Would this theory work?

Question

If you simplified the evolution theory down to one sentance: "Life changes to suit it's environment". Wouldn't that be undesputible? I mean we have proof for that much. And that allows the rest to fall into place, and the only limit placed on life is what the environment sets for it. I'm just asking if this makes any sense at all.

If you simplified the evolution theory down to one sentance: "Life changes to suit it's environment". Wouldn't that be undesputible? I mean we have proof for that much. And that allows the rest to fall into place, and the only limit placed on life is what the environment sets for it. I'm just asking if this makes any sense at all.

I have a creationist friend who thinks evolution is total BS and I have been trying to get the theory down to it's purest base truth therbye destroying his entire argument. If you can suggest a better one i would really appreciate it.

Answer 1

I think that you give is an excellent definition of what the word "evolution means" ... it means "change in response to environment."

The only thing I would add is that it is specifically change *at the population level* ... individuals also change in response to environment (a cat living in the wild will have a very different body than the same cat living in a domestic environment) ... but that is not "evolution".

But other than that, what you have described is an excellent definition of "evolution." It's just "change."

Darwin's theory of natural selection goes one step further to describe HOW that change happens in nature. But even there, creationists have a hard time disputing this, and will reluctantly admit that that does occur ... although they will insist that this is "adaptation, not evolution." But that is just mincing words. Regardless of what you call it ... that process of slow change in response to environment is undeniable.

Where creationists *disagree* is on whether this same process (change in response to environment) can cause new species (what evolution people call "speciation" and what creationists call "macroevolution"). *That* is where your creationist friend will draw the line.

The answer that creationists always seem unable to "get":

Three words: branching, branching, branching.

A new species is always the result of one species branching into two. How does this happen? When two subpopulations of a species get genetically isolated ... a migration, a river bisecting a valley, a continent splitting apart, etc.

It is after two populations become isolated, that the same old process of slow change in response to environment can produce two slightly different organisms that cannot interbreed. They are then forever freed to change in completely different ways ... and two slightly different organisms become two *very* different organisms.

Answer 2

the way an concept is formed and is universally often taking place takes time. The video is extremely informative yet i'll describe how a hypothesis turns into an concept. 1st data are amassed up. those data are irrefutable yet they don't clarify a technique or a sort of occurrence. Ex. The sky is blue. fact. even though it does not clarify how the sky grew to alter into blue. 2nd Step is to hold at the same time greater data to sort an determination hypothesis. There are 2 varieties of hypothesis null and determination. To simplify the null hypothesis says the alternative hypothesis is fake. Ex. The sky is blue because of the fact God made it that way. it truly is the alternative hypothesis. considering that God isn't a fact nor may be shown the alternative hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is often taking place that "God did not make the sky blue". third Step is that if an determination hypothesis is authentic then it truly is examined repeatedly. Ex. Erik Erikson psychosocial developmental concept. The hypothesis to Erik Erikson's concept is then examined repeatedly. curiously the concept is precise. 4th as quickly as theories are examined repeatedly it substitute into often taking place by means of the scientific community. even though it does not recommend an concept is often a hundred% the ultimate option. If some scientists come across some flaws the concept slowly turns into changed. Ex. Freud concept of penis envy in little females. This concept might have been often taking place a protracted time in the past interior the toddler tiers of psychology yet in as we talk's worldwide it sort of feels ridiculous. concept is examined repeatedly. it truly is modified slowly and supplies a powerful rationalization of issues. in simple terms because of the fact some thing is unknown does not recommend it truly is an act of God. it truly is a hypothesis yet to be proposed, examined, and alter into concept. technology is often evolving.

Answer 3

The problem is that "Life changes to suit it's environment"(sic) simply isn't how evolution works, though it IS how many proponents of "Creationism" seem to mistakenly interpret what would be obvious to them if they thought about it... The reality is that there is "natural variation" within any population, which includes 'normal' variations (taller, shorter, fatter, thinner, etc...) along with mutations (born with extra teeth, born albino, etc.). Whenever these variations give an organism a significant advantage over the rest of the population, they are reinforced by 'survival of the most fit'.

Answer 4

It would work for the same gullable people who believe that homosexuality is a choice.

I know grown gay men now who were playing with dolls when they were 2 years old - even though their parents discouraged it. And they were playing dress-up at three - even though their parents discouraged it. Do you you REALLY think they made a choice at that young age regarding their sexuality. Please.

You said (in your answer to another question), "People aren't born gay, they decide to be. It all really comes down to the individual and the parenting skills of the parents." Do you know any gay people at all?

So - you're asking here if your theory about evolution makes sense. But I'm telling you that your theory about homosexuality makes NO SENSE at all.

I am well aware of the fact that responding in this way is against the Y! Answers rules and regulations. And you'll probably report me. But - I am growing so weary of coming across people like you - who (in my opinion) provide ignorant, opinionated answers - and then don't allow anybody to contact them.

Feel free to respond in one of my open questions. I won't report you.

Answer 5

We can observe such changes at a behavioral level, however, the genetic adaptation suggested by neo-Darwinian theory cannot be observed as it requires much greater timescales.

You should also note that many people who argue against evolution do not do so from a 'rational scientific' basis.

Answer 6

Well there are two parts to the theory of evolution, survival and natural selection, you've made no mention of the selection part.

Answer 7

No