what is charles darwin overall theory?
150139
Charles Darwin | British Naturalist  \nLucidcafé';s Profile of Charles Darwin ... books ever written, Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species ... to his theory of natural selection. CLICK HERE to purchase this Hardcover edition of "Charles Darwin's Letters ...www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html - 13k - Cached - More from this site - Save\nOnline Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species  \nOnline Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species Online Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species Online Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species ...www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species - More from this site - Save\nDarwin's Theory  \nDarwin's Theory of Evolution. Scientists at the beginning of the 1800s know of some kinds of fossils, and they were very aware of homologous and vestigial structures. ... theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin. Darwin's ...bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/theory.html - 6k - Cached - More from this site - Save\nUnderstanding Evolution  \nUnderstanding Evolution Understanding Evolution The intent of this website is to give teachers a background understanding of evolution, opening the door by giving them strategies for teaching and responding to misconceptions and roadblocks. The ...\nCategory: Biology > Evolution\nevolution.berkeley.edu
797853
Yes Marx was on to something but some of his ideas were a little far fetched.\n\nalso Darwin's views have been twisted to be racist. he did not write the origin of species to relate to people. the man is talking about animals.
211757
Well, when Darwin first presented his theory in public, he did a joint presentation with Alfred Russell Wallace, a younger naturalist that had come up with the same ideas.\nI'm quoting myself from another answer:\n\n"Natural selection was almost simultaneously "discovered" by Alfred Russell Wallace, a much younger naturalist that was then living in the Malay archipelago (he earned his living by collecting specimens). Wallace sent a manuscript with his ideas to Darwin, and the latter was startled (my guess :P) to discover that Wallace had arrived to the same conclusions that he had been ruminating on for many years (apparently he had been collecting as much data as he could to back up his theory before making it public). Anyway, both Wallace's paper and an abstract of Darwin's work were jointly read before the Linnean Society in England. "\n\n-----------------\nUpdate: I'm adding the rest of my original answer, just in case no one is bothering to look. I don't like the suggested idea that Darwin "beat Wallace to it" because he seems to have been a fair man.\n\nThe concept of evolution was already being considered by many naturalists before 1859; that's partially the reason why Darwin's book was successful at the time and some of his ideas were accepted right away (not so others). In that sense, he was not "original". His greatest achievement was the integration of previous knowledge and the concept of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.\n(...) \nDarwin always recognized Wallace's work (he never "took the credit"). After the publication of Origin of Species, previous writings by two authors, Patrick Matthew and William Charles Wells, were shown to contain concepts similar to natural selection. Again, Darwin himself recognized these works, although he had read neither before publishing his book (if you're interested in more details, check the links below). \n\nSource(s):\nhttp://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm...\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precurso...
357308
Charles Darwin explored exactly that when he wrote about his Theory of Evolution. Read his works!
436185
Darwin's theory never said anything about 'survival of the fittest'.  That was a paraphrasing used in some reviews to explain the theory of natural selection, and is quite innaccurate.\n\nFitness in terms of natural selection ONLY means the ability to pass on an organism's genetic heritage to the next generation.  It DOES NOT connote superiority over any other organism.  By definition any organism that successfully reproduces is 'fit'.\n\nMis-applying this idea of 'Survival of the Fittest' to claim that anyone who survives must be superior has been the cause of some of the greatest evils of the 20th century.  The practice of Eugenics, extreme capitalism, Soviet communism and Nazi party doctrine all misquoted and misunderstood evolutionary theory to justify their actions.
254303
No, the psychological phenomena are also in accordance with Darwin's theory. The theory of natural selection states that the fit variety shall survive, and the unfit shall become extinct.  Thus, only the psychologically compatible will be able to survive, and the psychologicaly distracted will be removed.  This is what happens.. the mentally ill don't develop enough in society, and are eliminated.  The result is a psychologically more compatible species of homo sapiens.
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
296799
You can thank Darwin for that. His theory of evolution Has lead more people away from God than anything else.
963299
"Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer is the best one I've seen yet. It will more than likely contain everything you need.\n\nMichael Shermer, btw, if you're unfamiliar with who I'm talking about, is the founder of the Skeptics Society, who publishes Skeptic Magazine.
153183
This article considers the history of zoology before the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.\n\nZoology since 1859: Darwin and theory of evolution\nThen, in 1859, Charles Darwin placed the whole theory of organic evolution on a new footing, by his discovery of a process by which organic evolution can occur, and provided observational evidence that it had done so. This changed the attitudes of most exponents of the scientific method. Darwin's discoveries revolutionised the zoological and botanical sciences, by introducing the theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the diversity of all animal and plant life. The subject-matter of this new science, or branch of biological science, had been neglected: it did not form part of the studies of the collector and systematist, nor was it a branch of anatomy, nor of the physiology pursued by medical men, nor again was it included in the field of microscopy and the cell theory.
457129
how about Charles Darwin?
1074462
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."
1129106
Let Charlie Darwin figure this one out....hahahahahahaha
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
22560
They only briefly touched on intelligent design in my classes. mostly the focus was on evolution. \n\nPersonally i believe in a mix between the two. a hybrid if you will. i absolutely believe that God created all living creatures and specific species. i also believe that He gave all species the ability to adapt slightly to accommodate differences to their specific environment. this is what Darwin believed in as well. never did he state that he believed that man came from ape, or dinosaurs originated as fish. he believed in a hybrid, and others distorted his theories!
946853
Darwin did just about everything, much more than just evolution. He also discovered how an atolls were formed. Gregor Mendel for genetics, Watsin and Crick for DNA, Coriolis, for the coriolis effect. If you really need to know this now, why not look it up yourself?
1089495
Darwin's "Origin of Species" barely mentions humans - he knew it was a sensitive subject. Actually all he said was "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." He never intended to publish on the evolution of humankind but he got into in his 1871 work "The Descent of Man"  You can read it online:\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/\n\nIn summary he says, "species are the modified descendants of other species."