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.

The bible never says that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
It wasn't christians who believed that, it was everyone
I will admit that the catholic church of those times did often try to suppress new ideas, and made many other mistakes. If the catholic church hadn't opposed science so much back then, maybe the scientist and the christian wouldn't be so hostile to each other nowadays, and more accepting of each other.

What language does the qur'an origionally written in? Maybe there's a similar way about the original language of the bible, explaining the 6 day issue.
And hey, a day isn't always 24 hours. If you look in joshua, you'll see that god made the sun stand still and the moon stand still (thats the human witnees interpretation, maybe god just adjusted the earths orbit/spin temporarily to achieve the same affect) so that the battle could be finished
During the creation, gods 6 days could have been any kind of days he wanted them to, he could have slowed the orbits and stuff, giving himself days lasting months, years, even millennia for him to work in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cal823

the bible never says that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
it wasnt christians who believed that, it was everyone
i will admit that the catholic church of those times did often try to suppress new ideas, and made many other mistakes. if the catholic church hadnt opposed science so much back then, maybe the scientist and the christian wouldnt be so hostile to each other nowadays, and more accepting of each other.

what language does the qur'an origionally written in? maybe theres a similar way about the original language of the bible, explaining the 6 day issue.
and hey, a day isnt always 24 hours. if you look in joshua, youll see that god made the sun stand still and the moon stand still (thats the human witnees interpretation, maybe god just adjusted the earths orbit/spin temporarily to achieve the same affect) so that the battle could be finished
during the creation, gods 6 days could have been any kind of days he wanted them to, he could have slowed the orbits and stuff, giving himself days lasting months, years, even millenia for him to work in.

---

Quran is originally in Arabic...

Thanks for the link to this thread, firmbeliever.

I hope our discussion in the other thread has given you a better understanding of how natural selection works. One thing which might help you in that understanding is to remember than humans are animals - we're just at the top of the food chain. We're the smartest, the most advanced, but really, we're just animals.

Here's the link to the thread for anyone who wants to see where the conversation went:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biolog...131048-10.html

Before we continue further I would just like to let you know where I stand on this theory and this article agrees with my views.
Islam Tomorrow .com

And I believe that Adam(alaihi salaam) was the first man.
Now this does not mean that I do not agree or disagree with other beings similar to apes existing before Adam's existence.

I understand how natural selection works.

I am not too sure about the human being an animal part.
I think since "human" beings began we have been the same, with a conscience and a brain that works much the same like our present day humans.
Just the progress in technology and science seems to aid this intelligence in progressing today's human beings.

When I really think about it, sometimes I feel that the older civilisations without today's technology had progressed quite far in their methods of buildings,astronomy,languages etc

I can relate to the part where the earth formed and living creatures formed and grew in number and types.
But now that I think about it I am wondering did the dinosaurs exist between the first animals and the modern day animals?
Did the animals grow that big and then start to become smaller as the earth aged?

I might sound a bit off at times,but that is just how I am processing and digesting information.

Ok, let me try this another way, and if there are things in here you already know and I'm putting it too simply, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but it helps me be able to explain it step by step!

If you have to classify life on this planet you have plants and animals, right (for simplicities sake)? If I show you a picture of a tree, you and you have to pick (A) Plant or (B) Animal, you pick (A). If I show you a picture of me and tell you to pick (A) Plant or (B) Animal, what do you pick? Human is just another type of animal. We know that because of they types of cells we have - we don't have plant cells, we have animal cells. For a graphic representation, see the link below.

plant and animal cells

ALL animals have cells that look like that first picture. A snail, a fish, a toad, a human. All plants have cells that look like the second picture. That's why humans are considered animals. Now, perhaps you already know this (in which case I'm not trying to insult you), but because of your beliefs you think we are better than animals. That's fine, and really, it's true. But on a cellular level, we are still animals. Other things set up apart from other animals; brain size, capacity for planning and reason, reflection, speech to name a few examples. Obviously we are the "best" animal.

When you say the first "humans" were pretty much the same as we are today, you're right. I know your religion tells you Adam was the first man (human) but in evolutionary terms, you don't call a human a human until he's a homo sapien. Homo sapian looked like this:

Google Image Result for http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/18/evolution_1903_wideweb__430x328,1.jpg (guy #2 in the lineup).

Before homo sapien, we weren't "human" we were other things (usually referred to as early man). That first "human", it appears, DID think in similar ways to us, and yes, technology has allowed us advancement. And indeed, ancient civilizations progressed amazingly with regards to the limited technologies they had. I don't know if you've ever been to an ancient ruins site, but they are incredible. Take the great pyramids, for example. I've never been, but the construction and precision is amazing. It's mind boggling that man did that without the aid of so many modern conveniences when today we think the world will end if the cable goes out. But man didn't get to that state without work. The first humans still had to compete for food, shelter, a place in the community, safety and so on. At that time, natural selection was still taking place. Early human was still trying to create the best race they could.

About dinosaurs, obviously I can't give you guidance to the Islamic belief there, but from the archeological evidence we have, dinosaurs did not exist with man - at all. So yes, dinosaurs existed between the first animals (the ones crawling out of the primordial ooze) and present day animals (cats and dogs). If, in fact, there was a large volcanic eruption or asteroid impact that caused the death of the dinosaurs, this didn't kill ALL the animals on earth. Mammals, especially the small ones, survived. Those mammals reproduced and evolved into what we find today. Bear in mind this was 65 million years ago - that's a long time. Early man (and later modern man) came out of that evolution. Again, there is absolutely ZERO archeological evidence that man existed with dinosaurs (this is a common thought among some).

Jillian,
Just to get things right.

I am still reading your answer and thinking over it.
But wanted to thank you for the detailed simple explanation.

I agree with the animal part when you put it under cell structure,of course we cannot be plants.

About dinosaurs, there is nothing in the Quran that says humans existed from the beginning of earth/universe.
But I do remember a verse which mentions that there was a time when man was nothing to be mentioned of(not in the same words,but same meaning).

I like the video that Carl Sagan and crew did:

YouTube - Carl Sagan - Origins

Give it some thought...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

When you say the first "humans" were pretty much the same as we are today, you're right. I know your religion tells you Adam was the first man (human) but in evolutionary terms, you don't call a human a human until he's a homo sapien. Homo sapian looked like this:

Before homo sapien, we weren't "human" we were other things (usually referred to as early man). That first "human", it appears, DID think in similar ways to us, and yes, technology has allowed us advancement. And indeed, ancient civilizations progressed amazingly with regards to the limited technologies they had. I don't know if you've ever been to an ancient ruins site, but they are incredible. Take the great pyramids, for example. I've never been, but the construction and precision is amazing. It's mind boggling that man did that without the aid of so many modern conveniences when today we think the world will end if the cable goes out. But man didn't get to that state without work. The first humans still had to compete for food, shelter, a place in the community, safety and so on. At that time, natural selection was still taking place. Early human was still trying to create the best race they could.

Again, there is absolutely ZERO archeological evidence that man existed with dinosaurs (this is a common thought among some).

---

So I can safely say that the first "human" was Adam(alaihi salaam).

Could it be possible that these other "early man" were not really human beings as we are,but another animal with similar structure and these went extinct like other animals?
And like apes having a similarity in dna, these animal like man also had similarities to humans?

About dinosaurs not being around at that time humans started living on earth, I agree with this because the universe began long before man existed on earth and the earth has to have taken ages/eons to become what it is today as a planet.

If you want to call the first human "Adam", go for it. It certainly fits in line with your religious beliefs, and since you acknowledge the existence of other, early man creatures before "Adam" this isn't wholly inconsistent with the scientific view. As you know, science says "Adam" evolved from early man, but I know it is not your personal belief that this is the case.

The reason in science early man is considered (in general terms) human is because that's where we came from - that's the line of evolution. I don't know enough to say with any authority that the dna structure of early man is the same or XX% the same as our current dna, so I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer for that. I have a feeling looking it up would mean wading through a lot of scientific jargon, too!

Glad we agree people weren't dining on T-Rex steak! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Glad we agree people weren't dining on T-Rex steak! :)

---

My faith is a bit more compatible with science than you think:)

I have a question again on this topic.

I read somewhere that life began in water, then the land mammals changed into whales or other large fish and these evolved into modern whales.

Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?
I am wondering why did not the sea creatures change into whales,why did land animals change into whales?

Thanks again.

I would have thought that the 'sea creatures' couldn't breath oxygen as it were and so could evolve into whales as they are today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?

---

Hello firm:

Here's where I think you're going wrong. NONE of it is proven fact.

It's probably true. It looks like it's true. Modern biology says it's true. I think it's true. Capuchin thinks it's true. So, of course, it IS true.

It remains, however, a scientific theory. We have not yet filled in all the gaps. We may NEVER fill them in. We have a LOT to learn in ALL the sciences. As a matter of fact, we're just in the beginning stages of understanding our surroundings. If knowing nothing is a 1, and knowing everything is a 10, we're probably a 2.

excon

Excon,:)
2 it is!

But still would like to know where if there are any findings to connect land mammals to whales and not the other way around.

Hello again, firm:

I know SOOOO little about it, I'm probably an expert. Here's what I think.

The things that cause creatures to evolve are isolated populations, time, and unanticipated mutations.

We (you and me) are mutating daily. We really are. Yours and my genes are being bombarded by cosmic rays from space. I'm not kidding. Yes, I'm being a little dramatic, but we're all mutants in one way or another.

Some of those mutations wind up changing things for the BETTER, and they get duplicated in our offspring. Seeing as how its BETTER, the beings having the BETTER gene are BETTER able to survive, and so they do.

Now take a population of mammals who are isolated in some pocket of land. Maybe they're surrounded by mountains. Let's say the sea is rising (which is does and has lots of times). Let's say one of these mammals gets mutated in a way that allows him to adapt to the rising sea BETTER than his buddies.

Now, give that situation a few MILLION years to percolate, and you have land mammals turning (evolving) into whales. I don't know if it happened that way, but I'll bet it did.

excon

Evolution goes both ways.
Some creatures move from water to land and some from land to water:
Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The diving Petrel and auks "fly" underwater. Peguins are another good example.

The basis behind this is that whales are mammals. Mammals are air breathers. So it would seem logical that mammals that live in a water based environment evolved from land based creatures.

But, as excon said, without a time machine that can watch the creatures evolve, none of this can be proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Evolution goes both ways.
Some creatures move from water to land and some from land to water:
The diving Petrel and auks "fly" underwater. Peguins are another good example.

---

I have seen a documentary about those walking fish.It was very interesting.
They also showed an episode about frogs that hibernate in the ground during the very dry season and come out when the rainy season arrives.

I loved the auks under water documentarytoo,it was beautiful and amazing. There was one on penguins too, how they look for food under the ice sheets floating in the icy waters.

Thanks for the link.

Scott,
How about amphibians?Were they supposedly in water before adapting to land or the other way around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

I read somewhere that life began in water, then the land mammals changed into whales or other large fish and these evolved into modern whales.

Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?

---

These are big questions, but you have it right. Life most likely originated in water. Biologists are pretty sure about this, but not completely. In a way, that part's conjecture. I mean no one knows for sure when and where and how the first cells originated---the actual origin of life.

But once the first cells appeared, biologists do understand how those cells evolved into all the millions of species that have lived on Earth. Biologists understand how new species formed really well. In other words, it's "proved" as much as anything can be in science.

The cells living in water evolved into invertebrates--things like sponges, jellyfish, and starfish. Later, fish, which have backbones ("vertebrates"), evolved. Some of the fish evolved into amphibians that could live partly on land. Amphibians have to reproduce in water, so they are like fish that way. But some amphibians evolved something called the "amniotic egg"--basically like a chicken egg. All the reptiles and birds have amniotic eggs, which allow embryos to develop inside a kind of miniature pond, encased in a shell, all on dry land. It was a great invention. It let vertebrates start evolving on land instead of in the water. Some of the reptiles evolved into mammals. Mammals kep the amniotic egg inside the body, instead of laying it in a nest like a reptile or a bird.

SOME of the mammals that lived on land returned to the water and evolved into water mammals such as whales or sea lions or seals. That's definite and well understood. You can tell a lot about which animals evolved from which other ones by looking at their bones. So, for example, the bones in the hips of dinosaurs look a lot like the hips of modern birds, one way we know that birds are actually descended from dinosuars.

Hope this helps some.

Asking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

I am wondering why did not the sea creatures change into whales,why did land animals change into whales?

Thanks again.

---

Why certain animals evolved into other ones is a hard question to answer. And some people have done a good job trying to explain it simply in this thread, but I'll try too.

We can guess that land animals were under some kind of pressure a long time ago. For example, if they were already living by the shore and eating fish and they couldn't find any food on land at all any more, they might have had to spend more and more time fishing in the seas. Or maybe there were dangerous predators on land and they had to spend more and more time in the water to be safe.

If they were already behaving that way, spending lots of time in the water, then the individuals that had mutations that made them swim better or hold their breath longer--stuff like that--would have had more children ("offspring") and the next generation would have had all these "better" mutations. The mutations aren't really "better." They are just better for swimming, better for being in the water all the time. These things just depend on what the situation is. Anyway, these particular mutations that make it easier to spend a lot of time in the water got passed on because, at that time, swimming was a better way to go.

Here's a real example. Biologists have looked at Galapagos finches. They found that when the weather changed, plants that made big seeds did better and plants that made small seeds did worse. All of a sudden, the birds with big beaks started surviving and reproducing better (more baby birds with big beaks) than the ones with small beaks. This was because the birds with big beaks could eat the big seeds, while the birds with small beaks were going hungry and not able to make babies. So over just a few years, the average beak size of this species got measurably bigger. That's evolution. That has actually been measured.

If the change in beak size continued for a while and if the big beaked birds stop mating with any remaining small big beaked birds (which could happen), then you could have a new species of finch.

Wow! We just had a big earthquake...

Asking