what is darwin's theory of evoulution? and how does it work. how can it explain biodiverstiy.?
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
260246
if you are looking something about tectonic... you will find interesting these sites:\nhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html\n\nbut if you want to read about evolutio on Earth... this link is really good:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
160247
There is a huge amount about the history of evolution on the web. Look it up. \n\nThere were many similar theories before Darwin and roughly at the same time as Darwin, like Wallace's theory, or Darwin's grandfather Erasmus. \n\nDarwin took a long voyage on the Beagle and gained information that confirmed his theory. \n\nThe theory is that natural selection is a process acting in nature, where individuals of a species best suited to their environments will pass on their characteristics to their offspring ("survival of the fittest"). Eventually this will lead to new species. \n\nSome comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
249723
A good place to start is by clarifying the difference between the _fact_ of evolution (= change in biological beings) and the _theory_ of evolution (= a body of scientific hypotheses). \nI recommend you this short but informative essay:\nLaurence Moran. Evolution is a fact and a theory\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html\n\nAnd in fact, the entire site\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org is very informative. \nAnother good site is Evolution 101 from Berkeley:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml\n\nGood luck with your paper :-)
1096462
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
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.
655475
Darwin was on his island, waiting around so he could prove something when he noticed that the finches were changing certain features to survive, so somehow he came up with the theory of evolution.\nIf that's what you mean.
491745
"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a misleading formulation. There is no absolute measurement for fitness - what makes you more likely to survive today might hinder you tomorrow and vice versa. So it is not like everything is striving upwards that previously determined fitness slope. Therefore many of the interpretations of Darwinism from early last century where wrong. You can't derive rules from evolution like "society should weed out weak indivudals" or stuff like that. \n\nIt follows that the only thing that really matters in terms of evolution is to survive, or more precisely, to exist. Personally I go as far as to say that "reproduce as much as possible" is not the only strategy. I consider stones as a special case of evolution - they manage to survive for a very long time, too. I see evolution as just "the likely thing will happen".\n\nAs for dropping dead: it is not the individual that evolution operates on. It is the population, ie the gene that evokes a specific behaviour. Death can also be predetermined by evolution, because it might be benefitial for the population.\n\nEdit: in reply to your additional comment, thanks, and I am not saying that death is necessarily always a good idea. Humans live quite long, probably also because they are costly to manufacture. Insects don't live very long, but are also very successful. We humans are free to set our own goals for life, and if it is to live long and well, so be it. The ones who figure out how to live longer will live longer ;-)
230027
Diversity is a term that refers both to the different classes of items in a given system, and also to the distribution of those items in those classes.\nBiological diversity or biodiversity is related to the concept of biocomplexity, that is, the web of interelationships and fluxes circulating in the ecosystem. It is usually measured at three levels: ecological biodiversity, species biodiversity and genetic biodiversity.\n\nSpecies biodiversity is not only the number of species in a given ecosystem, but also the proportion of individuals that belong to each species. \nExample: \nIf you have 10 species, but out of a 100-individuals sample, 91 belong to a single species, then the biodiversity is not that high. In probabilistic terms, you  could say that the chances of finding 9 of the 10 species in any sample is low. \n\nThe rainforests of the world are classical examples of high diversity ecosystems. In contrast, most ecosystems that are under continuous stress are less biodiverse, for example deserts, or grasslands. However, low biodiversity does not necessarily mean "less healthy" ecosystems. Although a grassland is less biodiverse than a rainforest, it's a stable biome all the same.\nA related concept, ecological biodiversity, refers to the variety of ecosystems in a given area, and the pattern of distribution of communities in a given landscape. No ecosystem is completely isolated from others and the health of each one depends partly on the interrelationships with other areas, therefore, the loss of ecological biodiversity due to the disappearance of certain environments can lead to greater unbalances.\nGenetic biodiversity refers to variety at genetic level. In a population, it refers to the different alleles (variations of a single gene) that are present. We know that evolutionarily speaking, polymorphisms (presence of different alleles) are a sign of a healthy population, because a greater source of variation is a better resource to respond to environmental changes. Populations that lose their genetic biodiversity (for example, because the number of individuals is severely reduced) may be more exposed to extinction. \nBiodiversity can be measured at all the organization levels studied by Ecology, but is especially focused in communities and ecosystems.
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
1043399
No scientist propounds a creation theoryt of\nevolution.  The creation theories, of which there are\nmany came from religions long befoe science\ndeveloped as a separate activity from philosophy\nand religion. \n\nIgnore the long-winded answer from smiling4ever2\nit is without merit.  Note that he says that evolution\n takes place by chance.  No scientist ever claimed\nthat evolution takes place by chance.  Natural\nselection is an ANTIchance mechanism.  The\nproduction of variation by mutation and recombination is often referred to as random, but it\nis clearly not completely dependent on random \nchance.  What is meant is that new variations are\nnot directed toward solutions of whatever problem\nthe population is facing.  If the environment is\ndrying up and new adaptations for water conservation are needed, the new variations that\nappear are just as likely to be detrimental to saving \nwater as to be beneficial for it, or to have nothing\nat all to do with water balance.  Those few that\ndo fit the organism to a drier climate will be favored\nby natural selection and the others will not.
43968
Biodiversity maintenance works on the golden principle of natural selection. too many individuals of the same species or that of the species that have similar needs, cannot survive. So there's always natural favorism given to equal number of individuals of  each species. Humans do interfere with this though.
112917
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
629873
Because it's supported by a preponderance of evidence, and is generally accepted within the scientific community, not to mention the minor detail that it's true.\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. Microevo
844547
THE NICHE CONCEPT & ETHNIC DIVERSITY\n\n\nIntro\n\nOne of the striking facts about contemporary society, and indeed of much of recorded history, is the division of the human species into distinct ethnic groups, whose interrelations are sometimes antagonistic and sometimes mutualistic\n\nWhile there are many interesting ways social scientists analyze this phenomenon, ecological theory may provide some additional insights\n\nThis lecture approaches this topic as follows:\n\n1. What is ecological niche theory? (brief summary)\n2. How can we apply this theory to human ethnic diversity?\n3. Discussion of Swat case (Barth reading)\n\nCharacter displacement refers to the phenomenon where differences among similar species whose distributions overlap geographically are accentuated in regions where the species co-occur but are minimized or lost where the species’ distributions do not overlap. This pattern results from evolutionary change driven by competition among species for a limited resource (e.g. food). The rationale for character displacement stems from the competitive exclusion principle, also called Gause's Law, which contends that to coexist in a stable environment two competing species must differ in their respective ecological niche; without differentiation, one species will eliminate or exclude the other through competition.