Evolution

1 . The animals are bilaterallysymmetrical , triploblastic and have coelem .

2 . They have a notochord , at least some stages during their lives . The notochord run along the back of the animal separating the nervous tissue from the gut . It provides support and a place for muscles to attach .

3 . Protochordates are marine animals . Examples are Balanglossus , Herdemania , Amphioxus , etc

I don't know about there being five things used in favour of evolution, but there are many nonetheless. Below are some supports for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Comparative anatomy: The bones of vertebrate forelimbs are 'homologous'. They have common ancestry. You can identify the same bones in the hand of a bat as there are in the hand of a human, the leg of a horse, the flipper of a whale or the paw of a cat. Evolution does not start from scratch all the time but adapts what is already present. Thus once evolution was equipped with forelimb bones, it simply stretched them to support a wing (in bats), strengthened them for beating down water (in whales) or warped their agility to the gripping ability of a human hand.

There are also 'vestigial' anatomical structures which are seen as very convincing of evolution. Whales evolved from hoofed terrestrial herbivores. Whales have foreflippers but not hindflippers. There are however vestigial bones in the hindquarters, which are the left overs of the ancestral terrestrial artiodactyl. Pythons are snakes (thus legless) but evolved from limbed lizards (varanids may be the closest lizard relatives to snakes). Pythons have vestigial hindlimb bones too.

Comparative genetics: Modern science can, incredibly, sequence whole sections of an organism's genome or indeed the whole genome. The genome is composed of DNA, and what is 'sequenced' are the bases of that DNA. DNA bases are abbreviated A, T, C and G. Say you select a frog, a snake and a dog as representatives of amphibians, reptiles and mammals. Now you sequence a gene that each of them share and compare the sequences.

Hypothetical sequences:

Dog: AAAGCGGGGTAG

Snake: AAAGCCGGGTAC

Frog: AAGCCCCGGAAC

You would expect the sequences to show a pattern like the one above, where the most sequence differences are between most distantly related organisms. Evolution would predict that a dog is more closely related to a snake than to a frog. If you come up with a sequence like the above, there are a greater number of AGCT (base) differences between the dog and the frog than between the dog and the snake. This would confirm the idea that snakes and dogs are more closely related than frogs and dogs. Such sequencing has been done and the results have confirmed all of the Theory of Evolutions's predictions.

The fossil record: The fossil record provides many extinct transitions between major taxa. Archaeopteryxrepresent a reptilian-avian transition. Tiktaalik and Icthyostega and relatives give clues as to the sarcopterygian-amphibian transition. Early hominid skulls are representations of transitions from Australopithecus and early Homo to our present species Homo sapiens.

There are also modern (extant) animals and plants that give clues as to transitions. These extant examples are remnants of lineages of ancient organisms that have survived to the present. Platypuses show the reptilian-mammalian transition. Some plants like Welwitschia and other gnetophytes give clues to gymnosperm-angiosperms transitions.

Additionally there is a lot of molecular and chromosomal work done. Origins of species are sometimes demonstrated by this investigation. Apparently an single species of Aethomys mouse was investigated and it was found that the sperm cells of one group were incompatible with the egg cells of another. The two groups were sympatrically and reproductively isolated and were thus separate species.

Chromosomes can fuse together. This reproductively isolates populations and thus promotes speciation. Chromosomes fused somewhere in the lineage between the Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and modern Homo sapiens. Chromosomes fuse and split all over the place across the animal kingdom. Plant chromosomes merge due to imperfect meiosis probably and produce nondiploid polyploid individuals. All of this promotes reproductive isolation and thus speciation and speciation is the way evolution makes progress.

The premise of the question is flawed. The questioner is attempting to create an equivalence between one theory and the other, but that equivalence is based on semantics.

First of all, there is no single "theory of gravity". There are, in fact, multiple, contradictory theories of gravity. Including: the Aristotelian theory of Gravity, Newton's theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordstrom's theory of gravitation, Whitehead's theory of gravitation, Einstein's "general relativity theory" (which includes an explanation of gravity), the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, the "induced gravity" theory of Andrei Sakharov, the Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity, Milgrom's "modified Newtonian dynamics", the self-creation cosmology theory of gravity, nonsymmetric gravitational theory, Tensor-vector-scalar gravity, and the theory of quantum gravity. None of these theories is universally accepted (though several have been universally, or almost-universally, rejected).

None of the alternative "theories of gravity" say that "gravity exists". They don't have to. We all know that gravity exists. The existence of gravity is a fact, not a theory. The "theory of gravity" (whichever one you pick) is one of several unproven, contradictory explanations of why gravity exists and/or how it works. The existence of gravity is accepted without question, but none of the alternative theories of gravity are universally accepted.

Now, the "theory of evolution", semantically, is not comparable to the "theory of gravity", in that the "theory of evolution" does say (among other things) that "evolution occurred". (And, like the various theories of gravity, there are several competing theories of evolution that make contradictory claims as to how and why evolution occurred, but they all share the common trait of claiming that evolution, whatever its cause, didoccur.) The question makes it seem that the "theory of gravity", likewise, states that "gravity exists", but as the previous paragraph shows, that is not the case.

To make the comparison valid, you have to consider what fact the "theory of evolution" is attempting to explain. That fact is the existence of life on Earth, in all its variety. That fact is one that we all accept, without question, just like the existence of gravity. The "theory of evolution", therefore, is one of several contradictory, unproven explanations of whyand how that life, and its variety, came into existence. And just like the alternative "theories of gravity", neither the "theory of evolution", nor any alternative theory regarding the origin of life, is universally accepted.

So, in conclusion, there is no difference in acceptance between the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of gravity". Neither theory is universally accepted, though the facts that each attempt to explain are universally accepted.

Very informative, great answer. My answer is much simpler: people believe what they want to believe.

Yeah that's a good answer, the long one, but the reason the theory of gravity is not questioned as much as the theory of evolution is because the theory of gravity does not affect religion as much as the theory of evolution. Like the last person said, people want to believe that Adam and Eve existed, not that we evolved from apes.

Answers 2 and 3 are incorrect. They are red herring attempts to belittle religion. But religion has nothing to do with this. The question is not even valid. As stated in Answer 1, neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of gravity (whichever one you believe) is universally accepted. The facts that both theories attempt to explain are, of course, universally accepted, but the theories themselves are not.

I would like to re-emphasize that there is no single "theory of gravity". There are several theories of gravity, and none of them are universally accepted. In fact, if you picked 10 people at random from the general population, I would wager that 9 of them couldn't even state even one of the alternative theories of gravity. And 8 of them couldn't even name one of the alternative theories. (The person who asked this question is obviously one of those 8. So are the people who provided Answers 2 and 3.) How can anyone think that any "theory of gravity" is universally accepted when 80% of the population doesn't even know the names of any of those theories?

I will grant that people (on both sides) get a lot more adamant about defending their own theories of the origin of life (and attacking other, contradictory theories) than about defending their own theories about gravity. (At least partly because most people don't HAVE a theory about gravity - it's good enough for them that gravity exists - they don't need to know why or how.) And I admit that religion (or lack thereof) and personal prejudice play a large part in this, probably larger than logic and scientific reasoning (again, on both sides). But religion (and even a lack of religion, which is, in a way, a religion itself) is a very personal thing, and people are going to take it personally when they perceive an attack on their religions. Are Christians holding too tightly to a non-scientific theory, based on a literal reading of Genesis, than they should, given the current state of research on life? Probably. Are atheists holding too tightly to a "scientific" theory that has multiple gaps, relies on circular reasoning, and has several steps that could not have taken place without either intelligent design or the realization of probabilities on the order of 10-1,000,000,000? Just as likely. Both have illogical, unscientific, fear-based reasons for holding onto those beliefs. Christians because they are scared of eternal death. Atheists because they are scared of having to face a Creator that they have denied all their lives.

But the point is, neither the "theory of evolution" nor any of the alternative"theories of gravity" is universally accepted. So the question is not valid.

Answer

People mainly accept the theory of gravity because it makes sense to them, but not all people believe in the theory of gravity because it doesn't make sense to them.

the theory of evolution, this theory is mainly argued for the sake of religion, this whole argument begins with Adam (first man on earth). people who believe that the first animals on earth were monkeys humans did not exist, but people who don't believe in the theory believe that Adam was a human, now what they are really trying to say is, are you trying to call Adam a monkey...... now I've actually heard this alot around the whole world where i have been.

I hope you try to get my point, i have just turned thirteen so sorry if my English isn't very high and complicated but hope you understand.

Answer

People who argue about the theory of evolution have inappropriately merged science and religion. There are no competing scientific theories of human evolution.

For an interesting review read the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover that reveals the lack of any scientific data to support creationism and returns it to the realm of religious belief, where it belongs.

Yes. All humans were once adapted to life in Africa where all our distant ancestors used to live. Protection from UV-light is important, although pigmentation has costs. As groups of humans migrated from Africa to colder areas with less sun they needed more clothes for warmth. Since sunlight is needed to convert cholesterol into vitamin D3 there was a selection pressure for pigmentation to lessen among these populations. At the same time the selection to maintain pigmentation to protect against UV-light was reduced.

The blond extremes are (originally) found in northern Europe and on the British isles. Areas withvery little sunlight due to a northern location and the massive onslaught of clouds from the Atlantic weather systems.

The genetic diversity is still largest in Africa, meaning the two most distantly related humans today are both living in Africa.