Charles Darwin

The fact that Charles Darwin was once a christian was very interesting to me. In fact he even attended a christian school and later when his mom died even lived at a christian school. He was even sent by the church to research and prove that God created the Earth. However, aboard the Beagle he claimed that he found evidence against the previous idea of creation by God. I'm sure you all know how I feel about evolution and if you don't I believe in creation by God. However, through this whole entire unit I have tried to stay positive and uncontroversial about the topic. His 1859 book, On the Orgin of Species is all about Darwin's theory about natural selection and evolution. The novel is supposed to explain all parts of evolution including plant evolution. I plan on reading the book someday so I will have more facts to back up my agrument. I think what is most important to pull away from this chapter is that we, as people, need to be tolerant about ideas and cultures that we don't agree with and we need to repect people to the fullest extent.

The "Missing Piece" in Evolution

I recently found this article on the internet because i wanted to have an informed stance on evolution, not just a biased, unsupported opinion. I've learned about the evidence supporting evolution of man, but no one talks about evidence opposing it, so here is some.

If you want to read more, here is the website address: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Evolution Of Man -
Scientific EvidenceThe theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

ALSO: (This was not on the web page, but can be found in many other places)
Darwin stated in his book, "numerous successive modifications that cannot be explained by scientific evidence would break down my theory". Basically, this modification type has been found in many places, namely, the flagellum motor. The flagellum motor is like a propeller for the flagellum and consists of 25 different proteins. According to natural selection, these 25 different proteins should have all appeared on the flagellum gradually through means of natural selection. PROBLEM. There is absolutely no evidence of an in-between connector species of flagellum to prove natural selection to be true. The "numerous successive modifications" has been found.

Google search carbon-14 dating flaws... evidence of a "great flood" has also been found.

In regard to any scientific theory, people have to look at the evidence supporting it (or lack of it)AS WELL AS evidence opposing it before they can make an opinion in support of it.

Survival VS. Evolution

In class, we've been discussing about the concepts of "survival of the fittest" and evolution. Are these both the same ideas? or are they instead topics related to one another?

Evolution

Evolution is a theory of science, like any other theory (Cell theory, chromosome theory, and DNA theory). This theory is as valid as any other theory of science, it has been tested over and over again and it has been proven over and over again. The main problem with the theory is that it contradicts the religious origin idea. Most people don't want to think but just to follow. In the whole frenzy to follow, hoardes of people just denouce this theory being evil and not valid.

The most tragic commentary in our times is that people who sit at home and watch TV, use medications, listen to the iPODs have no problems with those gadgets or the products of science. Evolution theory is isolated, and branded evil but other scientific achievements are glofied and accepted.

The way of thinking and the human thought process does determine the course of life on this planet. What are we saying, the most intelligent species is not going to accept the choice scientific theory becasue it goes against or religious belief system. Are we questioning the both sides fairly?

Ecodiversity

It's, in essence, the subject of the unit we're studying in class right now. I wanted to know what everyone thinks about it, how far up it is on their priority list, and what possible solutions could be.

I, for one, think that it is an issue, albeit not a very serious one. True, it is still one that needs to be dealt with, it isn't as dire as, say, global warming or the population explosion. I think that we need to focus on things that can kill us before we focus on things that help us live.

However, I think that more national parks are part of the answer for solving this problem. As we know, it isn't necessary for us to only focus on protecting endangered animals, as entire ecosystems are at stake.