Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms.
Viruses do have DNA and RNA, so the can change allele frequency over time and have a form of gene pool, though they are not organisms in the general sense of " living organisms. "
Loosely, one can say that a virus evolves.
What is the science that deals with the study of beings?
The study of living things is called biology, which can be broken down into other topics such as botany (the study of plants), microbiology (the study of microorganisms) and zoology (the study of animals).
Why do people totally disagree with evolution?
Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.
These point to Divine Creation:
Also:
1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."
3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.
4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.
7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.
8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.
9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary paleontology would require.
10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).
13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.
14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.
15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)
16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:
God's wisdom seen in His creations
Who first discovered evolution?
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin did not "discover" evolution. It was an explanation for the changes that he believed had taken place in species of animals he encountered on his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle. He developed that theory over time into his "Origin of Species" which explained that all modern life shared a common ancestor and how animals change to give rise to new species.
The main evidence, though not conclusive, is from skeletal remain that show many similarities, and DNA composition.
Many people have some misunderstanding and confusion about evolution and wonder why all animals don't develop into more complex species. There are some that have not changed significantly in millions of years, like the sharks. They've stayed the same for close to 100 million years.
As far as the primates, if you think of family heritage playing a role, humans and the other apes descended from a common ancestor. That means that the family split and some changed into humans and other stayed mostly the same. Evolution does not say that all animals should evolve at the same rate or in the same way.
In addition, humans are both primates and apes. The classification is as follows: Order: Primates, Family Hominidae (the great apes); Genus: Homo, Species: Homo sapiens.
The apes and other primates alive today are not necessarily the same as they were at the time of the split from a common ancestor mentioned above. Pathways diverged countless millions of years ago. One led to humans, another led to the variety of contemporary primate species.
According to the Hardy Weinberg principle the frequency of an allele in a population will remain the same as long as it is neither selected for or against. This means that any characteristic that does not have an immediate deleterious effect on the population resulting in death of the individual possessing it will remain in the population at the same rate virtually indefinitely.
What were humans evolved from?
Humans and apes had a common ancestor. A mix of human and primitive traits found in the brains, hips, feet and hands of an extinct species identified last year (2013) were found. There is also new evidence that this species had the hands of a toolmaker. Fossils of the extinct hominid are known as Australopithecus sediba.
Why would natural selection act against people with sickle cell anaemia in Europe?
because people in europe have not gotten used to sickle cell anemia because it is soo rare in europe
E Nervous System.
Could prohibited thought be the source of circumnavigating religious belief and species insanity?
No. Banning a bad thing does not prevent its use. Education about how to use it properly is what reduces the damage caused by something, while accentuating the good points it has.
Young Earth creationists - those who literally believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that there was a great, world-wide flood - have great difficulty because of the geological evidence to the contrary. The most widespread Young Earth creationist response is to claim that the geological evidence is either wrong, misunderstood or falsified. On the evidence, Young Earth creationists do not understand the geological time chart, and certainly do not use it in any constructive sense.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What percentage of the US believes in intelligent design?
The answer depends on the source you consult.
Harris Poll (Harris Interactive, July 6, 2005)
"While many in the scientific community may question why this issue has been raised again, a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God.""
US News & World Report
In Deputy Editor Robert Schlesinger's blog on US New & World Report, February, 11, 2009, Schlesinger analyzed the results of a recent Gallup poll that claims 25% of Americans reject evolution (that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in Intelligent Design, however; that information wasn't provided).
"I guess the upside is that the figure-39 percent-is a plurality of respondents in a new Gallup poll. Fully a quarter of Americans said that they reject evolution, while 36 percent say they don't have an opinion."
In the February 6, 2009, edition of US News & World Report, blogger Dan Gilgoff claims:
"During this last campaign, the topic of science-specifically, creationism and evolution-was pushed out onto the stage of the presidential debates. So much so that USA Today/Gallup released the results of a poll in which 66 percent of Americans stated that they believe in creationism."
Center for Science & Culture
On the other hand, the Center for Science & Culture, which supports Intelligent Design, claimed much higher percentages in 2001:
"Gallup poll after Gallup poll confirms that about 90 percent of the U.S. population believes that some sort of design is behind the world."
Gallup
The Gallup poll site (see Related Links) posts the results of an August 2008 poll indicating 44% believe God created man in his present form; 36% appear to believe in some admixture of evolution and creationism/ID; 14% believe in straight evolution; 5% have no opinion.
Why is there so much variation in statistics? Because the results of a survey depend on the questions asked, the audience polled, the amount of bias involved in interpretation, the agenda of the person or entity reporting the information, and various people's willingness to manipulate data to support their case.
As everyone from 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli to American Author Mark Twain have been quoted, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Who is the common ancestor of all the dogs?
All the modern breeds of dogs are descended from the prehistoric predator Tomarctus which existed during the early miocene period. It gave rise to four sub-species of Canis familiariswhich were then manipulated by human beings over the ages to produce the current breeds of dogs.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in intelligent design or in Darwin's theory of evolution?
According to their Watchtower web site:
Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible.
So they absolutely reject Evolution as defined by the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions.
As far as intelligent design is concerned, they also suggest that it does not go far enough. Intelligent Design only theorizes that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Jehovah's Witnesses state unequivocally that specifically God created everything, not just some vague "intelligent entity." In that respect, their beliefs are compatible with intelligent design but intelligent design does not go far enough.
Is evolution part of creation?
Though one can claim to believe in Divinely-guided evolution, this is often not the case. The general paradigm in which Evolution is taught, is one of mere random events.
Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are some highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.
Those wishing to look for further evidence may find these links useful:See also:
Is there evidence against Evolution?
God's wisdom seen in His creations
How evolution might be compatible with the existence of a deity?
If the deity was itself capable of evolving.
What animals live on Mount Roraima?
animals such as deer small rabbits ,bids such as koel sparrows . sometimes we may also find actually very rarely pegions and doves.
.
What is it called if you believe in creation AND evolution?
The notion of a deity causing the process of evolution by natural selection is referred to as 'theistic evolution'. However, it is often called 'evolutionary creationism' if the concept of God as Creator is wanted to be emphasised. There are many different types however; some believe that God caused the laws which subsequently govern the natural world and the evolution process; others believe that God continually sustains the process and shapes its future. The former is a bit like God winding up a pocket watch and then letting it work independently; the latter is more like God writing on a piece of paper - if He stops writing, the process will stop; it is continuous activity.
Who created the recapiculation theory?
" Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. " Ernst Haeckel. Now considered incorrect.
Is the pelvic bone on a whale really part of the reproductive system?
Yes, it is likely to have at least some residual function or role in the physiology of the whale. Even wisdom teeth in humans, although often detrimental in effect and hardly unmissable, can be said to have a role in our digestive tract. What makes it evidence for common descent is not any presumed function or lack thereof, but the fact that it is morphologically what we should expect it to be if whales descended from land mammals.
What is the difference between evolution and religion?
Evolution can be one of two things: the fact that populations change over time, or the theories describing how this occurs. Both are based on observations, empirical data and tested hypotheses.
Religion refers collectively to any organised belief system, usually centred around some form of deity and holy writings provided by that deity to give guidance on proceeding through life.
What is the timeline of the evolution of man?
Starting from Australopithecus and wind ing up with us:
No effort was made to include the various archaic homo sapiens types, and homo neandertalis was inserted even though they were not linear ancestors of ours except for some cross breeding.
How did the elephant gets its trunk?
Nobody is quite certain how the elephant got its trunk, though it's ancestors had very small trunks. It grew longer as the surroundings changed, and has become a very resourceful tool for grabbing food to eat.