How do evolution and geological principles link together?
149545
There are a number of connections between evolution and geology:\n\n1. dating of organisms using geological stratigraphy\n2. fossil records are associated with both\n3. radiocarbon dating can be used in both\n4. geological changes creating new environments for organisms to adapt to\n5. plate tectonics creating new land formations and new climates for migration and adaptation\n6. evolution is used to interpret geological data\n7. geology is used to add details to evolutionary theory\n8. geological information about the earth can describe some of the conditions that organisms had to cope with (ice ages, interglacials, oceanic environments, volcanism, early atmospheres, etc).\n\n\nand I would imagine a lot more as well, but I am not a geologist or an evolutionary biologist!
1017223
If we talk about Evolution Theory, a number of them have been formulated till now, for instance, by Lean Bapist Lamark, by Charles Robert Darwin, by Earnest Hackel, by Hugos de Veries....\nBut in general, the probable evidences, which might have stimulated these gentlemen to formulate their Evolution Theory are,\n1) Fossils - Missing links, and connecting links\n2) Homologous organs\n3) Analogous organs\n4) Vestigial organs\n5) Embryology\n\nAnd apart from these, we can take into consideration, "Physiology ".
465462
OK, first geography is NOT geology *sigh*\n\nLook up carbon dating; you can either tell by the degradation of carbon or by basic layering (what's on the bottom is older than what's on the top).
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
801857
I believe the poetic analogy sought here is "a dream."\n\nHowever, I have no clue why this question appears under "Earth Sciences & Geology."\n\nHope this helps!
131055
I'd like to think that you're asking this question with an earnest wish to get good informative answers. If that is the case, I invite you to see the link that Kurdiatcha left, or to do a web search for the term, or else, to read some good Evolution textbooks such as Ridley's "Evolution" or Freeman & Herron's "Evolutionary analysis", or Futuyma, or Stephen Jay Gould if you want something more entertaining.\nIf that is not the case, I'm not bothering anymore *sigh*
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
530600
Physical and Chemical weathering of rock \n\nerosion is only related to the transport of rock and sediment
1180342
Creation. Even if evolution were true, the elements that got together and evolved had to have been created. Otherwise something would have to evolve from nothing.
324780
dear,evolution is not true at all.the dinosaurs like earth and every thing here was designed by a super nateral designer ,if evolution was true with this advancement in science they at least would have found little traces that man may become sometyhing else sooner or later.
684403
As a scientist, I try not to "believe" in something because it is appealing, but rather to consider the available evidence and use that information to reach a flexable conclusion that will change as additional information becomes available. Based on the available scientific evidence, I think it extremely likely that the principles underlying the theory of evolution are accurate. I therefore "believe" the theory of evolution, but not in the sense that one believes in God, but rather in the sense that I can assume it's true as necessary but I'm prepared to accept an alternate version of the theory or even to reject it if there is scientific evidence that is sufficient to warrent this change. \n\nHere's some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution:\n\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.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the
307239
I don't think you will get a satisfying answer becausae you worded your question in a rather confusing fashion.\n\nIf you don't want to discuss natural selection, don't use the word evolution at all.  Ask about Big Bang Cosmologies instead.
1077534
No, because unlike those other things evolution is a myth.\n\nThe question I have is will the scientific community which embraces evolution be like the "scientific community" which embraced a flat world with four corners and the "scientific community" which embraced a earth centric universe. Remember, we don't have the documents of the thoughts of the common people from those long ago eras; we have the documents of their most "profound" thinkers. Today you are mocking them for their views.
802905
your question was too long so I didn't bother reading it...\n\nAs for the subject you were talking about, evolution is just as good a theory as any other THEORY!
149966
Steno's Principles\nOriginal horizontality- Strata was orginally deposited horizontally in layers due to gravity.\nOriginal Lateral Continuity- Strata will continue until it tapers off or hits the edge of a basin.\nCross-cutting Relationship- The intrusive strata is younger than the strata they cut through.\n\nIncluded fragments- Inclusions are older than its host rock.\nFossil Correlation- If same fossil assemblages in similar rocks than rocks the same ages.
787294
Try Wikipedia, or perhaps your local library has a general Geology book that you can reference
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.