself fits neatly into the nested hierarchies of biology.
Why did the theory of biogenesis pose a dilemma regarding the origin of life?
It is a dilemma because biogenesis states that all living things come from other living things and for this theory to be correct the first living organism would have had to spontaneous generate from another living organism. Since it was the origin of life there was nothing fore the first organism to generate from.
Literally, it's the evolution of living things. Generally it's refered to simply as evolution.
The short answer is evolution is the gradual shift of living things through natural selection.
A simple way to visualise this is imagining a single creature and it's children. Obviously, the children don't look exactly like the parent (Variation), so one will be taller, one stronger, one faster, and so on. As those children grow up, the ones with an advantage do better. The faster child can outrun a predator and survive, the taller one can reach food the others couldn't, and so on. This advantage means the 'better' child is more likely to live long enough to breed.
For our example, we'll say the tall child has an advantage. Food is higher up, and he has an easier time getting to it. That means he spends less time gathering food, and more time trying to breed. The shorter ones spend their time trying to eat enough to survive, and don't get a chance to breed (or aren't strong enough to get a mate).
These grandchildren of the original will then look like their father who is slightly taller. Those children will also have variation... some will be shorter, and some will be even taller. Those even taller kids now have an advantage. And so on, and so on. Each family of the animal looks pretty much the same as it's parents but over the course of thousands and thousands of generations, the result can be totally different.
This example is a huge simplification of evolution, however it serves to convey the idea. If you are interested in biology and evolution, please feel free to read any of the countless articles online about the topic in greater detail.
Why do you have opposible thumbs?
It's easier to use tools with opposible thumbs. It's also easier to grasp things.
When did unicellular life evolve?
It is said, with good supporting evidence, that the first organisms on Earth were probably single-celled prokaryotes that were probably genetically similar to the organisms belonging to the domain Archaea. It was about 3 billion years ago.
How does non-sexual natural selection affect the appearance of male guppies?
Because of the environment they live in.
What problems were associated with colonizing land during the evolution of vertebrates?
1) Animals needed to withstand the effects of gravity.
2) Animals needed to reduce desiccation (the loss of water).
3) Animals needed to have a mode of transportation.
4) Animals needed protection against UV rays.
5) Animals needed to reproduce without water.
6) Animals needed to breathe air.
7) Animals needed to adjust their senses to life out of water.
It is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of accepting the overwhelming evidences in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Which two bugs do you breed to get the ultimate bug in evolution?
Just a possibility... A cockroach and a killer Bee might be interesting.
How do Humans affect the World's carrying capacity?
The Human's effects upon The Earth have two prongs: We either take out more than we put in or we take out less than we put in. The Choice Is Not Ours - it appears to be.
What organisms are least related to humans?
Very hard to say, but I suspect the archaebacteria are the least related to all other organisms (not just humans) as their common ancestor with other organisms is only shortly after the origin of life on earth. They are so distant that they even use a few amino acids in some of their proteins that no other organism today uses!
What causes species to diversify?
Changes in their habitat (the environment they live in) coupled with a species' possibility to gradually adapt to those changes. That is a very broad term and includes many different factors such as availability of food and water,presence of predators, climate, etc.
The polar bear is a good example as it is related to the normal brown bear. As the ancestors of the polar bear gradually moved to more northern habitats, natural selection made that it slowly but surely adapted to that habitat: thicker fur to withstand the colder temperatures, white coat as camouflage with which it stood a better change to hunt for prey, etc.
Are evolution and creation compatible teachings?
Creation and evolution are most certainly notcompatible teachings. Some Christians, usually those who have been convinced by the alleged 'infallibility of modern science' and the fact of evolution decide it is possible/necessary to make a compromise view and have both. Such thinking ignores the nature of the Christian faith, which is based on the historicity of certain historical events as the resurrection, creation, flood etc. If one is free to disbelieve what the bible says about creation why not also disbelieve the amazing fact of the resurrection? Atheists are not slow to understand this:
Dr William Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University stated: '�¢ï¿½�¦ belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.' [in 'No free will'; in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999.]
In addition to this, many Christians do not think through the real meaning of accepting evolutionary teaching, which is a principal of 'nature red in tooth and claw.' The Genesis record of creation and the fall would clearly indicate first of all a very good creation (pronounced so by God) which was then cursed and spoiled by man's fall into sin. Accepting evolution and natural selection as God's creative method necessarily means the acceptance of death, pain and suffering as a normal part of life rather than intruders. What does this do to the promise in the book of Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." This is thus an insult to the goodness and love of God and also an insult to His wisdom, since evolution is a wasteful process requiring the death of many for progress.
As atheistic Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod said: '[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms �¢ï¿½�¦ The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.' [The Secret of Life, broadcast interview, 10 June 1978.]
In connection with the historicity of what Genesis tells us about the first man Adam and Paul's commentary in Romans: Paul of course assumed that a real historical Adam existed and fell into a real historical sin against God. He points out that Jesus is the 'second Adam' who has come to take away that sin (Romans 5:14 cf 1 Cor 15:22). If Adam, as evolution teaches, was not the first man who fell into sin, then Christ cannot be the second Adam to atone for a non-existent man and a non-existent fall. As Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 253) explained:
"Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant." (emphasis in original).
To summarize: Belief in creation with all that that entails, and belief in evolution with all that it entails are definitely not compatible. Trying to make them compatible clearly shows a misunderstanding of one or both.
How do species remain distinct from one another?
Once species have truly become distinct, members of the two species are no longer able to successfully breed with each other and produce fully viable offspring.
This may be as little as a physical separation that prevents contact (e.g. new mountain ranges, isolation on islands), to changes in pheromones that individuals produce so that individuals of the two species are no longer attracted cross species even if they encounter each other, to as much as the development of complete genetic incompatibility (e.g. different numbers of chromosomes in the two species).
How are evolution and the Bible connected?
== == == == == == == == == == Well evolution could be the way God made the universe. Creation and evolution aren't different we just don't know did God use evolution or 7 days in the creation. There is evidence for both.
Scientists have found some sort of bone at the side of the snake's skin which could mean snakes had legs once and they evolved to lose them. The Bible says they used to have legs. In the Bible it talks about a Garden of Eden. The story of the garden might be in symbolism because it said that the snake lost his legs and evolution said the same thing.
Some people believe that in the Bible each day is about millions of years. This could be true but some people don't agree because in the Bible it said that God made the sun after the plants and plants need sun light and if one day was millions of years then the plants would die. Plants had light because it said in the Bible that 2nd day God made light. Then the plants would have light if light came before plants. The Bible also talks about a big bang where it says the heavens will make big noise. In Greek that means a big bang. Our big bang already happened.
Also scientist say we are made out of star dust and the Bible say the same thing. The Bible says god made us out of dust. In the Bible, it said that the heavens' are divided in 3 parts. 1st heaven is the sky on earth, 2nd heaven is space, 3rd heaven is where God lives. Today the universe is expanding. In the Bible, it also said the universe is expanding. In the Bible, it said God stretched the heavens and it said that 4 times.
== == == == == == == == == == == == It's simple... they' re not connected. Evolution is a scientific theory which postulates that all life "evolved" from a single cell. The Bible does not spell out the particulars of how or even whether life evolved. Some Christians are "creationists", i.e., they believe that each form of life was created by a higher being, albeit instantaneously. Most fundamentalist Protestants fall in this category. Some other Christians believe that life could have evolved just so long as God breathed life into Adam, the first man and Eve the first woman. Specifically, the Pope has said that Catholics may believe in evolution so long as they believe also in the accuracy of the biblical account that all men descended from the primal couple. Evolutionists have spent many decades looking for fossil evidence of "missing links" - developing forms of life that are halfway between one form of life and another. To date, they have been unable to find any such missing links. Currently, many believe that species may mutate and some of their characteristics may evolve but they are not transformed into a totally different species. Time and more research will tell. God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. Genesis 1:11 In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. Genesis 1:24 Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground..... When there's water, life will evolve.
