Evolution in a Nutshell

Home

**

Though there is substantial conflict between the scientific principles in biology and the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic holy texts, the basis to Evolution remains the verified essence to all life. Many prematurely disregard Evolution to defend their religion ("it's 'just' a theory!"), misunderstanding the empirical value behind that term itself. But Evolution's validation began with Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species (1859), which centered upon a phenomena he named "natural selection"(later discussed). Today, Evolution remains the ultimate catalyst in biology to studying the origins of life whereas "creationism", however, continuously fails to provide a shred of intrinsic testability in science.

Weakly, "Intelligent Design" apologists have repeatedly failed in their attempts at provoking judicial courts into falsely believing "creationism" is an empirical science. Originally, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) , in Texas, was the first Supreme Court ruling against creationism ("Intelligent Design") as a 'school-appropriate science'. Countless similar Supreme Court rulings statewide have since also discredited creationism. This is very easily done since creationism's TRUE nature, that of a pseudoscience, remains far too obvious. As such, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) and the Supreme Courts who ruled consecutive promptly shut down the fraudulent "Intelligent Design" conspiracy, legally anyway, by resolving two essential inquiries: WHY Evolution's valid; why "creationism" is simply a popularized pseudoscience short of even a hypothesis! This general ruling will continue to universalize anytime a civil case is filed in the states because the First Amendment to the constitution firmly separates Church from State in its guarantee of free speech & worship to all. Indeed, as the University of Berkley's renowned scientists differentiate it, "Evolution is science. The study of Evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes." Thereby, obviously Evolution belongs in the classroom while religious ideas like creationism belong in the private lives of worshipers.

But before one can be compelled by Evolutionary evidence, first the meanings of a "theory" and of a "hypothesis", as well as how scientists methodically use them, must be definitively explained. When scientists study something, they make at least one premature, educated guess first, their hypothesis, which MUST be testable, provable and falsifiable so that then they can experiment until finding disproof, proof, or mixed findings. Once hypotheses have been tested repeatedly with consistent positive results, its findings can become a theory. Theories of science (i.e. Gravity, Electricity, Black Holes) provide a basis for empirical study on a topic. A theory isn't yet a fact because at least one of its conclusions may be revised or expanded later on. Nevertheless, a theory stills exceeds magnificence. Well-summed in Biology Concepts & Connections Sixth Edition, a collegial resource, a theory is a principle based upon "... [A] great diversity of observations, supported by a large, growing scientific body." So just how all unstable and stable people alike believe in "The Theory of Gravity", so they should in Evolution likewise.

People's "Evolution fears", so to speak, have constantly depended upon the choice to be ignorant. Believe it or not, over 99 % of the world's top scientists believe in Evolution wholeheartedly (See: National Center for Science Education ). Conversely, the untrue belief that creationism is valid science too is a common misconception in the public eye drawn by various biases, such as fundamentalist churches, rabid Christian "science" groups, or sometimes just bad journalism. So regardless of the many conspiracies misleading people into disregarding Evolution as junk science, its compelling evidence can't ever be retracted entirely by the scientific community. As the University of Berkley scientists clarify, "Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated...Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide." Again, the only reason why even exemplary theories (like Evolution or Gravity) aren't yet classified 'facts' is because theoretical evidence leads different scientists to slightly different conclusions; particular indeed, in Evolution's case it's a matter of the 'wheres' and 'hows' that make it not yet 'fact', not whether or not it exists.

As such, because there's infinite masses of species on earth, plotting the evolutionary path of each species may never occur; still, scientists' strongest efforts are put to legitimate application in attempt to sketch the puzzling evolutionary tree. Any one example of arbitrary evolutionary data doesn't draw Evolution to uncertainty, but rather it's those specifics which are not yet absolutes for scientists across the board. As Berkley scientists elaborate, "Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors. Scientists have not rejected Darwin's natural selection, but have improved and expanded it as more information has become available" ("Misconceptions about evolution," 2008). This corroborates a beautiful description of the widespread developmental, not skeptical consensus among the global biologists who progressively uncover new evidence of our biological origins by perpetual usage of Darwinian principles.

Notwithstanding, this most common general belief regarding Evolution has become popularized humor and continually bypasses scientific understanding within the public eye: Human beings came from monkeys. That's the statement that has brought a desensitizing disregard for Evolution, given the mere suggestion we evolved from apes is preposterous (and often humorous) enough for so many to disbelieve in Evolution. And yet that is very strictly speaking NOT AT ALL what Evolution construes is our fundamental biology! As detailed in History and Methods of Science, "The most widely accepted hypothesis of human evolution is that our branch of the family tree broke off from the branch that includes orangutans and other primates about 7 to 8 million years ago" (Trefil, 2007). Indicatively, it's hardly a laughable matter once it's understood that we evolved as a separate species, not from the ape species; what is proved true is how homosaphiens and primates share extraordinarily close familial lines genetically. Detailing the genomic likeness, the National Geographic explains their finding, "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species [...] Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself" (Lovgren, 2005). (See now this distinction - our extremely similar DNA bonds are examples of Evolutionary facts, whereas whether our oldest ancestors were only in Africa is a debated uncertainty for now.) That alone OBLITERATES the desired "pseudoscience" stamp which ludicrous fools want on Evolution, for our astounding closeness to chimpanzees is irrefutable no matter what.

Now, the survival of each species is dependent on a Darwinian principle called natural selection, which simply refers to how some species genetically outlast others throughout time. Certain living species, therefore, will slowly cease to, over typically grand scales of time, evolve adequately and eventually become genetically unequipped for survival. As such, Berkley's finest accord, "Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not [...] but it can't get the right genes by trying" ("Misconceptions about evolution", 2008). Thus, Evolution describes a process by which organisms procreate & survive throughout time completely on genetic strength. For instance, the spectrum by which humans evolved spans across times where we humans did not walk upright (pictured to your left). Such processes, however, were completed slowly across millions of years, totally illustrating how the short few thousand years "creationism" nonsensically alleges to the Earth's full age amount to nothing but true ABSURDITY (okay yeah, and maybe a little hilarity, too).

In conclusion, the Theory of Evolution is an enthralling, insurmountable principle of biological science. It is the scholastic basis to all the extensive developments and discoveries about life's origins, the theory scientists solely work from. Though continually expanding within itself, Evolution will never be dispelled, only revised, and is never to be ridiculed. No grand-scale scientific theory - much less Evolution with its gigantic span of compelling knowledge - is the work of unintelligible or mediocre craftsmanship. On the contrary, Evolution continually proves itself as new facts emerge, paving the ingenious way to solving the puzzles behind the 'human origin'.

**