It the hypothesis of evolution was true;Then why some of the weakest people and or passive people pass on they genetics.\nAnd if evolution seeks to ameliorate why are still people dying ? After the the tousands of years of existance there is no surval .Still people die= hence survival of the fistest must be a misnomer.
207741
Granted "survival of the fittest" is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it's a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it's really about having the children, not survival per se.\n\nAs to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn't matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species' schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won't go into it here. If you search the web using the terms "evolution senescence" you should find it if you are interested.
390587
"Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. "\n\nAbsolutely wrong.\n\n"Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct."\n\nThe fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed.\n\n"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings."\n\nTrue, but modern humans did evolve from a earlier primate ancestor that wasn't human.  Neanderthals are more like our cousins.\n\n"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. "\n\nBut the metabolic similarities, the universality of the genetic code, the fact that mitochrondria are in fact desceneded from bacteria, these are all best expained by common descent.\n\n"Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone."\n\nEvolution is proved by the evidence.\n\nThe below links contain more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person.
526391
1. All organisms tend to produce more offspring than can possibly survive (Darwin's generation gave this principle the lovely name of "superfecundity").\n\n2. Offspring vary among themselves, and are not carbon copies of an immutable type.\n\n3. At least some of this variation is passed down by inheritance to future generations. (Darwin did not know the mechanism of heredity, for Mendel's principles did not gain acceptance until early in our century. However, this third fact requires no knowledge of how heredity works, but only an acknowledgment that heredity exists. And mere existence is undeniable folk wisdom. We know that black folks have black kids; white folks, white kids; tall parents tend to have tall children; and so on.)\n\nThe principle of natural selection then emerges as a necessary inference from these facts:\n\n4. If many offspring must die (for not all can be accommodated in nature's limited ecology), and individuals in all species vary among themselves, then on average (as a statistical statement, and not in every case), survivors will tend to be those individuals with variations that are fortuitously best suited to changing local environments. Since heredity exists, the offspring of survivors will tend to resemble their successful parents. The accumulation of these favorable variants through time will produce evolutionary change. \n\nhttp://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/selection/fullhouse.html
465505
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
577163
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
619263
The problem with this theory is that the "gay gene" is not being passed on to the next generation, because reproduction does not transpire.  All evolutionary traits depend upon the trait being passed on to the successive generation.
383008
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
566664
I would say C. The animals that died were weaker than the animals that survived. Their deaths might have occured because they did not possess the genes that enabled them to survive. The wildebeests that survived had adaptations that allowed them to better adapt to the environment.\n\nHowever, it could also be B. Perhaps the animals that died were just old and died of natural causes.\n\nIn my opinion, this question is poorly worded.
609185
First off I would like to say that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with humans or creation of our world as many anti-evolutionists seem to believe.  Next, if you deny evolution than how can you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, insecticide resistant insects, etc, etc, etc.  If you confuse evolution and human evolution then that is your own issue as so many have previously posted.  Lastly, about our own HUMAN evolution, if you think that humans do not evolve, then you believe we are not a living part of this natural world and deny HERITABLE MUTATION.  If you deny all of this and still deny evolution, human or not, then I truly believe you are a lunatic and don't believe in worldly fact.  You might as well say the world is flat and pray to the sun God.  PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD SCIENCE AS SO MANY PEOPLE DO, LOOK AT THE FACTS (NOT THE PROPAGANDA THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MAY FILL YOU WITH) AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AND ITS KEY CONCEPTS WHICH IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN REALLY BANK ON IN THIS WORLD.
621921
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
653098
The answer is (1) selection and MUTATION because he realised that animals whose genes mutate and enable them to survive more succesfully:\n\n'Darwin concluded that species evolved over long periods due to what he called natural selection. There may be differences in the offspring of an organism. These differences are called mutations. We generally think of mutations as harmful, such as birth defects, but a mutation is simply an alteration of the genetic information of an organism. Some mutations are good. A child might be taller or stronger than his or her parents. \n\nDarwin’s theory suggested that organisms evolved to fit their environment based on natural selection. If a mutation was good, the organism lived and contributed the mutation to the gene pool of its offspring. If the mutation was bad, the organism was more likely to die before contributing to the gene pool. Over billions of years, these mutations slowly produced the world we know today. '\n\nHope this helps!
293668
Evolution happens to populations of organisms not individuals, and populations of humans across the globe are continually evolving. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a breeding population over time - that's it. Of course you need a $100,000 lab to show most of it but it happens all the time. Many people see evolution only as 'speciation' - that's just one possible end point. Speciation might occur, for example, if enough gene frequencies change in a population so that the individuals look different or smell different from most, or a catastrophe geographically isolates one group - something divides them from others. The isolated group no longer breeds with once similar populations, the differences in gene frequencies between them accumulate. Over eons of time, at some point, this population may become a new species, no longer capable of breeding with its parent species; or it may become a subspecies - related but biologically isolated; or a sister species; or part of a circle species - there are many levels of relatedness. And then it happens again and again - populations continually dividing and changing - driven by an individual organism’s success at parenting fertile young. The genes that made a parent a success where they lived and who they lived with are passed on to the next generation. Genetically, we are what worked, when and where our parents made us. \n\nEvolution does not mean we are improving or getting better. Evolution has no bias about good or bad, and no direction; you either fit your environment well, move with it, change when it changes, or you die out. So evolution works quicker for organisms with short generation times and large populations (like insects or bacteria). It's no wonder that the insect and bacterial world is chock full of subspecies and sister species. Human evolution is a very ponderous affair because of our 25 year generational time. Ordinarily, it may take hundreds or thousands of generations to see some significant changes - there are many exception of course - but don't expect to see any differences between humans unless you look on a scale of millennia or more.
623663
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
27617
Ow!  My toes!  ;) (kidding)\n\nI think it's ludicrous that people are treating the theory as if there's any real debate among scientists on the matter.  Global Warming is far, far, far more contested than is evolution; yet in the popular press, you'd never know it.\n\nWhat I get sick of is all the crap about "missing links" or whatever.  Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ about the fossil record.  Sure, it was important to Darwin when he formulated the theory, but one can't really expect that the fossil record should be any where near complete, and all the arguments against evolution focus on this field.  I studied molecular biology, and it is in molecular biology that you'll find way, way stronger support for the theory.\n\nWhen I list the sorts of evidence that come from molecular biology (Homologous proteins, the near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids), genetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens, DNA technology that can show relationship, developmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny), etc) I get people acting like I presented no evidence because they couldn't even understand that the list I've given actually is evidence.  It takes a long time to understand the manner in which DNA becomes a protein, and the way that proteins fold, the way they work, and the way their related.  Until you understand that, the "Big Picture" is not clear.  But to those that *do* understand the Big Picture, it becoems obvious.\n\nI can't explain to a starving thrid world farmer why it's in his interests to become literate, along with the rest of his village, so they can better understand how to, say, help prevent epidemics in the short term (by being able to understand routes of transmission better) or bring about democracy in the long term.  But living in the industrialized west, the benefits of literacy are manifest.  The person who doesn't understand science seems to me in many ways to be like that starving farmer.\n\nPeople who understand science will dictate the fate of much in the world, and they will have the power to do much good.  By not making an effort to learn science, you set yourself back greatly.  But by actively attacking science--like the starving farming burning a public library, or like the Haitian who steals the copper wires set up to build an electrical infrastructure that would bring long-term prosperity in exchange for a short-term benefit in selling scrap metal--the skeptic zealots do themselves and the entire Christian faith a great disservice.\n\nIn response to your additional questions:\n1-4 are NOT--repeat, they are NOT--aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is exactly what I'm talking about--people are criticizing a theory they don't even begin to understand.\n\n1) refers to the Big Bang theory, not evolution by natural selection.  2) is a theory of planetary formation, not a theory of speciation.  3) and 4) are aspects of a theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution.  Only 5) actually regards evolution.\n\nEvolution by natural selection dictates that small variations between members of a species accumulate over the long term to become major changes, resulting in speciation.  And yes, I believe that that happened.\n\nI have issues with the big bang, but those are not relevant here--they are for reasons of physics that go beyond what I can explain right here.\n\nPlanetary formation, while not a part of evolution, is largely unavoidable.  All matter has mass, and this results in gravitational attraction.  If dust is in space, it will collapse in on itself.  Physics-wise, this is about as mind-blowing as the fact that water + dirt = mud.  It would be a greater stretch of the imagination to imagine such formation not occuring, because the laws that dictate such a formation are at work all around us all the time.\n\n
667778
We are constantly evolving. If you look at statistics over the last hundred years, people are getting taller. (Go into an old, old home - the stairs will be smaller - people were smaller.)\n\nEvery time that DNA replicates, there is a possibility for an error. These can be positive or negative, but it the error is transmitted to the next generation, it will make changes in person. These changes are EVOLUTION. \n\nUnfortunately, the survival of the fittest isn't accurate anymore, as people with defects are now living long enough to reproduce and making faulty copies of their DNA. \n\nWe will continue to change, slowly, but evolution is happening all around us, and in us, everyday.
490640
It's true today, as in 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection a.k.a. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - the strongest survive. \n\nQuestion 2 - As for humans becoming wimps, okay - that's one way to approach it. We are weakening our own gene pool, predominately through modern medicine, but also through cultural direction.
306212
because most people see it as either an attack on god or as an attack on science. there are however a few of us who believe that the theory of god and the theory of evolution can coexist. i try to keep an open mind about things that are not yet proven or unproven to be true.