0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
How did Hominids evolve in Africa?
The frequently-heard answer is that we moved, or were driven, from the jungle to the grasslands, losing our ape-hair in response to the heat. However, baboons, who did this, have not lost their hair, nor have any of the other grassland animals. However, a recent hypothesis suggets we had an aquatic period (other animals who have streamlined, minimised, or total loss of, body hair had or have an aquatic period - otters, seals, hippos, etc). The suggestion is that our ancestors evolved the primary human characteristics (vertical posture, etc.) as a response to living in, or habitually frequenting, water - and the target place for this origin is the Danakil Horst, at the mouth of the Red Sea.
Another perspective:
In general terms Hominids split from living apes somewhere between 5 - 10 million years ago.
They evolved from being small brained, part-time bipedal/part-time quadrupedal with fingers and hands optimized for tree climbing and lacking fully developed language processing structures in the brain (e.g.: Australopithecus Afareneis);to large brained, full-time bipedal, with hands suited to manipulating object and fully developed language processing brains structures (e.g.: Homo Erectus -> Homo Sapien).
It is thought that rapid changes in climate and survival conditions provided selective pressure that gave an advantage to Hominids that were able to quickly adapt to a variety of conditions. This drove changes that favored intelligence, tool making and language.
Regarding body hair, later bipedal hominids were hunters that ran down their prey by outlasting them. Hominids could/can run much longer distances than other animals (although not typically as fast) because bipedal running, at a jogging pace, is more energy efficient than quadrupedal running and hominids could/can cool themselves by sweating. Most "Hairy" or fur-bearing animals don't have sweat glands and those that do (Horses etc) cannot cool themselves as effectively as hairless hominids can. Loss of body hair was an adaptation to promote cooling the body temperature.
6 letters What is a developed theory of evolution by natural selection called?
The modern theory of evolution may be referred to as natural selection, Darwinism, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or sometimes simply evolution.
What is the summary of A Roadside Stand by Robert Frost?
In the poem "A Roadside Stand," Robert Frost contrasts the lives of the poor and deprived country people who struggle to live with the lives of city people who do not take notice of the roadside stand that the country people have set up to sell their wares.
because having oxygen would have destroyed the the cells. However without oxygen there would be no ozone layer and the cells would have been fried. This is one of the many problems evolution has.
What was wrong with lamarck's theory of evolution'?
His two main concepts, acquired characteristics and a innate " desire " to evolve, were both unsupported by any evidence and were not the way evolution happens. So, Lamarck's " theory " ( in the vulgar sense ) was utterly refuted by the actual evidence and process of evolution.
What is the last step in the evolution of life?
The last step in the evolution of life is reaching a state of equilibrium where organisms are well-adapted to their environment and exhibit high levels of complexity and diversity. This stage involves ongoing interactions between organisms and their environment to maintain balance and stability in ecosystems.
A theory is an explanation of experimental data and empirical observation. The current theory is one that best explains everything and has yet to be disproved. Evolution being just a theory is therefore not a valid argument
My answer:
THe process is observe: hypothesize, draw a theory, test it, and then and if it is true it becomes a law. Evolution is a theory, and has been for 150 YEARS, nobody can debate that, and nobody can prove evolution. There are alot of theories that support the theory of evolution, but neither of them can be proven either. so by definition, evolution is more of a religion than a scientific law, a bunch of people fervently believing something that cannot be proven.
Answer
A theory is a lacing together of facts that gives a good all-roundish explanation that explains a lot and makes predictions. A theory is better than a hypothesis, a hypothesis is just a good idea. A theory is an hypothesis that has gained much evidence and never been refuted, only supported. Note that one can never prove a theory/hypothesis. To prove a theory 100%, one needs an infinite amount of experiments and observations that meet predictions. Theories are unrefuted and that is the highest quality they can have. A theory is a hypothesis in its greatest glory. A theory is never 'just a theory'. A hypothesis is indeed just a hypothesis or just a good idea or just a rubbish idea if it turns out that way. If a hypothesis is supported by experiment and unrefuted long enough, then it is indeed worthy of not being a hypothesis and being promoted to theory.
With regards to your definition of theory: it is slightly inaccurate and I have corrected it above. However, what I hypothesise you mean is that the theory of Evolution is a massive theory, a 'process' that took billions of years to get from Precambrian prokaryote to Holocene hog, hyena and hoopoe, and thus a process whose 'scope' is too large in time and complexity (genetic and morphological and geological and climatological complexity - the world of Natural Selection) to replicate in the laboratory. That is true. We cannot put a modern relative of the earliest bacteria into a laboratory and watch it, human generation by human generation, progress and branch into myriad forms as different from a bacterium as mice and jellyfish, sequoias, starfish, paramecia and pangolins, because, we as a species will not have the time resources to do such a thing. If you think that the Theory of Evolution in all its professed veracity hinges only on this one 3.5 billion year laboratory experiment, then Evolution as a theory (and perhaps even a hypothesis) may seem a failure to you. You may well exclaim "Evolution is just a theory". But Evolution, the Theory, cannot rest on this absurd, nonsensical experiment, too long in time and indeed patience. Do we have to see a hydrogen atom to theorise its existence or see the air push up the wing of an aeroplane? There are many things that we cannot see. And many theories that we accept, theories of the invisible, like the invisible atom or the invisible guanine in DNA, or the invisible change of long-dead animals from fish to amphibian and from coelurosaur to bird and from a possible hyrax-like animal to manatee and elephant, cannot have the ultimate proof brought upon them. See an electron? Feel an electron? Be in two places at once like an electron? And yet we accept the wave-particle duality of electrons.
We accept these ideas because they are good ideas of the rank of theory. Not hypothesis, theory. And, within the definition of theory above, stood up in time and not fallen. We accept Evolution because it has evidence, of the quantity that renders evolution a theory. We accept atoms and DNA because there is evidence. The same goes for the Big Bang and Continental Drift. The statement 'just a theory' is always erroneous. A theory is a good thing, the best explanation we can come up with. And the longer we go without refutation, the more confident we become in the veracity of the claims of a theory. And the longer we go without refutation, the more we doubt whether there will ever be refutation, which is another way of stating the last sentence.
In short, whether it is possible or not to replicate Evolution over 3.5 billion years in a laboratory, we know that this experiment would be impossible and thus need indirect ways to work out what has happened to bring life into the forms it is in now. These indirect methods (used to build up Evolution as a theory and Atomic Structure as a theory and many other theories of the invisible) have built up extraordinary wonderful theories which seem to be veracious and whose veracity (given the state that it is) it would seem absurd to deny. Just because we cannot see something in the laboratory directly for ourselves with our very eyes does not deny the veracity of the theories (as propoundings) arising from the realm of indirect method research.
What is evolution and how it take?
Evolution is the process by which species change over time through natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift, leading to the development of new species. It occurs as individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, driving the gradual change in populations over generations.
Why do many religious groups deny human evolution which is accepted in the scientific community?
Throughout history, religion has not only been used to fulfill people spiritually but also to explain the 'Un- explainable'...
For example, What is lightening? lightening was sent from a god named Zeus because he's angry.
As science shed light on the reasons behind nature and how things worked...people IN ALL CULTURES AND FAITHS began to lose their sense (or need) for faith.
Religion, by definition, is a belief based on some form of aphysical, faith; pretty much believing in something that can't wholly be seen, or heard, or held but something that just is.
Human Evolution has 3 components that cause religious people to question:
1.The first is the sense (even fear or belief) that if the scientific basis of Evolution becomes the accepted norm, people will discount the bible version of creation...(which according to many people of faith is in direct contrast with one another) and lead people to abandon god.
2. The second cause is this; It's hard to see Macroevolution, and microevolution never makes the cut.
You can talk about the fossil record all you want, or dinosaurs, or how Finches beaks change and adapt over time, or how a set of green eyed drosphilia fruit flies can be manipulated genetically into becoming red eyed over the course of 6 generations- The science is there.
BUT Huge evolutionary changes take hundreds of thousands/millions of years; there is no way for the Science side to show one organism change into a completely different being . Hard to see is hard to prove.
3. The THEORY of Evolution is just that. It is not a Law of science. Although science can prove many aspects, there is no way to bring back a trilobite or snap your fingers and fill gaps in the fossil record. Evolution is scientific and factual...but there is also an element of assumption and questions still exist.
A Religious Point of View:The reason is that evolution is a theory, and not a very good one because it is man's attempt to take God out of creation. It is man's way of slapping God in the face. Even Darwin said at the last, "Those fools have turned a theory into a fact.' That should tell you something. It is when mankind doesn't want to come to God in the way He wants us to that mankind looks for ways such as evolution to circumvent what they should be doing.Religious groups are not the only ones who deny human evolution. Scientists do as well since it is not actually a scientific fact at all. Religious groups deny it since it is not a fact, nor is it even implied in the Bible anyway and so there is no need either way to 'bend the Bible' to make it fit with the fallible theories of men.
So, religious groups are not in denial, they are in reality. In fact creationist groups are keen not to use fallacious argumentation and actively discourage it. They want to deal with, as Francis Schaeffer put it,' the world that is,' not a made up fairy tale, dressed up in scientific language.
The more evidence that comes to light the more problems are uncovered with the the theory of evolution. More than that, arguments found to be scientifically fallacious, even fraudulent, are still used to support it.
Christian believers also have problems, not with the data but with the way it is interpreted. Hence two people loooking over the rim of the Grand Canyon for example will say two different things. The evolutionist will say 'a little water over lots of time.' The creationist will say 'lots of water over a little time.' Evolutionists have specifically linked evolution to an agenda which is deliberately and militantly anti-christian. Thus it is not science as science that requires evolution to be true, but a philosophy. Not a few leading evolutionists have plainly stated it so.
Christians involved in scientific endeavour do not find the fact of evolution to speak for themselves. They see that evolution contradicts known scientific facts and even more so than in Darwin's day. So it is not really religious groups who are in denial. Proven laws of science, not theories, are against evolution so there is no denial.
A Scientific point of view:"Evolution is a fact; grab some bacteria and a microscope, and you can even do it yourself. There's a reason why 99.9% of scientists use it and why the whole of biology is based on it too. " A Blend of the TWO It could be argued, and quite fairly, that many religious people actually believe (rather than deny) evolution. That is, as far as the theory goes. The question seems to make the supposition that evolutionary theory is complete as well as being scientific fact. It is scientific, but it isn't complete, and it isn't fact. It's the theory of evolution. Another "answer" to the question was that the theory of evolution is "not a very good one." Nothing could be more wrong. There is a mountain of evidence to support it. Oh, and that's scientific evidence, by the way. Not just rhetoric or philosophical argument.In addition:
- "Man's attempt to take Go out of creation" is a label. Something that has been spray painted on the theory of evolution like so much graffiti. Who are the taggers who would do such a thing? Myopic fundamentalists would as they run around to rally other like (narrow) minds to the idea that man and/or science is out to prove that God does not exist. Science isn't in the business of proving that God does not exist. Why don't the Chicken Littles see that the faithful hold the trump card? God can do anything. He is omnipotent. Theory can't compete with that. And it does not try.
- With each turn of the spade or stroke of the dust brush, new evidence comes to light. It's happening right now. Somewhere in the world a crew is on a dig, and the next revelation is a millimeter away. Does this new find fill in a gap? No wonder zealots are in panic mode. What are they afraid of? Of what will be uncovered next? The rational person, the thinking person (be he a non-believer or a Christian) is excited about what that next find will be! Aren't you?
- Man uses the power of his God-given intellect to see the world and everything in it for what it really is. And in so doing, he honors the One who gave him the gifts he applies to that endeavor. He neither deceives himself nor others, and neither does he bear false witness by distorting what science is saying to prop up his own ideas.
- From a theological point of view, evolution can prove what it can prove. Nothing less, nothing more. The faithful would hold that nothing will come to pass that will dethrone God. And they would be right. That's the nature of their faith. That's what faith is. "Be ye not afraid...."
Why do teachers have to teach evolution?
If you have ever been to a museum in Europe, you will no doubt have seen the knight's armor that is usually displayed. Knights were the fearsome warriors of the time, sent out to fight for their country and religion. Whether their battles were justified is not relevant to this discussion, what IS relevant is the size of the knights. Most were UNDER 5'6"... and they were considered fierce warriors. Today's fierce men are over 6ft tall. If I walked into a room full of knights from that era, even the most fierce would consider me to be a giant, yet in today's society, I'm just a little over average height. That is an example of evolution. The human species has evolved over the last couple hundred thousand years. It's the same with the animals. They adapt to fit a niche. It doesn't really matter what your religious beliefs are, evolution is real. Examples of evolution are everywhere if you'll just look. But if you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, just so that you don't have to hear it, that's your choice. The God I believe in didn't expect his creations to remain static. The God I believe in wants us all to make ourselves better. Hopefully my children are better than me. Hopefully they will be smarter and able to make better decisions. Over the ages, organized religion has demonstrated an abysmal history in their decision making. Through the history of the human species, most wars and killings have been in the name of religion. We still have wars, and the one that is going on now is a fine example of another religious war, fought in the name of their silly, ineffectual moon god. If decisions were made on the basis of logic and reasoning, the species would be able to improve itself, perhaps the way that God would want it. Remember that it is the religious leaders of the radical sects who encourage superstitious behavior.
Answer
Science teachers have to teach science. Evolution is one aspect of science and is taught if it is in the curriculum. Religious teachers teach religion. For some people, creationism is one aspect of religion and it is taught if it is in the relevant curriculum. Answer Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is required for a detailed understanding of life on earth.
What are the odds of life occurring in the universe?
The probability is 1, since it has already happened. There has been life on earth for millions of years - long before humans.
What is the actual chance of a simple cell forming?
Probability is useless here because you figure probability from the present to the past, which is wrong. Rather like saying; " what is the probability of me drawing a straight flush in this deal of cards? " The cards were dealt and you received a straight flush. The direct analogy is, the " cards ' of life were dealt and we now have cells that go from simple to complex.
This is a common and mistaken creationist tactic. Ask any mathematician.
What events happened in the past that allowed water to form and exist on Earth?
Most scientists believe water came in ice form on comets or meteors that crashed into the Earth.
Answers.com sucks. Doesn't matter the question, it's almost always a complete joke.
And since it always comes up on the first page of Google search for any question, Google also sucks.
How did human beings come to existence according to Darwin?
According to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, human beings evolved through a process of genetic mutation and adaptation over millions of years. Through this process, early hominids gradually evolved and developed traits that resulted in the modern human species.
What Sympatric speciation through polyploidy has been a frequent phenomenon in the evolution of.?
Plants, such as flowering plants like sunflowers and cotton, have often undergone sympatric speciation through polyploidy. This process involves the duplication of chromosomes within a single species, leading to the formation of new species that can coexist in the same geographic area. Polyploidy can facilitate rapid diversification and adaptation to new environments, contributing to the evolutionary success of certain plant lineages.
What organisms first appeared in the Devonian period?
The Devonian Period is sometimes referred to as the age of the fish. Forests and the coiled shell-bearing marine organisms known as ammonites first appeared early in the Devonian.
What Do You Believe Creation or Evolution?
I believe in evolution because we find so many fossils from the past and still no miracle from God has yet happened.
I believe in creation because there is way more proof!!
Why do some people believe evolution to be a theory and not true?
Evolution is a fact. In the present day, evolution, as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) is no longer a theory. It is in abiogenesis that evolution cannot shed light, and it offers only theory. There is no direct evidence of the mechanism by which life began, and only possible explanations are offered by science for life arising from non-life.
As regards the long tenure of life on earth, evolution explains all the facts and discoveries. It was created to tie all we know together, and it is the only scientific thing that makes sense. The only scientific thing. Nothing scientific competes with it.
Another reason some decry evolution is because it is taught in public schools - and creation is not. These folks want "equal time" for creation, and, because they can't get it by way of law (owing to separation of church and state), they are trying to make and end run and attack the science on which evolution is based. And at the same time they are trying to prop up creation as "scientific" so they can create a "wedge" to get it presented in public schools.
Links are posted to related articles put up by our friends at Wikipedia, where knowledge is free.
Answer
Some believe that evolution is contradicted by many known facts of science, there are thus many who don't regard it as either proven or as fact, for purely scientific reasons. Many other evolutionists also acknowledge the many flaws in it, unlike the Law of Gravity which has no known exceptions.
Major problems with evolution as far as science itself is concerned relate to the fact that it contradicts known scientific Laws, such as the Law of Biogenesis, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Genetics also poses a number of problems for evolution as do the fields of biochemistry, geology, and astronomy. The fossil record is also another major problem area with only a handful of doubtful transitional forms, quite contrary to what would be expected if the theory were an accurate scientific description of life on earth.
Many people are also only taught the "evolution is a fact" doctrine and so they come out of the school system as dutiful believers in it, totally unaware of the great mass of scientific evidence which contradicts it. So, quite naturally, they repeat that it is a scientific fact. Although stating this does not actually make it so - no matter how sincere is either one's belief in it - or how profound is one's ignorance of the contradictory data.
What comes to mind when you hear the word evolution of a product?
How a product has been innovated and improved upon.
How much horsepower does lancer evolution 8 have?
evo 8 are rolling stock at around 271, downgraded from the evo 7 that had 273...
How many pistons in an evolution 4?
count the spark plugs! that will tell you how many cylinders unless it has 2 plugs per piston which i have seen on some atv's
What is an advantage of wrapping wires in plastic rather then paper or cloth?
well if there is a spark or a power surge, then the spark could ignite the cloth or paper. plus the plastic not only protect the wires from rain, rats (mostly), etc., it doesn't conduct electricity so you can handle the wires without electrocuting yourself. :)
