Learn about the theory of evolution and how it is supported by instances of direct observation, the existence of hom*ologies and fossils, and certain biogeographical patterns.
Log in KasD 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to KasD's post “I understand that a fossi...” I understand that a fossil not being found doesn't mean the organism didn't exist, simply that it hasn't been found yet (or never fossilized). But several fossils that do exist don't seem to fit in with the theory of evolution. What about pollen from Cambrian or older sediments the Romairma formation in South America or in the Hakatai Shale in the Grand Canyon in North America? Flowering plants are highly advanced and wouldn't have existed in the Cambrian or Precambrian epochs. • (10 votes) Rionna 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Rionna's post “There are multiple possib...” There are multiple possible explanations for those examples you cite. The fossils or their age could have been misidentified. It is also possible that our current understanding of the sequence of events is incorrect. Hopefully future scientific inquiry will decrease apparent contradictions. (4 votes) kevinswe1221 a year agoPosted a year ago. Direct link to kevinswe1221's post “This article admits, unde...” This article admits, under Evidence For Evolution: Fossil Record, that the record is incomplete. So how is it that we can actually teach this as fact when there is no evidence for macro evolution. The tree shown that all species share a common ancestor is a hypothesis that remains unproven, why not also teach the idea of creation? Creation explains more of what we see than these hypothesis displayed as fact. • (4 votes) Charles LaCour a year agoPosted a year ago. Direct link to Charles LaCour's post “Scientific theories are n...” Scientific theories are never proven, proofs are for mathematics. The theory of gravity and quantum mechanics are not proven but but you do not question them being taught. Evolution is a scientific theory and has a bunch of supporting verifiable evidence. It is a theory that accurately describes observations and has made predictions that we have been verified. Gaps in the fossil record do not disprove evolution. Fossils are rare events so there are are going to be gaps. There is evidence for macro evolution. What you call macro evolution is just micro evolution over a longer period of time. There is no verifiable scientific evidence for creationism. There is no more evidence for the world having been created 5,000 to 7,000 years ago than there is for it having been created last week. (6 votes) greshaanbha1856 5 months agoPosted 5 months ago. Direct link to greshaanbha1856's post “How do you determine if a...” How do you determine if a trait is analogous, if all life is related? For example the trunk of the first elephants and modern tapirs. Both are mammals, both are biotic and have cells that have similar structure and function. Both have evolved from sea creatures before the dinosaurs. • (3 votes) Tybalt 5 months agoPosted 5 months ago. Direct link to Tybalt's post “If a trait arose from a s...” If a trait arose from a similar embryonic origin (the species are more closely related), it is hom*ologous. Likewise, if a trait has a similar function but the species are distantly related, it's analogous. hom*ologous traits don't necessarily have to have a similar function, but because they arose from similar embryos, they have similar structures. Take the whale's fin, for instance. The whale fin and the human hand are hom*ologous structures. Sure, their functions are completely different, but they both have the same general skeletal structure: one bone from the shoulder to the forearm, two bones making up the forearm, many carpal bones making up the wrist, and many finger bones making up the fingers. Both creatures are mammals as well, meaning they will both give birth to live young, develop similarly, and will have the same general anatomical structures and functions. If you compare the whale's fin to a fish's fin, these are analogous structures. While they share the same function, a fish's skeleton and body is very different than a whale's. They do not have the same skeletal structure, nor do they develop in the same fashion. Fish do not give birth to live young, nor do they produce milk, nor do they have the same body structure. Does this help? (3 votes) 23alexia_cruz 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to 23alexia_cruz's post “the possible explanations...” the possible explanations for the examples you may cite not the fossils or the age you could also have been misidentified. and it can be possible that the current understanding of the process of events is incorrect. • (3 votes) JPOgle ✝ 2 years agoPosted 2 years ago. Direct link to JPOgle ✝'s post “The identified age is cou...” The identified age is counted as evidence for evolution. In the pictures showing the evolution of horses, there are dates shown. Why do you think those are more accurate then evidence against evolution. (2 votes) 25_rs50240 10 months agoPosted 10 months ago. Direct link to 25_rs50240's post “Under the evidence for ev...” Under the evidence for evolution; these traits can be made up of many different traits. Does adaptation play a significant role as well as animals from the same types of species? • (3 votes) throgulus rex 2 months agoPosted 2 months ago. Direct link to throgulus rex's post “I have found myself going...” I have found myself going down the rabbit-hole that the study of evolution provides, delving into the fascinating ancestors of humans from just a few hundred thousand years ago, to what are believed to be our last link to many ape species today. It is certainly an incredibly interesting thing to consider, but it has made me wonder, has archaeology and the study of ancient life remained a pillar of the study of biology because our understanding is still too weak? Of course, there are too many individuals interested in uncovering the secrets of life millions of years before us for the field to die off completely, but are there not enough incentives, (e.g., climate change, bacterial and viral evolution, and overpopulation) for the majority of young learners to choose pursuing a career in something like microbiology, bio-chemistry, or physics rather than paleontology? • (1 vote) Tybalt 2 months agoPosted 2 months ago. Direct link to Tybalt's post “Science doesn't have to h...” Science doesn't have to have the practicality of fields like Newtonian physics to be considered a science. At its core, science is about learning new information about how our world works through hypotheses and rigorous experimentation. As long as it builds knowledge and is able to do so with testable hypotheses, it is considered a science. Paleontology allows us to get a glimpse of life in the past and helps us understand how life changes over time, how life may have potentially originated, how life in the future might be different, and much more. It may not contribute practically like physics might, but it still offers us information about the history of life. Uncovering information is the incentive. We humans are curious! It's the same reason why we're exploring the deep ocean or looking at the edges of the universe even though we will never live there--we want to know things. Does this help? (1 vote)Want to join the conversation?
