0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
- Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists believe animals were created as kinds, and that variations within those kinds have occurred over time by adaptation and by manipulation, such as the genetic selection of traits by breeders of pets and livestock. Evolutionary scientists usually believe complex animals evolved from simpler life forms. They do not generally explain how the simple life forms, which are also animals, came to be, although some believe that non-living protogenic amino acids may have combined and generated life forms.
- Creation Theory is that all life comes from created kinds. There is no argument against speciation. All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material. The fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer. Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48) Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others. Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy. Things tend toward disorder over time, unless there is outside influence. A common misconception is that 'change equals evolution.' Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code. It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.
- Animals came to be God creating them. Every building has to have a builder. If you start there that at least states there has to be a higher power! Everything in the Bible is true and not one thing has ever been proven wrong.
- In Genesis 1: 20 God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." In Genesis 1: 24 he said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." We know that the Bible is the true, inspired Word of God. So how much more proof do you need? Maybe in the beginning of the world, animals and humans lived longer, so you won't find many fossils of them. The world was pure before the Fall of Man, and we don't know how long the time between the Creation and the Fall of Man. It could have been centuries, or years, or days, or seconds. But maybe that is why you don't find many fossils of animals in the first layers of earth. And God didn't see fit to tell us how everything fit together. He just told us what we need to know, and we need to accept that. So, animals were made on the fifth and sixth days of creation.
- The fossil record shows the gradual emergence of different, and generally more complex species over time. For example, the oldest layers only contain bacteria. Newer layers contain mollusks, invertebrates, etc. The newest layers contain vertebrates.
- Creationist Theory does not explain geographic distribution. The most closely related species are generally also found in the closest proximity to each other.
- Creationist Theory does not explain vestigial structures. Vestigial structures are the leftovers of evolution that are no longer functional. For example, wings on flightless birds, remnant hindlimb/pelvic bones in whales, tailbone on humans. If we were created, why the extra spare parts?
- Creationist Theory does not explain why species' designs contain flaws. With evolution, flaws can be passed down from ancestors. Evolution only selects for the best available, but does not guarantee that the best is without flaws. Sometimes it requires a trade off. For example, primates (including humans) have a non-functional gene for synthesizing vitamin c because presumably ancestral primates had so much vitamin c in their diets from fruit that the gene was not necessary. The gene is still there, but unlike in other animals, it doesn't work, so now that our diets don't always contain enough vitamin c, we can get scurvy. Another flaw in our design is that our windpipe stems from the throat so it can be easy to die from choking. If we were simply created, then why would there be these flaws in our physical design?
- Where is the mixing of features? If animals were just created, wouldn't there be a more random mixing of features? Instead, you have groupings of species sharing many similar traits as if they were related to one another or evolved from common ancestors. For example, mammals are grouped because they all produce milk. But all mammals also are warm blooded and have hair or fur (even whales have vestigial hair in the fetal stages). Where are the feathered mammals? Where are the birds that bear live young? You can find the features of older groups appearing on groups that evolved from these groups, but you don't see traits from more recent groups on species from older groups. Sure, there are a few anomalies out there, but do a little research and evolution explains why.
- Creation is just one possible explanation for the origin of life on earth. There is no single way to demonstrate how life began. Any who claim creation are not necessarily correct. It's a war of words. Of philosophies and ideologies. And it is likely to remain so for some time. Until then, just about any argument concerning the origin of life on earth is as "valid" as the next. The Bible thumper is no more or less correct than the one who thumps a science text. Believe what you want to. But your beliefs do not invalidate those of others.
- All the proof one needs to see the changes evolution has effected are at hand. The earth has changed dramatically over the billions of years since it was formed. When life began (by what mechanism one is free to speculate on), it began a long, long time ago. As the planet changed, the life changed, evolved, to adapt to the new conditions. Or it died. It's that simple. The ideation of the tree of life (by Linnaeus) was a brilliant stroke. Modern evolutionary synthesis (MES), the state of the art construct that deals with evolution, is fact. (We just disagree amongst ourselves about abiogenesis - the mechanism of life's inception.) Many Christians are on board with MES and modern science's take on the age of the earth. Literal interpretation of the Bible leads to severe ideological conflicts. But some believe in a young earth. This seems to be adherence to obviously flawed ideology. Particularly in the face of the mountain of facts that any individual could understand. To evolutionists, young earth Christians seem to practice a form of denial on an epic scale. Intelligent Design Science is pseudo-science. It is an ideology that appears to have been designed for a single purpose: to get creation taught in public schools. The basic laws of existence state that nothing comes from nothing. However that would not preclude the possibility that life can come from nonliving things. Protenogenic amino acids are not alive, and neither are the proteins they create. However, a simple combination of proteins with the necessary levels of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to form strong bonds could very well result in single celled organisms, which, through symbiosis could bond with others and create multi-celled organisms. These things can occur spontaneously. Science has not demonstrated they did occur that way, but it would be foolish to deny that it is possible. There is no way to prove that life here on earth did not come from somewhere else. It could have, and there is more than one explanation as to how it could have occurred.
- Some molecules, acids, a pool of lava and luck.
- If something needed to put the 'objects in question' into motion in order for them to even have a chance to bond into life, why can that not be the case to evolutionists? There is still room for evolution after the cause of motion. Also, why can the world and all life within it not have been intelligently designed but designed to evolve?
Claim: All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material.
The Science- This is simply not true. New genetic material passed through the filter of natural selection easily gives rise to complexity. Such complexity can be seen in the case of a nylon-eating bacteria. New genetic material can come about by various mechanisms. The two most dominant ones in vertebrate evolution are genetic recombination and genetic mutations. These are widely studied phenomena and have an extremely well documented scientific basis.
ClaimThe fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer.
The Science- I can only imagine that the author is referring to the Cambrian explosion, which is a well documented event in geology. Furthermore, there have been found countless precambrian fossiles, and first solid evidence of life dates back to roughly 3.5 Bya.
Claim-Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48)
The Science- This is a case of quote mining and, even if quoted correctly, isn't evidence for anything. What one scientist, or any person, says about his own personal incredulity says nothing of the viability of a theory.
Claim-Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others.
The Science- I cannot emphasise the error of this statement. I return to the case of the nylon-eating bacteria, where nylon is a polymer first synthesised in the lab in 1935 by Wallace Carothers. "Macro-evolution" (mind you, biologists and geneticists alike do not differentiate between the two) is merely the result of accumulated "micro-evolution". Whereas 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1... would eventually equal 100, enough for one to call it macro-evolution by the "micro-macro" standard.
Claim-Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy.
The Science The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The way this law interacts with biology is that organisms must fight the tendency for disorder lest their cells will collapse. This is the purpose of homeostasis, a process which every organism shares. It has absolutely nothing to do with the increasing complexity of the global gene pool. Apples and oranges!
Claim-Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code.
The Science - This is a statement which simply contradicts modern research. I have already written a great deal about mutations and its mechanisms, so I won't comment further.
Claim-It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.
The Science- It has been demonstrated that amino acids can be synthesised using only a mild electric current from where there were once only simple gases such as, among others, H2O (water vapour), CO (carbonmonoxide) and CH4 (methane). Furthermore, this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. This is an entirely different field of study altogether called Abiogenesis and is in the field of Organic Chemistry rather than Evolutionary Biology. More importantly, Evolutionary theory is not dependent on Abiogenesis, and Abiogenesis is not dependent on Evolutionary theory for either to be true. This statement supposes that this is the case.
A Process that use observation and experimentation to gain knowledge is?
The process that uses observation and experimentation to gain knowledge is known as the scientific method. This method involves making observations, forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on evidence collected. It is a systematic approach to understanding the world around us.
What is the Cosmozoic Theory of Evolution?
Cosmozoic or Interplanetary Theory as put forward by Richter states that life had reached the earth from some other heavenly body in the form of resistant spores of simple organisms in meteorites or in spaceships. Upon finding fertile soil here, the theory goes, they grew and then evolved into the various existing forms.
What is the cultural evolution of man?
I believe that before Darwin created his theory the culture was a Christian culture, most everyone believed in God, how God created the earth in seven days, and how everything has a plan and purpose. Once Darwin created his theory, everything changed. Everyone believed that there is no God, The earth was created by a Big Bang, everything in the earth was evolved from a single cell, everything happens accidentally, and nothing has a purpose you are just here because the best traits adapted and evolved. Evolution has completely taken the focus away from God, and put it on the fact that we don't need God to create life. Evolution is taking the culture and little by little, day by day, turning it into more of an Atheistic world view. That is not what God intended to happen!!! I believe that before Darwin created his theory the culture was a Christian culture, most everyone believed in God, how God created the earth in seven days, and how everything has a plan and purpose. Once Darwin created his theory, everything changed. Everyone believed that there is no God, The earth was created by a Big Bang, everything in the earth was evolved from a single cell, everything happens accidentally, and nothing has a purpose you are just here because the best traits adapted and evolved. Evolution has completely taken the focus away from God, and put it on the fact that we don't need God to create life. Evolution is taking the culture and little by little, day by day, turning it into more of an Atheistic world view. That is not what God intended to happen!!!
Theory of evolution according to f landa jocano?
F. Landa Jocano, a Filipino anthropologist, proposed a theory of evolution that emphasized cultural evolution over biological evolution. He argued that cultures evolve through adaptation to their environment and social interactions, rather than through genetic changes. Jocano's theory highlights the role of cultural diversity and innovation in shaping human societies.
Is it possible that science will give us eternal life?
The previous post, despite it's fervent effort; and not for lack of eloquence or even research, failed to even address the question at hand: Can we gain eternal life through scientific avenues.
It is possible (and as some researchers note, inevitable) for us to retain eternal life through science. Predictions lie between 20-30 years before we have a comprehensive cure for death.
There appear to be several avenues toward physical eternity; and I'll demonstrate the contributors to that cause in this article.
First, each cell in your body contains strands of DNA that determine every property you have. We're in fact 99% similar to Chimpanzees in regards to our DNA.
More to the point, a particular gene responsible for the production of an enzyme known as Telomerase; has potential to grant us lives that span centuries and even millenia (provided we aren't hit by a bus during that period).
the telomere is a region of repetitive DNA at the end of chromosomes, which protects the end of the chromosome from destruction. As the telomere becomes shorter and shorter, cells replicate less often; eventually reaching a stage referred to as the "Hayflick limit," a point at which a cell can no longer replicate. Growing old is directly associated with the shortening of our telomeres.
Telomeres are the treasure chests of life. Not only do they keep cells replicating, studies have indicated that shorter telomeres actually increase your risk of disease.
A study of 60 to 75 year olds showed that patients with shorter telomeres had a 300% higher death rate from heart disease, and an 800% higher chance of death from infectious diseases.
One of the most important groupings of letters and numbers that will grace humanity in it's period of scientific ascension is called "TA-65," a therapy that lengthens telomeres.(1) With TA-65, it's possible to replenish telomeres as well as reverse the decay that occurs during cell division.
Along with breakthroughs regarding the manipulation of these telomeres, advances in medical technology are leading to the cures for cancer. There are multiple treatments currently in FDA clinical trials that show great promise:
- A new technology involving blasting cancer cells with radio waves (which are harmless to humans) has been very successful and has researchers excited at the prospects. FDA animals trails have proven 100% successful, curing all malignant cancers.
- Cancer resistant mice have been important in determining how to become cancer-free; involving transfusing granulocytes; a kind of white blood cell, which has shown amazing promise towards curing cancer. Basically they take healthy granulocytes from one mouse and transfuse them into cancerous mice. This treatment has also proven 100% effective in clinical trials on animals.
Moving past the imminent breakthroughs involving cancer and telomerase; there are many life-improving technologies that are breaking the surface. Using silicon and microtechnology, the replication of organs and tissue has become possible and is now even in use in the United States. It's possible to actually build organs; which could eventually render transplant lists null.
Further, advances in nanotechnology have inspired optimism for nanobots which could flow through the blood stream and destroy deposits of plaque or dangerous cells.
To conclude, the inevitability of eternal life through science is upon us. Actually if you're willing to pay almost seven thousands dollars twice a year, you could probably live forever.
Of course as the commercial demand for the live-forever product increases, the price will invariably go down as the volume of consumption will be massive.
The breakthroughs witnessed at this point in history will define humanity for the remainder of it's presence in the universe. If you've ever wondered where we are headed, whether we'd colonize mars, or travel to another solar system... You have the oppurtunity to wait thousands of years to witness it.
What does radiometric dating prove regarding macro evolution?
Off the top of my head it substantiates that if you have 5 transitional fossils showing the slow change of an organism over a few million years that they did come in the order that they appear to, that one did spawn the other.
I think the best evidence of macroevolution is in genetic similarities between all life on earth, common descent.
That you and a chimp are 99% genetically identical, you and a mammal about 90%, and less and less until you get to something like a banana that is about 40-50% genetically identical, because the first cell is over 4/5 of both of our evolution, so we share a few billion years of common ancestry with every other organism on earth. Radiometric dating proves nothing about any form of evolution since it is itself unreliable in the sense that it is based on three unprovable assumptions, and has also been found to be unreliable in the field in various circumstances.
Where did life on earth originate?
No-one is certain, but the current hypothesis is in the depths of the ocean, near sources of geothermal energy. These are the most hospitable environments, providing an environment for a huge diversity of organisms.
There are some biologists who believe that life(or its building blocks) may have been brought here by comets. It's not so outlandish when you consider that bacteria and viruses can survive space, and that amino acids have been detected on comets.In the case of Earth,both hypotheses may be true.Neither would disprove the other.It is also possible that there were primitive bacteria here before the oceans formed,when the earth was still hot, and water was only able to condense into pools at high altitudes.Maybe the first life evolved in these.
How can hybridization contribute to speciation?
Plants can form hybrids relatively easily because of their pollination mechanism. If the species are closely related, hybridization is possible. For example, the domestic plum (Prunus domestica L., 2n= 48 chromosomes) occurred as a natural hybrid of blackthorn (Prunus spinosa L, 2n=32 chromosomes) and cherry plum ( (Prunus divaricata 2n=16 chromosomes). If the plants are not related, but still form hybrids, then the infertility of the hybrids can be overcome by mutation of polyploidy. Both of these processes occur in nature and are used by humans in breeding. In ecosystems, plant hybridization refers to the ecological mode of species formation.
Is evolution a random process?
No. It is far from random, there is nothing random about it. If I were to race my three year old nephew I would win, easily. I am faster and stronger and I have more stamina. The outcome of the race would not be random, it would be inevitable. Evolution is the same. The organism that is better equipped to reproduce will have more success and therefore become dominant and potentially drive other strains or species out of existence. The only random element is the mutations that cause one animal to be more fit than another. Most are harmful and die out in a generation or some, some are neutral and make no real difference (these are the variations we look at for DNA tests in court) and a few are beneficial. The good ones are passed down and over time an accumulation of good changes causes the organism to become a different sort of organism. This could be likened to poker. One hand is clearly better than another but the cards are dealt at random. Still, the best hand wins and the worst player is out of the game the soonest. Hope this helps!
Answer - Yes
Evolution is very random as it is based on mutations in the genetic code of organisms, although this process is random natural selection is NOT random and it is one of the main principals of this theory.
Answer 3
Yes, and no. Evolution is random in the sense that the solutions it produced (metabolic paths, body shapes, and so on) were by no means necessary outcomes, but produced by happenstances of genetic chemistry and chaotic environmental pressures. Should we rewind the clock and reset life to its most primitive form, there is no reason why the same lifeforms should evolve again. Evolution is non-random in the sense that whatever solution was produced would still have to have met the same criteria for survival and replicative ability. To summarize: natural selection limits the randomness of genetics, but by no means eliminates it.
I don't know about Wallace, but Darwin spent a lot of his time in the Galapagos Islands where he saw what he thought was natural selection in action without interference from, or as a response to, outside sources like mankind.
== == * Many good companies are always looking for ways to create good management that improve leadership and good communication skills with their employees. It is not an easy task being a Manager because he/she has to deal with many different personalities and debates within his employees and be fair yet stern. A good Manager learns to roll up his/her sleeves and get down to the level of his/her employees when time permits and always has his pulse on the working abilities of his employees. A Manager should be approachable to resolve problems and in most cases any employee with a problem should be heard and treated with dignity. Hard work and laughter between Manager and employee go a long way. * There is an old saying in management training that goes like this: If the employees aren't following....the manager isn't leading. The key has to do with the way the manager routinely communicates and interacts with those reporting to him/her. For example: Does he/she maintain or enhance their self esteem...or just browbeat and intimidate? Does he/she really listen...or is he/she just waiting to talk. Does he/she regard the employee's feelings or openly criticize them in front of other employees? Does the manager ask for help or input in making decisions?...or just assume he/she has all the answers. Dictatorial management is short-term effective at best and invariably ruinous in the long term. One of two things happens...the manager fails or the employees subsequently help him/her to fail!
What does data from the study of bio geography provide evidence for evolution show?
Data from the study of biogeography provides evidence for evolution by showing patterns of species distribution that can be best explained by common ancestry and adaptation to different environments. It helps in understanding how species have evolved and diversified over time in response to changes in their habitats and geographic isolation. By studying the distribution of species in different regions, scientists can infer evolutionary relationships and historical connections between organisms.
How does geographic distribution of species around the world support the theories of evolution?
Let us take the marsupials of Australia as a case in point. Geologically we know how long Australia has been a separate continent and from this we can deduce the diversity of life in Australia is the result of isolation and natural selection carrying the organisms of Australia to a certain uniqueness in the world. New information on continental drift just adds to our understanding of this Australian evolutionary process. Many animals, marsupials, have their analogues in organisms in other places in the world.
What terms are associated with population geography?
Terms associated with population geography include population density, demographic transition, birth rate, death rate, migration, urbanization, and population distribution. These terms are used to study patterns of population growth, movement, and distribution across different regions and countries.
Stephen’s disapproval of his father’s behavior in Cork is evident in lines such as “he was old all right. He was as old as his minster.” and “His father must have been young. His father must have been beautiful.”. These lines suggest Stephen sees his father’s actions as a decline from his former glory and beauty.
What is the philosophy of survival of the fittest?
Survival of the fittest is a concept in evolutionary biology that suggests organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. It is often associated with natural selection and the idea that competition drives evolutionary change. This concept has been used to explain the diversity of life and the adaptations of species over time.
What behaviors would some evolutionary psychologists offer as proof of their theory?
Evolutionary psychologists may point to behaviors such as mate selection, parental investment, and aggression as evidence of their theory. They argue that these behaviors have evolved over time because they provided survival and reproductive advantages to our ancestors. By studying how these behaviors are expressed across different cultures and societies, evolutionary psychologists seek to understand the underlying evolutionary principles driving human behavior.
How an assessment center utilized in the selection process?
An assessment center is a method used in the selection process to evaluate candidates through a series of simulated work-related exercises, such as group discussions, presentations, and role-plays. It allows assessors to observe candidates' behavior in different scenarios to assess their skills, competencies, and suitability for the role. Feedback from multiple assessors is taken into account to provide a comprehensive evaluation of each candidate.
How does evolution influence behavior tendencies?
Evolution can influence behavior tendencies through natural selection, where certain behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations. Behaviors that increase an individual's chance of survival and reproducing, such as territoriality or altruism, may become more common over time. Additionally, genetic factors can also play a role in shaping behavior tendencies through evolutionary processes.
Is belief in evolution racist why or why not?
First of all, evolution is not a belief, it is the basis of all biology as well as many other areas of science. It is actually the opposite of racist as it shows us that all humans are related to each other as well as to every other animal. If we harm an animal we are harming our relative.
How did the Zeitgeist contribute to the idea of evolution?
The Zeitgeist, or spirit of the time, during the 19th century was marked by a growing interest in progress, science, and the natural world. This intellectual climate laid the groundwork for the acceptance of evolutionary ideas proposed by scientists like Charles Darwin. The Zeitgeist encouraged the questioning of traditional beliefs and the exploration of new theories, making it more receptive to the concept of evolution.
You have two things confused. Societies working this way is the concept of Social Darwinism, a misguided attempt to explain societal differences by some form of group selection. Individuals do vary in their capacities and abilities and this is what natural selection is selecting and you confuse equality of identity with equality of morality under the law.
Is it possible for life to continue and be sustained without evolution?
In the simplest terms, evolution is synonymous with change. Life without change is stagnation; stagnation is the first step on the journey to death.
Try it this way: one of the least avoidable laws of nature and physics is entropy. It cannot be delayed, it cannot be denied. Entropy is change, and is likely a huge component of evolution.
So, short answer, no. Life would end without evolution.
Does Rick Santorum believe in evolution?
Rick Santorum does not believe evolution is a proven fact, and that it should not be taught as such in public schools. In addition, he believes other theories of how the universe came into existence should be taught alongside evolution. He proposed language to the No Child Left Behind Act to that effect.
