Who was the first to hypothesize that fossils were once living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised? Where was that person born? Who is Carolus Linnaeus? What is he most famous for? What controversial event occurred between Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin? Why was Thomas Henry Huxley nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog"?
203532
Charles Bonnet, and Carolus Linnaeus is the one who invented binomial nomenclature.
151707
Try here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus\n\nand here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosaurid
548277
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
348284
wasn't it Darwin... hmmm
646979
1.Alexander Fleming : micro-organisms/microbes\n\nhis discovery of penicillin\n\n2.Carl Linné: taxonomy\n \nGood classification of plants and their species/discovered new species\n\n\n3.Charles Darwin : human origins\n\ntheory of evolution\n\n4. Santiago Ramón y Cajal : neurobiology\n\nanalyzed almost the whole human nervous system\n\n5. Gregor Mendel : genetics\n\ntheories of heredity
183360
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. The totality of fossils and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils is called paleontology. Because fossils are by their nature old, the word has also entered the modern vernacular as a derogatory term for an elderly person. Fossils are like coal, oil, etc or u can try these:\n\n\nKind of fossils:\n1 Trace fossils \n2 Microfossils \n3 Resin fossils \n4 Pseudofossils \n5 Living fossils
447121
the so-called christian record was compiled just a few centuries before the fall of roman imperialism under constantine. he called together so-called christian scholars to set the canon, that is those books which were to be included in the bible. as for a christian fossil record, there is none. fossils are actually bones and skeltons of animals which have been suffused with chemically inert material similar to stone. to become a fossil takes thousands of years, not just a few, but thousands of thousands of years. mankind, as we know him, has been here for less than twelve thousand years, which is not long enough to turn even the smallest bone into a fossil.creationism is nothing more than a religious position which has absolutly no basis in fact anywhere. the latest attempt to get god , and hence religion, back into schools is called intelligent design. this is nothing more than replaciung the word for god with the words intelligent design by those same self-professed experts who want religion (specifically creationism) to be taught instead of evolution. the major difference between the two is this, evolution explains based on scientific principles, religion makes claims based on belief but is never supported by facts.
553209
Darwin never "withdrew" his theory, nice try.\n\nYou're right there were lots of storms and meteorites.  For all we know, life needed a couple of tries to get started.\n\nJust the fact that you are asking whether we came from monkeys or from goo, shows that you either have NO idea what evolution is about or are just trying to get a rise out of people.  You bore me.
562606
Yes, Gregor Mendell is considered to be Father of Genetics.  No, charles Darwin wrote his book without knowing what Mendell had discovered.
230631
I heard that Darwin's conversion was just a theory and was a story made up. I found a link on it and talks a bit about it, but I've heard it before. \n\nIt dosent matter, It dosent matter if Charles Darwin was baptised or not, Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins!\nI know this, in my heart!♥
167788
Please refer to the following site : \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nYou'll get all you need to fill-up 3 pages !
100242
I think it's so funny that so-called scholars believe in evolution.  I say let them believe, that just shows how stupid they are.  If evolution were true, I ask who caused it to start, I would still give God the credit.  If there was a "big bang", then it was God that caused it.
258495
How in the world can skeletons be wrong.  I can see actual theories being potentially wrong, because they're just that, theories.  But skeletons?  You can't fake that stuff and get away with it these days!\n\nHowever, in the interests of the question, I'll attempt to find something.\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html -- Definitely in support of the whole "homo erectus was a hominid" thing, but it gives a brief statement as to why creationists USED to use "Java Man" as an example of why they weren't anywhere near hominid.  Interesting.\n\nThis is an interesting list from the "Answers in Genesis" website listing arguments that they don't think creationists SHOULD use in support of creationism.  I wonder what they would say these things do support... http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp#java_man\n\nThis is an article on why the genes of the ancient hominids and ours are related. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm\n\nThis article verifies that scientists have found that homo erectus was a widespread and thoroughly homogenous species that was an obvious precursor to ours: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020325080853.htm\n\nOkay, I think that this article says that they (all of the human fore-species) can all be considered the same species but in different stages of development.  Is that what you were looking for? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp\n\nHere's more information on Homo Erectus: http://anthropology.net/tags/homo_erectus\n\nHere is an article about Neandertals from the Answering Genesis website: https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/neandertal.asp\n\nHowever, this article explains the exaggerations that creationists often make in regards to how close the relationship between Neandertals and modern humans is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html\n\nAnd here is an article on a breakthrough in mapping out the DNA of the Neandertals that states that they were most definitely a different species from the hominids of the time and from us!  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Concocting.PDF#search='neandertal%20AND%20wrong'\n\nI couldn't find anything saying that it was wrong that Cro Magnon man were our closest ancestors; in fact, even the creationists were quiet on that one.  I think it's because Cro Magnon traits can still be seen today, so it's a little hard to disprove.\n\nI hope this helped answer your question, although I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly or not.
497912
Permian Extinction:  251-252 million years ago.  The reigning hypthesis is that emissions from a "supervolcano" in the area of Siberia caused global warming which triggered other changes.  Most species - animal and plant, land and marine - became extinct.  It's possible that one or two meteor strikes may have caused the increase in volcanism.\n\nK-T Extinction Event - 65 million years ago.  For several million years, something had occurred which decreased biodiversity;  we don't know what.  Then, a large meteor fell leaving a crater, evidence of which may be found near Yucatan Mexico.  This impact probably started fires all over the hemisphere, and kicked up dust and soot which blocked sunlight all over the world for years.  The climate change was enough to wipe out a fair number of land and marine species of plants and animals.  The dinosaurs and large marine reptiles became extinct.
381848
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
163299
Actually, Charles Darwin discredited his own theory before his death, but few evolutionists recognize this fact.  Also, according to the second law of thermodynamics and a little thing called entropy, it is scientifically proven that all things move towards chaos.  Evolution suggests that we went from chaos to order, when, in reality, everything moves from order to chaos (for example, a fire causing wood to turn to ashes).  Personally, I have yet to find a scientific fact that disproves creationism.  Remember, science is simply man's way of explaining God's works.
608464
You'll mostly have to do your own homework, kid. But I'll give you some hints, you can Google (I'm too lazy, but remember a lot about this topic) to firm up the dates for.\n\nLate 18th century - Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin's grandfather) begins to forumulate some of the prototypical ideas for evolution in "Zoonomia."\n\nIn 1830s, Darwin reads Malthus' essay about population growth. He realizes that the model Malthus proposes couldn't possibly be applicable, else why hadn't other species overwhelmed the world?\n\nHe publishes "Origin of the Species" in 1859.\n\nWilberforce fires off his rebuttal the next year.\n\nCatholic priest Gregor Mendel wrote ""Experiments on Plant Hybridization" shortly after this, and in doing so provided the one missing piece of the evolutionary puzzle - how heredity worked. Mendel would never know the impact of his work. He died before his work became famous.\n\nRonald Fisher fused the work of Darwin and Mendel into the modern theory of evolution in the early 20th century.\n\nThe Leakeys begin working on evolutionary anthropology in the mid-twentieth century, discovering many early human forms. \n\nWatson and Crick discover the "double helix."