What is evolution supposedly base on?

Evolution works like this: A population has a distribution of different, unique members in it, and some of those members are “fitter” than others, in the sense that they’ll reproduce more than others. The ones who are fitter have their traits passed on to the next generation, while the ones who are less fit don’t pass their traits on as much.

Because of this, over time, the probability of a random member of the population having a particular trait that improves fitness will increase, and the probability that a random member of the population will have a particular trait that reduces fitness will decrease, provided those traits are hereditary.

If you isolate two populations that have about the same mix of traits at the beginning, and put different selection pressures on each– or even just keep them apart for several generations– the two populations will diverge, and you’ll end up with different mixes of traits in each, purely through random mixing of the populations’ genes inside those two groups, and not between the groups. Over time the differences may become so huge that the two populations can not or will not intermarry, and are then said to have different species.

One thing that a lot of people find confusing about evolution is its completely undirected nature: It’s all about the probability of a particular gene passing from one generation to the next, without any actual plan. Systems that evolve through natural selection are markedly different from designed systems, because populations that evolve through natural selection tend to have a much larger mix of “trials” and “prototypes” than samples of designed paraphernalia. You don’t see the same number of hideous deformities in buildings, cars or computers that you see in bacteria, viruses and human beings, because engineers do not bother with the dearth of random changes that an evolutionary process ends up producing.

As for the salt in the oceans, there are many geological and chemical processes which increase the saline content of the ocean, and just as many acting to reduce the saline content. The saline content of a body of water will fluctuate around some value over time, because the ocean is constantly evaporating and getting rained on, and washing ashore, and bits of it are being eaten by biological organisms.

Most of nature is a set of elaborately complex systems, and the point of science is to attempt to learn, generalize and refine the rules governing those complex systems through observation and statistical analyses. To say something is a “theory” in science implies that it has significant support from observations on reality, to the tune of 95% or greater. The Theory of Gravity, for example, is a theory, based on centuries of empirical observation. There is enough support to the idea that gravitation happens that physicists are tasked only with refining of the fine details of how gravitation works. The Riemann Hypothesis in the field of mathematics, on the other hand, is not well-supported enough to be labeled a theory, so it is listed simply as a hypothesis.

To date there has been such a wealth of evidence from amateur and accredited biologists alike that evolution by natural selection happens, that the important questions and research are centered around the finer details of the processes involved, so Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory, and not just a hypothesis.

The theory of evolution was originally conceived by Charles Darwin after years of examination of different species and the differences and similarities between them. He (correctly) concluded that the many many species of finch, for example, all with slightly different beak shapes, weren’t created independently, but rather evolved from a common ancestor in order to better adapt to their conditions - for example, to help them eat the sorts of nuts and seeds their local habitat supports.

Since then, a great deal of fossil evidence of common ancestry has been unearthed, all of it consistent with evolution. At the time of Darwin, nothing was known about the mechanism for the transmission of traits and attributes between generations; since then, the science of genetics has been developed, the findings of which are also consistent with evolution and common descent.

Finally, active research in short-lived species ranging from bacteria to fruit flies has been able to demonstrate evolution on human timescales. For example, a researcher conducting a long term experiment on E Coli bacteria recently demonstrated the evolution of an entirely new (to E Coli) way to metabolize energy, allowing them to exploit food sources that they previously couldn’t.

I know I asked this question but I have a comment on some answers. The person who said something about finches. You know that God created them to adapt to their surroundings and where they are, well maybe you didn’t, but you do now. Thats not “common ancestery.”

“Name one instance where we have actually watched a species evolve.”

People are generally taller, stronger, smarter, and more advanced than they were 100 years ago - that’s evolution indisputable.

its mostly bases on fossils and the fossile records which have proven how animals and plants have evolved to what they are today

“The person who said something about finches.”

I have a name, person who asked the original question.

“You know that God created them to adapt to their surroundings and where they are, well maybe you didn’t, but you do now.”

A species adapting to its surroundings is pretty much the definition of evolution. How do you suppose the birds’ beaks change over time? Mutations in their DNA change the shape of beak a bird develops, and the ones that are better suited to the environment give the bird a better chance of surviving to reproduce. That’s evolution through natural selection.

“People are generally taller, stronger, smarter, and more advanced than they were 100 years ago - that’s evolution indisputable.”

I hate to say it, but that’s not really evolution. People are taller and stronger due to better nutrition and medicine, and I’m not aware of any evidence that we’re noticeably smarter than our forebears.

There’s plenty of evidence for contemporary evolution in shorter lived species, though - in particular, bacterial evolution in response to antibiotics is one that practically all of us have come across personally at some point in time.

G-d created man, not baby nor child. I am sure something like a canyon would be quick work for him. Especially during a great flood, the ground buckled under the weight of the water. If the grand canyon was formed by a river then wouldn’t it make more sense that other older rivers would do the same? Like say the Nile?
Nothing has never evolved into something, nothing ever has, nothing ever will.
No parent can give its offspring information that it does not have itself, nothing ever has nothing ever will. Not even a septillion years could create the number of mutations that evolution is talking about.

By the way evolution is not a theory, it hasn’t even passed the model stage yet. Name one instance where we have actually watched a species evolve.

Salt is not magically appearing in the Oceans -_- The theory comes from, as far as I know, the fact we share genetic traits with a few other animals. And the facts that there are um I do not remember what the words are but pretty much lesser humans that are close to what we look like but also more primitive. There are bones of these primitive humans turning into us in stages. I can not even begin to understand how any one could think the world is not very old. Things like the grand canyon that would take millions of years to form pretty much prove the world is greater then a few thousand years of age.

“People are generally taller, stronger, smarter, and more advanced than they were 100 years ago - that’s evolution indisputable.”

I think this is a case of evolution trying to mean too many things at once. If evolved means improved, and better adapted to the environment, then that is one thing, but if one kind of animal turned into another that is an entirely different thing.

I believe natural selection is what we have been able to actually observe, and verify, and have reason to understand that as the cause of why many animals adapt. As for actually evolving from a single celled organism, into fully thinking humans, or animals, that cannot and has not ever been observed.

There are a lot of straw man arguments out there that are meant to attack views that don’t support the whole theory of evolution, but don’t believe them. For instance, I believe that all animals in the cat family, came from a single cat kind of animal, through natural selection and “evolution”, but Evolutionists, would say I didn’t believe this thing, because I don’t believe “Evolution”.

If you are open minded here is a good article, that explains a lot.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

Ok the ocean salt level thing in the question is just outright wrong, possibly someone deliberately lying to you. Salt levels don’t constantly raise in the seas with time. It’s been in a steady state fluctuating within a small range for a very long time now (though it recently broke the patern, hypothesised to be in connection with other changing environmental factors).

But if you’re willing to ignore physical evidence pointing to the world being billions of years old I don’t see why you have such faith in some misinformed conclusion about the salinity of the oceans as proof of divine creation. Have you thought why you’re willing to support some evidence but not other?

Why aren’t you asking “is there any more proof of god’s intervention?” saying it’s too unlikely to happen without some kind of divine intervention is not proof, it’s a lack of imagination. There’s billions of planets existing for billions of years, we’re the result of one out of trillions of chances. We’re only able to wonder why we’re that one in a trillion chance because we exist in the first place.

in short words the seperation of 1 species over a long period of time eventualy turning to mach there habitat.

“If you are open minded here is a good article, that explains a lot.”

Answers in Genesis are a laughing stock. They’re also Young Earth Creationists, which doesn’t really gel with your belief that all animals in the cat family had the same ancestor - 6000 years is nowhere near long enough for speciation in mammals.

You’re right that speciation in larger organisms can’t be observed on human timescales, but it can be and has been observed in single-celled organisms. We also have a wealth of fossil evidence demonstrating it.

the salt statement is utter ridiculous (no offense). why cant the earth by 4.5 billion years old and still be a god? The two are not mutually exclusive. religious fundamentalists are evil people who work for the devil. God lives outside space and time, so 4 billion years to us is an instant to him. the bible was written by humans with their own agenda. God is evil in the bible, which reflects the evil in the people who wrote, and the evil in the fundamentailsts who say that the earth is 6000 years old.
if you want a more comprehensive answer, email me at marcphila@gmail.com