what is Darwins Law.??? what is selection of elimination?
342488
I think what you are referring to is "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"\n\nBasically the animal most suited to its environment due to mutation (the ones with genetic proclivity to have longer necks, stronger arms etc) will get more food/mates and will tend to, over a long period, tend to make the species move in that direction.\n\nBasic answer - if you need more drop me a line.
1061325
First, nothing is science is 100% correct. In science, there is ALWAYS the possibility of new evidence modifying an existing law, even though that's rare. Evolution (like Newton's theory of gravity) has such a huge body of evidence behind it that it fully deserves the title of scientific law.\n\nHere's some of that evidence:\n\nApparently you are unaware that there are in fact flying snakes. That do in fact jump from trees and glide through the air.\n\nApparently you are unaware that speciation, the process of creating new species, has BEEN OBSERVED not just once but many times.\n\nApparently you are unaware that natural selection ceases to operate on humans when humans take action -- such as wearing clothing -- that negates its effect.\n\nApparently you are unaware that natural selection is just one part of the theory of evolution, and that mutation is another part.\n\nWrite back after you've read more about evolution than you've read about the Bible. Here's a good place to start:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org
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.
1066627
I am a Christian and I have found remarkable facts that have bolstered my faith in Intelligent Design. To name one, Irreducable Complexity. It is the fact, (Not Theory) that the simplest cell in our body was created completely in a moment's time, instead of a gradual evolution. It is like a mouse trap. There's a board, spring, lever, and latch. The cell, like the trap, has components that compliment each other in the same way the trap does. If you took one component away the trap would be defective, likewise if the cell is left without all the necessary systems it will perish leaving no time for evolution.
225222
Stabilizing selection. In the absence of pressures for species to change, the dominant pressure in natural selection is for the species to remain the same (this is largely because the vast majority of non-silent mutations are either neutral, or detrimental, for any given organism at any given time). This is because they have reached a local fitness maximum, and it takes a selection pressure to push them out of it.\n\nAs an analogy, think of a round-ish rock on the side of a steep mountain. Gravity forces the rock to roll downhill. But, imagine there is an upwards slope that the rock has to roll over to continue rolling downhill. If the rock's momentum (ie, the selection pressures on the organism) is not sufficient to roll it over the upslope (the local fitness maximum), then the rock will stay at that altitude (stabilizing selection).\n\nOkay, it's not an outstanding analogy, but it should get the idea across.\n\nOh, and to some of the other respondents, natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest; it's survival of the fit enough.
674485
Abolition of humans law and aplication of God's law.
1136665
Evolutionary fitness is a measure of reproductive success no matter how efficient (or whatever) you are. The more healthy, offspring you produce, the more of your genes are passed on to the next generation, and the more evolutionarily fit you are. Of course these offspring have to reproduce as well to validate your fitness. Individuals that do not reproduce have a fitness of zero no matter how efficient (or whatever) they are.
513237
to believe that He set laws in motion and let them go would say that He set the laws of thermodynamics in motion, which completely drown evolution in science (real, observable science)  even if He doesn't intervene, and just leaves everything to itself, He would have put everything into place at the beginning, and let it be.  He wouldn't have added new laws later.  theistic evolution is absurd.  "evolution is nonsense to the highest degree" frederick hoyle (one of the greatest scientists and astronomers of the century)
1042707
"In biology, evolution is the measurable change in the heritable traits (allele frequency) of a population over successive generations. Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of the biological world. Over time, it may result in the origin of new species (speciation). Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years." translation organisms change over time due to adapting to their environment and selective breeding, though natural selection plays the largest role in evolution, in natural selection the animal that is best fit to live in  and survive in its environment will be able to live on and reproduce. Also known as "survival of the fittest"
407289
it depends on how long youre talking about. natural selection will 'select' the more fit individuals that are better suited to their environment. therefore if competition exists between individuals those better adapted to the environment will win, thus natural selection picks it.
593117
The second law of thermodynamics basically states you CAN NOT get more out of system than you put.  So, Goring, why are continually trying to confuse the issue.  You and I both know Evolution is being applied to an open system, thus is outside the limitations implied by the second law of thermodynamics.  You may be a shade better at Physics than me, but Evolutionary Theory is my strong suit.  If you want have an honest discussion, I say fine, otherwise, take a hike.\n\nTo answer your question in simple terms, the real beauty of Evolution is that in the Entropy / Enthalpy trade-off game, living matter is able to attain ever higher of complexity.  This applies not just for day to day existence of an organism, but for the species as a whole.  DNA serves as the memory template upon which these lessons are stored.\n\nIf you insist, I suppose one might argue species extinction is a form of inverse evolution.  But even that is a tough sell since empty environmental niches rarely stay empty.\n\nReply add on - Yes the human body throws off heat in the process of maintaining a constant temperature, but the steady temperature vastly improves metabolic performance making the trade off well worth the cost.  But when I mentioned the entropy enthrapy I was talking about the formation of complex systems like that brain you using to give me a bad time.  As for the disintegration of individual organism, you are right about time catching up with us all.  But unless that disintegration factor affects reproduction it not likely to affect the continuence of the species and thus will have little to no influence upon evolution. \n\nCome on, admit it, you enjoy trying to egg people into debating these fine points with you.
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.
151991
Darwin's ideas are essentially the same ones accepted today. You could be referring to the fact that at the time of the publication of "The origin...", Mendel's genetic work was largely unknown (it had passed unnoticed), therefore Darwin did not have a good explanatory mechanism for the inheritance of characters. The predominant idea at the time was something called "blending inheritance" that assumed that the parental traits got "blended" in the offspring. This made it very difficult to support the idea that "good" characteristics would be conserved down the generations (they should blend and eventually disappear). Darwin could never provide a satisfactory explanation, and in subsequent editions of the book he even accepted Lamarckian inheritance again.\nWhen Mendel's work was rediscovered (1900), his model provided a strong support for Darwin's theory. Later other discoveries and developments led to the "New Synthesis" or neodarwinism.
1040585
Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: \n\n1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view. \n\n2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region. \n\n3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species. [This is now contested by a view of episodes of rapid change and long periods of stasis, known as punctuated equilibrium]. \n\n4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. \n\nhttp://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
389820
The part of the body that are use more often, become more complex, in the same manner, part of the body that are less useful to survival will eventually be select against (It waste energy without generating enough benefit). Therefore mother nature tell us that, (Darwin's natural selection) we only have what we need. If we use this as an argument. We can assume that all animals today would use 100% of the brain, those who had use less than that would have been eliminated through the course of history. Unless it was beneficial to their survival, in that case, their brain will have "de-evolve" to maintain a lower energy consuming. The process of de-evolving would led them to use 100% of their brain...
448261
Trying to get someone to do your homework paper?\n\nNatural Selection was used by 19th Century capitalists to justify explotation of the working class, on the theory that certain members of the population were genetically inferior and therefore were being chosen by natural selection to be part of the working class. Similary, the wealthy businessperson had been selected by good breeding to be wealthy. Thus, exploitation of the working class was simply the manifestation of Darwinian natural selection in human society, and was therefore a positive dynamic of nature.\n\nFor more info on the subject, see Social Darwinism; Herbert Spencer; Eugenics.
286460
one organisms loss is anothers gain...meaining the death of one organism provides food for another. Also can translate into evolution. The extinction of one organism is the result of the evolution of another