Do ideas evolve? Is there any proof?
348831
The idea of evolution of ideas fits well in the framework of memetics, the evolutionary model for describing the units of information in the brain (called "memes", as analogous to "genes"): how they spread from one brain to others, how they mutate, and of course, how they evolve in time.\n\nThe answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of evolved ideas, one of the most noticeable, already reported in the original article (see reference) from Richard Dawkins, the biologist who first introduced the concept, is the idea of God.\n\nMemetics provides a convincing explanation for some aspects of cultural evolution, based on a testable mechanism (replication errors and natural selection).\nOn the other hand, as far as I can understand it, invariantology is a fascinating but untestable theory, since every human can build a different, and ultimately arbitrary, classification of invariants.
464944
NONE.  All things were created!  Things adapt to changing environments, but they never turn into something entirely new.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
679044
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
177411
Try:\nhttp://www.sff.net/people/julia.west/CALLIHOO/ideagen2.htm
211210
No, but that is an interesting idea.\n\nAny thoughts, Answers Team?
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
1062864
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
1037582
Not all people evolved, as can be seen by some of the questions and answers here.\n\n(Did you really want a sensible answer or would a banana do?)
189913
Did your car evolve or is it the result of intelligent design?\n\nCreation is infinitely more complex than your car, and you think it happened by random chance?  Who's the nut?
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.
741411
There is an excellent book in Barnes and Noble\non The English Language. It refers not only to language but how thinking starts. My answer is "yes". Thinking is cultivated through relationships whether they are vocal or non-vocal (reading).\nOnce beliefs are established, changing a thinking style is almost impossible, unless the person reaches a place of desperation because they realize their thinking has ruined their life. Some people then go to God, some to therapists, some to friends.
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
1021776
Yes, ideas, facts and concepts are all linked. Could you make your question a little more clear?
317337
Yes. Any mutations (new ideas) that occur with data that is being viewed in an evolutionary sense and that survives or persist (such as Islam and Christianity), are examples of evolution.\n\nThis is not biological evolution per se, it just follows the same algorithm.  Some Christians will have a hard time buying this, partly because their religion has in many ways, demonized the word, 'evolution'.  Some just see monkeys when they hear that word, they have a hard time getting beyond that because it would break down big chunks of their belief stucture and who they feel they are inside.
170837
No, but I think modern monkeys and I had a common ancestor a very, very long time ago.  When a family diverges, they start getting different pretty quickly, depending on who they marry.  If one of my more recent ancestors went to China while my branch went to America, we'd look rather different now, wouldn't we? Why is it so hard to believe a more ancient equivalent, except because you are trying to take literally something which was written when scientific knowledge was extremely primative?\n\nScience and religion have two different goals, two different world views, and two vastly different vocabularies.  Religion is writing about things so beyond human experience that our words just do not fit, and we have to resort to symbols.  When you look at ancient manuscripts and ponder the symbols, you get a lot more than you get from words which have been sorted through any number of translations and interpretations since they were written.  Not a single word of the modern Bible (and remember, you go into a Bible Bookstore, you will find a great many modern versions, not just one) was originally written in English.  The writers had probably never even heard about that far-off island, and English as we know it had not been born.\n\nPlease, don't ridicule those of us who accept the theory of evolution as the most reasonable one.  We have let you continue to label it "theory" once most the rest of us have accepted it as fact.  Don't ask for more!
201375
I do not believe there will be any "discoveries" for some time... in Physics, the theory is generally proposed first and then the emperical data is gathered to prove or disprove it, and the theory still has a way to go...