I have read bits and pieces on evolution and its theories.

If someone could simplify it and tell me in a way the average person understands I would be grateful.:)
Also how much of it has been proven without doubt and how much remains to be researched?
Also if you could give examples of archeological evidence (if any:) ).


Thanks all:)

Try this: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks CB, I have looked through that, but there are too many scientific terms to comprehend.
I will read through it once more though...

In a nutshell, the theory is based on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection or survival of the fittest. Darwim believed that the best traits would rise to the top and others would fall by the wayside. So life would evolve as mutations resulted in evolution of the species.

In a nutshell: variations occur from one generation to the next due to genetic mutations. Usually such mutations are bad - the offspring may die before it has a chance to have babies and pass the mutation on. But once in a great while a mutation may actually improve the chances that the offspring will survive and have babies of its own. For example, consider the case of a bird whose baby has a particular mutation that makes its beak stronger, or longer, and thus it is better able to forage for food than its parents or other siblings. That bird is more likely to thrive, have babies of its own, and thus the mutation gets passed on to subsequent generations. This is the theory of natural selection - those mutations that result in more babies tend to be passed on; those that don't, don't. Pile more and more mutations on over thousands of generations and you can find that the descendant of that original bird have diversified into multiple species.

The archaeological evidence is overwhelming. From the fossil record it's possible to trace the continually-changing march of species. Just one example - the rise of the dinosaurs starting 250 million year ago and lasting up until about 65 million years ago, at which point mammals begin to dominate. There are no fossils of modern mammals that date to the age of the dinosaurs - firm evidence that mammals evolved after the dinosaurs. Also, as time progresses, the fossil record shows more and more diversity of animals - more species - as expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

In a nutshell, the theory is based on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection or survival of the fittest. Darwim believed that the best traits would rise to the top and others would fall by the wayside. So life would evolve as mutations resulted in evolution of the species.

---

I thought I read somewhere on this forum that Darwin's theory was not the same as what is evolution that is being talked about today... am I right or am I wrong?

Thanks ebaines for your explanation...

The full name is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

the full name is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

---

Is that the same as the original idea presented by Darwin or has it changed in anyway since then.
The natural selection part etc.

From my understanding Darwin proposed this theory because he saw some animals more adepted to certain environments than others, am I wrong in my understanding?

Thanks Scott

There may be tweaks in the thoery since Darwin wrote his book. But the essential points still stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

Is that the same as the original idea presented by Darwin or has it changed in anyway since then.
The natural selection part etc.

From my understanding Darwin proposed this theory because he saw some animals more adepted to certain environments than others, am I wrong in my understanding?

Thanks Scott

---

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's one readable source that I like:
Evolution and Natural Selection
Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

I thought I read somewhere on this forum that Darwin's theory was not the same as what is evolution that is being talked about today...am I right or am I wrong?

---

The fundamentals of what Darwin espoused is still the basis of modern evolution theory. Keeping in mind that Darwin worked 150 year ago, there have of course been many refinements to his original theory over the years. For example, DNA was not discovered until almost 100 years after his work, so of course Darwin had no understanding of the mechanics of how mutations are passed on at a molecular level. His original thesis was that all changes over time are accounted through natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), but in the 1960's a companion theory emerged called the neutral theory of molecular evolution which states that many genetic changes have a neutral effect on whether the animal successfully procreates, and hence may get passed on to subsequent generations even though they neither help nor hinder the animal's fitness. Hence over time many portions of the genome evolve that do not express any particular functions - hence the term "neutral." More recent advances talk about "nearly neutral" mutations, which may have a very slight advantageous or deleterious effect on the animal's fitness. The discussion is really not around whether natural selection was right or wrong, but rather around the relative percentages of "neutral" versus "non-neutral" alleles in the genome.

In the same way that you have read and studied the qu'ran (sp?) you will need to do some reading and studying to understand the science behind the theory. Not sure you can pick it up in bits and pieces here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Thanks NK,
As I told CB, I have tried wading through the explanation on this link and others and half way down I get confused because it uses so many scientific terms and I get lost along the way.

One of the reasons I asked this question, the other was because someone on another thread suggested that evolution be discussed separately and not on someone else's thread.

So here we are and I would like a simplified explanation like some of the above...

Thanks all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

In the same way that you have read and studied the qu'ran (sp?) you will need to do some reading and studying to understand the science behind the theory. Not sure you can pick it up in bits and pieces here.

---

Sorry to sound dumb,but what does (sp?)mean?

I was hoping to be able to at least know what evolution is,enough to satisfy my curiosity.

And the evolution theory and studying the Quran is not in the same level of importance for me, but science as I said before helps me with my faith(by showing me that what I learn in the Quran is the truth).

And by knowing evolution I am not hoping to give up my faith or look for another belief, I am secure in it and wish for no change, only understanding.:)

(sp?) is the editing symbol for "unsure of spelling".

Side note. Does not the Quran also contain the creation story of God creating the world in 7 days? Why don't the Muslins and Jews join many Christians in questioning evolution? My opinion is that the 144 hour time table is not the only possible understanding of the Bible. Just as most Christians accept the earth revolving around the sun now, I think they will eventually accept an older earth.

The earth does appear to be more than 6,000 years old. I understand natural selection, but still don't see how species can gradually become unable to interbreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labman

The earth does appear to be more than 6,000 years old. I understand natural selection, but still don't see how species can gradually become unable to interbreed.

---

Labman: if you are willing to accept an earth that's older than 6000 years, are you also willing to acept that there are species alive today who have not been around for the full duration of the history of life on earth? For example, the fossil record shows that few mammals were present at the time of the dinosaurs, and certainly none that we would recognize today. Isn't it therefore logical that mammals such as cats must have ancestors who were something other than cats? That is, they must have evolved from some prior species, no?

Some find this of interest:
YouTube - Carl Sagan - speaks about 4 billion years of evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labman

Side note. Does not the Quran also contain the creation story of God creating the world in 7 days? Why don't the Muslins and Jews join many Christians in questioning evolution? My personal opinion is that the 144 hour time table is not the only possible understanding of the Bible. Just as most Christians accept the earth revolving around the sun now, I think they will eventually accept an older earth.

The earth does appear to be more than 6,000 years old. I understand natural selection, but still don't see how species can gradually become unable to interbreed.

---

Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaam’. ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of ‘Yaum’ which has two meanings: firstly, a standard twenty-four hours’ period i.e. a ‘day’ and secondly this Arabic word also means a stage, a period or an epoch consisting of a very long period. Here the Qur’an refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs.