define the organic theory of evolution?
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.
733225
Science/evolution is how.\nReligion/God is why.
104130
Dont listen to cowgirl, like most creationists wackos, she hasn't even bothered to research the word theory.  It is used very differently in science and the vernacular.  Evolution is a theory the same way heliocentiicity (the idea that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around) is a theory; no one has ever seen it happen.  Or, atomic theory (that things are actually composed of little particles called atoms; no one has ever seen one.  Evolutionary theory is proven JUST AS WELL as other major theories in science.\n\nThe difference in humans and other animals is mostly in their brain - it's size and structure.  It allows us to do more complicated things, like complex languages.  There is no major qualative difference between humans and other primates... there is a quantitative one.\n\nNo one really knows what caused the brain to grow so much but the answer may lie in development genes, such as the Hox genes.  These regulation genes can have a tremendous influence on size and apperance from a few simple mutations.  \n\nCowgirl: make sure you give up on all the benifits of science since you choose not to understand it.  No more TV, cars, radio, medicine, lightbulbs, cures for disease, etc.
82794
The concept of evolution as an explanation for the origins of life is flawed. The theory of evolution explains the origins of species, but not the origins of life. A lump of premordial goo, no matter how well it could adapt to its environment, lacks DNA. The first cell must have had DNA to reproduce. Therefore, the first cell must have been created; that would not conflict with neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Bible. (Doesn't it say something like, "God created man from earth"? Anything organic is made from earth.)\n\nAnd that's why both the Bible and the Theory of Evolution are correct.
81667
Evolution is the gradual change in a group of organisms based on surroundings and circumstances that make one population more favorable. Since we do not know what future events might select for homo sapiens, we cannot predict how they will evolve. For example, if we had a full out nuclear war, perhaps a small group of humans would survive that were very tolerant to radiation. There is no way to know. That being said, humans have somewhat overcome evolution because of our advanced medicine- we can let people live who would otherwise be selected against, like people with debilating diseases.
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
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
881611
Evolution is a fact, backed up by science. God is a hypothesis, 'backed-up' by the bible. The problem is that the bible is not backed-up by anything.
611617
The definition of organic is: "of, relating to, or derived from living organisms (2) : of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides <organic farming> <organic produce> b (1) : of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) : relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds".\n\nSo, how many examples do you want?  There are millions.  Air.  Water.  Sugar.  Food not coming from McDonald's.  Do you need more examples?
289835
1.Evolution occurs.  Lineages of organisms change over time.\n2.Gradualism.  Darwin argued that differences between populations of organisms -- even radically different organisms -- accumulate by a series of innumerable small steps through intermediate forms.\n3. Population speciation: Another idea that was original with Darwin. Individual organisms do not evolve and offspring are not different species from their parents. Evolution is a process that occurs in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. \n4. Common descent: This is the major crux for creationists and an idea original to Darwin. He was the first to argue that species had diverged from common ancestors and thus comprise a great tree of life. \n5. Natural selection: Darwin's most brilliant and original hypothesis, independently arrived at by Wallace. Natural selection is the mechanism of change.\n\nIt is important to remember, however, that Darwin wasn't the first to think of evolution.
595965
Lamarckism is a term used for Lamarckian evolution, a theory put forward by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, based on heritability of acquired characteristics, the once widely accepted idea that an organism can acquire characteristics during its lifetime and pass them on to its offspring, in contrast to the now commonly accepted Darwinian theory of Natural selection; the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.
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.
154427
Coevolution is the joint development of two or more interdependent species, for example, parasites and the animals they live on, such that they adapt to external changes together while,\n\nConvergent Evolution is the tendency of different species to develop similar characteristics in response to a set of environmental conditions.
236776
Charles Darwin discovered the process of evolution. Evolution is a natural process by which novel traits are passed on from generation to generation, and an observable fact (i.e. you look a little like your mom and dad, for instance). Over long periods of time, you get a large variety of lifeforms.  No one really argues this; even modern religious fundamentalists accept it.\n\nHis 'theory' to explain the mechanism of evolution (how it works) is called 'natural selection.' \n\nWhile a large majority accept evolution, there are some who question 'natural selection' as its mechanism and instead suggest that 'super-natural selection' is at work (i.e. God).\n\nThis really isn't a 'flaw' per se, but more like a difference of opinion on the mechanics of evolution.\n\n===========================\n\nOh, and don't be confused by the common use of the word 'theory' and the more technical, scientific use of the word 'theory'.  In every day use, the word 'theory' often suggests a guess or conjecture, as opposed to a fact.  In scientific terms, 'theory' means a collection of facts which have a relationship to each other, and are not opposed to each other.
210421
Everything but Darwinian evolution "theory" has pretty much fallen by the wayside.  Lamarck is easy to refute; it is the selection process every time, which is observable.  Spontaneous generation is simply absurd; also observable.  Creationism is an attempt to suggest that God did it one way when in fact he did it another; by the motivation of mate selection and child care.  "Mother nature's way," if you will.\n\nNatural selection basically says that mate selection, which determines the available genes, together with survival of the offspring, is what moves evolution.  Success in reproduction is basically viable grandchildren, since having sterile or non-reproducing children means the end of that particular line (like in my family).\n\nWe can see it in small ways on the short term, and we can see it in the fossil record in the long term.  The only reason it is called a theory and not a fact is to placate the creationists.  I suspect one of the reasons fundamentalists are against people marrying who are not of the same skin color is to avoid admitting that people change by that method.  But frankly, some of the most attractive people around are those of mixed heritage.  They tend to get the best traits of both parents; every farmer and animal breeder knows that.
252845
evolution is the constant change in physiology a life form undergoes to remain adapted to its environment. Its hard not to believe in evolution. What is hard to belive is that God created all species in their current state and doesnt change them. I believe thats just the bibles answer because it was written before evolution was known.