Evolutionists or anyone else perpetrating as one, please explain the theory of evolution.?

Question

Please, give me the gist of what you think it is.

Why do you personally support it?

Optional: What do you know that supports it validity.

I personally don't agree with it, I sincerely want to know how anyone can?

I actually I am very familiar with this subject. Pretty sure more so than most of you.
I want to know why those who support it support it. Just answer the question, it is simple enough. Unless you support something you are not familiar with. In that case don't be so quick to judge anyone else's intelligence.

Answer 1

An extremely basic explanation is that life evolves to adapt to its environment. There have been cases of genetic mutation of species that evolve or change to match their environment. Do some research on the Nylon Bug if you need an example of proof that genetic mutation CAN happen. Or the mutation of a sperm and egg turning into a fetus. As different species adapt and mutate, they can branch off to become something else. A fish grows legs to become an amphibian; an amphibian grows the capability to breathe air, etc etc etc. This is not a quick process, but something that takes millions of years.

I personally support it because it makes the most sense to me. There isn't anything else that is nearly as logical as evolution. If someone were to point something out that were to rival the theory of evolution, I'd be sure to study and understand it before jumping to conclusions.

EDIT: If you're basing your concept of evolution off Darwin's theories, then it's not wonder you don't think it's accurate. A lot has happened to the theory of evolution since Darwin introduced the idea. He said that aquired traits can be passed on which isn't true. It's genetics that are passed on, not the learned ability to jump higher, for example.

Answer 2

Proof of evolution is found in the banana, amazingly. The wild banana was domesticated around 5-7 thousand years ago, and for that whoel time the banana has transformed or evolved into the yellow tab fruit that we have come to love.

Dinosaurs are another great example. Although the oldest living relatives are crocs and gators, there are still fossilized remains of ancient gators that measured up to 40 feet and 5 feet tall. After their extinction from a massive expulsion of methane from the mantle, they were forced to breathe much less, and thus are now the 20 foot crocs you see today.

Scientists have known for some time that other animals are capable of learning patterns, such as monkeys, parrots, dogs, cats, mice, rats, dolphins, sharks, Shamu the Killer Whale... the list goes on. From there, we can safely assume that, given the right tools, primates can start a fire in the same manner that the older version of the human did some 70 to 100 thousands years ago, and even beyond that.

Grass never was dominant on land in Pangaea (all the seven continents used to be connected) until the continents started to separate. Until the domestication of grass, there were particularly trees and bushes, with water holes everywhere, the same areas where grass evolved from small hairs the size of a pinhole to the blades that you see today.

Whales are interesting creatures. They have claw-like "hands" that proves that they used to be land and water-dwelling animals. Due to their massive size, they have evolved to being strictly water-based with a blowhole on top that they can breathe through when they surface.

Or, you can just think we're made of clay.

Edit: So, this is an intelligence game, huh? So you think you're smarter than the next woman or man? I laugh in the face of evil.

Answer 3

Evolution works at the population level, not the individual level. Keep that in mind. You have what's called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. This theory states that if it's 5 assumptions are met, the population is not evolving. The assumptions are:

1) no mutation
2) no genetic drift
3) infinite population size
4) no natural selection
5) no immigration

When looking at the population at the genetic level we can look at heterozygosity of the alleles and decide which of the rules is being violated by patterns in the alleles, e.g. a lot of inbreeding (non-random mating) would be indicated by many homozygous alleles.

The most famous mechanism of evolution is of course, Darwin's natural selection. This states that there is variation within a population of individuals, e.g. finch beak thickness. That variation is heritable to a degree. Now there are environmental factors that would make one type of individual better suited to the environment, e.g. a drought makes insects a scarce resource so the finches with thicker beaks for cracking seeds will on average leave more offspring than their fine beaked cohorts. If this continues over generation, the mean fitness, i.e. the average beak thickness will increase, altering the population because more of the thick beaked birds are leaving thick beaked offspring. At the same time a few of the thinner beaked birds will discover a new insect food source that they hadn't utilized before. Perhaps these insects are under bark accessible through small holes in which case birds with longer thin beaks would perform better at this new task. The shape of the beak of these birds would be pushed in a diiferent direction by this new selection pressure. These kind of changes happen often and over time you can see how animals can change greatly. Natural selection doesn't just shape phenotypes but behaviors as well.

This is a fairly straight forward of what natural selection is.

I support evolution because it is supported by evidence, yes, evidence. Fossil records show transitional forms of species, giving us snapshots of evolution. Homologous structures as well as DNA can provide information on the relationhips between groups of animals and how they changed. We can observe populations and make predictions about the changes that will occur, testing them with experiments. There has been a great deal of research done and there is an enormous amount of literature for anyone who desires to understand further.

Answer 4

I don't think this question should be asked in the science category, it's a perfectly legitimate religious enquiry. I do believe in evolution - I think we ahve a lot of hard science to back it up. There are the obvious fossils and bone fragments, but there's also the mitochondria which were never part of the human cell, but became adapted as we needed to create more energy to sustain life (this is why the mitochondria are 'maternal' that is, they have seperate DNA from the rest of your body that links your matriarchal lineage.) There is also the fact that human embroys look very much like other mammals/animals. For example, the gills and tailbone, which eventually disappear and become vestigial.

However, since you are a religious person I will answer with my interpretation of creationism (I was raised in a Lutheran family and went to parochial schools my entire life). I don't know why there has to be an either/or proposition. Very few things in life are as simple as a dichotomy. I think that God spurred on evolution. In Genesis, God said that he had no concept of time. So creating the world in 7 days could, in all actuality, be a million years. I think that God brought abuot the conditions that made evolution possible. The odds of evolution spontaneously happening are slim to none, so in my mind there was some definite divine intervention.

Answer 5

This may sound trite, but think of how and why automobiles have evolved. Beginning from a simple steam engine on wheels, cars have become sport cars, station wagons, economy cars, and SUVs. Each model type fills a niche market. Engines are smaller and more efficient than they used to be. Air bags and anti-skid brakes are common now. Window side vents died out. Auto makers continually try out new designs and innovations. The ones that work (sell), survive to be included in future generations.

Evolution by natural selection works pretty much the same. The changes are more random, and the time scale is much longer, but to sum it up, nature goes with what works. I support evolution theory because it makes perfect sense.

Answer 6

The scientific dictionary definition of evolution is "The change of allele frequencies in a population over time. This means that evolution is the fact that the percentages of genes in a population change over time. This is due factors such as mutation , natural selection and genetic drift.

Mutation is the fact that genes change do to various errors in copying, and environmental factors.

Natural selection is the fact that some allele's are favored over others leading to a increase or decrease of allele frequency over time. It is actually natural Selection which is the mechanism responsible for the increase in complexity in biological systems. Each Selection event ( out of quadrillions in history ) has the potential of transfering a single bit of information from the environment into the biological system. This is why we are so complex!

Genetic drift is the change in frequency which can occur randomly especially in small population sizes.

Examples of evolution are widespread, Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, Changes in dog breeds are just the more obvious examples.

Fundamentalists often reject modern science. The rejection of evolution is only one example of the rejection of reality by those who would take the story telling of ancient goat herders literally.

Fundamentalists often make absurd claims trying to prove their claim the earth is 6000 years old. Often this involves taking something which changes periodically and making the wrong assumption that it does not vary.

An extreme example of this type of fallacy would be taking the fact it is 40 degrees outside today and was 80 degrees outside last July and then extrapolating claiming the earth could not be more than a year or two old or we would have roasted.

Fundamentalist fallacies falling into this category include:
Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field ( the magnetic field is constantly fluctuating and reverses direction from time to time )

Or else they take something which has both inflow and outflow and only look at one of these. An example would be noting that snow falls each winter, but we are not buried in snow therefore the earth must only be a year or two old.

Fundamentalist fallacies falling into this category include:
Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere ( they ignore helium escape )
Polonium Halos ( they ignore polonium is itself a decay product )
Population Statistics ( they actually forget people used to die much earlier )
Ocean Salt content

Most creationist fallacies fall in one of these two categories. To knowledgable people these arguments seem laughable yet they persist.

Answer 7

First of all it’s hard to give the "gist" of evolution. It's like giving the "gist" of relativity, there are a million supporting parts but I’ll try to keep it simple.

The basic theory of evolution is that a replicater better suited to the task of making copies of itself will make more copies of itself. That is in its most basic sense what the theory of evolution describes, and it seems almost fundamental.

Also these replicaters over time will have differences in successive copies, this can be through random mutation, or the blending of genes through sexual reproduction. And if these mutations or changes cause a replicater to be more able to reproduce itself, there will over time be more of that mutation in the population. And over enough time these mutations can lead to speciation.

There is plenty of evidence to support its validity, the study of mitochondrial DNA has allowed us to trace the path of evolution back through our ancestors. Not just humans mind you, we can trace the back ancient ancestors of whales, pigeons, or termites.

We have seen speciation occur in bacteria on a regular basis. We have also seen evidence for speciation among what are known as ring species such as the Herring Gull or the Ensatina Salamander.

You say you don't agree with it, which is fine but the VAST majority of the world and the scientific community do agree with it. Evolution has answered more scientific questions than almost any scientific theory ever. If you disagree the burden of proof is on you to air your grievances. Prefably in a scientific journal but if not there how about here at Yahoo Answers. I really am interested in hearing what it is you have to say.

Answer 8

The Theory of Evolution states that the predominance of alleles in the gene pool of life change with time, with alleles becoming more or less common, being removed, or changing into new forms.

The different breeds of dogs are proof that allele changes can happen in a population, and since there is no mechanism that can prevent the accumulation of allele changes, there is no mechanism that can stop two subpopulations from accumulating so many allele differences that they become incapable of procreation.

There is no faith in this, there is evidence for small and large scale changes to the structure of DNA between species as well as the more readily available proof of subspecies for intra-population allele variations.

Answer 9

I support evolution because it is fact. Viruses change over time. This is fact. And a change in a species or gene pool over time is considered the definition of evolution.

I also support the theory of evolution (or what mechanisms drive it and the thought that evolution can lead to new species). I believe that evolution can create and change species. I do because there is a lot of science behind it, and there is no good science to describe any other way.

Answer 10

It is the speciation of animals over time caused by many factors such as genetic drift, isolation, and mutation.

I personally support it because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it.

It's validity has been proven through almost all disciplines of science including paleontology, biology, chemistry, and forensics.

There is very little doubt that evolution occurs, just the exact mechanisms are unknown.


Edit: Why do you question others' intelligence? We have provided what you asked for, yet you still scoff us. I, for one, have little patience for this. Until you plan on having an educated debate and showing some legitimate reason as to why you disagree with me I have no reason to take you seriously.