0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
Where are lust desires originated from coming from a biological perspective?
Lust desires have biological origins in the brain, specifically involving the release of hormones such as testosterone and estrogen. These hormones affect areas of the brain related to pleasure and reward, contributing to feelings of sexual desire. Evolutionarily, lust serves as a mechanism to drive reproductive behaviors and ensure the survival of the species.
How do independent assortment crossing over and random fertilization affect the rate of evolution?
Independent assortment, crossing over, and random fertilization increase genetic variation in offspring, which provides the raw material for evolution to occur at a faster rate. These processes increase the likelihood of new combinations of alleles, leading to a greater diversity of traits within a population. This increased genetic diversity can drive natural selection and adaptation, ultimately contributing to the rate of evolution in a population.
Why does the concept of natural selection and evolution challenge religious beliefs?
Many religions teach that the world was created by a supreme god, usually only a few thousand years ago. Because the ancient leaders of these religions had no understanding of evolution and change, they taught that the world always was as it is today. They held that people have existed, in their present form, since the time of creation, and that at the very beginning they began to build great civilisations. Some traditions even held that the earth existed before the sun, moon and stars.
Evolution challenges all this, because it shows that the world was formed by natural processes over millions of years, and that species evolved by natural selection. It even shows that humans evolved over a period of several million years from a more ape-like species. The challenge for religions is to adapt their beliefs in the light of scientific knowledge or to become increasingly irrelevant.
For more informationon evolution and how religion responds to it, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Study of heredity and variation?
The study of heredity and variation is called genetics. It focuses on how traits are passed down from one generation to the next, and how those traits can vary within a population. Genetics helps us understand why individuals in a species may differ from one another and how genetic information is transmitted.
Why do Creationists not accept Evolution and vice-versa?
The notion that Creationists cannot accept Evolution and vice-versa is not as great an issue as some would have us believe. There are a few, the Young Earth Creationists and perhaps a small group of zealous fundamentalists, who have a problem with Evolution. Let's examine the two camps and see what they have to say, and then look at some braying instigators to uncover their intent.
Creation is the idea that God is the force behind abiogenesis. Man cannot demonstrate the mechanism wherein life began. The theory of biogenesis, that life only comes from life, represents limited understanding. Man, though he can procreate, cannot create life, cannot animate nonliving material. God doesn't have this problem. He can do anything! And He did. Just as is taught. Can science prove that God didn't do it? Didn't create us? No, it can't. Science stands mute before the idea. Creationists don't really have to "defend" God in this. Besides, they have the trump card! Science is powerless in the face of a supernatural event. Science and (by and large) its practitioners, as well as most of its followers and its users, don't really have a problem with Creation. Why should they? Evolution and Creation are largely compatible. Certainly they are not mutually exclusive.
Evolution, particularly as it is represented by Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fact. MES is the "state of the art" construct that explains the progression of life on earth. The idea that there is a veritable mountain of facts, a plethora of hard data, that support MES should come as no surprise. In fact, the data wasn't collected to support the idea but vice-versa. Consider that a hill of facts was just so much puzzling data until some thinking people, notably Darwin, offered an explanation for the appearance of things. The tree of life was a brilliant conceptual stroke. After the foundations were laid, later evolutionary developers continued to sketch out the limbs and branches of the tree, filling in gaps as new information became available. (Any suggestions that Evolutionists are in any way having trouble supporting their ideas demonstrates a frightening lack of understanding on the subject. Remember that the evidence was already in place. Evolution is the name given to the process explaining what is already laid out. Suggestion to the non-believer in Evolution: face the music. Or, perhaps, answer to God as to why what is arguably His finest gift, the mind of man, was "switched off" when it needed to be fully applied. It's a "You give them eyes and they cannot see" kind of thing....) Science and MES don't have a problem with Creation and Creationists. God initiated the chain of life. It doesn't conflict with existing data, with existing facts. No problem.
The Young Earth Creationists and some zealots are the ones making all the noise. They tend to take the Bible literally. Surprising since there are obvious contradictions in Genesis. (The Qur'an, at least, offers a simple explanation for creation. Allah said, "Be." And it was. No details to slice and dice, or to fight over. The world slipped from His hand. End of story. On to other things.) The panorama of past life and the undeniable truth regarding its lengthy tenure here are ignored by these few cultists. Why? Who knows? Can illogic be explained? But there is method to their madness. It takes the form of Intelligent Design (ID). ID is their construct. It is a deceitful attempt to lay groundwork for the 'scientific' ideation of an "Intelligent Designer" behind the design itself. The Intelligent Designer (though He is unspecified) is God. ID is purely a scion of theological ideology. It's Bible teaching. But the smoke screen was put up so that the constraints keeping church and state separate as set down in the U.S. Constitution could be sidestepped, the objective being to get ID presented in public schools. And the zealous fundamentalists proved that they would lie in support of the deceit they intended to perpetrate on the people. Shame on them. There is an additional factor. Many Christians, though they are not Young Earth supporters, are actually subscribers to Evolution as presented in MES. And they, too, want ID taught in public school. This creates conflict. These folks, and there are a number of them, subscribe to ID to bring God into the classroom, and they seem to turn a blind eye to the lies and deceit practiced by those few Christian zealots to achieve this end. Shame on them. Does God need or even want His message leveraged by lies and deceit? Isn't there another individual whose stock and trade is lies and deceit? Yes, there is. He is the head of the third of the host who fell. Who are these zealots (and any Christians who, tho' they don't see a problem with MES, condone lies and deceit to promote the Bible) actually serving with their prevarication, their deviousness and fraud? Not God. That is the heart of the "problem" with the "opposition" between Creationism and Evolution. It isn't a battle of "scientific ideas" so much as an "issue" created and supported by those scurrilous fundamentalists to achieve a social and political agenda. That and the (O! so sad!) fact that some good God-fearing Believers were deceived by the methods of the radicals when they (the "good Christians") embraced the notion that ID could get the Bible into public schools.
Creationists and Evolutionists aren't that far apart. The vast majority of one camp is a member of the other. The clubs are not mutually exclusive, as some would have us believe. It's just that radical and deceitful minority that wants to create an issue. And they drag some good Christians down with them when the latter support the lies and the deception perpetrated (in His name) by the former.
As an aside, but on a related issue, the scientific community has, by and large, chosen to turn their backs on ID. Not because it isn't true science (which it clearly isn't), but because they feel that if they enter into debate with the myopic and politically motivated pseudo-intellectuals pushing it, they will give credibility to ID and the associated ideas (like irreducible complexity) that it offers. This is a mistake by scientists. Proponents of ID need to be "reeled back in" and "schooled" in what real science is and what it shows so conclusively about the history of the earth and the life on it. You are reading the first installment of the lesson. Here's one voice saying that ID is theory. A good theory. But it is no more supportable by science than the idea that intelligent aliens with advanced technology were the ones who animated mud on earth to start life. And, as it is just another hanging thought from the perspective of what can be proved by scientific method, it is philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class. Oh, and because it was so clearly demonstrated that ID cannot uncouple itself from its theological beginnings, that philosophy class will have to be held somewhere other than in a public school.
[The saddest tale in modern Christian debate is unfolding. It is a battle of politics and ideologies pitting Christian against Christian. In a time when it is more important than ever for Christians to unite and stand together against those violently dangerous and radical ideologists who are turning the world into a killing ground, they want to quarrel among themselves. And, because the majority of the people in this country identify themselves as Christians (making America "mostly" Christian), we are becoming our own worst enemy. We are becoming just like those we struggle against, becoming them.] Answer Because if there's no Creation, there's no fall of man[kind]." If there's no "Fall" (sin), then there's no need for a "Savior." If there's no need for a Savior, then there's no need for an intermediary (Priests, Pastors, Immams, Rabbis, etc.). If there's no intermediaries, then there will be no followers. If there are no followers, then there will be no Thithes. If there are no tithings, then there are no .........
Answer
One problem Evolutionists have with creationism is that it is possible to test the theory of evolution. When such tests are carried out, they show that they achieved the result predicted by evolutionary theory.
On a basic level, evolution theorises that if a population is subjected to an outside influence that favours the survival of some members of that population over others, eventually all that will remain in the population is those who survived.
This seems to be a self evident truth.
If you remove from a field of sheep all the sheep who have black wool, then all that will be left is white sheep. Some new sheep will be borne with black wool. Remove them too.
If you do this every year, eventually there will be not black sheep borne. Look at the next field full of sheep you see. They are normally all white (or perhaps all black, the farmer removed the white ones). That's evolution. Answer this is a loaded question. evolution proponents don't accept creationism on the basis of evidence, given that creationism has none.
creationists not only reject evolution, but astronomy, cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, and critical thinking... on the basis of faith alone.
How many black alleles are in a gene pool?
Your question makes little sense. The allele for cytochrome C is in all human gene pools regardless of population variance. So is the allele for melanin, which has to do with skin tone. ( among other things ) Allele are just different molecular forms of the same gene. These are distributed through out human populations and some populations have a greater frequency of particular alleles. Remember, humans are a '' small '' species genetically, so even with covariance among populations, it would be difficult to find a '' black '' allele. Think sickle cell trait and see how many different types of humans posses this trait.
What is genetic drift increased by?
Lack of a selection factor. In the absence of selection pressure from natural, sexual or artificial sources, the propagation of random genes would increase. Mutation rates may also be tuned to optimise genetic drift (emphasis on may!).
What was the major proposal in Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species?
The major proposal in Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin proposed that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection, where individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to their offspring.
What was an important factor leading to early diversification of animals?
One important factor leading to early diversification of animals was the development of body plans that allowed for different functions and roles within ecosystems. This enabled early animals to exploit various environmental niches and adapt to different ecological challenges. Additionally, evolutionary innovations such as segmentation and bilateral symmetry played a key role in facilitating diversification among early animal groups.
Clay minerals provide a stable surface for molecules to interact and form larger, more complex structures through chemical reactions. This would have been crucial in the prebiotic environment of early Earth to catalyze the formation of essential biomolecules like proteins and nucleic acids. Additionally, clay can protect these molecules from degradation and provide a selective environment for certain chemical reactions to occur.
What is generally accepted as the origin of living organisms?
The generally accepted origin of living organisms is believed to be through a process called abiogenesis, where life arose from non-living matter. This process likely occurred on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago in environments with appropriate conditions for the formation of organic molecules.
Which postulate of natural selection is best supported by the work of Gregor Mendel?
The postulate of variation is best supported by Mendel's work. His experiments with pea plants demonstrated the presence of distinct hereditary traits that can be passed down through generations, providing evidence for the existence of genetic variation within a population.
One example would be the mammalian circulatory system, which features a four-chambered heart with complete separation of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood. This differs from non-mammalian ancestors, such as fish and amphibians, which typically have a two-chambered heart with mixed blood flow.
What proof is there that God created man rather than that man is the result of evolution?
Answer
If you are seeking the kind of proof that will stand up under objective scrutiny, you won't find any. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that God created man, or that He even exists. Nothing at all. This despite the best efforts of a misguided group who would twist scientific "facts" to the contrary. Belief in God is a concept that we will either deny or accept based on faith and not on anything else. That is the nature of the acceptance of a Higher Power. Belief, the handmaiden of faith, is something that could be "learned" from childhood. Or it could be "naturally acquired" later in life. Or the whole of the teachings of religion could be rejected for whatever reason.
The great wonder of religion is that it asks us for so much and returns nothing "tangible" except perhaps the good feelings in our hearts. And, though there are clearly a number of unexplainable phenomenon that have been recorded, no "saving grace" or "miracles" can be shown definitively to be sent down to us from on high. Yet people still believe. We find that faith is a great motivator and an engine of will. Whether it is the Hand of God that is exemplified by, say, the passing out of food and warm clothing to the homeless in winter, or the Fist of Allah that metes out Justice through individuals with explosive devices strapped to their bodies. For something that is not available by the liter, ounce or tonne, it is a most extraordinary product, and one that individuals have invested their whole lives in. Have given their whole lives for. Have died for. By choice.
The desire to investigate the nature of faith and belief in God is innate. We all carry that curiosity within us. Some would say that it is imprinted on us by God. Certainly there is no proof that this is not the case. His gifts, whatever form an individual chooses to see them in, are immutable tokens that bespeak the contents of the heart of the receiver upon whom they are visited. If you believe, if you are a believer, you need no proof of the existence of God or of His most Divine Power. And no one can prove to you in any empirical way that you are wrong. No one.
Another View:
The proof is within man itself. Embedded is his very genetic code. Evolution is like changing clothes to suit the environment. When God created man, He put inside him all he needed to survive. When the earth was still young the environment was savage. To survive, brute is needed and so God clothed man with brute, allowed his genetic structure to change, to be able to survive thus yielding those early human fossils we are discovering right now. Whose brains were smaller than ours since a large brain is not yet needed to survive - only strong physical structure. And as the world changes, God allowed man to grow larger brain to accumulate more knowledge which in turn allowed man to survive not with brute force but by knowledge. In turn man lose his brute physical structure, since he does not need it anymore, becoming more and more into the form we are now. Studies show that the changes that happens inside our body is not the introduction of new genetic code but it is the restructuring of old genetic codes to suit the need. So in short, we are still what we were before in the beginning. So therefore evolution is a part of creation. It is God's way of improving us.
Jewish Answer: For the majority of Jews (including Orthodox), there is no conflict between the story of creation found in the Torah and the theory of evolution. The reason for this is that the Torah tells us WHAT God did, not the how of what He did.
Jewish answer 2:
The short answer is that religion and its beliefs cannot be absolutely proven, just as evolution cannot; otherwise everyone would believe in it.
However, if you read "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (Park Street press, 2000), or "Darwin on Trial" (Intervarsity press, 1993), you'll likely be well on the way to seeing the question in a new light.
Note also that the evidence of God's creation is not limited to the Bible. All ancient societies believed in a supernatural source for the universe: it's a worldwide tradition.
What is putative progenitor haplotype?
A putative progenitor haplotype refers to a genetic sequence that is believed to be an ancestral form from which other variations have evolved through mutation and recombination. By studying putative progenitor haplotypes, researchers can gain insights into the evolutionary history and relationships among different populations or species.
Why behavior must have a genetic component to be favored by natural selection?
One of the conditions of natural selection is that variant organisms are selected on their superior adaption to the environment, reproductive success and their passing on of these traits to progeny, as populations evolve. A genetic component is the physical molecule that is inherited by progeny which reflects their parents successful trait. This is the '' hard '' inheritable component of behavior.
Is evolution a theory yes or no?
Yes and no.
Evolution is an observed biological phenomenon, and therefore fact.
Evolutionary theory is a model explaining the things we find in biology and paleontology in terms of what we know about evolution through genetics and population dynamics.
The point really is not that evolution can be seen as either as theory or as fact, the point is that it is a factual theory; it is a theory which is so well supported by vast quantities of evidence that it would be unscientific and unreasonable to doubt the validity of that theory. Scientists also do not know everything about the evolutionary history of the Earth, or about exactly how evolution takes place, and research into evolutionary biology continues. Theories can be revised. But in the case of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, although many details have been revised, and additional details are likely to be revised, the essential thesis remains, that life does evolve, and that evolution is the process by which the species we observe today on Earth (including the human race) came into existence. Of that, there is no reasonable doubt. Of course, if anyone has a religious belief which compels them to believe otherwise, that is their privilege, but the pious rejection of science does not lead to a better understanding of reality.
Yes, by definition evolution is a theory (hence it is called the 'theory of evolution').
Despite what some would try to argue, this is not a statement against evolution's credibility and the concepts involved. Rather, it is a statement of complete and unanimous support by the scientific community, which finds evolution to be the simplest and most logical explanation for the phenomena involved, as well as fitting the evidence, providing predictions which can be tested and passing all tests that ever attempted to break it.
Another answerIt is also a hypothesis, a fact and a process, and none of these are a problem either.
However, as much as some would like to see this as a problem, we must first note what a theory is. In scientific terms, a theory is a hypothesis which has been experimentally confirmed, has made accurate predictions about phenomena, accommodates all known facts about the subject, and is widely accepted as correct.
We must contrast this definition with that often used by those who don't understand it; in that case, a theory would be more correctly referred to by the term hypothesis, which is an explanation of something but which has yet to be experimentally confirmed.
So in basic terms, a theory is an idea which - after a lot of testing and experimentation and criticism and debate - has been determined to fit all the facts, explain those facts consistently, and make reliable predictions.
In short, it's about as close as you can get to certainty. The vast majority of the scientific community - about 99.9% of all qualified scientists - accept it as such. There is no better explanation of how life on earth came to be the way it is now.
Who proposed the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin wrote a book called On the Origin of Species, in which he explained his conclusions that 1) modern species derived from ancestors they share with other species, and 2) that the driving mechanisms behind this development is reproductive variation and natural selection.
How did Ernst Walter Mayr contributed to the current theory of evolution?
Ernst Walter Mayr contributed to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis by emphasizing the importance of the concept of speciation in evolutionary theory. He also helped bridge the gap between genetics and natural selection, providing a more comprehensive understanding of evolution. Mayr's work laid the foundation for our current understanding of evolutionary biology.
Do you think evolution on Earth has stopped?
Evolution on Earth has not stopped. It is an ongoing process driven by factors such as natural selection, genetic mutation, and environmental changes. Organisms continue to adapt to their surroundings, leading to changes in populations over time.
No one else has been able to propose any widely accepted theory. Darwin's theory of evolution concerns the origin of SPECIES once life already came into existence. It does not incorporate the concept of abiogenesis (life from non life) yet.
For the origin of life there is the RNA world hypothesis. Panspermia is a competing theory proposed by a couple of astronomers, but it has not gained much traction among biologists OR even astrobiologists. Some folks have proposed various crystals or clays served as a scaffolding upon which organic macromolecules self assembled. The whole question (like so many others in science) remains a big mystery.
Many religions believe in some sort of divine creation, or intelligent design as a theory of origin of life.
What cell theory contradicts evolution?
Cell theory does not contradict evolution. Cell theory states that all living organisms are composed of cells, while evolution explains how these cells and organisms change over time through the process of natural selection. Both concepts are supported by scientific evidence and are compatible with each other.
Saltation is a geological process where sediments are transported by the wind or water in a series of short hops or bounces. It typically occurs in areas with strong winds or fast-flowing water that can pick up and carry particles, depositing them elsewhere as the energy of the wind or water decreases. Saltation plays a role in shaping landscapes by moving sediment and eroding surfaces.
Are intelligent design and evolution scientific theories?
Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the universe and life forms we see today are best explained by design of an intelligent cause; Some ID proponents do not rule out adaptations of species, but they do not believe the addition of new complex information could have happened naturally. In other words, they believe natural variation within species is possible, but not new species. Both are trying to explain how the world works. Both claim to search for truth. Proponents of each believe they have proposed a theory.
Within science a theory is generally defined as a systematic framework that explains observations and experimental results, and which can be used to make testable predictions which in turn can either be used to refine or falsify the theory. Generally speaking scientists will attempt to test new theories by designing experiments that, if successful, will falsify the theory. All scientific theories and results are considered tentative and subject to revision or refutation as more evidence is gathered.
Scientific explanations for questions about our world and everything in it are formed by using the scientific method. First, a scientist would come up with an explanation to an observed reoccurring pattern in nature, this is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by gathering more data by observation and experimentation to see if the data supports or falsifies the explanation. If enough data is gathered, the hypothesis can be considered to have been validated and it becomes a theory. But even a theory is still subject to being falsified if enough data is found to prove it wrong. Scientists must publish the results of their experiments, and explain their hypotheses and theories in scientific journals so that other scientists are able to understand their work. It is also important for experiments and theories to be explained in a way that allows other scientists to reproduce the experiments or devise new ones that can either support or falsify the theory. When scientists try to publish their experiments the work must first be peer-reviewed. This is a process where the work they want to be published is reviewed by a selection of other experts in the field (peers) before it is accepted for publication.
The theory of evolution is supported by data which was collected through observation of a wide variety of natural systems and through laboratory experimentation. Most palaeontologists consider the fossil record to provide evidence completely consistent with the theory of evolution and geneticists also consider evidence from the study of genes to also be consistent with evolution. These two separate strands of evidence are also consistent with each other and have been used to successfully make predictions.
Scientists would further argue that Intelligent Design is not a theory because it has no data supporting it and there is no possible way to falsify it. Intelligent Design supporters argue that the evidence to support them is in the inability of current scientific theories to explain how certain features in biological systems came about naturally and that it is impossible for these features to occur naturally so they must therefore be the result of Intelligent Design. Many scientists consider this argument to be invalid and little more than an attempt to insert God, or an Intelligent Designer, into any current gaps in scientific understanding. This is often referred to as the 'God of the gaps' argument. Although the progress of scientific research can constantly fill these gaps in our knowledge this aspect of the Intelligent Design hypothesis could never be falsified because it can always be reapplied where there are still gaps in our understanding.
Some Intelligent design proponents argue that Evolutionary theory is a psuedoscience which lacks any significant empirical evidence to support it whilst others have chosen to argue that Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid alternative to Evolution within science education. Opponents of Intelligent Design argue that it is unsupported by evidence whereas, in their view, the evidence to support Evolution is overwhelming.
The majority of the scientific community have so far rejected Intelligent design as unscientific, amounting to little more than an untested (and some would argue un-testable) hypothesis that has produced no experimental evidence. It should be noted that accepted theories in science can and are overturned when experimental results are published that successfully falsify the prevailing theory.
Evolutionary theory is often criticised for failing to explain the origins of biological life, and that it is a theory that excludes the possibility of a supernatural god, and as such is atheistic in nature. In reality Evolution is explicitly not a theory concerning the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. It assumes the existence of life and is concerned with explaining how these living systems change through successive generations, developing new traits and ultimately creating new species, or as Charles Darwin put it 'the Origin of Species'.
The theory of Evolution within modern science does not explicitly exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer, either as the designer of the first living matter, or of the universe as a whole. Because science is a discipline that attempts to explain observed facts in terms of measurable physical reality it does not allow supernatural entities as part of its explanations or theories because they are incompatible with the scientific method, even if they actually exist. Many scientists have supernatural or religious beliefs but they do not rely on them when using scientific methods to understand the world. Some evolutionary scientists believe in a form of supernatural origin or intelligent design to the universe and that the mechanism of evolution was designed to do precisely what scientists observe it to do.
Each of these proposed theories starts with presuppositions. Evolutionary Theory and other scientific theories begin by assuming that everything we can observe and measure can be explained in terms of natural processes. ID assumes that supernatural design is possible and that its effects can be observed. ID scientists do not challenge the idea of change over time in organisms -just that the addition of certain complex biological information proposed by evolution is impossible without the intervention of an intelligent designer.
AnswerEvolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is not. Evolution, at least as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis, is fact, and is presented as such. Intelligent design is a religiously spawned doctrine that has social and political aims or goals as its objectives. Supporters of intelligent design present the oddest assortment of ideas as regards scientific support for accepting intelligent design as something scientific. The major scientific organizations around the globe uniformly and categorically reject it as unscientific.