What organism supports the theory of evolution and why?
371165
we talked about this in my biology class and we came up with birds. We found out that they are related to prehistoric times to the Teridactyl. They have similar body stuctures except much larger. Stubby legs and wings with bones is another similarity. They also build nests and lay eggs. \n\nBacteria is an excellent organism to support the theory of evolution. Bacteria are "cells" that have their chromosomes scattered all throughout it making it very unorganized. However over time a nucleus was formed and all of the chromosomes were kept here and other cell structures were formed along with cilia on the cell membrane for propulsion. This evolving into the first single celled organism.
861286
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, in a nutshell:\n\nThere are three observations about life\n1) Variation: Individuals of a species are not all identical.  \n2) Competition: More individuals are born than can possibly survive to reproduce.  \n3) Inheritance: Individuals pass on traits to their offspring.  \nGiven these three things, those individuals in a species that have traits that help them survive better and produce more offspring, will pass those very traits on to those offspring.  So in this way, beneficial traits become more frequent a population, and produce an overall change in the species over time.  \n\nThat's it.\n\nAs for the creation of new species:  If two subpopulations of a species get separated for long enough, then they will change in separate directions, and will eventually lose the ability to interbreed, resulting in (now) two separate species that will continue to change (evolve) in different directions.\n\nThe catchphrase "survival of the fittest" summarizes this idea ... but use it with caution.  It's not just about "surviving" but "surviving to reproduce."  For example, a peacock's tail doesn't really help him "survive" better ... in fact it probably makes him an easier prey for predators ... but it does attract the ladies.  So it makes those individuals with the flashiest tail more "fit" then their homelier cousins.\n\n-------------- A warning about 'tiffany g's answer ---------------\n\nBe careful with answers like 'tiffany g' who copy-paste web pages instead of giving you a link to them, and without giving you the source, so you can check it out.  She is copying from the web-site allaboutscience.org, a thinly disguised Christian/Creationist site.  \n\nMy objection is not with people presenting the Creationist side ... but rather the attempt to hide that fact.  For example, it is deliberately misleading for a site to call itself "allaboutscience.org" when it does not address science topics in general, but only topics like the Big Bang, Evolution, and evidence for the existence of Jesus.  (Watch out for "allaboutphilosophy.org" as well.)\n\nAs a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty, the citation/page finishes with Darwin's famous quote about the eye ... famous because it is always quoted out of context and omits Darwin's very next sentence.  Darwin did indeed write that the evolution of the eye "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  (Note the word "seems".)  But then Darwin continues ... "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."  (See second source, Darwin, Ch. 6.)\n\nIn other words, Darwin immediately refutes the "irreducible complexity" argument, by pointing out that all we need to do is show that the eye can come about through small, incremental changes that each confers a small advantage, no matter how small.  Every single case of "irreducible complexity" yet offered by Creationists has always been shown (usually quite easily) to be fully "reducible."\n\nCreationists love to quote out-of-context from Darwin's Chapter 6, because this is the chapter where Darwin considers possible objections or "difficulties" with the theory, and then refutes them. The Creationists love to quote Darwin's own-words description of the "difficulty", but then omit his
471387
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
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.
318151
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
27731
well, there are two ways that I remember from bio. One is that they learn from other animals/ assimilate other organisms into their own cell structure (this is simple lifeforms)for example, many scientists theorized that the mitochondria comes were actually assimilated organisms.\n\nAnother way is the whole "survival of the fittest" basically, certain members of a species that are able to survive/thrive in an environment would oust the other members, while if the environment changes so that it favors another group, then this group would die out, so that only the species that work best in the environment are left. I think this is a theory that Darwin came up with.
448028
Check out Ken Miller's testimony from the Dover, PA trial (link below) for examples of evidence supporting evolution.\n\nThere isn't scientific evidence supporting creationism, because it's not a scientific concept.  By definition, science encompasses things that can be tested.
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
328557
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."\n\nWhich is a fancy way of saying that the stages an organism goes through during gestation (pre-birth) mirror (to some extent) its evolutionary history.  There are stages when even a human fetus resembles more a fish or an amphibian than a mammal, and we all start out as a single-celled organism.\n\nMost species' evolutionary history is educated guesswork based on similar anatomical and physiological structures, compared with both existing organisms and those in the fossil record.  Also, DNA similarities indicate evolutionary proximity -- for example, aside from the fact that all primates look similar (similar anatomical structure) our DNA is closer to that of certain monkeys than any other species.  This strongly suggests that somewhere back in history we had a common ancestor.\n\nBy the way, anyone who discards the theory of evolution because it's "not proven" doesn't know the first thing of how science works and, to be honest, should be ignored.
743583
I used to love this theory as well, but apparently it's not too popular in the scientific community.  I'll try to find some links.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_theory#Objections_to_Aquatic_Ape_Hypothesis
866041
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
256655
We evolved from primates, but not monkeys specifically.  We did not evolve from birds although we do share a common ancestor with them a long ways back.  Although evolution has not been conclusively "proven" it is supported by a preponderance of evidence and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And hutsong's "evidence" against evolution is primarily fictitious.  Don't be fooled by his authoritative manner - he's still full of crap.\n\nFor a defense of evolution see my answer to this question:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiUBrphbhCO3D7mQOX5JXrrsy6IX?qid=1006032117223\n\nAnd these links:\nhttp://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml\nhttp://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html\n\nOr go to your local library and find an introductory biology book.
1056346
If we assume evolution as by Darwin is basically right. Animals evolve to best survive in a certain ecological niche. In that respect intelligence was an adaptation to survive and prosper in response to certain environmental factors, and our species was the winner in that race to develop. In the same light why don’t all animals develop flight or gills etc. Other animals haven’t developed the same type of intelligence because they don’t need it. The Lingula sp. (a seashell) has existed in its current shape for well over 500 million years, as compared to our ½ to ¾ million years, it perfectly fills a certain niche and has no need to evolve further.\nHowever your question hits upon a salient point. Where is the actual evidence for this species development? We should have examples of inter-species e.g. super smart bunnies still able to breed with normal bunnies to create cleverer off spring. This missing link worried Darwin for his entire life and eventually caused him to doubt his own theory.
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
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.
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
859326
You guys keep trying.\n\nThe theory of planetary motion is pretty well accepted, and that only took 300 years. You can SEE that the sun moves around the earth, but these fuzzy-headed people called astronomers came up with this wild theory - the earth moves around the sun!\n\nSo today, 99.99% of all biologists, zoologists and botanists tell us the theory of evolution is the best explanation they have of the diversity - and similarity - of life. Christian biologists, Jewish bioligists, Muslim biologists, Sikh biologists . . .\n95% of the Christian fundamentalists reject the theory. (85% of them accept the theory of planetary motion, however.)\n\nEvolution is only a theory and it flies in the face of common sense. There is no way a Great Dane and a toy poodle can have the same ancestor.\n\nMaybe by 2206 that 95% rate will be down to 15%. We can hope.