Evolution
Evolution, in very simple terms it's slow biological change over billions of years.
Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Evolution is fact, The Long-Term E. coli Experiment is observing the evolution of 12 strains of originally identical E. coli organisms. Over twenty years and 50,000 generations, evolution hasn't stopped in the experiment once. So, if it's been demolished, why is it still happening? Arguments on the internet where you believe one person over another does not overturn the reality of the world and our scientific understanding. Evolution has NOT been debunked EVER.
And since evolution not only has overwhelming evidence supporting it, and no evidence anywhere contradicts it, and it meets the standards of the scientific method, IT IS SCIENCE.
Darwin was heavily criticized. Heavily criticized by the religious, sure. Criticism by fellow scientists is important for scientific discoveries and consensus. But that criticism died out when Darwin's arguments were validated over and over and over again, when new evidence was discovered. This is how science works. If your idea can't stand on its own against criticism, and there's nothing to do but support it but your own claims, it's not science. Creationists have yet to present there evidence, nor will they attempt to test their ideas for public scrutiny. Because its not science.
Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Evolution is fact, The Long-Term E. coli Experiment is observing the evolution of 12 strains of originally identical E. coli organisms. Over twenty years and 50,000 generations, evolution hasn't stopped in the experiment once. So, if it's been demolished, why is it still happening? Arguments on the internet where you believe one person over another does not overturn the reality of the world and our scientific understanding. Evolution has NOT been debunked EVER.
And since evolution not only has overwhelming evidence supporting it, and no evidence anywhere contradicts it, and it meets the standards of the scientific method, IT IS SCIENCE.
Darwin was heavily criticized. Heavily criticized by the religious, sure. Criticism by fellow scientists is important for scientific discoveries and consensus. But that criticism died out when Darwin's arguments were validated over and over and over again, when new evidence was discovered. This is how science works. If your idea can't stand on its own against criticism, and there's nothing to do but support it but your own claims, it's not science. Creationists have yet to present there evidence, nor will they attempt to test their ideas for public scrutiny. Because its not science.
Copyright ©2012 - 2017 Gphhawkins Rationalist Society. - All Rights Reserved
