For and against evolution...

[gamer4eva]

Now i have an essay to hand in and i want some info regarding evolution for and against. Now i dont kno how to start and what is against evolution. Please any tips and proper info related to for and against evolution would be much appreciated.

[Biggles]

Now i have an essay to hand in and i want some info regarding evolution for and against. Now i dont kno how to start and what is against evolution. Please any tips and proper info related to for and against evolution would be much appreciated.

Evolution as a whole or simply the mechanism of natural selection as the main vehicle for evolutionary progress?

That is, are you to discuss the pro and cons of say Darwinian natural selection with something like Lamarck's theories or are they expecting some sort creationist critique? The latter is a mite trickier in that you are comparing a faith based system (with a priori assumptions about the nature of the Universe) and a scientific theory which is being continually subjected to the scientific processes of examination and modification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck

Edit: I haven't read through the Wiki entry for Lamarck so if it is a bit sketchy apologies.

[100%]

Pro Evolution - Scientists
Anti Evolution - Religion

[gamer4eva]

We are learning about darwins adaptation and natural selection. I need to know the for and against these points.

[j2k4]

Pro Evolution - Scientists
Anti Evolution - Religion

Oh, ffs...

[Biggles]

If you had a look at the Lamarck piece you will see there were pros and cons for his argument. Likewise there are areas where natural selection has been subject to discussion and modification - for this I presume you are not flying blind and have been given text books.

However, the main bulk of the anti-natural selection argument comes primarily from certain (but not all) religious quarters. The crux of their argument is that there is no evidence for one species changing into another. They have I believe conceded that variations do occur within species. However, as more and more fossil evidence turns up for developmental stages (missing links as it were) they are forced to retreat ever further into arguing that each missing link is a distinct species in its own right. Thus, consequently, there never can be a missing link.

The other stand point is ID (which some argue is just the religious argument toned down to look less strident) which, put simply, takes the watchmakers argument postulated by a 19th century Rector (William Paley). It argues that anything so complex as life must have a designer and that it could not be subject to simple random development. This argument is backed with some questionable (in my view) probability maths.

Edit: If you are using the ID type arguments against natural selection I dare say it would be useful to look at irreducible complexity although again many biologists consider these arguments deeply flawed.

[GepperRankins]

Pro Evolution - Scientists
Anti Evolution - Religion

Oh, ffs...

unless you're a raelion or scientologist, what alternative to evolution do you believe in that isn't down to supernatural forces?

[Skweeky]

The one thing that always stood out to me is the existince of a little one cell organism that moves itself my using something called a flagel.

Scientiest have come to the conclusion that this creature cannot be the result of evolution because it wouldn't be able to live if any one of its features were removed or reduced.

Fascinating, isn't it?

[Biggles]

The one thing that always stood out to me is the existince of a little one cell organism that moves itself my using something called a flagel.

Scientiest have come to the conclusion that this creature cannot be the result of evolution because it wouldn't be able to live if any one of its features were removed or reduced.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Skweeky

That is the irreducible complexity I was talking of. However, the author (a Mr Behe) has conceded a flaw in his logic and is currently working on a yet unpublished correction. The argument as it stands is back to front. If you took any of its (very few) current components it would indeed fail as an organism. However, that does not determine that it reached its current form through developing each of these components independantly and completely as they are now.

I believe his book "Darwin's Black Box" (I think) was used in a court case to support ID in a US school and that in part the case lost because of the logical flaw in the argument.

[ram82082]

What exactly is your paper suppossed to be about? All you said was "for or against evolution", do you mean what 100% said? And are you sure the essay is not about how YOU feel on the topic? If it is, pick the side your for and explain why then just explain why your against the other. Your not gonna find FACTS about for or against evolution(only opinions & beliefs) and usually an essay is based on yours.

Skweeky: Evolution/adaptation does work that way. It doesn't remove or reduce traits needed to survive. Natural selection enhances favorable traits while trying to minimize the heredity of bad ones(much like a breeder would).

Anywho how come anti-evolution folks(the religous type) cant accept evolution? They say evolution teaches that there is no "Creator/God/Buddha/Allah", whatever name you use. Why cant they just accept the bit of evolution that we see evidence of, but know that life had 2 have come from somewhere else(evolution does not cover the actual creation of life, merely how we all came to be).

Besides if you think God directly created every living thing here then you must believe that you could fit 2 of every living species on a boat.