Is the theory of Evolution true?

[kitty_kat]

I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

 

[Janus]

Not to be rude, but you obviously haven't studied Evolution enough to have an informed opinion about it.

Your argument about apes and men is a prime example. No, men did not descend from the apes we see around today. Rather, at some distant point in the past today's apes and human shared a common ancestor. They just evolved along different paths after that. That common ancestor does not exist anymore.

But even if man had evolved from today's apes or that common ancestor was still around, that still would not be an argument against evolution.

One population of apes could have evolved into to men while one stayed more or less the same; if the first group was exposed to changing conditions that it had to adapt to, and the second group continued to live under the same unchanging environment.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-evolution-a-beginners-guide/

 

[Transdecimal]

You could say exactly the same thing about Fish & Amphibians, or Amphibians & Reptiles, or Reptiles & Mammals, or anything else.

If multiple-celled organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms in existence, etc.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A mutation gives some member of population X a new and valuable way of exploiting the environment. Descendents of this individual inherit the mutation and concentrate on their new skill, differentiating themselves from their cousins who don't have the inherited ability. But those cousins aren't going to just curl up and die; the evolutionary gimmicks that population X has already got still work. (Example: early hominids get skeletal mutations allowing them to walk comfortably, their cousins remain restricted to the trees)

So the two groups tend to live separately, and over time further mutations can occur in one or the other to drive them still further apart. This is speciation; eventually the groups won't interbreed.

Both populations typically survive. In order for the older population to die out there has to be some change in the environment, like the comet that killed the dinosaurs.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand how this misconception arises. The correct picture can be figured out easily from Darwin's story itself: birds on different islands became isolated and evolved independently. There is no requirement ever presented that one species must die-out for another to come about, so those islands could contain any number of combinations of new species, old species, species that evolved from other species, etc.

Geological separation provides the easiest mechanism by which species can evolve separately from the same ancestor, possibly leaving one species unchanged.

The Grand Canyon is another example: related species of animals can be found on the north and south rim, but because there is an elevation difference, the habitats, and thus the species, are different.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Geological separation provides the easiest mechanism by which species can evolve separately from the same ancestor, possibly leaving one species unchanged.

Yes, allopatric speciation as this is called is easy to understand, but it is important to note that sympatric speciation does occur, where the two populations coexist but interbreed less and less until they are reproductively isolated and are regarded as two species.

 

[arildno]

I agree with Russ that the idea of allopatric speciation is so easy to grasp that in my opinion it ought to be well-known and understood by every adult in our society. Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

[Curious3141]

I agree with Russ that the idea of allopatric speciation is so easy to grasp that in my opinion it ought to be well-known and understood by every adult in our society. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You underestimate the power of religious indoctrination. My boss is a Christian (believing in Creationism). He is also a Microbiologist and he's a foremost authority on resistance in bacteria. He sees evolution by mutation happening every day in the lab, but he reconciles this by calling it "microevolution" that does not cause speciation as opposed to "macroevolution", that does. He believes in the former but does not believe in the latter, since he holds that distinct species were created de novo by God.

I know his view is logically inconsistent, and I've pointed it out to him (well, as stongly as I can considering I am his subordinate in an Asian society), but he seems happy with his view.

 

[pivoxa15]

I previously had the same misconception as the OP had but now understand that today's apes (humans are apesas well - contray to common opinion) descended from a common ancestor which is extinct today. We did not descend from today's gorillas, chimps, monkey etc.

But concerning 'is the evolution true?' A scientific theory can only be disproved and never proved. So the question is unanswerable. But on top of that, how do we disprove a theory like evolution since it has no precise mathematical formulation and is formulated in such general terms? It seems that given we live in a rational world, evolution is logically necessesary given the empirical scientific information about birth of life, continents, genes etc.

 

[3trQN]

I think of it more as a model, and i would re-phrase the question thus:

How acurate is the Evolutionary model?

I can't answer it though :P

 

[arildno]

I previously had the same misconception as the OP had but now understand that today's apes (humans are apesas well - contray to common opinion) descended from a common ancestor which is extinct today. We did not descend from today's gorillas, chimps, monkey etc.

We did, however, evolve from an animal we would unreservedly regard as a chimp-like ape.

 

[J77]

Not to be rude, but you obviously haven't studied Evolution enough to have an informed opinion about it.

I think this is key - most people, inlcuding myself, don't have enough information to make an informative decision on whether evolution holds true or not.

However, it seems far, far, far, more grounded than some of that other stuff, like intelligent design, that you see banded around.

 

[gptejms]

Why did our common ancestor(i.e. ours and that of today's apes) die--was it not adapted well enough for the environment?

 

[Phobos]

I don't understand how this misconception arises.

Probably from the cartoon version of evolution...the "march of progress" which suggests life goes from simple to complex (where "complex" = "human"). Obviously, this is an incorrect explanation of evolution.

 

[Phobos]

He states...

Just wanted to note that Darwin is not the authority on the modern theory of evolution. Darwin got the theory going and was correct on many aspects of it, but a lot more has been added since his time (e.g., genetics, many more fossils, etc.)

... that human origin comes from apes...

As noted above, modern humans did not evolve from modern apes...they had a common ancestor.

... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here?

As noted above, a population can split and take different paths. As a metaphor from daily life, your parents/cousins/etc. didn't disappear when you and your siblings were born.

Shouldn't they evolve into humans too?

Evolution is not a path toward humanity, nor is it progress toward any particular goal. Evolution is simply change. Bacteria are just as "evolved" as humans...each does well in its own niche.

Why did only some turns to human?

Only some populations had the circumstances which led to humanity. Others had circumstances which lead down different paths.
(circumstances = ecosystem, variations from mutations, competitors, etc.)

the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

If you study the science of evolution, I think you'll find that it's very well supported by the evidence. The last part of your statement about the scientists suggests you've encountered some creationist/intelligent design literature with claims against evolution. Check out a science textbook for yourself. Sure, the theory is refined as more evidence is obtained, but it's not subject to whims or conspiracy. The evidence is peer-reviewed and openly discussed (i.e., the world's experts in the field review the evidence to ensure its validity).

 

[Phobos]

... how do we disprove a theory like evolution since it has no precise mathematical formulation and is formulated in such general terms? It seems that given we live in a rational world, evolution is logically necessesary given the empirical scientific information about birth of life, continents, genes etc.

A "precise mathematical formulation" sounds more like a "law" (which is descriptive) rather than a "theory" (which is explanatory). I'm not so sure the theory is "formulated in general terms" given that there are so many aspects to it in the scientific literature (perhaps one of the PF biologists could fill in some details here) even if the public debate only mentions some basic concepts.

Anyway, aspects of the theory are constantly being revised. For example, a new fossil discovery may force a particular lineage to be redrawn from what was previously understood. Or perhaps the understanding of the relative importance of a particular mechanism in natural selection compared to other mechanisms is changed. Given how much evidence supports the theory of evolution, it's hard to imagine what could topple it completely (more likely, it will continue to be revised/improved). Finding a mammal fossil in a pre-cambrian rock might do it. Or if we find fossils distributed randomly in the geologic column and geographically (obviously, we don't). Or if we find that DNA is not the key to heredity (yeah, right).

 

[kitty_kat]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

 

[Danger]

So?...[/color]

 

[silkworm]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

That's your interpretation. The theory of evolution is scientific and only can use natural explanations for the variation of life on this planet.

The interpretation that you have made, that it conflicts with muslim and christian teachings, is your interpretation.

Science and religion are two entirely different things. If you want to believe the creation story of your religion that is your right. However, science's explanation for the diversity of life is the theory of evolution. It has overwhelming scientific support.

 

[kitty_kat]

But why are they still no accurate explanation on how things evolve in the 1st place. The scientists tried to replicate (or close to it) the evolutionary process but until now aren't able to justify the whole process. there is just no clear cut answers.

Can it be that the theory are using the wrong terms to explain the idea? I would think that hybridisation fits the evolutionary process in plants rather than mutation.

 

[HMS]

Hi ,I have a few questions. Excuse me if they are trivial

1. What are the time-scales invlved in evolution? How long did it take for the "common ancestor" to evolve into Homo Sapiens ?

2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

Thanks

 

[SimplySolitary_]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

Of course it is, but you must be aware that the bible was written by man, sweetie, and man is not exactly known for his perfection... there are, after all, two verions of the creation of Earth in the bible, and of course the book you see sitting next to your bed (Or wherever people keep their bibles these days) isn't the original text. There was much, much more at one time, but this isn't History Forums and I won't get into that right now.

Isn't it so much easier to look at the concept as God started evolution, and it's just one of the many beautiful things that He has created for us, to study and learn about? Such beauty, such skill, such care was taken in the entire evolution process, it's insane to think from a religious point of view that He had no part in it.
You can observe the beauty of a flower, and thank God that you were able to see such an amazing sight. Why can you not observe the beauty of evolution, of science, and wonder at God's great power and how much he loves us?

My grandfather, who's a pastor and adores science (He's my hero), always laughed at the Christians who, when looking at science, never realized that it was truly God's plan. If you look at science in general with that thought, you can appreciate evolution and God.


*Note: I'm not at all Christian. This was how it was explained to me when I was younger, by my grandfather, and I think that's it's a beautiful way to present science to a religious person.

 

[Mattara]

Hi ,I have a few questions. Excuse me if they are trivial

1. What are the time-scales invlved in evolution? How long did it take for the "common ancestor" to evolve into Homo Sapiens ?

2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

Thanks

The accepted time frame is more than 10.000 years. Great Brittan and Irland has been isolated from the main land for this period. We have not seen any new species arising in these places. We are talking of a time period in the millions most likely.

You need to understand that it is not time that matters. Other factors needs to be considered as well. Just because some birds have been living in the same place doesn't mean that they after X number of years will be separate. There needs to be an isolation for it to "work".

Note that the finches on the Galápagos Islands did evolve because of the isolation because due to their body they couldn't handle the flight to other islands or the main land. The herons (a large bird) lived around the Galápagos Islands as well. They didn't show this evolution. That is because they are bigger and stronger so they could fly between the islands without problem. As a result, there was no isolation for the heron.

Here is an interseting and well done flash about the evolutions of man and her ancestors that could be good for you to watch:

http://www.becominghuman.org/

 

[pivoxa15]

... there are, after all, two verions of the creation of Earth in

Just out of interest, which two versions are they?

 

[pivoxa15]

A "precise mathematical formulation" sounds more like a "law" (which is descriptive) rather than a "theory" (which is explanatory). I'm not so sure the theory is "formulated in general terms" given that there are so many aspects to it in the scientific literature (perhaps one of the PF biologists could fill in some details here) even if the public debate only mentions some basic concepts.

Anyway, aspects of the theory are constantly being revised. For example, a new fossil discovery may force a particular lineage to be redrawn from what was previously understood. Or perhaps the understanding of the relative importance of a particular mechanism in natural selection compared to other mechanisms is changed. Given how much evidence supports the theory of evolution, it's hard to imagine what could topple it completely (more likely, it will continue to be revised/improved). Finding a mammal fossil in a pre-cambrian rock might do it. Or if we find fossils distributed randomly in the geologic column and geographically (obviously, we don't). Or if we find that DNA is not the key to heredity (yeah, right).

A scientific theory should have an element of precision which generally comes in the form of maths. And that is what separates it from philosophy or any other statement involving natural language. Evolution, even though was found through empirical observation does not have any precise terms in it. So I like to call it philosophy or a guiding principle in biology rather than a scientific theory. Although it is more objective than Freud's psychoanalysis (one can constantly improve Freud's theory from more empirical data as well) but is closer to it then the theory of heredity. Although I don't blame it on the biological theorists because the scale at which evolution applies is so large that any accurate numerical description would be (to me) impossible to formulate.

 

[Mattara]

Just out of interest, which two versions are they?

I imagin that that user means to say evolution and creationism.

A scientific theory should have an element of precision which generally comes in the form of maths. And that is what separates it from philosophy or any other statement involving natural language.

Incorrect. A scientific theory does not need to contain an element of percision. A scientific theory or a physics model, needs to be formulated in a way that you with experiments can prove it wrong. That is the definition of the phenomena. Not to say that evolution does not involve mathematics, because it does. However, you as a opponent to the theory of evolution may not have come into contact with it.

. Evolution, even though was found through empirical observation does not have any precise terms in it.

Also incorrect. Evolution has many specific terms and predictions and not one single experiement has disproven it or succeeded in even question it (apart from a certain breed on monkeys that uses intercourse for social communication of course which isn't a disproof anyway).

Although it is more objective than Freud's psychoanalysis (one can constantly improve Freud's theory from more empirical data as well) but is closer to it then the theory of heredity. Although I don't blame it on the biological theorists because the scale at which evolution applies is so large that any accurate numerical description would be (to me) impossible to formulate.

You cannot compare Evolution with Freud. At all. Freud was a bad doctor. He use to fall asleep or just simply ignore his patience. Evolution has evidence that is clear including datings and predictions. The area that Freud was involved in has none. You should also notice that evolution is bases on population while Freud dealt with individuals.

 

[iansmith]

Incorrect. A scientific theory does not need to contain an element of percision. A scientific theory or a physics model, needs to be formulated in a way that you with experiments can prove it wrong. That is the definition of the phenomena. Not to say that evolution does not involve mathematics, because it does. However, you as a opponent to the theory of evolution may not have come into contact with it.

People never mention this mathematical model of evolution and population dynamics.

Hardy-Weinberg principle was one of the first one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg

I'll to look my notes for some other models.

 

[dav2008]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.

 

[SimplySolitary_]

When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.

I never knew that!
WOW!
That's why I had those bite marks the other day...

 

[arildno]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

You would do well by ridding yourself of such religious fantasies as the Adam&Eve-story.
For those who say "science and religion are entirely separate things",
this claim about history&biology certainly conflicts with the findings of science.

Not very "separate", are they, then?