can u give me some facts about lamark and darwins discription of how evolution occured?
111422
Come on, you've got to do SOME leg work here.  Those are huge subject areas.  Where would we start?\n\nOK, Darwin: Natural selection acts on random variation.\n\nLamark: Acquired characteristics can be passed on to the next generation.
655923
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
318151
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
655475
Darwin was on his island, waiting around so he could prove something when he noticed that the finches were changing certain features to survive, so somehow he came up with the theory of evolution.\nIf that's what you mean.
99308
• 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 \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
199584
"Macro-evolution" is a theory inasmuch as evolutionary events that have purportedly occured over millions of years and resulted in the appearance of new species can not be experimentally reproduced or observed. In contrast, "Micro-evolution," which describes genetic change within a particular species, has been observed and can be witnessed over and over again. \n\nThe mechanics of micro-evolution are most evident in lower order organisms such as bacteria, viruses, insects, etc. Just think about cockroaches and how quickly, in a matter of a few generations they can adapt to certain pesticides and become immune to them. \n\nThe reason why macro-evolution has been readily accepted as fact when it really isn't is because the principles of micro-evolution have been extrapolated to the illogical conclusion that species can go through so many minor genetic changes that they eventually become entirely new species. This has not been proven and unless you are able to live millions of years or be able to maintain documentation that lasts that long, macro-evolution can NEVER be proven.
251199
Von Baer studied the development of embryos and found that all embryos follow a similar developmental pattern.  Darwin used this as evidence in his book (On the Origin of Species) suggesting that the reason for this similiarity was due to a common ancestor.
866041
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.
679044
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
160210
I'm going to quote one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all times. \n"Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution"\nErnst Mayr (1904-2005)\n\nAnother great researcher, the ethologist Niko Tinbergen, argued that there were four questions that the ethologist should answer, to include the different kinds of explanations for any behavior:\n1) Function: how does the behaviour impact on the animal’s chances of survival and reproduction? \n2) Causation: what are the stimuli that elicit the response, and how has it been modified by recent learning? \n3) Development: how does the behaviour change with age, and what early experiences are necessary for the behaviour to be shown? \n4) Evolutionary history: how does the behaviour compare with similar behaviour in related species, and how might it have arisen through the process of phylogeny? \n\nSo... see item 4)
230841
Hi. First off, its "deScent with modification".\nThat was Darwin's term for what is now known as genetic variability in a population, and a stage of his proposed evolutionary mechanism, natural selection.\nHe did not have the genetic background to explain the variations that he saw generation after generation (Mendel's works had been ignored at the time), but he noticed that in every new generation, the individuals showed varied characteristics: some traits where similar to their parents, but others were novel or maybe similar to those of older ancestors. \nThese variations occur because of 1) spontaneous mutations in the parental gametes; 2) recombination between homologous chromosomes during gamete formation (crossing over); 3) the combination of the parents' genotypes to form the genotype of the offspring (this is not strictly new material, only a new combination of preexisting ones).\n\nOnce there is a new generation of individuals that are growing and living together, some of those characteristics may result in better adjustment to the environment. The individuals with those "adaptively advantageous" traits will have higher probabilities of growing, maturing and reproducing more, with respect to other individuals. \nIf those advantageous characteristics are heritable, that is, if they are determined by the individual's combination of alleles (=the two versions of the same gene in each of us), when the individual is able to "pass them on" to more descendants those alleles will spread in the population, and eventually be present in most individuals. This, in a nutshell, is natural selection. NS leads to gradual adjustment of the population with respect to its environment.\nFrom a population genetics perspective, evolution is defined as _the change in allele frequencies_; thus, "descent with modification", coupled with evolutionary factors, leads to evolution of the population. \nIn addition to mutation and natural selection, this change in allele frequencies may be occasioned by migration (genetic flux among different populations), genetic drift (a random process) and selective mating (which strictly speaking only alters the proportion of combinations, but does not produce new material).\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, but evolutionary processes need a little context to be understood. Good luck with your explanation!
853160
THE EVOLUTION\n\n“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.\n\nYou will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.\n\nAn important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.\n\nAll the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.\n\nThis very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:\n\n“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”\n\nThe physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.\n\nGeorge Erl Devis writes further:\n\n“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___  our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:\n\nIs there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?\n\nAnd___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.\n\nWe can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.\n\nWe are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__  is almost possible.”\n\nAs we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logic
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .
1037910
I don't know how breif this is...but check out this site:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology
160247
There is a huge amount about the history of evolution on the web. Look it up. \n\nThere were many similar theories before Darwin and roughly at the same time as Darwin, like Wallace's theory, or Darwin's grandfather Erasmus. \n\nDarwin took a long voyage on the Beagle and gained information that confirmed his theory. \n\nThe theory is that natural selection is a process acting in nature, where individuals of a species best suited to their environments will pass on their characteristics to their offspring ("survival of the fittest"). Eventually this will lead to new species. \n\nSome comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters.