Has evolution been scientifically proved?
It has
Side Score: 285
|
![]() |
It has not
Side Score: 219
|
|
In Biology a theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that evolution has occurred, does occur, and will continue. Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas. There is a law of gravity, but there is a theory of gravitation. Because in science gravity and gravitation are slightly different. 417 days ago
"Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas." There's a few, Mendel's come to mind. But it's hard to break down something as statistically based as evolution into something with nice algebraic terms. Therefore, evolution has not been scientifically proven. It has been heavily supported by evidence, but this evidence is not substantial enough to "prove" this theory. The question is specifically "Has evolution been scientifically prove[n]?" and the response, even here, is "No." There is no mathematical formula, there is no absolute evidence in its favor. There is reasonable doubt, no matter how little. 134 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
I agreed with you up until "reasonable doubt." The social sciences, which incorporate the confounding input of statistical variability, have something called Statistical Significance. This means when something acts in a predicted way a certain percentage of times, given the sample is large enough, it can be considered reliable enough to base other research on. In other words, when something is accepted by the scientific community at large (which evolution IS, don't let the media deceive you), there is no reasonable doubt about it. Speaking of science reliable enough to base work on, consider the company Monsanto, and others like it. They specialize in breeding (EVOLVING) plants and patenting their genotypes. Pure fucking evil, but obviously based on sound science. Major international corporations base their entire business model on evolution. They have no reason to do this if they are not completely convinced of the reliability of that basis. 66 days ago | Tagged As: It has
Science involves observations, theory, design, testing and predictable outcomes. How does one design test and observe evolution? If the latter is as ubiquitous as Darwin suggested, we should have many transitional species that can be observed in the immediate past not just "long ago and far away". Where for example, are the remains of "mutated" apes that have failed to propagate? All we have is some dubious fossils, the false claim about peppered moths and where bones found far apart, are assumed to be from the one individual (e.g pitdown man). For macro evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. Even then we have two competing theories one of gradual changes over time and SJ Gould's punctuated equilibrium, the sudden appearance of unexplained species. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. An analogy: new computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams. However, some evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different. Evolution therefore is certainly not a given and certainly not "childishly simple" as Dawkins would have us believe. 11 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
The fact that nearly half people think evolution has not been scientifically proven is a proof in itself of how poorly people understand what science is all about. I am inclined to believe that 85% of those who are in favor of evolution know little more than the average high school biology about it. I include myself in that category. As a scientist, I've studied physics not biology. Yet, that little we know make much more sense than any religious alternative. Think about the judeochristian God creating the earth in a seven day creationist marathon or about Brahma starting from a lotus flower or a about the wish list of a native American earth-maker. They are all equal in being legend and myths. Yet, there must be something that people who doubt evolution don't understand and my only answer must be that they simply approach evolution with a close mind, only trying to disproof it. It is too beautiful and simple for the simplest mind not to grasp. So my argument is that if you have not made an honest effort to understand evolution putting aside your religious bias, you cannot have an opinion against it. The mere fact that evolution is taken for granted as truth by every biologists should convince you that science has proven it. Here is a video that give you the basic scientific argument for evolution against creationism: http://www.youtube.com/ 407 days ago
Creationism includes both the beginning of the universe, and the origin of species on Earth. Evolution addresses the latter. (Cosmology addresses the former.) If creationism only said "the universe began when God created it but then who knows where us and the animals came from?" then it would not be in conflict with evolutionary theory. 395 days ago
What evidence is there that universal evolution doesn't exist? The universe constantly changes. Creationism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the creation of the ever expanding universe. One must realize that the books of Genesis were not testimonies by God, and therefore were not revelations to us. A revelation is only a revelation to the individual who received the information directly from God himself. As soon as the person tells someone else that something was revealed to him by God, it can only be hearsay and nothing else. 256 days ago | Tagged As: It has
This isn't the debate about which makes more sense over a seven day creation or evolution, it is one of belief in evolution. Most people on here, dont deny it due to their religion, they do it based on factual information or lack thereof. Just because you believe in this doesnt make it easy to understand. We can all take the concept of, oh, we evolved from organisms and animals, but you have to be able to prove how that happens, which no one can. 140 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
I think it's pretty common knowledge that evolution is a scientific fact, with so much observational evidence to support it that the only reason someone would deny it is either because they didn't understand it, or it went against their specific religious views. I think the only real thing that could be up for debate is the mechanism through which evolution occurs (natural selection), although even this is pretty much scientific fact. So I would say yes; evolution has been scientifically and observationally proven. 417 days ago
Science doesn't do "proof". It identifies the theories which best support all available evidence. Then tries it's damnedest to prove those new theories wrong. Since the theory of evolution manages to be compatible with every scientific observation ever made, not to mention the fact that its principles are used to design vaccines, it has come as close to proof as any scientific theory can. The day evolution is proven wrong is the day I'll go back and check on gravity and atomic theory, too. They're all on equal footing at this point. 232 days ago | Tagged As: As close as science can do
Evolution is proven every year in fact. The influenza virus, it evolves every year and needs new vaccines, people aren't given the same flu vaccine every year, it's needed re-tailoring to fit the existing virus. Same goes with all anti-bacterial medicine, all bacteria is constantly evolving on the lower level, why wouldn't it happen on the higher up level? It just takes longer, it's been seen that evolution existed because different animals are evolved to work better in their environment. Human remains have been found and body structures have changed over the time periods in which they existed. 416 days ago
Evolution is a scientific fact. The change in organisms is absolutely undisputed, and the genetic evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record (as stated by the head of the Human Genome Project, a Christian). The THEORY of evolution, how this change occurs (e.g., by natural selection), is what is unproven. But evolution itself is an established fact. 412 days ago
The theory of evolution has been proven both scientifically and logically. On a scientific level, evolution has been observed within species by scientists since Darwin's own observation in the Galapagos Islands, where birds' beaks had mutated to help them utilize different souces of food. Even today, signs of the trend in "survival of the fittest" are all around us. African Americans, whose ancestors in the United States were the strongest from Africa, brought to the US as slaves, now dominate the sports industry. The children of the best and brightest Asians who were able to immigrate to the US during the 70s-80s now happen to be many of the most brilliant in schools and universities. Its not a coincidence. Just thinking about it for a moment, evolution does, at least at first thought, make sense. Being a programmer, I have seen evolution logically proven as I and others use "code evolution" to evolve our programs. This happens by making copies of the programs and altering some just like creatures mutate, and then combining them two by two to symbolize mating. In the end, we usually end up with about a thousand crap programs and a few super-good programs. Evolution does logically work out, and thus nothing is stopping it from happening in our society. On another note, I would like to clearly point out that just because evolution is a possible process does not mean that life as we know is a result of it. In fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which theorizes that life is the result of evolution, is weak because it fails to explain how life originated, instead addressing only how it developed. I believe that to connect the process of evolution with the question of "how we got here" was a huge leap in logic, and, personally, I'm not a Darwinist. 398 days ago
You most certainly are a Darwinist. "..which theorizes that life is the result of evolution," Evolution underpins the diversity of life. "because it fails to explain how life originated," That's because Darwin's theory is that of natural selection which requires life to work. How life originated in the first place isn't exactly a stretch when you have the facts of evolution in hand. Most probably, it was the increasing probability of randomly sloshing molecules in a 'primordial soup' when the Earth had cooled enough. It may 'simply' be a calculation of how many collisions/conformations of various molecules and time is required to chance upon a self-replicating system. Millions of years+ no doubt. 398 days ago
While a lot of things in science can't necessarily be "proven", evolution and other theories have a lot of strong evidence to support them. A scientific theory is not like other theories. Gravity is considered a theory. It can't be proven to be 100% true, but there is clearly enough evidence that support it for it to be taken as truth. Evolution is in the same boat. There are some undeniable evidence of evolution that exists. We have seen species adapt to the environment and change over time. You can't deny that part of evolution. I wish people would stop assuming that a scientific theory means that its a way that someone thinks and has no real evidence. 371 days ago
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Supporting Evidence:
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
(www.physorg.com)
326 days ago | Tagged As: second law of thermodynamics
Whether or not something is scientifically proven or a theory are simply human conventions that we try to apply to the unexplanable. There are too many natural occurences that we as humans will try to explain and simply fail to explain, which is how I believe creationsim was brought about in the first place. People tried to explain the incomprehensible. 256 days ago | Tagged As: It has
I've studied a lot of Biology and to me evolution has indeed been proved. The way science uses the word "theory" is not the same as the way its used by the general public. The general public uses the word "theory" to describe an assumption, something that may or may not be true, something not proved. Science however, uses it in quite a different context. "Theory" for science is the explanation of how something works. Not an assumption of how it may work, but a thorough and well examined explanation of how it works. Nothing is given the status of a "theory" in science unless it has been tested over and over and over again and proved by other sciences and observation. Take gravity for example. There is the Law of Gravity, which says that things tend to fall downward. Then there is the Theory of Gravity, which explains what Gravity is, what causes it, and how it works. Its not an "assumption" of how it works. Its a proved explanation of it. I have come across many religious people that see evolution as a threat to what they believe. They say it contradicts the theory that God created man. But at no point has the theory of evolution ever claimed to know WHO created the building blocks or the why. In my opinion, there is a way to accept both. If you believe that God created man then evolution is the way by which he went about doing it. What's wrong with that? 47 days ago | Tagged As: It has
Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea! Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure. 17 days ago | Tagged As: It has
Evolution has indeed been scientifically proven. The trick here is to ask ourselves what the constraints of the scientific method is and how that affects our understanding of evolution. I trust the science that proves evolution, what I don't trust is the derivative opinions on why and how it happens. The how is still a very uncertain subject (due to its complexities) and the why (being a philosophical question, requiring value judgments rather than scientific deduction) is outside of the realm of the scientific method. That being said, science has a fundamental assumption that influences its outcomes. It is the assumption that it is humanly possible to fully explain nature through analytical study. Whether it can or cannot be done is an entire debate in its own right, but that core assumption is reflected in the conviction that evolution entirely explains the process of life. Which of course it doesn't. So, the fact that evolution has been scientifically defined, tested and found to be so has very little effect on what we believe the reason and purpose of evolution is. It may be a proven theory, but it is still a very incomplete theory. 416 days ago
There is currently a problem with the site's algorithm where favouring or opposing an argument doesn't neccessarilly give your "points" to correct side of the debate. The "no it hasn't" side is far more heated, and as such when people use the favour and oppose buttons to reply, they are inadvertently giving their vote to the wrong side. I've bought this issue up with CreateDebate and it is being fixed. 414 days ago
After variation and mutation, however, they are still viruses, and in the same family (as far as I know). Do the current viruses we see exhibit characteristics that would put them in a different family when compared with the earliest recorded viruses? It seems that the variation of a virus is observational proof of variation within a species/family, but doesn't necessarily demonstrate the traversal from one to another. Yes, the fossil record provides more than enough evidence. Religious fanatics like to ignore evidence, and repeat nonsense statements such as "It doesn't explain where everything came from in the first place" when evolution is not even an attempt to explain where everything came from. It's the Catholic church and round earth theory all over again... 413 days ago
Well we had to ocme form somewhere not juut out of the blue and DNA don't lie when it says our DNA is 98% the same as a slug. That is a shocker I bet. We are more related to slugs then primates if you go by that. And to say a living thing won't change if it's enviorment does is kinda silly since then it could not surivie an we would not be around or life for that matter,life is always adapting and changing,over tme of course. 325 days ago | Tagged As: Darwin was right
I often write articles, and as I reread them I fix my mistakes, edit some paragraphs and then, before publishing it, I have an editor look it through. He changes it again until the article reflects it true purpose. As such the article evolved, yet it was created. The point is that evolution is not necessarily evidence against the possibility of a creator. It may in fact be proof of one. 416 days ago
A more appropriate description of evolution-as-literature would be to present an article you have written that is selectively transformed into a book or an article that diverges over time into multiple variations of itself to communicate with a new audience, each variation existing independent of the other forms and without replacing these variations. 415 days ago
|
No, of course it has not been proven scientifically. Many things have not been proven though that we know for sure to be true. Universal Gravitation has not been proven, but no one would deny that it exists. Similarly, micro evolution, organisms adapting to the environment, definitely exists. Macro evolution, the evolution of one species to another, and the idea of a common ancestor, is not quite as widely accepted. However, there is a very strong case for it. Note that evolution does not explain the creation of earth or life, simply the changes of life over enormous amounts of time. 395 days ago
No, that's incorrect. We've proven that genetic mutations happen, it's logical that the species that are best suited to their environment will survive, ergo we can assume that Evolution through Natural Selection happens. Not only that, but we've witnessed species such as Mayflies undergo evolutionary changes (small changes, yes, but changes none the less) Saying that it can't be proven in such a small time period is like saying that we can't prove that Pluto will orbit the sun all the way. We haven't known about it long enough to watch it go all the way around, but we can assume that it will simply because we know the mechanics behind it, just like we know the mechanics behind evolution. 226 days ago | Tagged As: It has
The process of evolution is fact. We have provably observed the processes that encompass this term, do not confuse this with theory of a common ancestor. Evolution simply explains the morphing from one genetic makeup to the next. The theory of a common ancestor, and the term theory doesn't imply uncertainty as quantum theory is yet to be disproved and the theory of gravitation obviously stands, seems right to me. There are plenty of fossil records to show this process and we've mapped enough genes to see the remnants of these transformations. Even if not 100%, it's a fairly clear pointer, wouldn't you think? 79 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
As I prepare to answer this question, I realize I have essentially no knowledge about the theory of evolution, besides Darwinism and the title. But the title itself is enough for me to know that it hasn't been scientifically proven: it is the THEORY of evolution. Much like the Big Bang THEORY. While it is probable that these events happened, it is not certain. And while I believe that they have happened, it is not certain. 51 days ago | Tagged As: It has
No, evolution has yet to proven. Evolution consists of an organism who progressed into a more complex collection like animals, then into homosapiens,then into what we are today. If this were true, why has the evolution process ceased, why arent there half monkey,half men walking around who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution, why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body? These questions obviously can't be proven. So no, evolution has not yet been proven. 140 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
It has not been proven and i don't think it can be...think about it this way they say humans evolved from apes or whatever right? yet have you ever seen an ape evolve into a human yourself? alot of people debate that what i cannot see i do not believe but i'm almost sure no one has seen an ape evolve into a human we my have similar looks but it doesn't mean we have evolved from apes...yes i believe in god.. and i have never seen him but god makes more sense to me then evolution ever will. show me! a documentary or something when an ape has evolved into a human 66 days ago | Tagged As: It has not
Us evolving from chimpanzees (yes, it is chimps that we share the most DNA with, not apes, and not monkeys), is merely an idea just because their DNA is so similar to ours. It doesn't make the theory of evolution what-so-ever. Evolution is just the process of change or growth through genetics, mutations, and natural selection. Which has been proven. When a scientist genetically modifies the DNA of a fly successfully, it has evolved. (No, really, I recall reading about a study of them inserting a different wing color into the flys DNA and evolving the fly successfully with the new wing color). It's pretty dang simple. It has nothing to do with the creation of humans. There is absolutely not enough evidence going anywhere to lead to a decent idea of where we came from. And you learn about the history of homosapiens through archaeological anthropology, which I suggest everyone should study because most of you seem to pulling crap out of your butts. 66 days ago | Tagged As: It has
Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea! Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure. 17 days ago | Tagged As: As close as science can do
That is actually not true. The term theory is the same term used to describe many other scientific ideas that are widely accepted. For example, atomic theory; any scientist who said that they disagreed with this would be laughed out of any reputable institution. Also, to give you a more common example, the "theory" of gravity. It is a theory because almost nothing in science is proven beyond completely resonable doubt. As for the statement that it can't be proven, this too is inaccurate because people have conducted experiments in which they have witnessed microevolution of simple organisms. There has also been domcumentation of the speciazation of numerous animals in recent history. If you would like to know more or doubt what I am saying go to youtube and search the user "thunderf00t." He has made an entire video series called "why people laugh at creationists." (I apologize about the spelling) 395 days ago
It not only has been utterly, and incontestably proven, but it is logically sound. In case you don't understand what is meant by biological evolution, here's the definition: "The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.". You only have to run through the thought experiment of two tribes interbreeding over generations to convince yourself that it happens. 396 days ago
If evolution was true, then i pose one question to all of those who agree with the Darwhin(sp?) theory. You look at every other type of evolution, teradactyls to birds or something like that. when the teradactyls evolved, they themselves went extinct. If we came from monkeys, and we have been around for thousands of years, then logically wouldn't the monkeys be extinct? When they supposedly evolved into us then wouldnt they themselves died out? But obviously they did not because their population only started to go down when we started to poach them. I challenge anyone to posed a better argument on the fact that we did come from monkeys 327 days ago
In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven. There is a wealth of evidence to support it but this evidence is not sufficient to be a proof. In a strict sense no scientific idea can be proven. All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable. It has been proven in the sense that there is no other competing scientific theory that has any scientific merit. The evidence points to evolution being the reason for the diversity of life on Earth. 417 days ago
I think the problem we're going to have here is how to define what is fact and what is theory. Fact is observational. Theory is how to explain your observations. In this sense, evolution is proven (observed, documented and a fact) and natural selection is the theory (how we explain our observations of evolution). 417 days ago
You're a little mixed up in your terminology here. "In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven." Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof. "All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable." You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc. 403 days ago
Again, we hit walls of diction, but it's a great debate and I'm on your side (evolutionists). I want to see the blood and guts of what constitutes "proof", however, and I find that blind faith goes in multiple directions. In other words: I've seen evangelists of science as blinded as their christian counterparts. Loops/fractals in math, nature, logic, and many other scientific methods give me the idea that 2 opposing viewpoints can be equally true, just as a segment of light can be seen as a particle or a wave, depending on the method. Quirky? yes. Contradictory? yes. Tell me what 0/infinity could mean, and my answer is: Both. Thinkaboutit. 131 days ago | Tagged As: It has
"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??" You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously. "Why would we evolve into two sexes??" To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off. The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment. Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually. "If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through." The liner. Do a little reading. 348 days ago
You seem to think that evolution happened very rapidly when in fact it took place over billions of years. Your questions show your ignorance on the topic, but, if you don't mind, I will do my best to answer them. Your first question was why are there two sexes when we started out with one. Single cell organisms reproduce by mitosis in which the chromosomes in the nucleus of the organism split apart eventually resulting in two separate cells. This method of reproduction actually is used by cells in the human body to reproduce. Unfortunately, mitosis only works for individual cells. More complex organisms must come up with different ways to procreate. In the case of most modern animals, this is through sexual reproduction. I hope that you know what sex is so I'm not going to go through the details, but in short the offspring created in this process share the genes of the mother "and" the father. As opposed to mitosis in which the DNA will be an exact replica (except for mutations) for both organisms. This combination helps to protect the offspring from certain harmful mutations and thus gives it a better chance to survive and create its own offspring. This is why there is a male and a female. Now if your expecting an answer to your second question I'm not going to give it. "Because there is no answer?" you ask. "Because you've pointed out the one flaw that scientists have overlooked for years." Well before you pack your bag to go receive your Nobel Prize, let me just tell you. No. I'm not answering your question because I am a high school junior who has take one year of human biology. Just because I cannot answer this question does not mean there is no answer. Did u try asking an actual scientist before you posted? I doubt it. Trust me, if you were to talk to an evolutionary biologist you would definitely get an answer. So please next time you have an opinion, let it go. 379 days ago
Evolution is an observed, documented scientific fact. Facts are observations, theories are the mechanisms used to explain the observations. As I said, evolution is an observed fact; it's the mechanism by which it works (natural selection) which is the theory (although, a pretty sound one at that).
Supporting Evidence:
Wikipedia article explaining the differences between the facts and theories of evolution.
(en.wikipedia.org)
417 days ago
What are you talking about? Evolution has been both observed and recreated. You need to read up on the Peppered Moth: "Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees." This debate needs to be redefined. There are so many different types of evolution, including, but not limited to microevolution, macroevolution, stellar evolution, species evolution, and much more. Microevolution (according to the Pearson Biology AP textbook) is the change in frequency of an allele in a population's gene pool. This has been clearly observed as in the Peppered Moth evolution, where the allele of melanism was favored by the environment and predation and thus increased in frequency, shifting the general color of the peppered moths into the darker direction. Species evolution has also been observed, and is even caused by the artificial breeding of different types of animals. These definitions of evolution have indeed been scientifically been proven. However, stellar evolution and macroevolution have never been observed or repeated. We did not see nothing blow up to make something, and we cannot find a "common ancestor" between the rat and the squid. Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven. Therefore, in a way, the debate question is phrased in such a way as to cause confusion. Some people are talking about the Big Bang theory while other are citing Peppered Moths. They may be right or wrong in their views of evidence, but we can't really debate on terms like these. 357 days ago
The origin of new species by evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). Also, please find the link for a very inclusive and detailed list of observed evolution. The reason that you find your girlfriend so attractive is because of evolution. Only those species who found the opposite sex attractive would mate with each other. According to you reptiles and monkeys mate with each other despite the fact that they are ugly. In reality it's because they look beautiful to each other. To them your girlfriend probably is hideous. Ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" 381 days ago
A lot has happened since Darwin noticed evolution occuring, and to claim that the theory of evolution is in any way lessened by Darwin not completely understanding the evolution of the eye of quite frankly nonsense. We're well aware how the eye evolved. The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Also, I'd like to point towards a study that recently found what I would consider absolute proof that we evolved from primates. In the video link, Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2. Human Chromosome #2
416 days ago
|






