evolutionary contingency?
141791
Try editing this and asking a question.
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
362754
We re not genetically encoded with a predisposition to evolve, bt a predisposition to survive.\nTherefore any advantageous features that allow survival would be retained...an accumulation of these factors result in evolution, and is done purely on the basis of chance/mutations hence it taking millions of years to occur.\nIt does not prove the existence of God as science doesnt prove anything just supports hypothesis, but supports the evidence of chance and survival of the fittest.\nt\nps if u like u can say how this amazing coincidence that all these "chances" have culminated in striking concordance to produce the human, which has such a minute probability...may have something to do with the wonders of god...if u want ;)
614376
look at the monkeys man if we all evolvoled from them then why are there still monkeys, were they to stupid to evolve with us or what? nope i say we are as we always were if not why havent we evolved farther?
113999
A friend of mine has been trying to explain rational behavior in terms of evolution and such.  I think you might be interested in reading it.
841941
Evolution make this possible
976863
You are quite right, similar contraditiction comes up when you compare monkeys with fish, and fish, fish with worms and worms with bacteria.\n\nBetter yet, compare a St.Bernard with  a Toy Terrier - one is 10 times larger than another, no way they could have evolved from a common ancestor.
530595
One huge misconception about evolution is that the sequence is fixed. The apes *are* evolving. They are changing in response to their environment. But that environment is different than the one our ancestors had 3-6 million years ago. So they won't change in the same way our ancestors did.
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
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.
683440
There isn't a purpose to evolution.  It's simply what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for limited resources.  It's like asking to purpose of current traveling through the path of least resistance.  There's no purpose there, it's just what the laws of nature dictate must happen in that circumstance.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
422256
I have all the respect in the world to Darwin. He is a good scientist, and even though evolution does indeed occur; it occurs withIN one species. So, in effect, an insect can evolve into an 'evolved' insect, but it can't evolve into a fish! Primates might 'seem' similar, but I do not hold them in the same 'species' as humans. In other words, I do not believe that WE evolved from monkeys, and therefore, we have no 'relatives' from the animal kingdom. If primates evolved into anything; I think it is into bigfoot, but not humans.
897391
I think that any rational, reasonable individual when presented with the weight of our current knowledge and understanding regards the process of evolution would reasonably have to conclude that evolution is indeed at work on global biology.\n\nHowever, evolution is not just restricted to biological systems.  Consider our collective sense of humour.  Things which were considered hilarious in the very early part of the 20th century (silent movies) some of that humour is now so old to have lost any humourous content.  Why is that?  Because we've moved on and our tastes have evolved to more complex and alternative themes based on our modern life etc.\n\nConsider financial systems.  They too are evolving.  Capitalism is another test bed for the survival of the fitest.  There are winners and losers just as there are in biology.\n\nThere are many more examples.  The reduction of the variety and extinction of languages etc.\n\nThe validity of Darwinianism is only questioned (or rather refuted) by those of a religious nature who have been indoctrinated against the idea and are determined to continue to deny its validity irrespective of the weight of evidence presented for it.\n\nLogic does not play a part in their argument.  Faith and belief without understanding is all that is required.  In my opinion people who carry on about their lives in this bubble of ignorance are neither rational nor reasonable individuals.  They are brainwashed into submission and ignorance.  And sadly they have a tendency to fight long and hard to stay that way.  Most although not all are beyond help.\n\nOne final example of evolution in action:  It has been predicted that science will have eradicated religion within a couple centuries, as increases in the availability of education and the spread of democracy continue.  Given the negative impact that such religious stigmatisation and dogma is currently having on main stream scientific advancement, as far as I'm concerned, societal evolution resulting in the demise religion can't happen soon enough.
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)
103711
Please take the time to\nvote for the best answer\n\nThank You!!\n\nI know this is for take yr pick\n\nConditions for natural selection\n\nThe excess fecundity, and consequent competition to survive, in every species provides the precondition for the process Darwin called natural selection. Natural selection is easiest to understand as a logical argument, leading from premises to conclusion. The argument requires the four conditions listed below.\n\n1. Reproduction. Entities must reproduce to form a new generation.\n\n2. Heredity. The offspring must tend to resemble their parents: roughly speaking, 'like must produce like'. This condition is provided by Mendelian inheritance.\n\n3. Variation in characteristics of the members of the population. \n\n4. Variation in the fitness of organisms associated with these characteristics. \n\nProvided these conditions are met for any property of a species, natural selection automatically results, as in the case of the peppered moth. If any are not, it does not. Thus entities, like planets, that do not reproduce cannot evolve by natural selection. But when the four conditions apply, the organisms with the property conferring higher fitness will leave more offspring, and the frequency of that type of organism will increase in the population. \n\nThe biologist Richard Dawkins argues that there is possibly only one condition for natural selection.
123134
Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.\n\nPersonally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.\n\nPeople are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy