Charles Darwin and evolution?

It’s one of those simple ideas that seems so obvious you can’t believe you hadn’t thought of it yourself. It’s a really elegant theory, in that the basic idea is so simple a child could grasp it, but is so revolutionary that it was able to explain what were the biggest mysteries of nature.

There are complicated intricacies and subtypes, but the basic idea is this:

1. There is variation of traits among the individuals of a species.
2. Some traits are better suited to the environment. (Think of a giraffe whose neck is just long enough to get the leaves it’s relatives can’t reach, or a slightly better camouflaged inchworm who is the hardest to spot of the group.)
3. Individuals that are better suited to the environment will have a better chance of having offspring than individuals that aren’t. (They’re able to live long enough to reproduce, or thrive to the point where they have more offspring.)
4. Those traits will be inherited by the offspring (genetics).
5. Given enough generations, the fact that there are limited resources will lead to the individuals with traits not suited to the environment dying off, and those with traits better suited making up more of the population.
6. In this way species will gradually change to become, as a whole, better suited to the environment.
7. If two groups of the same species don’t often breed with each other (because they become geographically separated, or whatever) eventually they will accumulate enough differences that they will become two separate species.

There’s a lot of confusion surrounding evolution. People will say “it’s only a theory” as if that means it’s not a fact, but here “theory” isn’t used in the same way you might use the word. In science, a theory (not a law - theories can encompass many “laws”) is the highest position an idea can reach.

Theories are revised and even replaced all the time, but strong theories like the atomic theory, the disease theory, or the theory of evolution that have stood up to scrutiny for ages (150 years in this case) and only been refined are considered fact. That’s why we can observe evolution in short-lived species, like strains of bacteria evolving drug resistance or Italian wall lizards evolving a fermentation chamber to digest plants in environments without bugs, and know that it’s happening for a fact, yet still call it a theory.

the bible does talk about dinosaurs, and they lived WITH people. the bible calls them Dragons.

Job 40:15-24 talks about a “behemoth”, it describes a giant lizard like creature.

Here’s a detailed description from Job 40:15-19

“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is chief of the ways of God.”

“…and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” - Malachi 1:3

Charles Darwin wasn’t the first to propose the idea. He was the first to thoroughly research it and compile his research into findings that other scientists could study.

Obviously, since Darwin’s time, a lot more research has been done, and we’ve learned quite a bit and found quite a bit that Darwin wasn’t aware of. Still, his Origin of Species laid the groundwork for future research, and framed the discussion on evolution. I think Darwin would have benefited greatly from knowing Gregory Mendel, whose work on genetics and geneaology was also an incredible contribution.

Anyway, there’s really no other valid explanation for the origin of life or the diversity of species.

…and made you stupid, caused by not competently following the directions. Some dislike that side-effect. Maybe you should re-read the manual.

we are all the same species! Hmo sapiens or something, right? does this question make sense?

We differ by race, skin color, and there ARE subtle differences in features, bone structure, etc. So essentially we SHOULD be divided into subcategories (like felines & canines), but I think most people wouldn’t want to be labeled in the animal kingdom in the SAME way as (in their minds) lesser creatures.

I don’t believe in evolution, it’s against my religion. If we did evolve from apes, then who created apes?

…pick a card… any card…

For those of you that’ll look at the title to this question, I meant to put an e to evelution instead of revolution. I apologize.

My opinion, if you’re truely seeking the truth you’d check out the Bible - changed my outlook / life…Take care !!

@ stopandsmelltheroses:

The answers to your questions are complex, so this is going to be long-winded. Sorry. :)

“what about the creation theory? that is pretty sound and as yet I have not found any holes in it. if you can’t believe me go to http://www.creationontheweb.com.”

To echo religionisgood, Creationism isn’t science. You call it creation theory, but in this case Creationism/Intelligent design don’t meet the standards required by a scientific theory. Science is all about testing and refining ideas that make objective claims; it’s how science is able to progress. In order for Creationism/ID to be valid theories, they has to make predictions. You have to be able to say “given Creationism/ID, we should expect to find this or that previously unknown objective evidence in the world in order to give credence to their claims” and then go out and see if your hypotheses hold up. A key consequence of this is that your theories and the hypotheses they generate must be falsifiable; there must be objective criteria you can meet or objective tests you can preform that will disprove their claims.

Creationism and its cousin Intelligent Design can’t meet these criteria. Whatever you find in the world, you can always say that God/the designer did it that way. You see this in religious people who accept theistic evolution: they agree that evolution is real, but they see it as a process that’s at least occasionally guided by God.

Creationism and ID are valid ideas in the realms of theology and philosophy, but they just don’t meet the standards required by science.

“can you give an example or two of the changing of two groups of species into two totally different species? and wouldnt the different cahracteristics pop up every so often in the opposing groups, meaning that the species were still teh same, just looking different? I mean, what about humans? we are all the same species! Hmo sapiens or something, right? does this question make sense?”

There are thousands of examples in the fossil record. You can look at animals like Archaeopteryx or Sinornithosaurus and see split between theropod dinosaurs and primitive birds. You can also compare the genetics of living animals and see our shared ancestry.

The genomic differences between humans and chimpanzees are extremely small -something like 5%- which is incredible when you think of the possible variations. Proteins like Hemoglobin can be encoded in an animals’ genes in hundreds of millions of possible ways and still preform an identical function. When we look at the DNA of animals that are closely related according to evolutionary theory, you find that these proteins are fairly similar. The more distant relatives you look at, the more harmless mutation-based variation you see in these genes. Since mutations happen at a regular rate, long-term, this is a very reliable way to calculate how long ago two species shared a common ancestor, and it matches up with estimations in the fossil record. Why would this be the case, unless evolution is true?

If you’re looking for speciation in human timeframes it’s another matter, and a hazy one at that. We define what constitutes separate species, and it isn’t as cut-and-dry as you might think. Among sexual species, some see two populations that can’t or won’t interbreed as separate species. Some separate species are classified as such because one group has a novel trait that the other lacks. Even so we do find pretty clear examples

Natural selection only works on the scale of generations, so the creatures with short generations tend to evolve more quickly. Most of the evolution we see is in short-lived creatures like bacteria, like Flavobacterium, which evolved the ability to digest a type Nylon. (Obviously Nylon is a human invention, so this strain must have evolved since it was first made in 1952.) There was also a study recently released where a scientist kept 44,000 generations of E. coli in conditions where they evolved the new ability to digest citrate, and he has frozen samples recording the various mutations that occurred to make that possible.

There are also cases of speciation in longer-lived organisms, like the Podarcis sicula I mentioned. When the lizards were transplanted to an island without many insects, they evolved features like a larger jaw with stronger muscles capable of the leverage required to feed on tough plants, and a separate fermentation chamber in their stomach housing bacteria able to break down the plant material. We’ve also seen speciation among animals that humans have transplanted to new areas, like the Faeroe Island house mouse (Mus domesticus) that adapted in less than 250 years.

As for two species looking the same, that happens a lot: it’s called convergent evolution. Basically there are niches in the environment which tend to promote specific adaptations. Because of this, you’ll get animals like crows and bats that are very similar in principle, but are only very distantly related. Again, whether or not you classify any two examples as different species depends on how you define species.

Humans don’t appear to be evolving into separate species for a couple reasons. The first is that we have an extremely long timespan between generations, so it would take ages for evolution to be noticeable. The second is that we are effectively one breeding population, so any mutations that arise tend to eventually get diluted or dispersed in the gene pool. In order for species to diverge, they have to be isolated in terms of breeding populations.

Whew. Sorry for writing such a long response.

it is simple. Darwin stated that man had Evolved from Apes. He had studied the wildlife on some isloated island and had discovered that the animals on this island had adapted to living there. after futher research he had discovered that man had also adapted(we were once covered with hair). I think his theroy is correct