0
Evolution
The scientific theory according to which populations change gradually through a process of natural selection.
5,264 Questions
Why does the Creationist movement accept scientific explanations for every subject except evolution?
That depends entirely on one's point of view. Some opinions follow.
One ViewBecause evolution is not genuinely scientific. Evolution is an interpretation of facts (undisputed by creationists) which exist in the present. Creation is an alternate interpretation of those facts, according to a different paradigm or different assumptions. Fossils and geological formations, for example, exist and are studied in the present; they don't come with bronze plaques describing how they got there and when. The answer to that question relies on some untestable assumptions. Evolution itself is not subject to the scientific method, wherein hypotheses are made and tested with repeatable observations. Evolution is an attempt to explain the present with relation to unrepeatable events in the unobservable past. Creation can be described in the same way. They both then are about faith, not science.Creationists have no problem with "operational" science--that is, observations about the world around us. That's why creationists do not believe in a flat earth, as some would claim; the shape of the earth is observable repeatedly in the present. Creationists do have a problem with speculations about how things got this way being presented as equally scientific.
For much fuller, better informed and better written answers, check the Related Link "Answers in Genesis Science Q&A" at "Answers in Genesis," my favorite Creationist web site.
Obviously, I would take issue with much of what is said in the next answer, but this is certainly not the place. I simply want to say that one might compare and contrast the two websites, talkorigins and answersingenesis, and get a pretty thorough view of both sides of the debate.
Another ViewThe short answer is because the scientific evidence posed by evolutionists directly contradicts the creationist point of view, and the Bible they cling to so dearly. Should so basic a tenet of the revealed religions be solidly proven false, then it almost invariably leads to disbelief in the remaining information provided. Another ViewCreationists believe in the literal translation of the Old Testament, so that means they believe that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old. The vast majority of reputible scientists believe that our earth is many thousands of millions of years old. Obviously they can't both be right. Creationists will tell us that the fossil record was layed down after the Great Flood, which means they believe that every animal that has ever lived was on Noah's ark - even dinosaurs! Science tells us that the fossil record was layed down inch by inch over the lifespan of the planet (around four and a half billion years). Evolutionary science is just as valid as any other branch of science in that it only accepts evidence that has been tried and tested thoroughly. Science also has many tools to help date not only the geology of the earth but also carbon based life forms that lived long ago. All of these tools give a much older earth than the creationists would have you believe. You only have to look at the various layers of strata to see that they reveal many fossils that look similar but diffirent to each other, this is because over huge amounts of time animals slowly change ever so gradually into a different form. This process is called evolution, and it is brought about by the need of a particular species to adapt to it's ever changing environment. Creationists dispute this by using their one and only argument which is "there are no transitional fossils". That is, if one animal changes to another, there must be evidence in the fossil record of this. The good news for anyone interested in evolution is that there is evidence, and there is more evidence being discovered all the time. So to answer your question - creationists don't accept evolution because it's a direct threat to their beliefs. Another ViewA whole series of articles in "Science," "Scientific American," "National Geographic" and others (all scientific magazines) posed the question "Is evolution wrong?" in the past year or two. All agreed that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It describes both past events (i.e. the fossil record) and it makes predictions (new species will evolve if they become isolated from the rest of the population). I agree with the second post. Creationists don't accept evolution because it threatens their beliefs. Another ViewDo bear in mind that to be supported, a scientific experiment must be able to be replicated. Many people believe that since humans are not visibly evolving at the moment, evolution must be false. We as a species may not be evolving right now after all, but that is a different discussion altogether. But the fact remains that many organisms ARE currently evolving in an observable manner, much in the way that scientists would expect through the theory of natural selection. For example, the AIDS virus is constantly mutating and taking on different forms. The reason there's no vaccine is because there's not just one strain of virus to kill, but thousands - and this after only the 20 or 30 years since it was discovered! Other organisms evolve as well in our lifetime. Many insect species go through gradual changes over time. It may take hundreds or even thousands of generations for a difference to be noticeable, which is impossible in humans and most animals, but this proof for evolution has been observed in many microorganisms and lower life forms because of their speedy life cycles. Another ViewBecause Creationists have already posited that God created the World, then all proofs that contradict this belief are regarded as false. Another ViewBecause Evolutionists have already posited that God did not create the world, then all evidence that contradicts this belief is regarded as false.Thus we see, with the above two comments that it really depends on a person's presuppositions, as both sides have access to the same body of evidence. The problem is that despite the assertions of the evolutionists, nothing has been found in the creation movement which contradicts science. In fact it is evolution which contradicts known scientific laws such as the two laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis.
In fact, the more research that is conducted the more evidence points conclusively to the creator. This is in every field of scientific endeavor and demonstrates the great faith that evolutionists need to continue to believe.
Creationists, like the many founders of modern science before them, are seeking to investigate the orderly and amazing universe that God has created. The evidence from science, when interpreted correctly, does not fit evolution. Thus it is rejected because it is not scientific.
Another ViewSome people perceive scientific inquiry as incompatible with religion.When modern science was in its infancy, some religious leaders refused to believe that the earth revolved around the sun, or that the planets were worlds just like our own earth. Galileo proved them wrong, to his own cost.
Even decyphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs was opposed, because some religious leaders knew that, if they showed the Egyptian civilization to have had existed continuously for thousands of years, this would undermine literal belief in the story of Noah and the Flood.
Now, it is the turn of evolution. However, to their credit, some major religions are showing a willingness to accept evolution as a valid theory, as shown by the following two examples:-
The position of the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.
The position of the Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has said that Darwin's theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."
Another ViewCreationism is in the realm of religious belief. Evolution is in the realm of science. The two have always been at odds. We do not seek science in the bible. We do not seek religious affirmation in science. Another ViewThe reason that the creationist movement and the evolutionist scientific community have been at odds, is simply their premises. Creationists start with belief in the Bible and this is their premise. Evolutionists specifically exclude the Bible, and without any investigation, assign it the place of religious myth, many also with atheism as their personal belief and presupposition, even openly so.The creationist movement does not find it scientific, regardless of any presuppositions or premises, to suppress, deny or otherwise avoid any evidence which contradicts the evolutionary paradigm. This is real evidence which is available for anyone to see and test for themselves. Such is not science. The evidence which contradicts evolution is growing by the day, much of which is admitted by evolutionists themselves.
The real evidence of modern science has no problem reconciling genuine science with a world-view that incorporates belief in a literal creation and flood. This is also true for a great many of the founders of modern science. Creationism is in one sense a reaction against a wrongful linking of scientific endeavor with atheism. It is also seeking to put forward a fuller picture, unfettered by evolutionary, humanistic or atheistic dogma, regarding the facts of what is. There is no need to deceive or make anything up. Nor is there a need to suggest that creationism is religion and evolution is science. If creation scientists were not engaged in real science, they would have nothing to do. If creation scientists had no real evidence then the evolutionists would be able to successfully refute their arguments. If evolutionists have all the science and creationists only faith then evolutionists would always win the debates with the facts.
Another ViewIn simple terms, creationists do not accept evolution for two reasons. Number one is that it contradicts the Bible. If this was all that would be the end of any argument. It would be pure religion. But the Bible is a historical book and is correct also where it touches on scientific matters. Thus, when it comes to science surrounding origins, the creationist scientific arguments have a solid basis in the real world.Personally, (and creationists are also highly self-critical like this as well) I am not interested in anything that is not scientifically defensible. If the Bible does not reflect the world that is, then it cannot be true. Unfortunately many people, unwilling or unable to investigate things for themselves believe all they are taught. In one sense they cannot be blamed for this since they are only ever taught one side of the story as absolute truth, when it is not. When evolutionists frequently resort to straw man arguments to attack creationism they indicate that they neither understand science, nor what creationists are actually saying. If it is necessary to label creationists as 'flat earthers', which none of them teach or believe, since it is false, this reveals a desperate and sad attitude to both science and the proper way to conduct a civilized discussion.
Another ViewI don't know where you get the idea the bible is an historic book. It was originally written a minimum of 400 years after the alleged events in it. It has been translated through a minumum of three different languages to get to the current English version (not counting the King James version) and lost 1/3 of the original writings in the 14th century . It makes assertions but doesn't present any evidence apart from its own contents.To say that this gives creationists' scientific arguments a solid basis in the real world is absolute rubbish. It would appear you do not understand science.
In science, you start with facts. A theory then takes evidence+experiments+logical arguments to arrive at a conclusion to explain other facts, or predict facts to be found in the future.
This is not a static state of affairs. Other scientists come along to try and find fault in this process. If they do, then the theory falls down and eventually another theory is constructed. It is an ongoing process through which we learn more about ourselves and the universe. That is science, not faith.
Creationists use the bible to prove the bible. That is faith, not science.
Someone earlier stated that evolution contradicted the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis. It doesn't. Evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. I assume you are talking about the Big bang -In which case you should get to know more about quantum mechanics which predicts that matter can be created from nothing.
Also the Law of Biogenesis is a slight red-herring. This "law" is from the work of Pasteur, who only said that life cannot be spontaneosly created. He said nothing of Abiogenesis, which proposes that it may be possible to create life from chemical reactions. Also, a "law" which "proves" that something cannot be done is an anathema to science as it is very very difficult to prove a negative. All you can say is that with current technology and knowledge it cannot be done. But what does the future hold ?
A few hundred years ago scientists "proved" that man could not fly. The same writer said that the more research is carried out the more it points to a creator. I don't know what journals you're reading, but ALL scientific research has and is reinforcing the theory of evolution.
Another ViewTo someone even earlier who also does not appear to understand science. Science does NOT interpret facts.It observes a fact such as a fossil, and then tries to find a theory to explain how it got there. (Evolution?) It then takes other facts (fossils) to see if the same theory also explains how they got there. All of these facts (fossils) are open to examination by anyone (i.e., repeatable). If they can come up with a better theory, then this will be followed by the scientific community and not the first theory. Obviously to try to find the age of the fossils may enhance any theory. So scientists (perhaps not the same ones) will come up with methods (perhaps several) to try to determine the ages. Over time these methods will be refined to date the fossils more accurately. From this a third theory may emerge. And so the scientific process goes on. None of this is faith.
I have yet to see a creationist present any up-to-date research or evidence that can be independently examined. I HAVE seen them present parts of 20-, 30-, and 40-year old papers from scientists that have since been disproved by later evidence, sometimes refuted by the original authors.
NO MODERN independent research contradicts evolution theory ("by natural selection").
Another ViewDating methods themselves are themselves subject to an untestable set of assumptions, such as how much of a given radioactive substance was in a sample at some unobservable point in the distant past.To say that there is scientific support for evolution is to assert that there is repeatable experimental support for a number of hypotheses:
1) That non-living materials can organize themselves into a living, reproducing cell.
2) That the information content of these cells, primarily the DNA, can be increased by random mutations.
3) That these outrageously improbable mutations occur with enough regularity and in just the right order to construct ever more complex organisms for natural selection to operate on. Natural selection itself does not give rise to new structures, organisms, or species; it selects the more fit from those already existing.
These are the primary ones that come to mind, and I submit that there is no meaningful experimental support for any of them, and plenty of experimental falsification. The Miller-Urey experiments from the 50's attempted something like #1, but showed only that an intelligently designed apparatus could synthesize a handful of simple amino acids, which would be preserved only if the apparatus isolated them from the environment that produced them.
Given the level of improbability of any of the 3 hypotheses above, I'd say that it takes less faith to believe in a Creator God than to believe in them.
Did you evolve from monkeys or come from Mars?
No human evolved from any other animal. We were made by God to do his work. God made us just the way we are. We are all made unique and have our own qualities. We did not come from some organic goop or soup. Things also did not happen by a Big Bang. All other theories are wrong. God is the only true God, and we need to fix our eyes on him. Ask God into your heart. He knows you are missing something in your life. He has been waiting for you. Reach our to him and he will save you. We don't know when the end times are coming. We need to be ready, so that when he creates the knew heaven on earth, we can live in eternity with him. God Bless!
What is the evolution of police patrol?
The evolution of police patrol has shifted from traditional foot patrols to include various modes of transportation like bicycles, motorcycles, cars, and even drones. Modern technology has also played a significant role, with the use of GPS, body cameras, and data analytics to enhance patrol effectiveness and efficiency. Community policing initiatives have further changed the focus of patrol officers to build trust and relationships within the communities they serve.
What fossils show the evolution of man?
Here is a short list of transitional fossils:
Cladoselache
tristychius
ctenacanthus
paleospinax
spathobatis
Protospinax
Acanthodians
cheirolepis
mimia
Canobius
Aeduella
Parasemionotus
Oreochima
leptolepis
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Sterropterygion
tiktaalik
panderichthys
Elpistostege
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pholidogaster
Pteroplax
Dendrerpeton acadianum
Archegosaurus decheni
Eryops megacephalus
Trematops
Amphibamus lyelli
Doleserpeton annectens
vieraella
Proterogyrinus
Limnosclis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Captorhinus
Petrolacosaurus
Araeoscelis
Apsisaurus
Claudiosaurus
Planocephalosaurus
Protorosaurus
Prolacerta
Proterosuchus
Hyperodapedon
Trilophosaurus
Coelophysis
Deinonychus
Oviraptor
Lisboasaurus
Archeopteryx
Sinornis
Ambiortus
Hesperornis
Ichthyornis
Paleothyris
Protoclersydrops
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Proelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus
Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus
Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon
Morganucodon
Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium
Aegialodon
Steropodon
Vincelestes
Pariadens
Kennalestes
Cimolestes
Procerberus
Gypsonictops
Palaechthon
Purgatorius
Cantius
Pelycodus
Amphipithecus
Pondaungia
Parapithecus
Propliopithecus
Aegyptopithecus
Proconsul
Limnopithecus
Dryopithecus
Pakicetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes
Gandakasia
Ambulocetus
Himalayacetus
Attockicetus
Remingtonocetus
Dalanistes
Kutchicetus
Andrewsiphius
Indocetus
Qaisracetus
Takreacetus
Artiocetus
Babiacetus
Protocetus
Pappocetus
Eocetus
Georgiacetus
Natchitochia
Dorudon
Ancalacetus
Zygorhiza
Saghacetus
Chrysocetus
Gaviacetus
Pontogeneus
Basilosaurus
Basiloterus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipthecus ramidus
Ardipithecus kadabba
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus bahreghazali
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo erectus.
What was the first organism to evolve on earth?
The very first would have been very primitive bacteria.
RNA molecules surround by a single lipid layer called micelles.
bacteria
bacteria
most probably a cell
Prokaryotic organisms
What makes Darwin's theory of evolution believable?
Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific fields, such as biology, genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. The theory is also consistent with observations of natural selection in action, as well as with the fossil record showing gradual changes over time. Additionally, modern research continues to provide new evidence in support of the theory.
Can the bacteria in yogurt evolve over time?
Yes, bacteria in yogurt can evolve over time through natural selection and genetic mutation. Changes in the environment, such as temperature or pH, can lead to the selection of bacteria with beneficial traits that allow them to survive and thrive in their specific conditions. This process can result in the adaptation of the bacterial population over time.
Why did Darwin not tell anyone of his theory?
Most think that he was quite aware of the religious and scientific controversies the publication of his theory would engender. Plus, he was so meticulous in regards to evidence that he wanted to publish a book that would have been many pages longer than the ' abstract ' he did publish. Alfred Russel Wallace forced him to publish an ' abstract ' to flesh out there theory and present it to the public.
Who is the independently comes to same conclusion as Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution?
Alfred Russel Wallace independently developed a similar theory of evolution by natural selection to Charles Darwin. Both men presented their ideas together in a joint publication in 1858. Darwin's seminal work, "On the Origin of Species," was published a year later in 1859.
- Obtainment of nutrients: Land plants had to develop root systems to extract essential nutrients from soil, whereas algae absorbed nutrients directly from water.
- Desiccation: Land plants needed to evolve specialized structures like cuticles and stomata to prevent dehydration, which algae did not face in their aquatic environment.
- Reproduction: Plants had to develop strategies for pollination and dispersal of seeds in terrestrial environments, unlike algae, which released spores directly into the water.
- Gravity: Land plants had to support their structures against gravity using mechanisms like lignin-strengthened cell walls and vascular tissues, a challenge not faced by algae that float in water.
State Charles Darwin theory of evolution and who was Charles Darwin?
It was basically survival of the fittest, smartest and fastest. The idea of differential features. Charles Darwin was a scientist and genetic GENEious ( <-pun :D) He studied in the Galapagos islands. And theorised about the birds and their beaks and iguanas. He was inspired to go into further studies and was the "inspiration" for the book "the Darwin awards" which is sort of making fun of him and his theory.
:) happy to help
What did Avery's theory provide evidence for?
Ostwald T. Avery's experiment was an extension of the works of Griffith's. Griffith's experiment using virulent and avirulent Streptococcus pneumoniae (which had different colony characteristics) proved that it was possible for the heat killed virulent Streptococcus pneumoniae to pass on the genetic information for formation of smooth colonies to avirulent strains. Avery, Mc Leod and Mc Carty conclusively found out that the genetic material responsible for transfer of characteristics between the strains was DNA. This was achieved by incubating the cell lysate of virulent Streptococcus with proteases, RNAses and DNAses separately before mixing it with avirulent strains. It was found that only when the lysate was incubated with DNAses did the transfer of smooth colony formation characteristic from the virulent strain to the avirulent strain fail to occur.
What is the connection of physicochemical theory to the theory of evolution?
Physicochemical theory examines the physical and chemical processes underlying biological systems, providing a framework for understanding how organisms function at a molecular level. This understanding is crucial for studying evolutionary processes, as changes in the physical and chemical properties of molecules can drive genetic variation and adaptation over generations. In essence, physicochemical theory helps to elucidate the mechanisms by which evolution occurs at a molecular level.
What is a beneficial feature that evolved by means of natural selection?
Camouflage is a beneficial feature that evolved through natural selection, as it allows organisms to blend in with their environment and escape predators. This adaptation increases an individual's chances of survival and reproductive success, ultimately leading to its increased prevalence in the population over time.
Was H G Wells against Darwin's theory of evolution?
H.G. Wells was a proponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. In his works, Wells often referenced evolution and the idea of human progress through natural selection. He was known to support and popularize Darwin's ideas in his writing.
Think of a plant that has bees as its one type of pollinator. The pollen would be taken long distances to other plants of the species and good genetic recombination would ensue from this. Also, a plant spread out like this would have many different micro environments to flourish in and the variations of this plant could do better in one of these environments.
The obvious disadvantage would be if your pollinator succumbed to some disease or other local natural disaster.
How did evolution change worldviews?
The theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin challenged traditional worldviews by suggesting that all living organisms share a common ancestry and are subject to natural selection. This idea shifted perceptions of human origins away from religious explanations and towards a scientific understanding based on evidence and observation. Evolution has influenced fields beyond biology, such as ethics, morality, and the nature of existence.
An ideal ecosystem is a balanced environment where various species interact with each other and their surroundings in a way that maintains biodiversity, supports ecological functions, and sustains life. It has a healthy food web, clean water and air, and stable populations of plants and animals. Human activities should aim to preserve and protect these ecosystems for the well-being of all living organisms.
Charles Darwin evolution of man theory?
According to Charles Darwin, man is an evolved species, part of the natural world. We are not in any essential way different from other mammals in the world, apart from our advanced capability for thought and self-awareness.
Is evolution the same as growth and metamorphosis?
Evolution refers to the change in genetic characteristics of a population over generations, involving mechanisms such as natural selection. Growth typically refers to an increase in size or mass of an individual organism, often controlled by hormones and environmental factors. Metamorphosis is a process some organisms undergo, involving distinct stages with different body forms, such as the transformation from a caterpillar to a butterfly.
Is Genetic diversity is the raw material for evolution?
Mutations occur randomly, and every once in a blue moon, a mutation offers some benefit to a individual of a particular species in a particular place and allows that individual to have more offspring than its peers. If the mutation provides enough benefit to some individuals, they will have a tendency to survive and reproduce (as per the principle of natural selection).
Natural selection reduces variability by killing off less fit individuals. It is mutations that increase the variability and allow evolution (successful natural selection, not mass extinction, but controlled deaths) to occur. Without variability there is no evolution.
How does natural selection produce genetic variation within a species?
It's mainly mutations in the DNA and recombination of chromosomes that produce the genetic variation. Natural selection then favors those changes that give rise to greater reproductive success.
A population in which the allele frequencies do not change from one generation to the next is said to be in equilibrium.
Number of chromosomes in a normal human body cell - or genome?
In humans there are 23 pairs, for a total of 46 chromosomes (the complete genome) in each body cell.
