I remember this question from phylosophy class but don't remember the answer.
214006
You're taking evolution, which is a biological theory, and applying it to society. Now, that may or may not be valid, but that's what you're doing.\n\nAnother issue with your question is the answer may be different depending on your perspective. From the viewpoint of the species, the more advanced, smarter society tends to win wars, and tends to take over the land of the defeated peoples and spread successful ways of living and knowledge. So in that case, the argument can definitely be made that war is "good."\n\nBut, if you're coming from the perspective of a person in one of those weaker societies, or from the perspective of someone sympathetic toward those weaker societies or their members, then of course, war is bad.\n\n(To the guy who says there is no evidence for evolution, you need to open your mind and look at everything rather than being so biased as to write off the overwhelming amount of evidence contrary to your opinion.)
557736
There are many hundreds of thousands of species of unicellular algae that reproduce sexually. \n\nWe have some fossils of brown algae that were in the process sexually reproducing dating back to well before the first multicellular life evolved. We know this because such alage produce silicons 'skeletons' that preserved their structure. \n\nSo we can be absolutely certain that the first sexually reproducing organisms weren't multicellualr.\n\nAs for which the first were, we really can not know. It's almost impossible to tell from fossils whether how a unicellular organism reproduced if it doesn't produce a solid skeleton, and solid skeletons evolved late.
472614
Somehow I doubt it. Amoebas as single-celled organisms do not have brains and therefore no memory -- all they have is what biological reflexes are encoded into their DNA, like aversion to strong light. To teach something a "trick", it has to have the capacity to associate the stimuli with a desired action and remember that one means the other. Doing that without a brain, I think, is nigh well impossible.
145179
There are two theories to explain how the Platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first (theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occurred 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.\n\nThe Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials separated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.\n\nEvidence for this theory is that the reproductive systems of monotremes and marsupials are extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.\n\nAre you denying that evolution exists at all?
454830
Both above answers have a bit of truth. The answer your teacher probably wants would be vacuole, but cells have lots of different ways of storing different things, so it isn't really that straightforward.
220103
I wouldn't say that I'm anymore intelligent than someone else, but I did want to answer your question, so....\n\nYou are confusing the theory of evolution (diversification of species) with the theory of abiogenesis (life from natural compounds).  That's okay, many people confuse the two.\n\n1.  How did life get from soup to single-celled organisms?  From wikipedia, "J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed.\nIn 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — the amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals, in the presence of an external energy source in an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen (the experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask of supposedly primitive earth-gases)."\n\n2.  How did the original cell eat and develop asexual reproduction?   You are putting the cart before the horse.  In order to get to the cell stage, self-replicating molecules had to exist first... i.e. reproduction & "nourishment"  was occurring well before the cell stage.  Also, what are you referring to with "nourishment"?  For a self-replicating molecule, nourishment would consist of other molecules that it could combine with to form more of itself.\n\n3.  In the "soup", how did primordial cells develop resistences?  Resistence to what?  I don't understand this question.  To the environment?  To viruses or bacteria?  You need to elaborate here, I'm sorry.  I think it ties into your next answer, but not sure.  Please read my answer to #4.\n\n4.  How did it evolve everything it needed if it wasn't in it's DNA?  Can you give an example?  Hmm.  I'm trying to understand how you are approaching this question.  Let's say you have 100 little cells, each a little different.  5 cells can withstand a higher water temperature than the others because of a mutation they have.  One day the temperature goes up and kills off the other 95 cells.  That only leaves the 5 with the mutation.  They scamper off and reproduce like crazy... the cell strain has just evolved a little.  Now repeat this a gazillion times with a dynamic interacting environment and there you go.
142437
I think that the notion of parthenogenesis is long obsolete and it is considered a fallacy by the scientific community. Maybe you mean something else?
276822
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
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
69463
u should be honored. i looked up the answer JUST FOR YOU. and because i knew it would be bothering me, since i learned it in eighth grade. lol. go here. it's great.\nhttp://pages.infinit.net/aaricia/tea/bosto2.htm
117619
Man_with_a_Plan has no proof that there is no proof. His statement that no theories are sound or have proof is just his opinion and purely speculatory. There is no proof.\n\nI, on the other hand, like the "Murder on the Orient Express Theory". I think that there was huge changes in ocean circulation due to the continents coming together WELL BEFORE Pangaea formed. The geologic evidence suggests that the extinction happened in different places around the world at different times, which suggests that no single event is responsible. I believe that cooling events like plume volcanism in the Siberian traps coupled with warming events like methane hydrate release and greenhouse effect along with the continental positioning at the time may have worked together to cause extreme changes in ocean circulation at various parts of the world at different times, attributing to the extinction event.\n\nVariations in temperature due to greenhouse warming and on/off sulphide cooling would have had the greatest immediate impact on planktic (ocean surface) and shallow water organisms. I also think that ocean circulation was also greatly affected not only by the temperature variations but also the circumstantial orientation of the continents. Heat transport to the north would have been innefficient and consequently northern regions would have been subject to extreme cooling, even at relatively low latitudes. In the southern regions there would have been a huge temperature gradient between top and bottom waters. If this was enough to stop deep water formation and ocean turnover, benthic (bottom dwelling) species would have been destroyed by the lack of oxygen and intermediate to surface water species would have suffered from a lack of nutrients. Because most of the Earth's life at the time was in the water, I am quite sure that it was likely some change in ocean circulation that dealt the fatal blows to life. Obviously good carbon isotope data from the period would be needed to verify this hypothesis. \n\nLife on land would have suffered greatly by climate changes induced by changes in ocean circulation, as well as the extreme variations in temperature. Tropical species would have been devastated by cooling events caused by the plume volcanism.\n\nThere is lots of proof for everything; there just is no definite information that can, as of yet, say for sure exactly how it all happened. That's a tough thing to do, but I really dislike people who refute the claims of others without presenting any evidence themselves.
413265
Maybe the tree of life is rooted to the 'nutrient soil?' What I mean is that organic compounds were thought to form before any cell. They provided the nutrients for these early cells, so my best guess is that they would be your roots.
53295
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
9161
There is a ton of disagreement on this subject.\n\nDo a search for lobsters and pain and you'll find sites that talk about both sides of the story.\n\nHey submitter, sorry you are too lazy to figure this out on your own. Like I said, there is a ton of disagreement. Some scientists will tell you one thing and some will tell you another. How is anyone supposed to have the "right" answer for you?
313792
Seriously, it's a nice question.\n\nUnfortunately, any worthwhile answer to the details you’ve provided is beyond the scope of Yahoo Answers. You’d do better scouring the web for books on the topic from both perspectives and/or joint perspectives, if you really want to understand what both sides and not just one believes and why.\n\nHowever, I can address your literal question, which is, “Why don’t people ‘get’ this?”\n\nOne of the arguments for why many people “don’t understand” the points you’re contributing is because there has been SUCH an extensive, detailed discourse over the validity of evolution for more than a century, there’s no way to stay abreast of every development and every argument (pro and con) unless one is either working professionally in the field or is committed to the subject as a full-time hobby.\n\n(I’ve dabbled in it on and off over twenty years myself -- just enough to know what it would cost me to really get my hands dirty and be able to rationally debate for either side. And even being the philosophy and knowledge junkie I am, I just have far too many other things on my plate.)\n\nAlong with the breadth of information that must be consumed by the average person is the degree of critical thinking skills needed to weigh such extensive and detailed arguments/evidence for each position, as well as determine which authorities are actually trustworthy and which are not. That’s another full-time job in itself – besides the fact that many people simply aren’t “wired” for that level of analysis.\n\nRealistically, I would NOT expect many people to be well-versed on the geological data regarding evolution, understand the biological and ecological impact, explore all the contexts for how things might most logically fit together, and so forth. The topic is simply far too time- and resource-intensive. \n\nCoupled with this is that your argument seems not to be concerned in the least with the question of “Why?” \n\nWhy are we here? What makes humans different, if we are? And how does this impact us personally in our day-to-day lives? To many people, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to the daily demands of life and what they want to get out of it. \n\nEvolutionary theory has nothing to do with who they love, what they sacrifice for, who they care about, what they are willing to dedicate their energy to. It doesn’t help them figure out who to marry, or how to pay their bills, or how to help their kids back on a good track, or decide what car to buy. It doesn’t give them any sort of reason for them personally to live.\n\nIn fact, it rather runs counter to all that. If your supposition is completely true, then no inherent purpose to life exists, we’re all just animals cursed by the cosmos with irrelevant self-awareness, and death is the end. Yet most people want to live, and live meaningfully.\n\nThe narrative they want to create of their lives is actually the OPPOSITE of the narrative of evolution, which (to me and others) necessarily devalues human existence.\n\nWe can argue about whether your theoretical narrative is factually true or not (and people of course have been doing so for years); but in the meanwhile, the evolutionary narrative has no value to the majority of people out there, and it even undermines the meaning they believe exists inherently in their lives.\n\nSo I wouldn’t broadly call most people ignorant of evolution, as much as I’d call the details of evolution irrelevant to most people.\n\n(And if evolution's true as you've laid it out, why does it even matter that most people understand it anyway? Their understanding or lack of it has no lasting ramifications.)
668634
Bacteria are procaryotes. Their cell structure is different from those of plants and animals (Eucaryotes) they are in their own category altogether. Years and years ago they were categorized as plants. Some of them have clorophyll. How old is your brother's science book?
542891
If you eliminate the evidence, there is no evidence.  Highly advanced reasoning.  You just forgot to wipe every living creature off the face of the Earth.  The careful observations of the variation of forms, coupled with the pattern of variation in the genomes of like and unlike forms is a scientific method of demonstrating the relative relatedness of every living creature.