number help: “In March 1861 Charles Darwin wrote that he believed the - Help.com

Because I think later on they’re found facts that support the theory and whatnot.

It’s a theory with several currently documented cases that prove Darwin’s postulates. Though he might not have had proof himself, it went on being studied in Science where other scientists and researchers were able to find more and more evidence proving his points.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evol…

It seems obvious to some people, that’s why we believe it, possibly the same reason you believe in your beliefs, maybe they seem obvious to you, so much so that perhaps you don’t need proof? Ring any bells? hehe

Hey, I never said I believe in evolution.

I couldn’t care less where we came from.

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTria…

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/…

http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_na…

Me too; if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

But again, I’d rather think about the future than the past.

I suppose because:
1. most science teachers are not believers in creationism.
2. they feel they need a way to explain where we came from.

idk.

Because it is fact…our DNA matches theirs and was formed through a common ancestor.

The thing about scientific theories is that they are never taught as “fact” unless there is proof that shows that it indeed is fact and it’s reproduceable by other independent parties.

Natural selection couldn’t be tested by Darwin because he acknowledged that it took too long to observe a full ecosystem in growth. That was until scientists were able to watch bacteria evolve and mutate over their lifetimes, and until full research grants were given to teams of scientists to observe flora and fauna over the years to prove the theory.

Leah, we share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn’t “come” from them.

I don’t really want to get into a discussion on this topic, but this Doonesbury explains what many people believe pretty well:

http://fog.com/pix/doonesbury4.jpg

Uuuugh. No one would deny that through selective breeding minature poodles came from poodles, yet will still have both.

I made you all, and I plan to make you all into a nice stew, so watch yo back! hehe

You’re a bit backwards there, hemming…

A scientist comes up with a hypothesis, and Then they go through tests and find data that proves their hypothesis. As soon as it’s proven and reproduceable so that the hypothesis is no longer a subjective abstract idea, it becomes a theory.

The theory is submitted to other research organizations, and they all independently run their own tests and remain skeptical until they can prove it themselves. If everyone agrees, the theory becomes a Law.

A theory can remain ongoing while more and more evidence is gathered, both for those that propose the theory and those that remain skeptical. The balance of ideas continues until further postulates are made or until someone can disprove it or find a better idea.

The only things taught as fact are actual processes that have been proven, and are taught with enough objective evidence to allow people to learn about it and understand it fully.

This might help

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind’s origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man’s evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed “survival of the fittest” or “elimination of the weakest.”

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

This might help

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the “tree of life.” Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called “convergence” in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The “missing links” are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate “life-or-death” determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolut…

Uh, they do…it’s called the Theory of Evolution. There are no other scientific methods to explore at the moment.

And that last paragraph from the “allaboutscience” christian website is absolutely ridiculous. The ’scrutiny’ only comes from those that haven’t fully looked into evolution and natural selection.

If you are trying to bridge this into a “why don’t they teach Creationism, too?” argument, the truth is that it’s just not science and has no business in a science classroom. Philosophy is another class altogether.

Marconius wrote:
If you are trying to bridge this into a “why don’t they teach Creationism, too?” argument, the truth is that it’s just not science and has no business in a science classroom. Philosophy is another class altogether.

I definitely agree.

I agree, that it is important that schools reinforce with children that evolution is a theory, not a fact.

However, it is also important that people realize that virtually *all* we know about the world *is* a theory. Evolution is not special in this regard.

You probably learned in math class that “parallel lines never intersect”. This is NOT a fact. It is a THEORY. There are entire branches of theoretical geometry that explore what happens if you assume that parallel lines do intersect. (Interestingly, most of the math problems work out pretty much the same when you do.)

I think people would make better decisions and develop better critical thinking skills across the board if they learned to explore alternate possibilities just in general.

They do make it clear. The very fact that it’s called a Theory is enough to tell you that it’s…well…a theory.

Certainly there are other theories, though clearly not as popular. How about “random chance”, as an example? (The molecules just fell together in the shape of animals by happenstance.)

Scientifically, evolution and natural selection are the only explanations so far, with several postulates about our biological origins. Evolution and Natural selection have absolutely Nothing to do with our actual origins as life on this planet. They are merely observations of the progression of species. They are the only current explanations about the observed progression of species that tie into uncovered fossils.

Philosophically, every religion or line of philosophical thought has an idea about creation and the origins of life. They don’t tie into evolution at all.

There is NO science in creationism, as much as they want to say they have some. Creationism is Not a science because it all hinges on a subjective idea of a higher creator and relies on ideas and ‘faith’ that cannot be proven by any means. It’s fine as a philosophy, but not a science.

nickthatisnttakenye wrote:
You probably learned in math class that “parallel lines never intersect”. This is NOT a fact. It is a THEORY. There are entire branches of theoretical geometry that explore what happens if you assume that parallel lines do intersect. (Interestingly, most of the math problems work out pretty much the same when you do.)

That’s not a fact? Butbut… math is so concrete and precise, it’s what I love about it.

I’m fascinated.

Well, you asked if there was a Creation Science, and I answered.

All in all, if there were any theories apart from evolution and natural selection and random chance that explained the progression of species that had enough proof to be taught with facts, it would be taught.

As soon as one comes out, the teaching curricula will adjust themselves accordingly in science classes.

Oh, I love mathematics. But if you think back to algebra or geometry class, all postulates by definition are assumed without proof. This means, as a thought exercise, it is conceivable to devise mathematical systems where the opposite assumption is true. Many of these alternative systems of mathematics are quite workable.

For example, the kind of geometry we all know-and-love where parallel lines don’t intersect is called Euclidian geometry. But in eliptical or Riemannian geometry, there are no parallel lines at all… they all eventually intersect. This has other strange side effects, like the sum of the angles of a triangle *doesn’t* equal 180 in this type of geometry. People studying manifolds as well as general relativity use this kind of geometry a lot. I ran into it studying spherical harmonics, which is a popular technique for rendering realistic shadows in video games.

I was lucky that several of my math teachers were very interested in other forms of mathematics. I think kids could learn much more much faster if they realized it was okay to explore ideas beyond what is taught in class.

Hey Marco,

Can you define “Progression of Species” for me?

This might help

What is a Scientific Fact?

Facts must not be believed for what they are, but for what they explain.

It is said that half of the information in a science textbook is outdated within a few decades. So what then constitutes a scientific fact? From the point of view of outdated science textbooks, it can be concluded that biology is a historical science, i.e., a scientific fact has a history and could not be understood without understanding its history. The changing knowledge in science is the result of refutations or the falsification of a theory (see Karl Popper).

What has not been refuted can be considered a scientific fact. This is a functional definition and pays tribute to the ‘fact’ that knowledge changes with time, and it is exactly this historical starting point that will be adhered to most rigorously here. When looking beyond the physical sciences, theories often lack mathematical formalism. So how do we get hold of a fact? What is there that defines the relationship between hypothesis, experiment and theory?

http://www.whatislife.com/education/f…

The progression of species is simply what it means…a species of flora or fauna that progresses with different traits over a long period of time.

Animals developing different bone shapes to adapt to their surroundings; plants developing tannin production glands in order to save themselves from being stripped for food by herbivores; the progression of the hominid species, producing skeletons that allowed for bipedal movement over time, skulls that were able to encase larger brains, the addition of longer legs to adapt to running and the further separation of carpals and tarsals; bacteria developing resistance to man-made drugs in order to make it’s chances of surviving and reproducing higher.

Thanks for replying, and that’s pretty much what I expected you to say. Can you come up with any examples where in this progression information was actually added to the genetic code? In all the mutations that I can think of (admittedly, not many) information was scrambled or deleted alltogether…

Sure thing! New research on HIV shows that people who are resistant to AIDS happen to carry an unusual genetic mutation on gene CCR5.

Historical research had deducted that this mutation first arose around the time of the bubonic plague, and people who are less susceptible to AIDS are more likely to be descendents of people who survived the black plague.

Well, there are man-made insertions, and natural insertions can occur via radiation or exposure to certain complex organic compounds. Basically, if anything acts as a plasmid and it gains access to the nucleus of a cell, it will be able to graft the DNA it’s carrying onto any open genes…either adding on or excising sections of the DNA itself just before it’s copied.

Scientists have been studying polymorphisms in order to find exactly where in our DNA structure we split off from the chimpanzee family:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi…

http://www.geneticorigins.org/pv92/al…

Wtf :S Why was my reply removed? Those games are legal…

It added absolutely nothing to the thread and was completely pointless.

I know, it was also stupid, is that breaching the TOS though?

England had a plague and so many thousands perished. The survivors offspring were just tested due to our advanced technology and they had a gene that prevented them from getting the plague.

Offspring differ in slight ways is easy to see today. A man now who has no hair on his chest can remember his grandfather having a lots. How many teens are taller than their parents?

I personally do not believe the evolution theory of ape to man but I do understand Darwins ideas. Personally I believe man is a seperate species and always was.

A wolf domesticated over the years and purposely cross bred, has produced a poodle not a cat with an extra dna thread.

Darwinism is a theory, but it being based on a reproduceable observation is what bases it more on fact, when Creationism hinges on the subjective/unobservable basis of there existing some form of a higher being/creator/god.

Science is all based on observation and making logical steps to the next discovery. It’s a field of skepticism, and remains so until all points have been thought out or tested. It is very rare that a Theory actually makes it into a Law, especially with the advent of new technologies allowing for faster discoveries, testing and communication.

And once again, Darwinism has nothing at all to do with the origins of Life. I seriously hope that people can pull at least That away from this conversation.

Right, it’s not about convincing anyone in terms of Creationism. It’s not a viable option to ‘compete’ with Darwinism and evolution in the realm of education simply because it is indeed a philosophy. It requires that form of faith, whereas evolution is directly tangible.

A Theory remains as such until it is widely determined as being a Law when the events in the theory consistently occur if certain conditions are present. In time, after enough observed generations of flora and fauna have been recorded, there will be enough evidence to solidify evolution into a Law.

As I previously stated, it takes a long time to gather evidence for evolution since you have to observe multiple generations of lifeforms to gather data. With enough time, there’ll be enough accrued evidence to prove the succession of traits of species and adaptation.

It seems like you are assuming a lot there, Marco! I propose that science is of limited use when contemplating historical events.

Furthermore, I’d still like to see evidence of a mutation that actually added information to the genetic code that added beneficial physical attributes to an organism. To put a fine point on it, I’d actually like to see some evidence of evolution at work. The HIV example doesn’t cut it for me…

Why the hell did you substitute Z for S in that?

There are no other options than Evolution for the discussion of the adaptation of animals and natural selection. If anything else arises in the realm of science that competes with Evolution, then it will be taught as well. No bias here, there are just no other choices to be taught in science apart from random chance, which is discussed as well.

There’s nothing for the children to choose. There are many, many facts for evolution that are taught, and the children are taught that it is indeed a Theory, no matter what you believe (having been a former recent student in touch with the educational systems of state and nation, I know this to be true). They are taught how the evidence was gathered and how the facts were obtained through later methods of study. They are taught orders and taxonomy of flora and fauna, how species are created and destroyed within particular systems, and how traits are passed on from one organism to the next.

Evolution is always taught as a precursor to genetics, since it heavily relies on genetic fact.

If you are going to act silly about this, I’m just going to close the topic for being an utter waste of time.

Ignoring the obvious such as drug-resistant bacteria or the simple success of the common flu–an organism with one of the highest known natural mutation rates–here are some more examples of mutations in larger plants and animals that have positive side-effects…

Bully Whippets. The mutation gives the dog massively increased muscle mass, and makes them faster. When first discoved in the 1800s, they were then intentionally bred for racing, although nowdays many people consider it cheating since the genetic mutation gives them an unfair advantage over normal dogs:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/1…

Similar mutations have been induced in the laboratory in mice, and have occurred naturally in cattle, sheep and humans. This is a myostatin mutation; *not* to be confused with multi-chromosome abnormalities like XXY females–which may also produce superior sports performance (and are hence banned from female Olympic competition, despite female genetalia) but may lead to sterility.

Phenom Shepards\Panda Shepards. A breed of German Shephard prized by some for their beautiful white markings, which arose from a mutation with a single animal:
http://www.pandashepherds.com/

Boston Fern. Now popular as a houseplant, the Boston Fern is a natural mutation of sword fern that arose in the 1800s:
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/housepla…

Actually, after reading this hole post I should not reply because of my own observations on the evo of this topic…

First: Creationism, proof of; All living things have D/RNA. No inanimate never living matériel does. All cells follow the same principals and functions across all species.

Second: Odd fact; We are more closely related to pigs the monkeys. e.g. Pigs have a much higher compatibility with us. Harts, stomachs, kidneys, and a few other parts of a PIG can be used in humans. Much less compatibilities in monkeys.

Third: (this is the not nice one, no offense intended. I am a stickler for this sorta thing. Call it a nigly og mine.)

Quote “Because it is fact…our DNA matches theirs and was formed through a common ancestor.

The thing about scientific theories is that they are never taught as “fact” unless there is proof that shows that it indeed is fact and it’s reproduceable by other independent parties.”

2nd quote “They do make it clear. The very fact that it’s called a Theory is enough to tell you that it’s…well…a theory.”

I take devils advocate in a lot of discussions. My personal beliefs are not going to be posted here. I just did not see any proof of cretinism (proof being subjective) and think it is funny that regardless of DNA finding people still think it is monkeys we are closest to. There are some educated poster in here. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. But, I find self contradictories a sign that a discussion has turned argument.

Sully, the existence of DNA and RNA isn’t proof for creationism…you are just stating a fact and are applying it to creationism through an unknown link. Don’t really see what it proves there.

Our DNA highly resembles that of Chimpanzees and those of the Ape family. Our body characteristics are matched along with certain parts of the entire genome. You don’t seem to be fully reading what I’ve been saying.

Sharing DNA with them is indicative of coming from a common ancestor, and is one of the facts used as evidence for evolutionary theory.

Pigs happen to have DNA structures that mimic parts of our own:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…

Within any system that utilizes the same resources, you are bound to have elements within that system match one another on occasion, especially when it comes down to the way organisms react to the formation of their DNA.

My point exactly.

The existence of D/RNA in all living things is as much proof of creationism as DNA similarities from us to monkeys is proof of evo.

The real point is that even in science PROOF is a very subjective term. Proof to one group of scientists is only speculation to another. It is only the group with more money to spend on advertising and curriculum donations that get known by the public.

Changing your mined is not my objective. Helping you see the frame of thought of the other side and why attempting to convert them is futile is. A friend once told me “You want an example of repetitive stubbornness? Look in the mirror and you will see why they will not listen.”

I saw it was the same reason I would not agree with them. Belief. Based in science or religion, it does not matter.