why does evolution happen?
371166
Evolution doesn't happen, one species doesn't evolve into another species.\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."\n\nThe sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.\n\n"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read: \n\n480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000. \n\n"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number
615396
creation or evolution?
1023236
Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are.  I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it.  There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon.  Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking.  That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
39457
The reason I've usually heard is something to the effect of "Evolution is *how* God created life". Usually, though, it's not enough to say that God set evolution off and left it to its own thing, a more common belief seems to be "guided evolution", which is essentially evolution with all the hard bits done by God. In either of these interpretations, God has to nip down at some point, and zap a soul into humans.\n\nI find these ideas a little strange, myself. It's essentially saying "Yes, I can see all this scientific evidence for evolution is very compelling, but it can't be right because it needs God in it somewhere", which seems a very backwards way to conclude things.
499343
Evolution.\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. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
986419
Evolution says that life evolves.  New species survive and thrive based upon how they can adapt to the environment.  Mutations can cause a change in a descendant that may make it easier for it to survive ("survival of the fittest").  If not, it dies and is not likely to reproduce (if it did, it is still unlikely for it's descendants to survive, either).\n\nEvolution itself does NOT say that man came from an ape, but that is the general consensus of most biologists.\n\nYou will probably get a better answer with more details in the Biology section under Science.
711783
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
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"
1002548
Every living being is trying to reproduce and have successful, surviving, reproducing offspring.  In every reproduction there is a chance of mutation, that one of the genes will function differently.  Often these changes in function cause a defect or a disadvantage, and the creatures with these mutations will die out without reproducing.  However, if the different function results in a significant advantage (making better use of a current food source or enabling the usage of a new food source) than the offspring with that mutation will become more likely to survive and the mutation will become the norm until a new mutation replaces it or environmental conditions change.\n\nThe diversity of life on Earth stems from life forms mutating and making use of all the millions of possible food sources that exist.
493860
egg the proccesses of evolution take place in the next generation of a species
1023532
Well, the main reason would be that evolution is a process that take thousands, if not millions, of years to accomplish. Also, because evolution works to allow an organism to compete for a resource better than another organism. At this point, we have no competition so the motivation for evolution is basically zero.\n\n I also think that the main issue with global warming isn't going to be humans being unable to survive the temperatures so much as the environment is going to be destroyed so we'll have less animals and plants to eat.
252845
evolution is the constant change in physiology a life form undergoes to remain adapted to its environment. Its hard not to believe in evolution. What is hard to belive is that God created all species in their current state and doesnt change them. I believe thats just the bibles answer because it was written before evolution was known.
384887
because evolution is false.
782586
Genes and the Environment interact to determine traits.  Evolution is the change over time of allele frequencies within a population.  Mutations (changes in DNA sequence) are the source of genectic variablility.  Without mutations thee would be no evolution and no diversity among organisms.  Mutation itself is not a major force in evolution, however they are the source of new alleles, which are new variations on which other evolutionary processes can work.  As such, they are the foundation of evolutionary change.
924301
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .