why is evolution such an important scientific concept?

Answer 1

A theory has to reflect the real world. It has to relate all the observable facts at every level. The importance of Darwin's work is the mechanism of change. He related the selection people use to breed fancy pigeons and livestock to the forces at work on animals in the wild. He also avoided a common error. He realized natural selection has no order, direction, or goal unlike the selective breeding we practice.
We use this tool to evaluate behavior patterns that recur across many organisms. Why does this action benefit and promote fitness but that action doesn't, it reduces fitness.
We can use this theory to predict future behavior. An example is restoration/preservation of endangered species.
Behavior modeling is of use in understanding repeating patterns of behavior seen in many species. An example is there are many mammals that undertake long arduous terrestrial migrations every year. Our understanding how environmental changes will impact their migration corridors will be based, in part, on understanding the general behaviors of all the migrating species. How do we weigh the factors? Migrating ungulates may follow seasonally abundant resources, or seasonal resources of exceptional quality, and/or avoid non-migratory predators. Group migration has costs through parasite and disease transmission and benefits through predator swamping. All these are the factors that effect the reproductive success of a species and its chances at avoiding extinction without considering the habitat infringement humans inflict. Without understanding migration pressures we wont reserve adequate space. Then survival of species like the pronghorn antelope, caribou, kob, & chiru can not be assured and the species may be lost.
Darwin's theories are the tools by which we understand complex animal behaviors. Understanding their behavior may give us the arguments to preserve adequate resources in order to preserve species.
Slugs seem simpler than snails, but snails are the ancestors of slugs. All animal evolution uses the basic torus form; mouth at one end anus at the other. Snails still need to excrete, but this is not good inside a shell. So snails contort or twist in their growth with the left half dominating the right half. They put in a 180 so the anus and mouth both face out of the shell. They are stuck with the same basic body tube we have with a slight reorganization just so they can wear a shell as protection. Now the slug. They quit the shell but are stuck with a tiny vestigial shell and contorting of body form. They still contort but then they de-tort as they grow. A result of this contorting/de-contorting is that the right-hand-side organs are reduced. They have to grow then shed the shell as they mature. Their vestigial process is very costly and not simple yet slugs appear simpler than snails. They are often called snails without shells with no understanding of the cost they paid to remove their shell. This is all observable through DNA sequence, developmental observation and fossil evidence. This is all a fine list of facts but how did it happen. What benefit did the slug get to offset the cost of going through all those growth steps.
Shells are better defensive structures in water where the snail evolved. They are buoyancy balanced so are easier to move there. Once the snail moved onto land the shell offered less advantage. Initially the shell worked against drying allowing the snail out of the water. Animals evolved that eat snails (many rodents, birds, reptiles, insects & even other snails). They simply crush, break or drill thru the shell. Now the shell was a handicap.
So slugs evolved thicker mucus that coats their bodies for defense and to block evaporation. Slugs can squeeze into crevasses to escape predatory beetles or if bitten the beetles get gummed mouth parts. They are nocturnal and hide in the soil or under the plants they eat to avoid drying.

Darwin's exquisite logic: "Rudimentary organs may be compared with the letters in a word, still retained in the spelling, but become useless in the pronunciation, but which serve as a clue in seeking for its derivation. On the view of descent with modification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated, and can be accounted for by the laws of inheritance."

Answer 2

"We all know that." This would be one of those statements that falls under the broad and general heading of "lies and vague definition of concepts." Let's move on, though, shall we? * * * "First of all, it is presumptuous to say that particular organ is vestigial. You can not simply assume the function of the organ..." You mean like we assumed the function of the heart, the lungs, the stomach, the intestines, the mouth, nose, and ears, the arteries and veins, the muscles, the brain, the... Sometimes we do get these things wrong, but a great deal of the time assuming an anatomical feature does what it appears to do ends up being correct, so it's still the safe bet. * * * "The appendix is ​​an organ that evolutionists said that he had no apparent function..." No... doctors and biologists said it had no apparent function. Whether they accepted the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to that pronouncement. Evolutionary biologists used this consensus as an additional piece of evidence in favor of their Theory, a fact which has not been invalidated (see below). They also happened to be correct in that assertion. The appendix does not have an APPARENT function. * * * "In 1999, a professor of physiology in Scientific American said: "For years it was thought that the appendix had a very little physiological function. However, we now know that the appendix serves an important function in the fetus and young adults. " The appendix plays important roles in fetal growth and is part of the immune system of an adult." First, much like National Geographic, Scientific American is a pop magazine, not a peer reviewed journal. The information contained in it has not necessarily been scrutinized or reviewed for accuracy. As such, it is inappropriate to refer to it as a source during an intellectual debate. This is true for any scientific discipline, not just biology. Second, should it be confirmed, that's fantastic. Thank you for providing us with even more evidence evolution is possible. Instead of demonstrating that an organ can merely wither away to a vestige and eventually disappear, which involves only diminishing functionality, you have just demonstrated that it is possible for an organ to change functions completely, shifting from a digestive organ to part of the immune system. That proves just how plastic and adaptable biological systems are. Not only have you failed to prove evolution untrue, but you have just wiped away two of the biggest objections Creationists, ID proponents, and other evolution deniers have long made... that new features cannot be added to an organism but only lost, and that a biological structure cannot successfully change its function completely without causing the catastrophic failure of the organism. You've just demonstrated that not only are both things possible, but that we have a known example of them having happened in our own species. I'm thrilled to hear it. So, moving on to your questions... * * * 1) Because journalists can babble anything they want. Medical schools must stick to teaching the confirmed facts, and may not simply teach whatever one researcher suddenly claims to be true. In science, something doesn't become accepted fact based on one study. It becomes fact after that study has been peer-reviewed for possible flaws, it is scrutinized against alternative explanations, and then retested and the findings confirmed, preferably through a number of different means that all yield the same conclusion through different methodologies (thereby demonstrating the conclusion is being reached because it is true, not because a single methodology is biased toward it). You have not put forth sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof. 2) False evidence is replaced, all the time. If your example of the appendix is what you're relying on, then see above for why the official explanation has not changed. If you're referring to something else, then you need to provide that specific example so it can be addressed. This is another assertion that falls under the broad and general heading of "lies and vague definition of concepts". 3) One does not have to rely on false evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, every time it comes to light a particular piece of the Theory is inaccurate or incorrect, the specifics of the Theory are revised to take into account the new evidence. It may take time for this new information to be fully disseminated, but to suggest the Theory doesn't work because some people catch up to the current information more slowly than others is like suggesting antibiotics don't work because some doctors don't get the latest drugs as soon as others do. * * * Would you care to try another half-baked, already well-refuted argument to see if it will stump us?

Answer 3

Because it is *the* unifying concept of Biology.

As stated in the famous quote by T. Dobzhansky:
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

It is what unifies genetics between species. It unifies fossil evidence with DNA evidence. It explains why certain features appear in developing embryos and then disappear. It explains why we have structures in our bodies that we don't use (vestigial structures that have a clear use in an ancestor). It explains why some structures can be seen in different species, that has very different functions (e.g. the bone-for-bone matching between the human hand, the bat's wing, or the forelimb or a mole, horse, cheetah, or wolf). It explains why whales have hipbones, why dolphin embryos have leg buds, or sometimes are born with them. It explains why viruses develop immunity to antivirals (even in the same patient), or why bacteria can gain immunity from antibiotics or pests from pesticides. It explains why you get a new flu shot every year. And on, and on, and on.

In short, if Biology is a matter of putting together a puzzle, evolution is the peak at the picture on the cover. It lets *so* many things fit into place.

Answer 4

It explains the big picture, it isn't simply about the evolution of man, although thats where most people place it. A great example is bacteria, its becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics, thus evolving. The mechanism of which is extremely important.

I hope you see there is significance in a lot of evo biology, even though the classes can be a pain!

Answer 5

Because Science is about how things change.....and evolution is about how people have changed, evolved, gotten better through the years. Of course, religious people don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Answer 6

forget it. who said monkeys can evolve in to nenderthalman. it is completely rubbish to say evolution at all took place. don't read even bit of the above topic just delet it. crazy darwin and crazy beleivers in it. LOL

Answer 7

Uh, DER DER DER! Maybe because scientifically, that is how we become what we are today!

Answer 8

This website says it better than I could. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/UT/74_evolution_affirmed_in_utah_9_7_2005.asp