Evolution, Stages, History
120195
>A lot of people,including myself and a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.\n\n>Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n•According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n•However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n•The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n•Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n•Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n•Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n•It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n•Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n•Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n•Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n•The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n•Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n•The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n•New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n•"Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
239570
introduction, body, conclusion
399499
This is a really great site that I have used to help teach hominid evolution.  It goes through the various hominid "phases" -- not all are evolved from the previous, but it definately supports evolution as fact.\n\nI added a few others that I've used also -- but definately go to becominghuman.org\n\nAlso -- if you're searching for other information, do a google search on Plaeoanthropology. (The official name for the study of human origins via fossil evidence.)
645611
You have to look at evolution as a series of slight beneficial changes that are passed down through generations.  The steps from single to double circ are unknown to me, but it is more than a single big jump.
304083
well its what you are interested in\nif plants- do something about plant evolution\nif animals- major extinction of animals\nwell thats what i did. got an "A" for it
590890
That's why evolution is so bull. Chinese history has been 6000-4000 years and NOTHING HAS CHANGED! We didn't grow a tail or an extra finger, nor lose any body parts. It's all Western propaganda trying to brainwash the rest of the world.
652701
Far too huge a subject to get into here, check the link for information.\n\nJust to clear up one common misconception: Man did not evolve from monkeys.  Men, the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans), and monkeys all evolved from common ancestors millions of years ago.  Men and monkeys diverged more than 10 million years ago, and men and the great apes diverged about 5-8 million years ago.
2238
Egg...just to be different.  And playing devil's advocate on the evolution argument above, maybe a bunch of whatever the precursor to the chicken was just started laying eggs that were chickens when they hatched.  In such a case, it would have been the egg that came first.
626592
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
647309
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
505319
Evolution is only a theory. The theory states that more complex life forms evolved from more simple life forms. A brontosaurus, according to the theory, would evolve from a much smaller plant eater with a much smaller neck. I don't know the exact name of the species, but I can get that information for you though it goes beyond the scope of this question.\n\nThere are bones of apelike animals that would have had brains equal in size to our own, but bone structure vastly different than human beings bones. Did modern humans wipe out intelligent apes or was that us? The theory of evolution has flaws like the Big Bang theory and many other scientific theories. The theory of evolution is far from perfect which is why you can't seem to make sense of it.\n\nWhat is missing from the theory is the so-called "missing link." If a giraffe evolved a longer neck over millions of years why are there no bones of these intermediary stages of giraffes with slightly longer necks? Just its ancestor and the modern animal.
329018
There are several lines which scientist use to prove that evolution is occurring which are embryology, palaeontology, evidence from similar anatomy\nIn case of Palaeontology this is the study of remains of past living organisms. In this case the remains are dug and they show a change from the top going down the earth's crust In this study at the top of the earth's crust the remains of organisms found are complex but going down deeper simple remains of organisms are found this suggest that organism are changing from simple form into complex forms.\nAnother thing that is observed are the remains of certain organism which don't exist by the time and remains of organisms which were not in the inner parts suggest that new species are formed
668532
I haven't heard of the appendix specifically being used as an example of an evolutionarily signifigant vestigial structure, however scientists have long used the presence of vestigial structures (such as tail bones in humans) to imply shared ancestry with other animals which posess a functional version of the structure, in other words, a homologous structure.   Any basic college-level biology textbook should give an adequate description of the evidence for evolution if you want more information.
210356
NONE.  All things were created!  Things adapt to changing environments, but they never turn into something entirely new.
45935
Taxonomic categories? I can name some of the taxa we're included in, but the categories change rather frequently. \n\nAnimalia\nEumetazoa\nBilateria\nDeuterostomia\nChordata\nCraniata\nVertebrata\nGnathostomata\nEuteleostomi\nSarcopterygii\nTetrapoda\nAmniota\nSynapsida\nMammalia\nTheria\nEutheria\nArchonta\nPrimates\nHaplorhini\nAnthropoidea\nHominoidea\nHominidae\nHomo \nH. sapiens\n\n\nAll these nested taxa are "stages of evolution" if by that you understand evolutionary acquisitions.
418659
Read the seven stages of man.
569604
1. Evolution\n2. NC\n3. public