argumentative essay about evolution

Argumentative Essay On Evolution

Madison Wenig Mr. Kellerman Honors Biology 2 19 May 2017 Evolution There always has been a controversy whether evolution really did happen or not. Many evolutionists, philosophers and biologists have presented sufficient evidence that evolution is true. Yet there is still debate about this contentious topic. With the facts and findings of fossil records of earlier species, ideas of initial theorists, and our own genetics and DNA, evolution can be hard to prove wrong. Evolution is not just a change over time, but that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. This process is occurring in our lives right now. What exactly is evolution? Evolution is “the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation”. (What is evolution) Simply, descent with modification. Charles Darwin was the first person with the acceptable explanation of evolution. Although his theory gave forth too many tremendous advances, he did not build this theory on his own. He learned and built off earlier theorists, like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, “who indorsed linear evolution”. (evolution) As well as Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, with his concept of Scala Nature. These early theorists served as a foundation for Charles Darwin’s theory. Although Darwin’s theory was important, a greater attribution to evolution was founded. That is the uncovering of fossils. Fossils are significant to the evolution because they show how life on Earth was

Essay on Why Evolution is True, by Jerry A. Coyne

1 Works Cited

What is evolution? Evolution in modern terms is fairly easy to understand. Evolution is the theory that life on earth began with a single celled organism that lived more that 3.5 billion years ago that slowly evolved into

Essay about Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

What is evolution? Evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation

Will the Earliest Hominid Please Standup?: Evoultion Exposed Essay

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristic of biological populations over successive generations (Wikipedia). The most notable theory of evolution was Charles Darwin’s speculation about natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success, defined by Ker Than, a Senior Editor in TechNewsDaily on livescience.com. Darwin published the first edition of “The Origin of Species” in 1859, in which Darwin theorized how a bear can turn in to a whale by natural selection. "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," Darwin speculated (Than).

Essay about Argument and Natural Selection

1. “I like the rain. Some people will tell you that the sun is the best, but they are wrong. What waits for you in the sun? Skin cancer. What waits for you in the rain? Puddles to jump in. I’ll take puddles over cancer any day.” Tell me as much as you can about this passage as an argument (especially the parts).

Evolution Is Real

Evolution is a change over time in species to adapt to new environments. Evolution has been a known fact now, but not all people believe in it. Some believe that evolution is a myth, or a lie. There is evidence that evolution is real.

Essay about Evidence for Evolution

12 Works Cited

The foundation for the theory of evolution was laid by Charles Darwin (Rose, n.d.). He developed hypotheses about natural selection which helped scientists develop the theory. Evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis because evolution has been proven by vast amounts of scientific data, research, and testing. The definition of a hypothesis is an educated explanation that needs to be researched and tested but has not yet been proven (Earman, 1984). There has been no scientific evidence to disprove the theory of evolution.

Essay on Creation vs. Evolution in the Public Schools

6 Works Cited

The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans.” (Answers in Genesis 1). Despite the many claims that “evolution” simply means a change, scientifically speaking it means much more. Evolutionary ideals describe changes that allow scientists to date life on the earth to be 4.5 billion years, to trace the entire living population of every animal, insect, plant, virus, and bacteria back to one simple cell, and to conclude that the first cell supposedly came into being sporadically from a pool of organic molecules (Archean 1). Science cannot factually support evolutionary concepts because evolution cannot be tested; observation holds a critical role for experiments to take place, yet spontaneous creation of a cell has not recurred since the alleged first living cell created itself. Evolution cannot be proven, and therefore, the public school system should not teach evolution as fact, especially with no exposure to alternative concepts.

Arabidopsis Thalian The Role Of Evolution In Species

Evolution is reoccuring, the world changes little by little, day by day. Evolution is the mere evidence of changes in the environment and the organisms inhabiting it. It is the biology in earth’s history. The measurement of evolution varies on each organism. Some organisms evolve at a faster rate and some gradually change depending on their fitness rate to be able to survive varying environments and timelines.

Spitzer Hall: Exhibit: Human Biology And Evolution

Evolution is the theory that all living things form an ancient ancestor. Evolution is the process in which species have changed over time. Evolution mostly occurs when adapting to an environment. It happens when the gene is passed or inherited to future generations. When the mutation is passed on, the change helps living organism to survive and reproduce. Some offspring receive characteristics that are more successful at surviving. These characteristics can change over time and create a new species, while the previous becomes

Argumentative Essay: Is Evolution Real?

Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Over time evolution has been suggested and proven. Some people think evolution is fake, but there is lots of evidence to prove it is real. The misconception is people believing in a God and that he created everything. They are not correct. Evolution is an idea proven by the way animals and humans have evolved today.

Argumentative Essay: Friend, Evolution

Friend,evolution is real and there are many things that can prove it.A LOT of things that can prove it is real.Things like fossils and the many books researchers have wrote.Even standard observation has proved that things adapt and evolve.There is the concept of survival of the fittest that Darwin made.Darwin researched for years and traveled to many places observing many types of animals

Argumentative Essay On Evidence Of Evolution

Evolution is a complex and at times controversial topic. The theory of evolution has been argued since it was first discovered by Charles Darwin. Evolution has many misconceptions regarding how it came about and its process. The idea that there is an actual science to how species evolved and continue to evolve is extraordinary.

Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution

Students and adults often have questions about the way humans and our world came into being. Some of the questions are, “What is the difference between creation and evolution?” and “Is evolution more valid than creation?” Evolutionists tend to say that the debate between creationism and evolution is about the Bible versus science. In reality, the debate is about good science versus bad science. Thanks to the ongoing debate between creationism and evolution, people have continued to explore different areas of science to develop a greater understanding of how we came to exist. Research has led us to surmise that creationism is supported by more scientific evidence than various thoughts on evolution.

Persuasive Essay On Creation Vs Evolution

The debate between creation and evolution has been going on for many years. On the surface it seems like the only thing being debated is which one actually happened and which is false. But there is more to these beliefs. Both affect or lives and the way we live. This is also what is being debated. How you value life is extremely important as I will show. We need to be careful what we choose to believe because it will affect our lives.

A Study Of Charles Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Charles Darwin first discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection, in 1858, alongside Alfred Wallace. It is the process of which organisms change overtime as a result of heritable physical and behaviour traits (Live science. 2016). Darwin’s Theory states that individuals of a certain species have variation between others in that certain specie. This is due to the differences in the genes. The genes that allow an individual to survive in their environment are usually passed down to the offspring, which causes little variation in the species (BBC. 2016). Evolution has many supporting evidence and mechanisms that contribute to it.

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

S trange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.

You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight. Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce. And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls.

This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact – and whether other forces might also be at work – has become the subject of bitter dispute. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, “we must find new ways of explaining.”

In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.” Each of the authors came from cutting-edge scientific subfields, from the study of the way organisms alter their environment in order to reduce the normal pressure of natural selection – think of beavers building dams – to new research showing that chemical modifications added to DNA during our lifetimes can be passed on to our offspring. The authors called for a new understanding of evolution that could make room for such discoveries. The name they gave this new framework was rather bland – the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) – but their proposals were, to many fellow scientists, incendiary.

In 2015, the Royal Society in London agreed to host New Trends in Evolution , a conference at which some of the article’s authors would speak alongside a distinguished lineup of scientists. The aim was to discuss “new interpretations, new questions, a whole new causal structure for biology”, one of the organisers told me. But when the conference was announced, 23 fellows of the Royal Society, Britain’s oldest and most prestigious scientific organisation, wrote a letter of protest to its then president, the Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse. “The fact that the society would hold a meeting that gave the public the idea that this stuff is mainstream is disgraceful,” one of the signatories told me. Nurse was surprised by the reaction. “They thought I was giving it too much credibility,” he told me. But, he said: “There’s no harm in discussing things.”

Traditional evolutionary theorists were invited, but few showed up. Nick Barton, recipient of the 2008 Darwin-Wallace medal, evolutionary biology’s highest honour, told me he “decided not to go because it would add more fuel to the strange enterprise”. The influential biologists Brian and Deborah Charlesworth of the University of Edinburgh told me they didn’t attend because they found the premise “irritating”. The evolutionary theorist Jerry Coyne later wrote that the scientists behind the EES were playing “revolutionaries” to advance their own careers. One 2017 paper even suggested some of the theorists behind the EES were part of an “increasing post-truth tendency” within science. The personal attacks and insinuations against the scientists involved were “shocking” and “ugly”, said one scientist, who is nonetheless sceptical of the EES.

What accounts for the ferocity of this backlash? For one thing, this is a battle of ideas over the fate of one of the grand theories that shaped the modern age. But it is also a struggle for professional recognition and status, about who gets to decide what is core and what is peripheral to the discipline. “The issue at stake,” says Arlin Stoltzfus, an evolutionary theorist at the IBBR research institute in Maryland, “is who is going to write the grand narrative of biology.” And underneath all this lurks another, deeper question: whether the idea of a grand story of biology is a fairytale we need to finally give up.

B ehind the current battle over evolution lies a broken dream. In the early 20th century, many biologists longed for a unifying theory that would enable their field to join physics and chemistry in the club of austere, mechanistic sciences that stripped the universe down to a set of elemental rules. Without such a theory, they feared that biology would remain a bundle of fractious sub-fields, from zoology to biochemistry, in which answering any question might require input and argument from scores of warring specialists.

From today’s vantage point, it seems obvious that Darwin’s theory of evolution – a simple, elegant theory that explains how one force, natural selection, came to shape the entire development of life on Earth – would play the role of the great unifier. But at the turn of the 20th century, four decades after the publication of On the Origin of Species and two after his death, Darwin’s ideas were in decline. Scientific collections at the time carried titles such as The Death-bed of Darwinism. Scientists had not lost interest in evolution, but many found Darwin’s account of it unsatisfying. One major problem was that it lacked an explanation of heredity. Darwin had observed that, over time, living things seemed to change to better fit their environment. But he did not understand how these minute changes were passed from one generation to the next.

At the start of the 20th century, the rediscovery of the work of the 19th-century friar and father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, started to provide the answers. Scientists working in the new field of genetics discovered rules that governed the quirks of heredity. But rather than confirm Darwin’s theory, they complicated it. Reproduction appeared to remix genes – the mysterious units that programme the physical traits we end up seeing – in surprising ways. Think of the way a grandfather’s red hair, absent in his son, might reappear in his granddaughter. How was natural selection meant to function when its tiny variations might not even reliably pass from parent to offspring every time?

A 19th-century French cartoon featuring Charles Darwin.

Even more ominous for Darwinists was the emergence of the “mutationists” in the 1910s, a school of geneticists whose star exponent, Thomas Hunt Morgan, showed that by breeding millions of fruit flies – and sometimes spiking their food with the radioactive element radium – he could produce mutated traits, such as new eye colours or additional limbs. These were not the tiny random variations on which Darwin’s theory was built, but sudden, dramatic changes. And these mutations, it turned out, were heritable. The mutationists believed that they had identified life’s true creative force. Sure, natural selection helped to remove unsuitable changes, but it was simply a humdrum editor for the flamboyant poetry of mutation. “ Natura non facit saltum ,” Darwin had once written: “Nature does not make jumps.” The mutationists begged to differ.

These disputes over evolution had the weight of a theological schism. At stake were the forces governing all creation. For Darwinists especially, their theory was all-or-nothing. If another force, apart from natural selection, could also explain the differences we see between living things, Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species, his whole theory of life would “utterly break down”. If the mutationists were right, instead of a single force governing all biological change, scientists would have to dig deep into the logic of mutation. Did it work differently on legs and lungs? Did mutations in frogs work differently to mutations in owls or elephants?

In 1920, the philosopher Joseph Henry Woodger wrote that biology suffered from “fragmentation” and “cleavages” that would be “unknown in such a well-unified science as, for example, chemistry”. The divergent groups often feuded, he noted, and it seemed to be getting worse. It began to seem inevitable that the life sciences would grow more and more fractured, and the possibility of a common language would slip away.

J ust as it seemed that Darwinism might be buried, a curious collection of statisticians and animal breeders came along to revitalise it. In the 1920s and 30s, working separately but in loose correspondence, thinkers such as the British father of scientific statistics, Ronald Fisher, and the American geneticist Sewall Wright, proposed a revised theory of evolution that accounted for scientific advances since Darwin’s death but still promised to explain all of life’s mysteries with a few simple rules. In 1942, the English biologist Julian Huxley coined the name for this theory: the modern synthesis. Eighty years on, it still provides the basic framework for evolutionary biology as it is taught to millions of schoolchildren and undergraduates every year. Insofar as a biologist works in the tradition of the modern synthesis, they are considered “mainstream”; insofar as they reject it, they are considered marginal.

Despite the name, it was not actually a synthesis of two fields, but a vindication of one in light of the other. By building statistical models of animal populations that accounted for the laws of genetics and mutation, the modern synthesists showed that, over long periods of time, natural selection still functioned much as Darwin had predicted. It was still the boss. In the fullness of time, mutations were too rare to matter, and the rules of heredity didn’t affect the overall power of natural selection. Through a gradual process, genes with advantages were preserved over time, while others that didn’t confer advantages disappeared.

Rather than getting stuck into the messy world of individual organisms and their specific environments, proponents of the modern synthesis observed from the lofty perspective of population genetics. To them, the story of life was ultimately just the story of clusters of genes surviving or dying out over the grand sweep of evolutionary time.

British biologist Julian Huxley addressing the Zoological Society in 1942.

The modern synthesis arrived at just the right time. Beyond its explanatory power, there were two further reasons – more historical, or even sociological, than scientific – why it took off. First, the mathematical rigour of the synthesis was impressive, and not seen before in biology. As the historian Betty Smocovitis points out, it brought the field closer to “examplar sciences” such as physics. At the same time, writes Smocovitis, it promised to unify the life sciences at a moment when the “enlightenment project” of scientific unification was all the rage. In 1946, the biologists Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson started the Society for the Study of Evolution , a professional organisation with its own journal, which Simpson said would bring together the sub-fields of biology on “the common ground of evolutionary studies”. This was all possible, he later reflected , because “we seem at last to have a unified theory […] capable of facing all the classic problems of the history of life and of providing a causalistic solution of each.”

This was a time when biology was ascending to its status as a major science. University departments were forming, funding was flowing in, and thousands of newly accredited scientists were making thrilling discoveries. In 1944, the Canadian-American biologist Oswald Avery and his colleagues had proved that DNA was the physical substance of genes and heredity, and in 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick – leaning heavily on work from Rosalind Franklin and the American chemist Linus Pauling – mapped its double-helical structure.

While information piled up at a rate that no scientist could fully digest, the steady thrum of the modern synthesis ran through it all. The theory dictated that, ultimately, genes built everything, and natural selection scrutinised every bit of life for advantage. Whether you were looking at algae blooming in a pond or peacock mating rituals, it could all be understood as natural selection doing its work on genes. The world of life could seem suddenly simple again.

By 1959, when the University of Chicago held a conference celebrating the centennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the modern synthesists were triumphant. The venues were packed and national newspaper reporters followed the proceedings. (Queen Elizabeth was invited, but sent her apologies.) Huxley crowed that “this is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution”.

Yet soon enough, the modern synthesis would come under assault from scientists within the very departments that the theory had helped build.

F rom the start, there had always been dissenters. In 1959, the developmental biologist CH Waddington lamented that the modern synthesis had sidelined valuable theories in favour of “drastic simplifications which are liable to lead us to a false picture of how the evolutionary process works”. Privately, he complained that anyone working outside the new evolutionary “party line” – that is, anyone who didn’t embrace the modern synthesis – was ostracised.

Then came a devastating series of new findings that called into question the theory’s foundations. These discoveries, which began in the late 60s, came from molecular biologists. While the modern synthesists looked at life as if through a telescope, studying the development of huge populations over immense chunks of time, the molecular biologists looked through a microscope, focusing on individual molecules. And when they looked, they found that natural selection was not the all-powerful force that many had assumed it to be.

They found that the molecules in our cells – and thus the sequences of the genes behind them – were mutating at a very high rate. This was unexpected, but not necessarily a threat to mainstream evolutionary theory. According to the modern synthesis, even if mutations turned out to be common, natural selection would, over time, still be the primary cause of change, preserving the useful mutations and junking the useless ones. But that isn’t what was happening. The genes were changing – that is, evolving – but natural selection wasn’t playing a part. Some genetic changes were being preserved for no reason apart from pure chance. Natural selection seemed to be asleep at the wheel.

Evolutionary biologists were stunned. In 1973, David Attenborough presented a BBC documentary that included an interview with one of the leading modern synthesists, Theodosius Dobzhansky. He was visibly distraught at the “non-Darwinian evolution” that some scientists were now proposing. “If this were so, evolution would have hardly any meaning, and would not be going anywhere in particular,” he said. “This is not simply a quibble among specialists. To a man looking for the meaning of his existence, evolution by natural selection makes sense.” Where once Christians had complained that Darwin’s theory made life meaningless, now Darwinists levelled the same complaint at scientists who contradicted Darwin.

Other assaults on evolutionary orthodoxy followed. The influential palaeontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge argued that the fossil record showed evolution often happened in short, concentrated bursts; it didn’t have to be slow and gradual. Other biologists simply found that the modern synthesis had little relevance to their work. As the study of life increased in complexity, a theory based on which genes were selected in various environments started to seem beside the point. It didn’t help answer questions such as how life emerged from the seas, or how complex organs, such as the placenta, developed. Using the lens of the modern synthesis to explain the latter, says the Yale developmental biologist Günter Wagner, would be “like using thermodynamics to explain how the brain works”. (The laws of thermodynamics, which explain how energy is transferred, do apply to the brain, but they aren’t much help if you want to know how memories are formed or why we experience emotion.)

Just as feared, the field split. In the 70s, molecular biologists in many universities peeled off from biology departments to form their own separate departments and journals. Some in other sub-fields, such as palaeontology and developmental biology, drifted away as well. Yet the biggest field of all, mainstream evolutionary biology, continued much as before. The way the champions of the modern synthesis – who by this point dominated university biology departments – dealt with potentially destabilising new findings was by acknowledging that such processes happen sometimes (subtext: rarely), are useful to some specialists (subtext: obscure ones), but do not fundamentally alter the basic understanding of biology that descends from the modern synthesis (subtext: don’t worry about it, we can continue as before). In short, new discoveries were often dismissed as little more than mildly diverting curiosities.

Today, the modern synthesis “remains, mutatis mutandis , the core of modern evolutionary biology” wrote the evolutionary theorist Douglas Futuyma in a 2017 paper defending the mainstream view. The current version of the theory allows some room for mutation and random chance, but still views evolution as the story of genes surviving in vast populations. Perhaps the biggest change from the theory’s mid-century glory days is that its most ambitious claims – that simply by understanding genes and natural selection, we can understand all life on earth – have been dropped, or now come weighted with caveats and exceptions. This shift has occurred with little fanfare. The theory’s ideas are still deeply embedded in the field, yet no formal reckoning with its failures or schisms has occurred. To its critics, the modern synthesis occupies a position akin to a president reneging on a campaign promise – it failed to satisfy its entire coalition, but remains in office, hands on the levers of power, despite its diminished offer.

Brian and Deborah Charlesworth are considered by many to be high priests of the tradition that descends from the modern synthesis. They are eminent thinkers, who have written extensively on the place of new theories in evolutionary biology, and they don’t believe any radical revision is needed. Some argue that they are too conservative, but they insist they are simply careful – cautious about dismantling a tried-and-tested framework in favour of theories that lack evidence. They are interested in fundamental truths about evolution, not explaining every diverse result of the process.

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

K evin Laland, the scientist who organised the contentious Royal Society conference, believes it is time for proponents of neglected evolutionary sub-fields to band together. Laland and his fellow proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the EES, call for a new way of thinking about evolution – one that starts not by seeking the simplest explanation, or the universal one, but what combination of approaches offers the best explanation to biology’s major questions. Ultimately, they want their sub-fields – plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution – not just recognised, but formalised in the canon of biology.

There are some firebrands among this group. The geneticist Eva Jablonka has proclaimed herself a neo-Lamarckist, after Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the 19th-century populariser of pre-Darwinian ideas of inheritance, who has often been seen as a punchline in the history of science. Meanwhile, the physiologist Denis Noble has called for a “revolution” against traditional evolutionary theory. But Laland, a lead author on many of the movement’s papers, insists that they simply want to expand the current definition of evolution. They are reformers, not revolutionaries.

The case for EES rests on a simple claim: in the past few decades, we have learned many remarkable things about the natural world – and these things should be given space in biology’s core theory. One of the most fascinating recent areas of research is known as plasticity, which has shown that some organisms have the potential to adapt more rapidly and more radically than was once thought. Descriptions of plasticity are startling, bringing to mind the kinds of wild transformations you might expect to find in comic books and science fiction movies.

Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus , AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are “much more content” living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. “They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land,” Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But, says Armin Moczek, an extended synthesis proponent, the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”. He sounded almost proud of the fish.

Moczek’s own area of expertise is dung beetles, another remarkably plastic species. With future climate change in mind, he and his colleagues tested the beetles’ response to different temperatures. Colder weather makes it harder for the beetles to take off. But the researchers found that they responded to these conditions by growing larger wings. The crucial thing about such observations, which challenge the traditional understanding of evolution, is that these sudden developments all come from the same underlying genes. The species’s genes aren’t being slowly honed, generation by generation. Rather, during its early development it has the potential to grow in a variety of ways, allowing it to survive in different situations.

“We believe this is ubiquitous across species,” says David Pfennig of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He works on spadefoot toads, amphibians the size of a Matchbox car. Spadefoots are normally omnivorous, but spadefoot tadpoles raised solely on meat grow larger teeth, more powerful jaws, and a hardy, more complex gut. Suddenly, they resemble a powerful carnivore, feeding on hardy crustaceans, and even other tadpoles.

Plasticity doesn’t invalidate the idea of gradual change through selection of small changes, but it offers another evolutionary system with its own logic working in concert. To some researchers, it may even hold the answers to the vexed question of biological novelties: the first eye, the first wing. “Plasticity is perhaps what sparks the rudimentary form of a novel trait,” says Pfennig.

Plasticity is well accepted in developmental biology, and the pioneering theorist Mary Jane West-Eberhard began making the case that it was a core evolutionary force in the early 00s. And yet, to biologists in many other fields, it is virtually unknown. Undergraduates beginning their education are unlikely to hear anything about it, and it has still to make much mark in popular science writing.

Biology is full of theories like this. Other interests of the EES include extra-genetic inheritance, known as epigenetics. This is the idea that something – say a psychological injury, or a disease – experienced by a parent attaches small chemical molecules to their DNA that are repeated in their children. This has been shown to happen in some animals across multiple generations, and caused controversy when it was suggested as an explanation for intergenerational trauma in humans. Other EES proponents track the inheritance of things like culture – as when groups of dolphins develop and then teach each other new hunting techniques – or the communities of helpful microbes in animal guts or plant roots, which are tended to and passed on through generations like a tool. In both cases, researchers contend that these factors might impact evolution enough to warrant a more central role. Some of these ideas have become briefly fashionable, but remain disputed. Others have sat around for decades, offering their insights to a small audience of specialists and no one else. Just like at the turn of the 20th century, the field is split into hundreds of sub-fields, each barely aware of the rest.

To the EES group, this is a problem that urgently needs to be solved – and the only solution is a more capacious unifying theory. These scientists are keen to expand their research and gather the data to disprove their doubters. But they are also aware that logging results in the literature may not be enough. “Parts of the modern synthesis are deeply ingrained in the whole scientific community, in funding networks, positions, professorships,” says Gerd B Müller, head of the Department of Theoretical Biology at the university of Vienna and a major backer of the EES. “It’s a whole industry.”

The modern synthesis was such a seismic event that even its flatly wrong ideas took up to half a century to correct. The mutationists were so thoroughly buried that even after decades of proof that mutation was, in fact, a key part of evolution, their ideas were still regarded with suspicion. As recently as 1990, one of the most influential university evolution textbooks could claim that “the role of new mutations is not of immediate significance” – something that very few scientists then, or now, actually believe. Wars of ideas are not won with ideas alone.

To release biology from the legacy of the modern synthesis, explains Massimo Pigliucci, a former professor of evolution at Stony Brook University in New York, you need a range of tactics to spark a reckoning: “Persuasion, students taking up these ideas, funding, professorial positions.” You need hearts as well as minds. During a Q&A with Pigliucci at a conference in 2017, one audience member commented that the disagreement between EES proponents and more conservative biologists sometimes looked more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement. According to one attender, “Pigliucci basically said: ‘Sure, it’s a culture war, and we’re going to win it,’ and half the room burst out cheering.”

T o some scientists, though, the battle between traditionalists and extended synthesists is futile. Not only is it impossible to make sense of modern biology, they say, it is unnecessary. Over the past decade the influential biochemist Ford Doolittle has published essays rubbishing the idea that the life sciences need codification. “We don’t need no friggin’ new synthesis. We didn’t even really need the old synthesis,” he told me.

What Doolittle and like-minded scientists want is more radical: the death of grand theories entirely. They see such unifying projects as a mid-century – even modernist – conceit, that have no place in the postmodern era of science. The idea that there could be a coherent theory of evolution is “an artefact of how biology developed in the 20th century, probably useful at the time,” says Doolittle. “But not now.” Doing right by Darwin isn’t about venerating all his ideas, he says, but building on his insight that we can explain how present life forms came from past ones in radical new ways.

Doolittle and his allies, such as the computational biologist Arlin Stoltzfus, are descendants of the scientists who challenged the modern synthesis from the late 60s onwards by emphasising the importance of randomness and mutation . The current superstar of this view, known as neutral evolution, is Michael Lynch, a geneticist at the University of Arizona. Lynch is soft-spoken in conversation, but unusually pugnacious in what scientists call “the literature”. His books rail against scientists who accept the status quo and fail to appreciate the rigorous mathematics that undergirds his work. “For the vast majority of biologists, evolution is nothing more than natural selection,” he wrote in 2007. “This blind acceptance […] has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.” (Lynch is also not a fan of the EES. If it were up to him, biology would be even more reductive than the modern synthesists imagined.)

What Lynch has shown, over the past two decades, is that many of the complex ways DNA is organised in our cells probably happened at random. Natural selection has shaped the living world, he argues, but so too has a sort of formless cosmic drifting that can, from time to time, assemble order from chaos. When I spoke to Lynch, he said he would continue to extend his work to as many fields of biology as possible – looking at cells, organs, even whole organisms – to prove that these random processes were universal.

As with so many of the arguments that divide evolutionary biologists today, this comes down to a matter of emphasis. More conservative biologists do not deny that random processes occur, but believe they’re much less important than Doolittle or Lynch think.

The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. “In my view there is no – can be no – single theory of evolution,” he told me. “There cannot be a single theory of everything. Even physicists do not have a theory of everything.”

This is true. Physicists agree that the theory of quantum mechanics applies to very tiny particles, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity applies to larger ones. Yet the two theories appear incompatible. Late in life, Einstein hoped to find a way to unify them. He died unsuccessful. In the next few decades, other physicists took up the same task, but progress stalled, and many came to believe it might be impossible. If you ask a physicist today about whether we need a unifying theory, they would probably look at you with puzzlement. What’s the point, they might ask. The field works, the work continues.

This article was amended on 4 July 2022. An earlier version described Sewall Wright as a livestock breeder. To clarify, Wright spent a decade as a senior animal husbandman for the US Department of Agriculture before becoming a professor at the University of Chicago.

The long read
Charles Darwin

More on this story

Charles Darwin autograph manuscript could fetch £700,000 at auction

Rare orchid flourishes in Charles Darwin’s gardens after two-year project

Stolen Darwin journals returned to Cambridge University library

How should we address Charles Darwin's complicated legacy?

Charles Darwin's notebooks reported stolen from Cambridge University

Charles Darwin's ailments are 'typical of Lyme disease' in UK

The Wider Earth review – Natural History Museum's Darwin spectacular

The removal of Darwin and evolution from schools is a backwards step

Regions & Countries

Overview: the conflict between religion and evolution.

Updated February 3, 2014

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has grown in both size and intensity. In the last decade, debates over how evolution should be taught in schools have been heard in school boards, town councils and legislatures in more than half the states.

Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S. )

But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.

Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution – notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.(See Fighting Over Darwin, State by State .)

These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Most of the nation’s scientists contend that evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution .) These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline .) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life – a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution .) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin’s ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive (“survival of the fittest”) has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution’s broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life’s origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation’s culture wars and has been taken up by legislatures and boards of education in more than a dozen states in the last year alone. For example, the Texas Board of Education recently debated what kinds of biology textbooks students should and should not read. (See Fighting Over Darwin: State by State .) And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.

Evolution: A Glossary of Terms

Creationism – The belief that the creation story in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible book of Genesis is literally true and is akin to a scientific explanation for the creation of the Earth and the development of life.

Creation science – A movement that has attempted to uncover scientific evidence to show that the biblical creation story is true. Some in the creation science movement, known as “young Earth creationists,” reject not only evolution but also the idea that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old.

Darwinian evolution – The theory, first articulated by Charles Darwin, that life on Earth has evolved through natural selection, a process through which plants and animals change over time by adapting to their environments.

Intelligent design – The belief that life is too complex to have evolved entirely through natural processes and that an outside, possibly divine force must have played a role in the origin and development of life.

Social Darwinism – A belief that Darwin’s evolutionary theory can be applied to human society and that groups of people, just like life in the wild, are subject to “survival of the fittest.” The now discredited idea influenced many social theories and movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from laissez-faire capitalism to various eugenics movements.

Scientific theory – A statement or principle, honed through scientific observation, reasoning and experimentation, that explains a natural phenomenon.

Theistic evolution – A belief held by some religious groups, including the Catholic Church, that God is the guiding force behind the process of evolution.

This report was written by David Masci, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project.

Promo image credit: Getty Images

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Report Materials

10 facts about religion and government in the united states, four-in-ten countries and territories worldwide had blasphemy laws in 2019, faith on the hill, half of americans say bible should influence u.s. laws, including 28% who favor it over the will of the people, with religion-related rulings on the horizon, u.s. christians see supreme court favorably, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Creationism vs. Evolution: Either dust or lightening started it all

Alyssa Beck

Senior Seminar

December 2, 2002

Thesis: Evolution and Creationism are controversial issues that scientists and theologians are trying to find a common ground to explain how it all started.

A. Introduction

B. The Beginning

C. Age of the Earth

D. Other topics

E. Human Evolution

F. Conclusion

G. References

Introduction

Creationism and the study of evolution has been a controversial debate for decades now, leaving many people on one side or the other. Creationism argues that faith should take precedent over science, basing its beliefs on one book for guidance, the Bible. God created the earth and everything on it, taking six days. Evolutionists believe that the earth is much older than the Bible describes, and that plants, animals, and humans are a result of a natural progression called evolution. There were no common ancestors (Adam and Eve) from whom we came; it was a natural selection process, stemming from inorganic compounds and nature. For many people in the scientific world, it is hard to take a final stance on this issue since there is evidence of evolution, but that is where faith in God and what God has done comes into effect. According to a great medieval philosopher, Moses Maimonides, “conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible”(Schroeder, 3). This paper will reveal some topics that these two groups debate about, along with their viewpoints.

The Beginning

The beginning of the earth, along with the birth of humans is one of the biggest and most contentious issues among creationists and evolutionists. Scientific theory holds the opinion that the universe is eternal, while the Bible states that there is a beginning. It has been proven that there was an official beginning; the question that arises is when that exact beginning took place, a time where there was neither time nor space nor matter. Christianity uses the Old Testament to describe the beginning of life. In the span of six days, God created the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon, water, animals, and ended with the finalé of human beings. Other major events such as Noah’s flood occurred along the lifespan of the earth, accounting for the distribution of fossils and the formation of the earth’s layers. St. Augustine of Hippo (who was raised a Christian and later became a member of the Manicheans) believed that the Old Testament was nonsense. He “believed therefore that organic forms were potentially in a kind of seed-form, and realized actually when the conditions were right- when the seas appeared for instance”(Ruse, 51). Augustine believed that God created everything in one move: conception, wish, and creation were all at the same time. This thinking was also a belief held by Galileo later on in history.

Evolution is defined as “the development by natural causes of all organisms, those today and those yesterday, from other forms probably ultimately much simpler and originally perhaps from non-living substances”(Ruse, 12). According to evolutionists, the earth began approximately 4.5 billion years ago, with the explosion of life beginning around 55 million years ago. To evolutionists, the starting of life began as inorganic molecules that underwent a natural transformation (through electricity or heat) to become organic molecules. These building blocks joined to form macromolecule chains that eventually made up organisms. The chains started to replicate and “feed off the ‘pre-embryonic soup’, which is the state of ponds and so forth as the result of the first stage of evolution”(Ruse, 62). Experiments done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in Chicago (1950’s) confirmed this by subjecting inorganic molecules to heat and electric shock. They were able to obtain organic amino acid compounds naturally and rapidly. Evolution finds the origins of organisms developing along a 4.5 billion year span, and says that humans are a “new creation”. It does deny though that humans are the final creation, which contradicts the creationism theory where God created human beings in the last day, then resting after Creation was complete. Fossil identification and geography gave evolutionists some insight as to when earth and life began. Other ways used besides fossil identification to guide evolution include: comparing anatomical features, embryological analogies, and similarities/dissimilarities.

Charles Darwin was a strong believer in evolution and was the founder of the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the theory that there is competition – for survival, mates, space, food, shelter, etc.- in which the favorable organisms tend to be preserved by nature and the unfavorable ones tend to die out, leading to evolution. There are two major types of evolution, macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution deals with changes above the species level, while microevolution is changes in gene frequencies within a population, which may lead to the formation of new species. Darwin believed natural selection occurred in nature, the need to select and breed only the best and most desirable stock. The concepts of genetics and hereditary did not come along until later when introduced by Gregor Mendel, and later the study of evolution emerged with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.

The Age of the Earth

The age of the earth has been debatable, first with creationists stating that the earth started with God first creating the heavens and the earth. Some scientists argue that the earth already had the properties to sustain life, as the Bible agrees. “And God said, Let the land produce vegetation”(Genesis 1:11), and later on, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind”(1:24). Nowhere in the Bible does it say or suggest that each species had its own creation. A view that is strongly upheld by creationists is that all living things have remained fixed over time, God created each creature the exact way that we see the organisms today. When God created the earth and everything on it, God said it was good. Creationists argue that if something arose that was not perfect in God’s eyes; God had the power to destroy it, hence the reasoning for the flood. God kept the good and destroyed the bad.

It is scientifically difficult to take the Bible seriously because many interpretations have been made over the decades and most people believe that one cannot take everything within the Bible literally. For example in Genesis 1:5,8,13, it describes how God created evening and day, and every verse following a day of creation ends with “and there was evening and the there was morning”. But it is not until later on in Genesis that a sun and moon were created to govern the day and evening. “God made two great lights- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night”(1:16). This example, along with countless others points to scientific belief that the Bible is an unreliable source, one that specific scientific information should not be taken from. The Bible does suggest one evolutionary change in a physical trait, the trait of longevity. Throughout the Bible, the life spans (at the beginning were around 900 years) and sexual maturity (ranged from 65-187) decreased, for it was a miracle for Sarah and Abraham to have a son, and she was only 89 years old. “The trend of shortening life span and more rapid sexual maturity is similar to that observed in domesticated animals”(Schroeder, 15). This forms a basis for today’s breeding and population genetics. Evolutionists state that creationists have only one source from which they are arguing from, and their arguments are a way of covering up what they do not know or understand about the scientific world. This failure has come in two main ways: “1) the failure to deal with the large amount of evidence that supports evolution and the fact that animals and plants are different today than in the past, and 2) the failure to provide any alternative theory to natural history”(Miller, 55). The real theory of creationism is based and centered on faith, faith in God and what God has provided. “Science exists because of evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith, and, in the case of fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of evidence”(Berra, 130).

The evolutionists take a different stand on this topic of life. “No mention of a special creation is associated with the start of life. The earth itself had the special properties to orchestrate the beginning of life”(29). Today this would be referred to as self-organization with the aid of catalysts. The experiments done by Miller and Urey support the statement that the earth was awaiting for its beginning on its own time. Organic molecules, proteins, plant life, and animal life evolved along with way. Fossil evidence was discovered that showed life started immediately on a cooled earth. Fossils show a variety of species and show species evolving into other species (intermediate or transitional species). “The fact of the matter is that the fossil record not only documents evolution, but that it was the fossil record itself which forced natural scientists to abandon their idea of the fixity of species and looks instead for a plausible mechanism of change, a mechanism of evolution”(Miller, 48). For example in the western United States, scientists were able to trace the modern single-hoofed horse to a dog-sized creature, Eohippus , which ran around on its five toes. Also, according to animal and human development, all organisms start out life in the same form, eventually specializing into their specific species. For example, the human develops similar to a reptile with a few modifications that make the human species unique: yolk sac to fish eggs to having a tail to a 3- chambered heart (like a reptile) to a 4 -chambered heart to reptilian double jaw joint to skin folds (gill slits) to covering of hair to having human characteristics.

One argument against fossil evidence is the idea that fossil dating could be inaccurate. Fossil dating is done using Carbon 14, but for it to be of value, the amount of C-14 must have always been a constant. If the intensity of radiation (specifically cosmic radiation) differed in any way, then the C-14 dating system would be flawed. Scientists discovered fossils throughout the various layers of the earth according to the time period the organisms corresponded with. The bottom layers contained species associated with the beginning of the earth, while the top layers contain more recent and advanced species, especially mammals. Evolutionists feel that these findings strongly argue for evolution. They feel that if God had created the earth and everything on it, all fossil remains would be mixed together. Creationists argue that the reason for the fossils being distributed the way they are is because of the Great Flood. Most of the time creationists avoid this topic because of the lack of evidence they have against it. The controversy continues whether gradual evolution took place, and if it did occur, why was it not evident in fossil records. “The ferocity of the battle suggests that sudden leaps in the record would imply God’s direct role in evolution while gradualism would mean randomness and no role for God”(Schroeder, 32).

Human Evolution

How human beings came to be on the earth is another big topic among evolutionists and creationists. Creationists live faithfully by the belief that God made Adam from dust, in God’s image, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person”(Genesis 2:7). Eve was later made from the ribcage of Adam as a companion. Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human species race, and from them, all human beings descend. Human beings were made in God’s image, giving us a choice to become spiritual and moral beings. This is what separates us from any other species, for human beings have a soul, guided by God. The creation of Adam could be seen differently though depending on how one interprets the Bible. The making of Adam relates to the body. In the Hebrew language, the word adam is rooted in the word meaning soil. The creation of Adam refers to the human soul, the neshama. Legends and biblical scholars would say that Adam was created at the age of twenty, but it could be possible for him to be made at an earlier age and lived for nineteen years without a soul. He became a human being at the age of twenty when God created him with neshama. There are several verses within the Bible (Numbers 1:3, 14:29, Deuteronomy 1:39) that teach at the age of twenty one becomes divinely responsible for their own actions. Before the soul was given, there was something like a man, but not completely human. So one view could be that Adam was created at the age of twenty, and before his creation, he had evolved from the primate species. When God finally saw a creature that God wanted to represent God’s image, a soul was given, and Adam was created.

Evolutionists have a different view of how human beings came into the world, believing that we have evolved from other species, specifically the primates. Fossil records have shown that Homo sapiens have evolved from four-legged creatures swinging through trees, to 2-legged creatures that walk the earth. Fossils of pre-historic humans show a remarkable resemblance to the primates, all the way from the jaw and forehead, to the torso and feet. Throughout time, evolution has adapted the human species into modern day human beings, making it possible to live in present-day times. Although it is hard to believe, we have now “established that it was only five to six million years ago that we split off from the ancestral lines leading to the gorillas and chimpanzees, our closest relatives…”(Ruse, 69). Language developed because of adaptation as the need presented itself. Just as we have changed technology to make things easier for us, evolution has adapted us also, making it possible for us to live in today’s society. It is doubtful that we could have lived in the same time that Neanderthals lived, as they would be unable to live in today’s world.

Creationism and evolution have two very different viewpoints of how the earth and human beings began. Creationism is based on the belief that the Bible is a credible source, which gives the story of Creation. In the span of six days (24 hour days), God created the heavens and the earth, the sun, moon, stars, and all of the creatures of the earth. On the very last day, God created Adam, a human being in God’s image to rule over the earth. Creationists believe that the earth is young, and that organisms are fixed, every organism that we see today is the same organism that God created a few thousands of years ago. Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human race, and we are separated from every other species by the soul that God gave us. Creationists say that those who believe in evolution are immoral. “Most frequent is the charge that evolutionists are ‘pompous and arrogant, just the kind of people that the First Amendment was written to protect us against’, and that they display ‘an academic arrogance frequently typical of the nation’s scientific educational establishment’”(Toumey, 95).

Evolutionists believe that human beings are a result of evolution, beginning with simple molecules to today’s modern person. The earth was made over a long period, beginning 4.5 billion years ago. Life began with inorganic molecules, and with the help of nature, became viable living organisms. Each time period of the earth had its own characteristics with different organisms and life forms making that period unique, and leaving behind traces with fossils. Animals and plant life evolve, becoming more fit for the environment. Human beings have also evolved along the way from our primate ancestors into today’s modern humans, but we are not the final product. We too, will change over time, becoming a different species in future generations. Along with evolution, there are theories such as the Big Bang theory, and critiques of how the Bible views time compared to geological time. Evolutionists believe that God was not the founder of the earth, instead it was a natural phenomenon, beginning with inorganic molecules evolving into today’s modern person.

I agree with both arguments to a certain degree. As a scientist, it is hard to discard tangible evidence that shows life has evolved across species. Yet, as a Christian, my life is centered on faith in God. I believe that God created life, but I believe God did it in a way that uses evolution. I believe that God created everything in six days, but that each day lasted millions of years, with different species and life forms evolving throughout that era. I believe that God structured the world so that there could be evolution. I think that species have to adapt to changing environments, and God made each species of organisms so that it could survive each change that takes place. I do not necessarily believe that human beings are the finalé; I think that we will change over the decades evolving into higher specie. I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory or that life stemmed from inorganic molecules. God started life, and then gave nature freedom to develop. If God did not like the outcome, it was destroyed by means of a natural disaster, such as the asteroid ending the life of the dinosaurs or by the Noah’s flood. If it was good, then things stayed, and life continued. This is a hard topic to take a definite stand on since faith is abstract, yet a way of life for Christians, and science is concrete. There is a need for cooperation between the two worlds though since there are Christians in science, but it takes one to look at both sides to decide on what one’s own theory is on the beginning of life and human evolution.

“Reconciliation does not require that every scientist becomes a believer, or that every believer embrace all aspects of science. It will be complete when we accept the need to read and understand the Bible on the Bible’s terms…and when scientists, having already discovered that there is a limit to knowledge, admit that science is powerless to confirm or deny a purpose for life”(Schroeder, 21).

Berra, Tim M. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA. 1990.

Collegiate and Devotional Bible (NIV). Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1998.

Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 1982.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. Cliff Street Books: New York. 1999.

Montagu, Ashley (Ed). Science and Creationism. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1984.

Pitman, Michael. Adam and Evolution. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1984.

Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 2001.

Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God. The Free Press: New York. 1997.

Toumey, Christopher P. God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ. 1994.

Zetterburg, J. Peter. Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Controversy . Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ. 1983.

Book Review
Open access
Published: 18 March 2010

Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates

Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson (eds): Reading Genesis after Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. xiv + 254. S/b $24.95

Kim Paffenroth 1

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 3 , pages 297–299 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

This anthology consists of 13 essays written by professors trained in biblical studies or theology, writing on the interpretation of Genesis (by which they almost exclusively mean the first chapter of Genesis) since Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). After a brief Introduction by the editors, the book is then divided into three parts: “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” “Understanding the History,” and “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance.” It includes an index of modern authors and a subject index. References of works cited are included in the notes for each chapter, though a bibliography at the end would’ve been a welcome addition.

Section 1, “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” includes four essays. In “How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis?” Walter Moberly discusses the implications of taking Genesis as “a literary phenomenon.” His conclusion is probably unremarkable to anyone trained in modern, liberal biblical criticism, and it will recur in similar terms in several of the other essays: Moberly challenges us to see in Genesis biblical ideas such as “wonder and delight of the world, creaturely contingency, creaturely responsibility, the gift of relationship between creature and Creator, and the difficulty that humans have in genuinely trusting God as a wise Creator and living accordingly”. I think he is quite correct that this view maintains the text’s meaning and relevance, without insisting on a literal reading of it.

Francis Watson takes the history of controversy much further back, in his essay, “Genesis before Darwin: Why Scripture Needed Liberating from Science.” He traces what he calls the “annexation” of the Bible by astronomy and geology in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: harmonization of the biblical account with scientific findings (e.g. the “days as eons” solution) was done to the detriment or obfuscation of both. Darwin put forth his theory with no reference to Genesis, and according to Watson, this shows a more fruitful and beneficial relationship between Genesis and science—separation or liberation from one another.

In “The Six Days of Creation according to the Greek Fathers,” Andrew Louth discusses the interpretation of Genesis by Theophilos of Antioch and Basil. Louth’s conclusions echo Moberly’s, in that he counsels some of the same attitudes toward creation, showing how ancient theologians regarded the created world with “wonder” and “humility” and were convinced of its “interconnectedness”.

In “The Hermeneutics of Reading Genesis after Darwin,” Richard S. Briggs examines the comparison of Genesis with other ancient Near Eastern texts (a method of biblical study that was coming into vogue contemporaneously with Darwin), concluding that the process and implications of such “triangulating” are similar, whether one is comparing Genesis to the Enuma Elish or to Darwin.

Section 2, “Understanding the History,” includes three essays. It starts with John Rogerson’s “What Difference Did Darwin Make?: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” which examines some biblical commentaries published shortly before and shortly after Darwin’s work, to see what effect (if any) it had on their interpretation of the Genesis text. The examination does a good job of showing there was no unanimity among interpreters as to the meaning of Genesis, and a range of interpretations were advocated, both before and after Darwin. Perhaps even more interestingly, even within the group that rejected his theory, interpretations of Genesis often differed.

John Headley Brooke, in “Genesis and the Scientists: Dissonance among the Harmonizers,” returns to some of the scientific controversies already examined in Watson’s essay, concluding similarly that Darwin’s theory may be more amenable to Christianity than attempts at harmonizing Genesis with current scientific theories, since Darwin “purged it [Christianity] of a semi-deistic position”. This is an important distinction for those who would “defend” the Bible, who too often seem to be defending a deistic position that God created the universe and let it go on its own subsequently, rather than defending the idea of a God who wishes to be in communion with humans (the more narrowly biblical concept of God, in either Jewish or Christian interpretation). He also speaks in terms similar to Moberly and Louth, counseling a “nonliteral reading of the text”, and focusing on the text’s primary relevance to “our human existential condition”. David Brown concludes the section with a discussion of some paintings in his essay, “Science and Religion in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Landscape Art.” The most familiar of these to readers is probably Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper.”

Section 3, “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance,” includes six essays. David Wilkinson’s “Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science” gives perhaps the fullest summary of the interpretive issues, compared to the other essays in this collection. He puts Darwin in the context of other, sometimes more fundamental and intractable controversies with the Bible; he briefly describes the creationist alternative (pp. 132-135); he traces the various attempts at harmonization, with their pros and cons; and he lays out possible points where Genesis may still speak to the human condition and understanding. Echoing previous essays in the volume, his conclusion is that a primarily literary approach is needed to understand or appreciate the text, and this will yield an interpretation that does not address cosmogonic or biological data, but rather our “unique conscious intimacy with God”.

In “All God’s Creatures: Reading Genesis on Human and Nonhuman Animals,” David Clough argues that in light of evolution (and other observations of animal consciousness and rationality), Christians should abandon anthropocentric readings of Genesis (what he calls “human-separatist” readings throughout). Jeff Astley argues in “Evolution and Evil: The Difference Darwinism Makes in Theology and Spirituality” that evolution exacerbates the problems of theodicy by making suffering (and large amounts of it) intrinsic to creation.

In “’Male and Female He Created Them’ (Genesis 1:27): Interpreting Gender after Darwin,” Stephen C. Barton examines constructions of gender in the classical world, in the Bible, and in subsequent biblical interpretation, contrasting these with modern and postmodern analyses. Ellen F. Davis looks at how organisms fit into their environment in her essay, “Propriety and Trespass: The Drama of Eating,” drawing some conclusions for our current environmental situation and its (un)sustainability. Finally, Mathew Guest’s essay, “The Plausibility of Creationism: A Sociological Comment,” examines the current popularity of creationism in the USA (and to a much lesser degree in the UK), suggesting some sociological forces that may contribute to its acceptance, despite its logical or factual shortcomings.

Although I was excited when I first began reading this volume, this wore off in the course of study. I would single out three essays for praise. Moberly’s is a very helpful look at how believers could still maintain the importance and sacredness of the biblical text, without interpreting it literally. Rogerson’s is a wonderful and suggestive illustration of how Christian belief and interpretation are never monolithic, and never a matter of “good guys” versus “bad guys.” Wilkinson’s is a thorough and accessible discussion of the issues at stake. But overall, I was struck by how little the book deals with Darwin: it could be entitled “Reading Genesis in the Modern World” with little loss of focus. Several of the essays make only the barest nod toward Darwin before moving on to some topic only tangential to his work. The suggestions for the future interpretation of Genesis (literary criticism, a reading that encourages a sense of wonder and humility, the acknowledgment of human incompleteness and contingency, etc.), while sober and encouraging, are repeated by several contributors without much expansion or specificity (Moberly, Louth, Brooke, Wilkinson); such heuristic suggestions are also commonplace in biblical studies, so I found little new here that couldn’t be found in many introductory classes or texts on Genesis.

Several essays were much more deficient, in my estimation. Briggs’s idea that comparing Genesis to other, contemporaneous myths, and comparing it to a scientific treatise written 2,500 years later, are somehow similar comparisons, and the two interpretive acts can shed light on one another, struck me as odd, if not misleading. It overlooks the more fundamental difference in genre: comparing Genesis to other myths (contemporary with it or not) is probably more helpful to understanding it, than comparing it to scientific writings (from whatever time period, though especially a work that eschews teleological questions, and therefore has a completely different outlook than Genesis). Brown’s essay has little to do with the topic of this collection and barely mentions Darwin or Genesis: its observations would make a fine beginning to a chat about “art and spirituality,” but it has no place here. Clough’s essay doesn’t deal with “stewardship,” which many interpreters today would see as the crucial way to understand the biblical teaching on how humans differ from, and yet are immersed in, the created order. Neither Clough’s nor Barton’s essay deals with the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, again a crucial interpretive issue for understanding the text’s ambiguities (and discrepancies) on anthropocentrism and gender.

I say all this from the perspective of a biblical scholar of a decidedly liberal Protestant bent, for whom these issues are well-worn. Perhaps if I try to step outside of this context (and many of the essays in this collection properly remind us of how much context determines meaning), I might better see where some of these essays could fit into a useful discussion. I’d say that for someone who thinks (as many of my atheist and agnostic friends do) that all Christians are creationists, that all Christians immediately opposed Darwin’s ideas and continue to do so today, or that there is only one way to interpret Genesis—for a reader with such impressions, the better written, more thorough of these essays would prove enlightening, and might promote a dialogue that goes beyond secularists versus Biblicists, those who would discard the text versus those who cling to a literal interpretation of it. Such a dialogue might even become a mutual search for truth, conducted with real exchange, understanding, and respect.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iona College, 715 North Ave., New Rochelle, NY, 10801, USA

Kim Paffenroth

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Paffenroth .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paffenroth, K. Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates. Evo Edu Outreach 3 , 297–299 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Download citation

Published : 18 March 2010

Issue Date : June 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Evolution: Education and Outreach

ISSN: 1936-6434

Submission enquiries: [email protected]

An Argumentative Essay on Evolution: Finding the Right Proof

Very often in high school or in college you would get an assignment to write an argumentative essay. Evolution is often one of those assigned topics in humanities classes.

Regardless of your personal religious beliefs, evolution is an accepted notion in science. It is called the unifying field of biology, and schools teach it as a foundational tenant. Only biological evolution through the process of natural selection explains all the centuries of accumulated evidence on the changing of life through the eons. That is not to say it invalidates any personal beliefs, but rather scientifically, it is the only game in town.

Here I would like to give you a hand by summarizing the facts that validate the theory of evolution and showing how to structure your arguments and to write about an argumentative topic from the basis of supporting evolutionary theory. Like any argumentative essay it is critical that you understand your subject matter.

What Is Evolution?

First of all, it is a scientific theory. That means it is a body of repeatedly tested and substantiated collection of observations, evidence and hypothesis that explain an aspect of the natural world. There are many theories, like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and molecular orbital theory that are in the same realm as evolution.

So what is evolution itself? Evolution is the process of gradual change of biological species over time. This can be expressed a function of genetic drift, mutations, gene migration and other biological processes.

By exploring the definition of the word theory, it is important to stress the idea that a theory in science is not the same as its quotidian meaning. A colloquial theory is a conjecture; a hunch. Evolution is neither. It is a body of knowledge. It is important when structuring your arguments to make this distinction early and often. By featuring this misconception, you would from the very beginning add validity to your essay.

Evolution as a theory includes many concepts such as natural selection, gradualism, speciation and common ancestry. This is not an exhaustive list, but in this article I will focus on them as the most fundamental.

Natural Selection as an Evolutionary Mechanism

Before we understand natural selection, we must first understand genetic mutations. Mutations are changes to a genetic code, either to that of an individual or a population. These changes are most often neutral, but some are harmful and others are beneficial. A beneficial mutation will allow an individual to have more offspring and spread the gene through the population over time. If natural selection is the engine of evolution, mutations are the gasoline that powers it.

Here you can refer to a very well-known example of a peppered moth evolution. Before the Industrial Revolution the peppered moths in England were white with only few black speckles. Black peppered moths were rare as they could not camouflage as well. As the Industrial Revolution spread, soot filled the streets and air. The black color trait was selected by for by natural selection since the moths were more camouflaged. This is a textbook example of natural selection where certain members of a species were positively selected and were more likely to pass on their genome.

The color of their bodies was their phenotype. It is something that people can observe with bare eyes. A change in surroundings often demands a change in phenotype, thus resulting in genetic alterations and genotype transformation. It is predicated on the idea that better adapted organisms are more likely to live on and produce offspring.

As you might have guessed from the title speciation is a formation of news species. There are two major types of speciation:

1) allopatric - when identical species are separated geographically and, as a result, develop distinct features and branch into separate groups

2) sympatric - when identical species are not separated geographically, but still develop different traits due to behavioral or climate changes.

Charles Darwin first discovered speciation by studying finches on the Galapagos Islands that were vastly different. You can use this example as an argument for your essay to prove that species were not created all separately, but actually evolved based on the evolutionary pressures.

Finches when split up had to advance heterogeneous attributes that were motivated by their environment and the available food. Therefore, they had different beaks hinging upon what they ate.

Of course, these changes are gradual, and fossils show many intermediate stages before a complete adaptation. This example can be used to bolster your arguments in your paper. Fossils demonstrate that they improved their best qualities.

Common Ancestry

This is one of the most understandable points to advocate. The idea is that all species have a common ancestor that allows tracking all the metamorphoses that occurred throughout history.

Life emerged 3.5 billion years ago with single simple cells that replicated themselves and triggered the development of all modern species. It seems like an impossible argument to affirm taking into account the diversity of life one can observe today. However, you can again turn to fossils for help.

The objection for your argumentative essay here is all the observable facts that deny the possibility of a common ancestry. What is common between a reptile and a mammal? How can you prove their shared lineage?

Fossils, however, show that species evolved and branched consistently and invariably. For instance, whales once had legs, which their fossils and modern skeletons show. Moreover, many animals, including whales as well have rudimentary body parts that indicate their far-away past.

Delving deeper into these links are solid arguments to include in a paper about evolution.

DNA Similarities

One of the most potent arguments for evolution is, of course, DNA. This is not something that is subjective based on individual observations. This is one of the most comprehensive tool of evolution research so far.

The striking fact is that all species, even the prokaryotes have DNA. The degree of its similarity varies depending on how long ago species deviated from the common ancestor. By comparing DNA we can construct a family tree of all living organisms and prove their connection.

We all use the same molecules as instructions, and it is the same instructions that force us become increasingly different. We all have DNA and RNA that are responsible for the formation of a living being.

DNA is a link that connects life on Earth. It is powerful evidence that you can expound on to bolster your argument.

All Things Considered…

It is easy to argue for evolution. There is so much scientific evidence available that prove your point. Moreover, it is a commonly established view on the development of life.

Nevertheless, it is also hard. You do not want to come off as intolerant, or conceited, or all-knowing. You do not want to offend people’s religious beliefs. There is always a fine line between being convincing and offensive.

You could end your argumentative essay on a moral note to make your essay more compassionate. Evolution has shown us that we all are distant relatives. Therefore, it is crucial to treat other living beings as brothers and sisters. This is also what most world religions teach.

It is hard to break people’s misconceptions with forceful arguments. You might want to carefully slide your way through, connecting evolution with something bigger than science. Ending your argumentative essay with such a grandiose and, at the same time, simple notion can go a long way by making people accept your ideas more easily.

I Need To Write

Live online support.

Contact our support team via live-chat, phone, e-mail or messages from your personal page and get the prompt response and careful assistance any time of day or night.

Money Back Policy

We take money only for the orders you like. If the paper somehow does not meet your expectations, you can start a dispute for refund.

Get to Know

How it works, 1. place your order.

We get your instructions after you click on “check out” button on the bottom

2. Unlimited revisions

It is possible to read the order and indicate the points needed to be adjusted

3. Tracking system

4. easy to download.

You get your fixed paper and can use it to succeed

Log in into your account

Evolution Argumentative Essay

As an enthusiast of science in general, I do truly enjoy subject's biology, chemistry or even physical science. I remember every year looking forward to which science class I was assigned in grade school and the labs we would do. However, there was one subject that would upset me by just hearing the word: evolution . Due to the values that were instilled in me by my family and other factors, the topic of evolution was frowned upon and was barely dissected. In my opinion, evolution does not get the coverage it deserves because of how fascinating the theories and works within it. Growing up in a Christian, Pentecostal household, evolution as a whole is "frowned upon" as a hot topic. I would remember the opposing discussions my parents would

The Strengths Of Sam Harris's Argument Against Francis Collins

Additionally, it would turn religious individuals away from theories of science such as evolution. In response, Harris argues that “the goal is to get them [religious individuals] to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory” (Harris). Instead of convincing the religious community to acknowledge the truth behind scientific theories, religious individuals should be able to understand why they are true. In Harris's opinion, understanding the reason behind ideas like evolution and valuing the education they can offer is more important than settling for the religious community to simply tolerate scientific theories. Having religious communities learn to value the reasoning and logic behind science could bring the two communities closer

John T Scopes: The Guilty Of Teaching Evolution In Education

This reinforced the purpose of the Butler Law. He harshly claimed that this crime is the same as teaching a kid to smoke. The teaching of evolution would then be regarded as

Compare And Contrast Darwin And Kansas State Board Of Education

Today it is “recognized as a leading work in natural philosophy and in the history of mankind” (Landry). Today it seems as if there is a price to pay when talking about this topic in public, especially in school classrooms, as many teachers and parents argue that the Bible’s literal interpretation of human development is supreme. Challenges facing the theory were found relevant in 23 states as well as seven foreign countries. In 2004 a challenge was brought up by the Kansas State Board of Education. Is evolution a matter of a theory or is it the subject of “true scientific controversy” (Tamblyn)?

How Did The Scopes Monkey Trial Affect Society

The Scopes “Monkey Trial” changed the way science and evolution are taught in America’s school systems today. The trial came about when John Scopes, an algebra and science teacher, taught evolution as a plausible theory while filling in for a biology teacher at Rhea County Central High School in Dayton, Tennessee. The action went against Tennessee’s “Butler Act,” which prohibited teachers in public schools to “teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man descended from a lower order of animals.” Scopes, along with others in the community, wanted to change the law so that students could be taught Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the matter was taken to court. The

Examples Of Dualism In The 1920s

The growing contrast between urban and rural lifestyles led to a surge in religious fundamentalism. Those in rural america believed that city life was full of sin, materialism, and temptation — a veritable spiritual wasteland. Some of this disdain was driven by jealousy, but not all of it. Fundamentalism, although religious in origin, was first and foremost a conservative state of mind that served as a check on the liberal, city point of view. Fundamentalists considered discoveries, such as evolution, blasphemous, and that lead to the beginning of the battle over the inclusion of evolution in the classroom.

Into The Wild Argumentative Essay

In life some feel the need to prove something to others. That they are better, stronger, or even more intelligent. Whatever the case may be people will go through extreme measures to prove themselves. But who do we really need to prove anything to? Is it our parents?

What Was The Significance Of The Scopes Trial

However, evolution is very important and should be taught in Biology classes because students need to understand how Homo sapiens evolve if they don’t believe in the biblical story. Everyone may not be Christian, so it’s important for students to get an idea or perspective of where we may have possibly come from. Whether it’s from the eyes of God or from monkeys it at least gives people a chance to choose what they believe, but as well as understand what they

John Scopes Monkey Trial Analysis

In 1859, Charles Darwin published, Origin of Species. This idea of evolution was a revolutionary advancement in history. Evolution was a concept that was taught for many years in the Tennessee schools for many years prior to the trial. In 1925, the teaching of evolution was banned in the state of Tennessee.

Argumentative Essay Frankenstein

A monster according to the dictionary is a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur,griffin, or sphinx. But it is a any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character. Finally my favorite a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc. and much more. A monster can be described in a lot of ways, from the child’s version “ there’s a monster under my bed”, the adolescent view “ she looks like a monster.”

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools

The education system of this nation is biased. Evolution has been taught as Scientific fact for many years and creationism has been treated as just a religious belief and not worthy to be taught. Even though evolutionism is also a belief that has yet to be proven, it is taught as fact in every science class in America. The Supreme court has deemed that requiring educators to teach evolution and also teach creationism unconstitutional, but declaring that was merely a violation of equality and freedom of religion. (Epperson v. Arkansas) Creationism can’t be taught as a response to the theory of evolution, nor does creationism meet the faith of scientists.

Argumentative Essay 'Cost Of Survival'

In the “Cost of Survival,” an argumentative essay, in which; voices the opinion of Theo Tucker, an individual that believes that some people “willingly put themselves into life-or-death situations,” (126) also he explains, how if these risky decisions end in needed rescue missions. Therefore, said people should pay for the cost of their rescues, because individuals that do things like “mountain climb and base jump, knowingly face danger.” (126) The author stands on the side of the argument that, these rescue missions or “efforts, can cost a lot of money, and that “The adventurer should be the one to foot the bill” (126)

Argumentative Essay On Into The Wild

The Alaskan Bush is one of the hardest places to survive without any assistance, supplies, skills, and little food. Jon Krakauer explains in his biography, Into The Wild, how Christopher McCandless ventured into the Alaskan Bush and ultimately perished due to lack of preparation and hubris. McCandless was an intelligent young man who made a few mistakes but overall Krakauer believed that McCandless was not an ignorant adrenalin junkie who had no respect for the land. Krakauer chose to write this biography because he too had the strong desire to discover and explore as he also ventured into the Alaskan Bush when he was a young man, but he survived unlike McCandless. Krakauer’s argument was convincing because he gives credible evidence that McCandless was not foolish like many critics say he was.

Argumentative Essay On Gene Editing

Cancer, heart disease, blood disorders, nerve disorders, and many more genetic diseases are affecting millions of people around the world. The more society advances, the more degenerate diseases are affecting the citizens. For a number of years researchers have been searching for cures. With new developments in gene editing, treatments for many diseases are just around the corner. Gene editing with new technology, CRISPR, matches with a specific gene and splits the protein.

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools Essay

The students should actually know the right kind of information of how the world has become to be today and how did they become the person they are now; they should be taught by the information that has valid reasoning and evidence not by make up information that is based on belief. By learning the concept of evolution I have a strong feeling that the students will use the concepts to help them solve biological problems that they might have to face in the future. For example, students who would want to protect themselves from any sort of diseases, like the hereditary diseases, the students should first have full knowledge on the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing gene. It assures me that if evolution were taken away from learning, students would not get the knowledge that they need to know on how the world were created and that it will be difficult for them to handle issues that they might face in the future, relating to life, humans, or animals. My opinion of supporting evolution will not change, and that I believe that evolution should be taught in school so that our future will be

Essay on Global Warming - Argumentative

Homero Castro Ms. Cabaj English IV, 3rd period 12 February 2018 Global Warming Global Warming is affecting the entire world. The issue of global warming is important because it’s affecting everyone.

More about Evolution Argumentative Essay

Learning the history of evolution and primatology

An exhibition and undergraduate course at Stanford examines the peculiar scrutiny people have placed on their primate relatives to better understand the human condition.

Go to the web site to view the video.

Ever since Charles Darwin claimed in 1871 that humans and other primates share a common ancestor, people have turned to apes in search of an answer to the age-old question: What makes us human?

A new collaboration between Stanford historians Jessica Riskin and Caroline Winterer takes up this question, and their efforts have culminated in an exhibition in Green Library’s Hohbach Hall, The Apes & Us: A Century of Representations of Our Closest Relatives , an accompanying color catalog , a conference, and most recently, a winter quarter Introductory Seminar (IntroSem), HIST 41Q: The Ape Museum: Exploring the Idea of the Ape in Global History, Science, Art and Film , where students study with original source material to learn how people have viewed and exploited apes in science and across society through the ages.

“Students can see what people around the world in the 19th century were seeing – it was like the moon landing of the 20th century to suggest that all life on Earth is not only connected, but connected over an enormous span of time in which we all changed and evolved,” said Winterer, the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies in the School of Humanities & Sciences (H&S) and the author of a forthcoming book, How the New World Became Old: The Deep Time Revolution in America . “As Darwin himself put it, there’s ‘grandeur in this view of life.’ ”

But as her collaboration with Riskin shows, that revelation has been controversial from the beginning. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, evolution and primatology have been entangled with race, ideology, and politics.

“When you think historically about the relationship of humans to nonhuman primates, you can connect current ideas and attitudes in science and culture with their now hidden roots in the past,” said Riskin, the Frances and Charles Field Professor of History in H&S.

Gabriel von Max (1840-1915) Abelard und Héloïse , c. 1900-1915, oil on canvas. (Image credit: Courtesy Jack Daulton Collection)

Grappling with a paradigm shift in science

The course and exhibition on the primates and people began after Riskin visited an exhibition in 2021 at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris, The Origins of the World: The Invention of Nature in the Nineteenth Century .

Riskin described some of the items in an essay for the New York Review of Books , including the small selection of paintings by the eccentric Czech-Austrian artist Gabriel von Max (1840-1915) showing his pet monkeys assuming human-like positions and roles. Riskin described how von Max – who was an avid Darwinian as well as a painter – anthropomorphized non-human primates to emphasize Darwin’s theories that apes were closely connected to humans.

Riskin’s essay caught the attention of lawyer turned art collector Jack Daulton, who had loaned some von Max paintings to the Musée d’Orsay from his private collection. He contacted Riskin to say he lived near the Stanford campus and asked if Riskin and her students would be interested in seeing other von Max works he owns, to which Riskin enthusiastically responded, yes.

Gabriel von Max, Schlechte Zeiten / Bad Times , 1915, oil on canvas. (Image credit: Courtesy Jack Daulton Collection)

Gabriel von Max (1840-1915), Geburtstagblumen / Birthday Flowers , c. 1890, oil on wood panel. (Image credit: Courtesy Jack Daulton Collection)

Now, some 13 paintings by von Max from Daulton’s collection are on view in Hohbach Hall, including the iconic image of two capuchin monkeys holding one another tenderly, even mournfully. The painting is named after the tragic star-crossed lovers from the 12th century, Abelard and Héloïse.

In addition, there are six glass cases with items from Stanford’s own collections that show the many ways artists and scholars – at Stanford and elsewhere – have examined the differences and similarities between people and primates throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

For example, there is a case on posture that includes an 1863 copy of Thomas Henry Huxley’s notorious diagram comparing a human skeleton to that of a gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, and gibbon as a way to show how our place in nature is in step with apes.

An original copy of Huxley’s diagram is on view at the Apes & Us exhibition. (Image credit: Courtesy Department of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries Collections)

Another case looks at tools and the hands that made them. Some have argued – such as Friederich Engels, a collaborator and close friend of Karl Marx – that the main differentiator between humans and apes is tool use. In the case is a first edition of the book from the Stanford University Archives in which Engels makes his argument.

The exhibit also shows some of the dangerous ways that differences drawn between human and non-human primates have been used to create imaginary racial and class hierarchies.

Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, invoked his own interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution to found eugenics, a field devoted to “improving” the human population through selective breeding and controlled reproduction.

One case in The Apes & Us exhibit looks at the role that the evolutionary biologist, ichthyologist, and first president of Stanford, David Starr Jordan, played in the eugenics movement in the United States.

Throughout the cases are various materials from the personal papers of Stephen J. Gould, the influential paleontologist, historian, and evolutionary biologist who spent much of his career rebutting scientific racism and biological deterministic theories. The exhibition calls attention to his 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man , in which Gould confronts some of the pervasive tropes about race and intelligence that were prevalent throughout the Victorian era and early 20th century.

There is also a case on primate research at Stanford, including images from the Stanford Outdoor Primate Facility (SOPF) that British primatologist Jane Goodall established in 1974 with David Hamburg, Stanford professor of human biology. Their research became mired in controversy and SOPF closed in 1979.

Learning the history of science and ideas

Studying how humans have interacted with primates in a post-Darwin age is what Winterer calls a “boundary case” where different historical, political, and social perspectives can be brought to bear.

“Whenever you explore a boundary case, you’re also exploring connections,” Winterer said. “When do we erect boundaries between things? When do we create connections across boundaries? We can apply those questions to almost every domain of human thought. The ape and the human boundary or connection is really just one of many such inquiries we can make.”

Crossing in and out of these boundaries was a goal of Riskin’s and Winterer’s IntroSem.

Appropriately titled The Ape Museum , their course was held in Hohbach Hall, where each week, students interacted with items in the Apes & U s exhibit.

Students also looked at objects held elsewhere on campus, including at the Stanford University Archaeology Collections, where curator Danielle Raad presented tools and other artifacts made by human ancestors, including some estimated to be between 300,000 to 1.75 million years old.

Francesca Pinney (left) and Megan Liu (right) hold ancient artifacts on a class visit to the Stanford University Archaeology Collections. (Image credit: Danielle Raad)

For freshman Francesca Pinney, holding something so distant in time and space from her was stirring. “History never felt closer,” she said.

The class also visited the Hoover Institution Library & Archives, where Jean M. Cannon , a research fellow and curator for North American Collections, pulled out propaganda from their world-renowned poster collection that showed how apes were used in World War I and II by both Allied and Axis powers to dehumanize the enemy.

Pinney said she was particularly struck by how apes were used in racist ways and the far-reaching consequences that imagery had in society.

“It was disturbing to see some of this propaganda that was so influential in dehumanizing various populations,” Pinney said. “The most haunting part of seeing those pieces of propaganda was [realizing] the prevalence of such disturbing racial components and how successful it was.”

Megan Liu, a sophomore in the course, had a similar reaction when viewing the propaganda posters – some of which were up to 4 feet wide.

“Just seeing them in their original state really showcased how effective it can be because it’s very in your face. It’s very loud. And it’s very bold,” Liu said. “It was a completely different experience seeing them at the Hoover Archive than seeing them [reprinted] on a regular piece of paper.”

The course also featured guest speakers, including course assistant Noah Sveiven, a Stanford senior who talked about his honors thesis research investigating the history of primate science at Stanford and SOPF.

SOPF facility, c. 1974. (Image credit: Stanford University; Archives Peninsula-Times Tribune, Stanford University photographs)

The class also took an optional visit to the San Francisco Zoo, which included a poignant moment for the group with Oscar Jonesy, a 43-year-old silverback western lowland gorilla. When he saw the group entering his enclosure, he approached them and watched them – calmly and intensely – until they disappeared from view.

“It was a stare full of meaning and import somehow,” Riskin recalled of the visit. “That encounter with Oscar gave me a pang to think that he’s lived his whole life in captivity.”

Indeed, an unsettling discomfort can emerge when thinking about the treatment and ethical implications of our closest evolutionary counterparts.

It is that proximity that makes primate science controversial, said Riskin.

“All of our uncertainties, anxieties, convictions, and our whole psyche with regard to humans and humaneness comes out in primate research,” Riskin said.

Apes & Us is on view at Hohbach Hall, located on the first floor of the East Wing of the Green Library, until June 2024.

Stanford Global Studies, which is part of H&S, helped fund the course through a Course Innovation Award which supports the development of new courses focused on global topics.

Creationism vs. Evolution Essay

A clear-cut explanation of how life and everything on earth originated has remained a puzzle to humanity for a long time. Scholars have given their own versions of this origin. However, all the attempts have been marked by a weakness of some sort. The real origin hence remains a question that runs in the minds of many people.

A piece of art showcases the aptitude of an artist, so does the earth and the universe that imply the reality and the potentiality of its stylist. This paper seeks to gain insight into the creation theory and evolution theory thereby finding out which of the two tends to carry more logic.

Creation theory everything within this earth is a product of creative power of the gods. In Genesis, it says that God created the world, man and woman in seven days. This is called creationism. It is mostly associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all from Abrahamic religion.

In the first two chapters of Genesis, the book looks at creation in depth. The first one describes all substantial proceedings of creation. In the second chapter, it touches on creation of human beings more strongly. The first chapter of Genesis opens with a sentence purporting pointing out God creating the globe and heaven. But then the earth was without form and it was filled with darkness. He goes on to separate darkness from light thus day and night coming into existence. This was done on the first day. On the second day, he divides firmament to bring about heaven and he collects the waters in one place leaving a dry area which is called earth, the waters were called seas (Slusher 35).

The third day was spent on creation of vegetation. On the fourth day, the heavenly bodies were created. He goes on to create water creatures and bird of the air and also makes living creature like cattle, the beasts to be on dry land. This was on the fifth day.

On the sixth day, man and woman came into existence and were placed to have dominion over the earth. Interestingly, this creation from genesis, concurs with that one of Hugh Ross an astronomer. His argument is based on the big bang evolutionary theory which will be talked about later.

It is worth noting that creation theory has other theories to it. These include young earth creationism. These theorists purport that the earth was created by God about sixty to 100 centuries ago. They offer this argument based on family lineages as explained in the bible.

This theory argues out that the earths age is relatively young, a point disapproved by Christians and scientists who say that the earth is billions of years old. This group argues that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible and they are still in existence in Central America. Different races did settle in the current locations after the destruction of the tower of Babel, a second argument they have used to support their theory.

Omphalos hypothesis argues that the earth was created in its mature form. These theorists tend to refute the scientific evidence of growth rings. They argue that these rings were placed on earth during the process of creation and that they cannot be used to determine the age of earth (Vardiman 67).

Other inclusions in the creationism theory are old earth creation theory. It accepts the fact that God created the universe but refused to accept the genesis creation. It is further categorized into three groups namely the gap, day age and progressive creationism.

Gap creation argues that there is a large gap between genesis 1:1and genesis 1: 2-31. Day-Age Creationism asserts that the days in the Biblical creation story are symbolic. It goes on to say that these days might have taken millions or billions of years. Progressive creationism, states that God created the Earth and life gradually. It is through Gods intervention by Progressive that a new species comes by.

There is theistic theory that uses the natural selection and Darwin’s theory to explain itself. It believes that the creation of species is due to survival for the fittest and that species get adapted and changes over a period of time.

Neo creationism is another form of creation theory although it distances itself from use of scriptures. It therefore means that it debates the origin of life in a non religious way. In their perspective, it is argued that science does negate some things that point towards supernatural powers. They have rejected naturalism and Darwinism.

Intelligent design has come to be placed as one of creationism theory. This is because it replaces the scientific method with Christian and theistic that leads towards paranormal explanations.

Hinduism and Islam have their own creationism that is based on their holy books.

Creation theory has been discussed in terms of biblical creation theory but in other religions, it is discussed in their own ideas and views. Creationists believe that creature were distinct and separate organs when God created them. Although they have the potential to adapt to an environment, creationists say that creatures cannot change completely into a different form through evolution (Thompson 34).

The creationists differ completely with evolutionist because they don’t see how a species can become completely different because of evolution. This is something that is not recorded in history at any time. Furthermore, the creationists say that there is no evidence of gradual change in the fossils collected. Methods used like carbon dating might have had some errors hence not completely perfect. And lastly, the genetic material tests sometimes are contradictory.

Before the comparison comes up, it is of importance to look at what evolution theory talks about. To start it off, Darwin’s theory of evolution will elaborate it more. To begin, Darwin’s theory believes that all life is related having one common descendant. There is development of life from non life. He uses the theory of natural selection to elaborate. In natural selection, animals change overtime while preserving the much needed behavior while discarding the less required behavior. Hence species evolved due to the environment in which they were based in. this evolution was to help them survive. Random genetic mutations occur and the one needed are preserved to be passed on to the generation that follows. With time, there is accumulation of this genetics that result in a completely new being.

When an organism develops a handy benefit it is preserved and passed on to the offspring’s who inherit it more so passing it on to their offspring’s. Those disadvantaged species don’t survive and hence fade away. It therefore means that natural selection eliminates substandard species over time. This theory is a slow process over time.

With this in mind, it is good to note that creationism is based on belief and evolution is purely based on science. The theories of evolution and creation will continue to cause a heated debate culminating it down to religion versus science. The evolution theory talks of evolution being caused by solely ordinary forces, and is not controlled by any contribution from a supernatural power, force or being. However creationism talks otherwise with its stand being that God created the world and is in charge of any evolution process that takes place.

Creationism says that God is the creator and has been since the beginning of time. However, the evolution theory has come to question this. Science has come to contradict the creationism theory and so one needs to believe what they like. Creation theory however can’t be proved wrong because it is religious in nature. The evolution theory needs to go a step further and try to prove to the world that it has a benefit of doubt.

Darwin’s thoughts of natural distinction and selection and Mendel’s model of hereditary inheritance the basis of naturalistic evolution. They could however not come and say how it occurs. Observing human evolution according to scientists is almost an impractical undertaking. This is because one cannot rely on fossils for reasons of having many interpretations.

In the evolution theory, there are two parts called macro evolution which is just about living things coming into existence from non living matter. The other part is micro evolution that is all about living things adapting to the environment they leave in. However, when you talk of evolution, you need to base on macro evolution and not micro evolution.

If one believes in evolution theory then it needs to be understood that it is all about coming from non living matter that came from the big bang. The big bang theory is based on assertions that the universe came into existence without presence of any form before it.

This universe came into existence in something called a singularity. It was initially small and hot. As time passed by, it gradually cooled and expanded. This is going round in a galaxy with so many stars. This big bang is sometime thought to have exploded but in reality there was only expansions and cooling (Slusher 46).

The big bang theory can be given substantive evidence because there must have been a beginning to the universe. Secondly, the estimated speed at which galaxies move from us can perfectly fit in the grid of current distances. Third, if the heat was there, then we can get the evidence by use of cosmic microwave background radiation that ascertains the truth. And last but not least. Hydrogen and helium in the cosmos are purported to sustain the big bang starting point.

Basing on the big bang and creation, it can still be said that they meet at one point. This is because there must have been a beginning in this universe. Therefore as creation theory insists on supernatural force and powers behind the formation of the universe, the evolution theory bases it upon the big bang theory. Evolutionist use time in a mush slow way so that everything might happen as stated. In the creation theory time given for God to clearly make the world is considerably small. Imagine a billion years that most of the evolutionists try to use to make it seen to be true (Johnson35).

As one can comes to think of, it can easily be thought that both the creation and evolution theories have been combined with the gap theory. Since God created the heavens and the earth in the creation theory, it has to be said that it goes on again to say that he said let there be light. That gap is what the evolutionist begin from and so might just happen to concur. However it must be understood that the two are said that they can never be combined to fit the purpose of a few majority.

Geologist can never accept the gap theory because it contradicts with their belief that the past can not be smooth all through with the current. This also shows something out of it that the evolutionists are by themselves not in agreement with their theories. It therefore requires a very well laid out evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Many at times, people have said that evolution is based on faith and the evolutionists view Darwin as a prophet. The creationists have come to distance themselves from the religious perspective. They have engaged themselves in being diverse but continually cannot accept the evolutionists work.

Evolutionary biology is a major conflict zone between the creationists and the scientists. It is perceived by the creationist that it can’t be true that living things are from one common ancestor, and that the macro evolution is in effect. It also argued that it’s not possible for human beings to have come from apes. With the evidence offered by the existence of fossils, this would not be real.

The theory of universal common descent has been accepted in several biologists’ circles. Darwin is the author of that theory. The biologists argue that the last descent of common ancestor was over 3.9 million years ago. But creationists diminish this point and say that the general design is attributed to one familiar man and that is God, the supernatural being. However the evolutionists counter this by their evidence on fossils, geographical distribution of species and facts like genetics.

Evolutionists believe that the evolution of man is dated from the fossils that suggest that man came from primates. Creationists have disputed this fact with reason that there is no substantive evidence to give a clear indication that human beings came from the primates. They have stood by the genesis creation that point at the first man being Adam. Further more, creationists have denied the fact that there is any macroevolution. This is because they have leaned more to the fact that for macroevolution to have occurred there had to be new body parts formed.

Creationists have gone ahead to dispute the fact that radiometric dating can be reliable in ascertaining the earths age. It is obvious that the use, family lineage found in the old testament to compile how long the earth must have been in existence. However, evolutionist use scientific ways to come up with approximate dates that they use in knowing when the earth came into existence.

Creationists have come out to say that Christianity and the belief in the bible are to be attributed to the scientific progress and discoveries. Many scientists have taken this to be false and argue out that they have evidence and are continually gaining more evidence on their work as time goes by.

As earlier stated, evolution of the universe came from nothing. How did it happen that the earth just came with the bang? That is a question many will ask.

It requires that these evolutionists come up with a more defined evidence to support their work and argument. However, the scientists have taken the data collected and are working to fill up the missing puzzles. The question remains if they will find out what is missing.

The question of complexity is also a centre of debate among the evolutionist and the creationists. The creationists say that the world was planned to be intricate by a stylist who is a supernatural being. On the other hand, evolutionists argue out that complexity was developed slowly with time. This is yet to be ascertained.

The evidence given by the evolutionists in a way or another doesn’t amount to enough evidence. As we can see at the fossil records they give, if evolution was a slow process over time, then so many fossils seen should not look exactly like the species that do exist now. Creationists say that these fossils are in agreement with their theory than with the evolution theory (Thompson 67).

The evolutionary group can’t say how parts on human beings or other complex organisms were formed. They have no idea apart from the fact that it is gradual change over time. On the other hand, the creationists have faith in what their religion tells them. It is just by the mere fact that on the sixth day God created man in his own image and likeness.

Creationists stand by the fact that some evolutionists collide in their thinking and so use this as a base to say evolution theory is in crisis. Much time is spent on them picking minor details from evolutionary and never gets their time to support their theory with evidence.

It is hard for the creationists to prove the great deal and part that the evolutionary have played in finding some evidence. Though not substantial, they have played a major role in giving insight of what might have taken place (Gish 56).

It has been also argued that scientific creationism is not a science but rather a religious belief. The evolutionists refute this and completely say that the things they talk about are talked of in the bible. Hence it is based more on faith. Evolutionists argue in most cases that teaching religion as proved facts is not acceptable. Creationists have not been left behind since they have come out in the open and said that evolutionism is just but a mere story.

In conclusion, it is now up to an individual to decide whether to follow the evolutionists or be with the creationists. If one is unscientific, then believe in the creation theory will make the day.

This is a decision one has to make for himself. If one is science oriented, then the evolution theory is his route to take. All there has to be said is that substantial evidence is vital in order to convince a person to believe in a certain theory. All in all there must have been a form of creation that caused human existence.

Works Cited

Gish, T. Duane. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Print

Johnson, E. Phillip. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds . Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997. Print.

Slusher, S. Harold. Origin of the Universe . San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980. Print.

Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises . Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995. Print.

Vardiman, Larry. Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth . El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Print.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 24). Creationism vs. Evolution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/

"Creationism vs. Evolution." IvyPanda , 24 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Creationism vs. Evolution'. 24 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

The Origin of Life: Creationism and Science
Anderson and Genetic Research, Evolutionism & Creationism
Creationism as a Religious Belief
Darwinism and Creationism in "Evolution" Documentary
A Non-Traditional View of the Days of Genesis 1
Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Science and Religion Relations Analysis
Pseudoscience - Creational Science
Creationism and Evolution Theories
Aspects of Evolution and Creationism
Dialogue Over the Interfaith Christian and Buddhist Perspectives
Buddism: Ch’an Master Lin-chi I-hsuan Hui-chao
Do I Need God to be Moral or Happy?
Buddhism & Hinduism: Comparisons and Contractions
Buddhism and Hinduism

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Students

Teaching Evolution In Public Schools Argumentative Essay

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Students , Evolution , World , Theory , Science , Religion , Teaching , Education

Words: 1600

Published: 12/18/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Over recent years, there has been much debate as to whether evolution rather than, or in addition to, creationism should be taught in public schools. There are many groups and individuals on both side of the argument. Interestingly, some scientists are in favour of the teaching of creationism, though the vast majority are not. Although it is generally agreed that there is no scientific fact to support the notion of creationism, many believe that it should be taught to students as an alternative viewpoint. However, evolution is scientifically proven and therefore all children in public schools should be taught about it. Contention between science and religion dates much further back than Charles Darwin’s publication of Origin of the Species. There was an early conflict that has since become famous; this was the 1633 ‘Trial of Galileo’. It was in this year that Dialogue was published. Dialogue was a book that backed up the Copernican theory claiming that the earth revolved around the sun. This was hugely controversial as the Bible suggests the opposite, that the sun revolves around the earth (Evolution). Since their beginning, humans have strived to learn and to understand how life originated. As this subject concerns happenings of the past, there is a high level of speculation involved. Furthermore, the question of how life began is an issue that is deeply emotional as it is directly linked to individual personal beliefs and values. In the late 1800s, evolution started to become accepted among professors of science. However, in spite of this, people still opposed it being taught as part of the curriculum in public schools. Even today, evolution is not taught in all American public schools (Teaching, 1999). It was not until the 1930s that evolution began to properly emerge into the education system. These days, evolutionary naturalism is the most common perspective of origins taught in the West, and over the course of the last fifty years, evolutionists have been adamantly opposed to the teaching of different theories in public schools (Teaching, 1999). There are various important arguments for teaching evolution rather than creationism in public schools. British scientists claim that pupils must be taught unequivocally that science support the theory of evolution (Creationism, 2006). Five years ago, the Royal Society further support this view. The society’s 2006 statement said that pupils may want to "explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so” (Creationism, 2006). Creationism upholds the theory that the whole world, and everything in it, was created in seven days. Referring to this notion, the Royal Society added: “A belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4,600 million years ago” (Creationism, 1999). However, in 2008, The Royal Society released a statement in which they were emerging as upholders of the opposite view. In this statement, they claimed that creationism should, in fact, be taught as a legitimate perspective (Smith & Frean, 2008). The Reverend Michael Reiss who was the Royal Society’s director of education, claimed that it was “self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran” (Smith & Frean, 2008). The Reverend went on to say that creationism should be treated as a world view when being taught to students in science lessons. Professor Reiss’ remarks caused disputes between him and fellow scientists and also with the British Government. It is worth noting Charles Darwin was a former fellow of the Royal Society; this highlights the turnaround that the Society has undergone. The British national curriculum guidelines affirm that creationism is totally irrelevant to school science lessons. If creationism is raised for discussion by a student, the guidelines stipulate that the teacher should comment on how the view differs from evolution, tell the student that creationism is not a scientific theory and therefore religious class is a more appropriate place for the conversation (Smith & Frean, 2008). Some claim that teaching creationism is one example of inclusive learning, and that this is a valuable reason for including it in science lessons. For example, a Spokesman for the Royal Society said “Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t” (Smith & Frean, 2008). The idea seems to be that teachers should try to be sensitive to students who believe in creationism, and while teachers should explain that creationism is not accepted by scientists, they should avoid demeaning the children’s creationist beliefs. However, it is arguable that the Government’s guidelines cover this eventuality by asking the teachers to teach science in science lessons, leaving matters of religion and faith to Religious Studies lessons. A significant problem with creationism and the ideas that it represents is that it contradicts many scientifically proven facts in different academic fields. Creationists criticise evolution, but they additionally condemn all scientific concepts that propose a universe dating back further than 6,000 to 10,000 years. Examples of this are cosmology, geology, astronomy and relativity (Welcome). Creationism appears to uphold the view that evolution isn’t scientifically satisfactory. However, despite the term ‘theory of evolution,’ the notion that the world evolved over a long period of time is a proven scientific fact. The theory part of evolution refers to how the transformation actually occurred, which is still largely unproven and is still debated among scientists. There is a vast amount of fossil evidence that adequately validates the fact of evolution. However, there is evidence even more convincing today and that stems from species DNA testing. An example of this is the fact that humans and chimpanzees have over ninety-eight per cent identical genes. This proves how closely related the two species are. It is generally agreed that in the future, most of our new learning of the process of evolution will be provided by DNA information (Evolution). Importantly, evolution is not deemed as conflicting with religious views of most Christians or Jews. The majority of mainstream Protestant values, the Catholic Church, and numerous other religious doctrines accept evolution as a fact. There are disagreements concerning evolution, just as there are concerning most theories. For example, most biologists hold the opinion that evolution has had periods of unevenness throughout the course of history. However, some biologists disagree, believing that the rate of evolution has been, and still is, constant (Evolution). After more than two hundred years, the Catholic Church finally recognised the scientific proof that the earth revolved around the sun. In the same way, it is probable that most Fundamentalists will also eventually accept the theory of evolution. It is difficult to say whether this will happen in the next fifty years or in the next five hundred years, but it will happen. The debate over whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools is a fascinating one with many depths within it. The ideas of inclusive learning and of introducing more cultural diversity into schools are both forward thinking and positive. However, these ideas refer to matters such as allowing students the time and setting to follow their religious and cultural beliefs, and introducing into classes literary texts by authors of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds; these are, of course, just two examples within a much wider scope. Nevertheless, these movements do not suggest that children should not be taught the truth about the world and the scientific discoveries that have been made. Evolution should be taught in public schools as it is based on scientific fact. Creationism should continue to be acknowledged and discussed within the context of a Religious Studies class, but certainly not within the Sciences.

Creationism (2006). ‘No Place in Schools.’ BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4896652.stm Evolution Controversy. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. Retrieved from

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm Garner, R. (2007). Creationism Should be Tacked in Science Lessons, Schools Told. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationism-should- be-tackled-in-science-lessons-schools-told-396111.html Judge Rules Against ‘Intelligent Design.’ MSNBC. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge- rules-against-intelligent-design/ Randerson, J. (2006). Revealed: Rise of Creationism in UK Schools. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religion Smith, L & Frean, A. (2008). Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools. The Times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4734767.ece?token=null&offset =0&page=1 Teaching Creation and Evolution in Schools. (1999). Technical Journal. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp Welcome to Creationism. Creationism. Retrieved from http://www.creationism.co.uk/

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 571

This paper is created by writer with

ID 256401444

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Location course work, masses course work, respondent course work, broadcasting course work, partition course work, parsons course work, executive branch course work, linear equation course work, living creative writings, extent term papers, natural term papers, basing research proposals, virgin media essays, mexican mafia essays, prison gang essays, mademoiselle reisz essays, reisz essays, gender conflict essays, ancient athens essays, madding crowd essays, different functions essays, tile floor essays, sibling relationships essays, player contracts essays, good example of ethics and news a comparative study of united kingdom journalism case study, path dependency and policy feedback essay, literary elements essay samples, good example of essay on fracture detection in the elm coulee bakken field, para2001 integrated clinical case case studies example, free essay about yahoo business model in 2011, good example of article review on designing trust in an organization, good case study on starwood, research paper on marketing management, free term paper about asian privilege, sample essay on analytical review of economics for everyone, good feedback from supervisor or manager regarding the project essay example, good classical theories of organizational behavior essay example, good course work about prewriting outline, good flexible benefits strategy essay example, example of amcas application pursuing my passion admission essay, bass kenneth barnett brown individual difference variables ethical judgements essays example, good research paper about life after death issues and concerns in healthcare, good example of military lessons learned report.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Argumentative Essay On Evolution

Custom Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Argumentative-Essay-On-Evolution Read less

1. Argumentative Essay On Evolution Madison Wenig Mr. Kellerman Honors Biology 2 19 May 2017 Evolution There always has been a controversy whether evolution really did happen or not. Many evolutionists, philosophers and biologists have presented sufficient evidence that evolution is true. Yet there is still debate about this contentious topic. With the facts and findings offossil records of earlier species, ideas of initial theorists, and our own genetics and DNA, evolution can be hard to prove wrong. Evolution is not just a change over time, but that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. This process is occurring in our lives right now. What exactly is evolution? Evolution is "the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation". (What is evolution) Simply, descent with modification. Charles Darwin was the first person with the acceptable explanation of evolution. Although his theory gave forth too many tremendous advances, he did not build this theory on his own. He learned and built off earlier theorists, like Jean–Baptiste Lamarck, "who indorsed linear evolution". (evolution) As well as Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, with his concept of Scala Nature. These early theorists served as a foundation for Charles Darwin's theory. Although Darwin's theory was important, a greater attribution to evolution was founded. That is the uncovering of fossils. Fossils are significant to the evolution because they show how life on Earth was ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
2. Essay on The Debate Over Birds and Feathered Dinosaurs The Debate Over Birds and Feathered Dinosaurs Because dinosaurs are animals that lived millions of years ago, we are entirely dependent on the fossils that they have left behind for any understanding that we hope to gain. As any paleontologist will tell you, fossil hunting is difficult. There are no certainties, no guarantees. A certain amount of luck is as valuable as any scientific knowledge. Every so often a discovery is made that attempts to shake up pre–conceived notions of how the dinosaurs actually lived or how they came to be. On June 22, 2000, in Oregon, scientists announced the discovery of the oldest known animal to have feathers. Though no records indicate how the age of the animal was determined, the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... In fact, those that actually subscribe to the feathered Longisquama theory are a decided minority in the paleontological community. The detractors of "Nonavian Feathers in a Late Triassic Archosaur" believe that the feather–like impressions in the fossil are not even feathers at all. Based on the angle and shape of the imprints, many paleontologists believe that they were left by 'highly modified scales', or possibly even ferns that had fallen on the animal's body after death.4 Disregarding the feathers of Longisquama, and therefore disregarding its link to Archaeopteryx, these scientists still fully support the dinosaur–bird link. As mentioned before, the extreme majority of paleontologists still subscribe to this idea. A recent discovery in the western region of China seems to clarify the link between dinosaurs and birds. Living at roughly the same time as Archaeopteryx, Sinovenator changii is very closely related to the bird yet is classified as a dinosaur.5 This discovery is widely regarded as very good evidence that dinosaurs and birds share evolutionary traits, and disputes the assertion that they are unrelated; as made by those that support the 'feathered' Longisquama findings. As if this finding wasn't enough, other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered in the same region of China. Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx zoui lived about 125 and 145 million years ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
3. Explanation Of Natural Selection Explanation of the concept of natural selection and how it takes place –Natural selection is the process where organisms that have more advantageous adaptions that benefit its survival in its environment then breed and produce offspring with similar traits that then have a greater chance of survival. For natural selection to occur there are essential elements that are required; variation, heritability and excess production. For the formation of a new species there must be variation within a species so that some may have slightly better adaptions to the climate, diseases or other survival traits like better camouflage. The organisms that possess these adaptions are sometimes called more fit; this is called 'survival of the fittest'. The 'fitter' organisms will then reproduce and their offspring will inherit the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The explanation that was given for this was that recent organisms only can be descendants of organisms that lived in the same area in ancient times. For example British settlers brought horses and cows into Australia so there are no native descendants of horses and cows there. Thus there are two main pieces of evidence in fossils that support Darwin's evolution ideas; using isotope dating methods, ancient fossils contained simpler organisms and younger fossils contained more advanced organisms. Another piece of evidence in fossils is that organisms retain some feature through the generations along with obtaining new ones. For example, the fossils of the Archaeopteryx have shown that the creature had feature of a reptile (teeth, claws and jointed tail) along with ones of a bird (beak, feathers and a ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
4. Archaeopteryx Research Paper For my research project, I did it on the archaeopteryx and the dodo bird. The archaeopteryx, also known as the "ancient wing". It comes from the 2 Greek words archaД«os, meaning "ancient," and ptГ©ryx, meaning "wing." The Dodo bird or the "flightless bird" is another example of an extinct species that is included in this paper. The archaeopteryx, once thought of as the "First Bird" or "Urvogel" was a avian/reptile. The Archaeopteryx was believed to live about 150 million years ago, towards the end of the Jurassic period. The Aviandinosaur was a carnivore and scientist believe it prayed on small animals, which it would pick up in its talons. It also had wings like any other avian, but scientist are not completely sure if it could fly, glide or it even be another type of flightless bird, like the Dodo. The structure of the reptilian/ avian has many similarities and differences to the modern bird, which is why it's understandable that the scientist were not sure what to categorize the creature. The size of the Ancient Wing, is typically the size of a modern day raven with the weight of only 2 pounds. A distinguishing trait about the creature is the fact it had a full set of teeth which lead scientist to believe that this animal is in fact a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... This species is in the columbidae family, a family made up of doves and pigeons. The dodo bird does everything on the ground, including nest, which is extremely uncommon for any type of avian. Another amazing fact about these interesting creature is that appearance of the dodo bird was only confirmed in 2007, though their has been many drawings of the creature they were all amateur drawings of all of these characters. The reason why the dodo birds where able to nest on the ground is because during there time of existence and the environment around them, the species around them posed no ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
5. Intelligent Design: The Four Theories Of Challenging... Challenging Evolution Have you ever looked around and wondered how life on Earth came to be? Attempting to answer this question, researchers have proposed the following four theories: creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, and evolution. Creationism is defined as the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and, therefore, the theory of evolution is incorrect (Merriam–Webster). The theory of creationism became popular around the time of the Protestant Reformation (Ruse). Intelligent design is the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence, such as a God (Merriam–Webster). Intelligent design came about when people in the nineteenth century... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... This is believed to be a transitional between reptile and bird. However, there are six points that these supporters use with counterarguments with each one. First, this animal had a long bony tail similar to that of a reptile's (Martin). Conversely, most birds have a tail vertebrae in the embryonic stage which eventually forms into the pgyostyle which is an upstanding bone. The second point is that the Archaeopteryx had claws on its feet and feathered forelimbs (Martin). This cannot be used as evidence because many birds, such as the ostrich for example, have claws so it is not just a characteristic of reptiles (Martin). The third argument was that the bird had teeth but yet so did many ancient birds in the Mesozoic (Martin). The fourth statement used is the presence of a shallow breastbone (Martin). Similarly, most modern birds have the same shallow breastbone that are still classified solely as birds. The second last argument for the Archaeopteryx being the transitional fossil is the its bones were not hollow like modern birds but rather solid. This statement cannot be used however because it was discovered in recent years that the long bones in the bird are hollow. The final point and counterargument is that it predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years (Martin). A geologist in 1977 discovered bird fossils in western Colorado that dated as far back as 60–million years ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
6. Evolution vs. Creationism Essay Evolution vs. Creationism The Evolution vs. Creationism controversy goes all the way back to the Publishing of Origin of Species in 1859 by Darwin laying the foundation for the evolution of life to be understood. Scientists are continuously finding more evidence to support Darwin's conclusion; that organisms descended from a common ancestor modified by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in the evolution of species adapting to their environment. The following are the main geological topics concerning creationism: radiometric dating, transitional forms and the Cambrian explosion. Creationism is nothing more than a child's fairytale that lacks any scientific proof. The aspect of radiometric dating is controversial to most ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Plus or minus a couple million years has a negligible effect on the results attempting to be obtained. Radiometric dating consistently prove from analysis of bolide fragments that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and once again disproving the Bible's 6,000 years. The problem for creationism is that they can't prove there 'fairytale' correct because it's based on little fact, so they attempt to make the other valid ideas sound ridiculous. Therefore, creationism attempts to prove radiometric dating incorrect and is nothing more than a feeble attempt to bring credibility to there own ideas and beliefs. Secondly, a once thought problem with evolution was the lack of transitional phases in the fossil record. For example it was once thought there were no transitional phases between birds and reptiles; this has now been proven false by paleontologists. Archaeopteryx has distinctive avian characteristics including a wishbone, a bony sternum and feathers (Geology). Several of its reptilian characteristics include unfused metacarpal bones, a long bony tail and three well developed fingers. What is also interesting is that archaeopteryx lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Again, it seems as if creationists randomly start making assumptions in an attempt to slander other valid theories rather than proving there's correct (even thought that's impossible). "If evolution were true, there would be more transitional ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
7. The Order Falconiformes Is Less Unified Than Other Orders... The order Falconiformes is less unified than other orders of birds. Specific features of particular groups resulted from similar ways of life, which gives the Falconiformes similar adaptations. Taxonomy systems even divide this order into three orders of Vultures, Raptors and Falconids. The most frequent classification, under which 295 species are divided into 5 families: Cathartidae, Pandionidae, Accipitridae, Sagittariidae and Falconidae. Falconids (Falconidae) includes 61 species from almost all over the world. Birds of Prey have adapted to hunting for prey by having their four toes arranged in a 3:1 perching grip, their claws have evolved in to razor sharp talons that easily allow birds of prey to rip through theirs preys flesh whilst in flight. With specialised hunters such as the Accipitridae and Falconidae, their back talon is the longest and sharpest to secure the prey while in flight. Birds of prey also rely on their specialised bill and upper mandible features characteristic projections, tomial teeth and sharp hooked bills to tear the flesh of their prey. Birds of prey have proportionally larger eyes for their head and have correspondingly keen eyesight. Similar to all predators and prey, most birds of prey have slightly forward facing eyes in comparison to smaller birds that are preyed upon. Most birds of prey don't have a sense of smell with exception to the New and Old World Vultures (Cathartidae and Accipitridae) which uses their sense of smell to scavenge ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
8. Cursorial Theory Another, and possibly outlandish hypothesis, is in par with Chlamydosaurus kingii, and is usually coined the Cursorial Theory. Chlamydosaurus kingii, also known as the Australian Frilled Neck Lizard, employs a whimsical mode of transportation. Aquila audax, the largest bird of prey in Australia, supports as a constant threat to Chlamydosaurus kingii, as its highly efficacious eyesight extends into the infrared and ultraviolet bands. This is called Tetrachromacy. Tetrachromacy is the state of retaining four autonomous channels for transmitting color data, or bearing four distinct varieties of cone cells. Modern birds can grasp a frequency interval of 430–1000 THz, or simply speaking, red light to near ultraviolet light. That being said, Archaeopteryx... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... It occupied in the early Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period, approximately 150.8–148.5 million years ago. A. lithographica had been unearthed in the Solnhofen Limestones in Bavaria, Germany, located in the southwest portion of Germany. In the modern age, Bavaria boasts distinct seasons, due to its position in the continental climate zone. Commencing during the vernal equinox, precipitation deluges Bavaria constantly, on the behalf of the rain shadow effect. The rain shadow effect prescribes that mountains compel the air to ascend in order to journey above them. This results in air of a lower temperature. Bavaria has an elevated mountain chain coined the Bavarian Alps. If the air mass is traversing from west to east, the areas on the west (windward) side will receive the rain. Oppositely, the areas on the east (leeward) side will reside with the torrid air, and receive little to no monsoon. Contrarily, the climate in the Jurassic Period differentiated superlatively as it was moderately littered with trees, abundant in invertebrates, significantly barren, semi–tropical with tainted waters, and a quaggy texture embodied the land. Germany 155 million years ago was mostly comprised of a balmy, shallow sea, mottled with islands. Organism such as sponges and corals thrived in these seas, burgeoning large enough to form reefs, which effectively partitioned the body of water into tinier ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
9. How Does Modern Life Evolve Over Millions Of Years Or Was... Did modern life evolve over millions of years or was it created by God? The controversy started when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. His theory of evolution stated that all life evolved from a single–celled organism. However, creationists rejected this theory. They referenced the Bible's Book of Genesis for the historical account of how life was created. But without a doubt, there is undeniable evidence to support the fact that life on earth came from a common ancestor. With the recent advances in both science and technology, scientists can use fossil records, genetic changes and anatomical similarities to prove that life as we know it evolved from one common ancestor. The remains and imprints of organisms found in earlier geological periods are still preserved in sedimentary rocks. These fossil records allow scientists to look through vast periods of time and attest to the fact that some species have transitional traits found in larger groups of organisms. This proves that species evolved from a distant ancestor and were not fixed there by God. Animals such as apes and the Archaeopteryx are evidence of the missing links and the gaps humanity has filled in the fossil records. They are also examples of transitional species that have tied different groups of species together through common traits and skeletal features. Fossil records also prove that single–celled organisms were succeeded by multi–celled organisms which ties back to Charles Darwin ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
10. Creationists Proof Of Evolution Creationists Proof of an Omnipotent Creator vs. Evolutionists Proof of Evolution Over the past 160 years, the world views of Creationists and Evolutionists have debated against each other in a struggle to claim ultimate victory over the other ("Carbon Dating." An Encyclopedia). The struggle over the same evidence and the same proof that both sides say support their claim is endless. Overall, it comes to which side is the most reasonable and the most believable. Evolutionists say the universe, earth and its species have evolved over millions of years. Creationists say that the universe, the earth and its species were created by an omnipotent Creator (Birx. "Darwin, Charles." Encyclopedia of Time). Creationism at one point in our society was the only solution we had for life around us. It is centered on God as the creator of everything. However on November 24, 1859 a naturalist by the name of Charles Darwin Published The Book of Origins, which suggested that man evolved from a creature over millions of years (Darwin, Charles." Encyclopedia of Time). He called this idea evolution.With these two different worldviews in mind when looking at the stars, the mountains, and the trees in all their beauty or see all the life in its own unique way. It's hard to imagine all these ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Creationist's worldview of an omnipotent Creator who created everything is stronger than Evolutionists worldview of millions of years of change because evolution over millions of years is ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
11. Flexible Discriminant Analysis The furcula is the main element of avian flight; it is an important origin for flight muscles used in the down stroke. Many biomechanical functions have been suggested for the Furcular. Originally it was thought to play a motionless function, acting as a spacer and muscle for flight. Other studies showed a more active role, where the furcular experience distortions during the wingbeat cycle, where it spread laterally on the down stroke and rebounding during the upstroke, almost acting like a spring. This behavior might represent an energy saving adaptation to help with respiration. Past studies have found that found that subaqueous fliers have more of a V– shaped furcular with a high anteroposterior curvature, whereas soaring bird are more U–shaped with low anteroposterior curvature. This study seeks to clarify this form–function relationship through the use of eigenshape morphometric analysis along with phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs), and phylogenetic Flexible Discriminant Analysis (pFDA). Examination of flight modes revealed that intermittent bounders are associated with narrow interclavicular angles and straight clavicular rami. Short range fliers have a small anteroposterior curvature where larger... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Past studies showed the strength of the form and function relationship in the avian furcula, while this study examined the form and function in more modern Mesozoic birds. This study revealed that eigenshape analysis of Arvin birds furcular allows for more derived flight modes. This study confirmed that soaring birds have a more U–shaped furcula than continuously–flapping birds. It also observed that the interclavicular angle is an even more important aspect of flight mode than the curvature, and is positively correlated with body size. This study demonstrates that the Mesozoic taxa have evolved unique flight modes through different musculoskeletal ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
12. Evolution vs. Creation Science Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once stated, "There is no future for a people who deny their past" (Applewhite, Evans, III, and Frothingham 474). This statement has rung true for the world for centuries; the majority of individuals cannot fathom the concept of discovering how mankind came to be through scientific nature. By denying this truth, the world will not be able to develop. Evolution is verifiable in comparison to creation science because of the theories, evidence, and the increasing acceptance in today's society. In order to discuss the irrefutable nature of evolution, one must be able to fully grasp the history of this groundbreaking knowledge. Evolution is often described as a change that has occurred over an extended period of time. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... One form of evidence is known as the fossil record; this is the documentation of one species that has transitioned into another form. A prime example of the fossil record is the evolution of birds. These flying creatures are often considered direct descendants of dinosaurs; Thomas Henry Huxley constructed this notion in the 1860s. Evidence of this theory came about in 1861 when the first, complete skeleton was discovered; the skeleton was of the Archaeopteryx lithographica. There was no mistaking that Archaeopteryx lithographica was a dinosaur because of features it adorned, including a bony tail, teeth, and claws on the wings. The troubling detail of this ancient creature was a new feature that had been discovered: feathers. This ignited the on–going search for dinosaurian skeletons, providing clear evidence in support of Darwin's theory. In addition, direct observation has provided an enormous amount of evidence to prove a major component of Darwin's theory of evolution: natural selection. The first piece of evidence is the infamous peppered moths. The peppered moths are also known as Biston betularia; they are commonly found in Britain. The moths often fly during the night but they rest on trees during the day; this is a clever way to camouflage themselves from predators. There are two very common types of these moths: the typicall and carbonaria. The typicall can be described as a pale, speckled moth that is hidden ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
13. Evolution vs Intelligent Design Essay The suggested separation between church and state in contemporary America is not what the framers of our constitution and our country had in mind as they wrote the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." After deconstructing the words, the most insignificant adjective "an," tells us that the framers wanted to restrain Congress from installing any one religion as the official religion of the state. Those immortal words say nothing about religion informing congress or society on policy, education, or progress. I maintain that the first amendment's establishment clause regarding religion was to protect citizens' free exercise of religion from state interests and... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Darwinian evolution is the theory that life after appearance and over time endured mutation and adaptation through natural selection to eventually yield modern man from the same source, a single cell. ID is the theory that life exists in its present forms as the product of a purposeful design. Both theories use natural science to support their ideological conclusions such as embryology, genetics, and biochemistry. A key to these theories being comparable is that they both suggest that a preexisting being sparked life on Earth. Within evolution this point is highly debated and denied by many, however the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, expressed in the Origin of Species his belief that the first cell received its spark of life "by the Creator." (Darwin 1900, 316) This will soon be important as a reason why evolution should not be taught in public education at all if you believe that the first amendment means a separation between church and state as evolution at its roots tells us that God created life on earth. ID at its roots also asserts that an entity also lit the initial sparks of life on earth. A core difference between the premises of these two theories is found in their assertions of the identity of this being and will be analyzed next. In contrast, these theories are substantially different. Darwinian evolution assumes that after the emergence of the first living cell eons passed as that cell self–replicated and began the ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
14. What Are The Four Main Categories Of Evidence Of Evolution The four main categories of evidence for evolution in accordance to the BAT tutorials are: fossil records, chemical and anatomical similarities, geographic distribution of related species, and genetic changes over generations. Fossil records allow researchers to examine evolution through past species. One example is the Archaeopteryx, a million year old fossil found in southern Germany that had characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds. This fossil finding resulted as the discovery that birds had evolved from reptilian ancestors. Also, the similarities between body structures in vertebrates make for a distinct link leading to the conclusion that they must share a common ancestor or a similarity in how they came to be. Additionally, the geographic location of certain species determines their evolution patterns. In certain areas of the world, there are animals that are native to that land and cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Lastly, a species genetic alter over time in order to survive. In the case of a drastic environmental change that results in death, those that survive do so because they possess traits that allow them to survive. These are the only ones that will be likely to reproduce. Selective breeding in dogs is an example genetic changes over evolution. In these cases, dog breeders mate different breeds of dogs together in order to achieve the desired traits they want in a new breed of dog. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The finches illustrate this by their ability to adapt to the altering periods of wet and dry spells on the island they reside in. Finches also have beaks according to their available source of nutrition based on their ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
15. Genetic Cloning In Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park Michael Crichton's novel "Jurassic Park," is a science fiction story about bringing dinosaurs back to life through genetic cloning. Throughout the book there are several references that dinosaurs are actually birds, not reptiles. Crichton did his research when writing these books because the science behind everything is correct. Dr. Henry Wu, the chief geneticist, cloned the DNA from insects in amber, a hard yellow resin of dried tree sap. Throughout the novel, Dr. Alan Grant, a paleontologist, is asked to come to John Hammond's island along with other scientists. Dennis Nedry, a computer programmer, shuts off electricity, and dies why stealing embryos, leaving no one to turn it back on; the back up generator isn't enough to power the entire security system. This leaves ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The first bird is debated to be the Archaeopteryx, discovered in Germany, believed to be 145 million years old. It resembled a crow–sized animal with feathers. If the feathers were not found, it would have been identified as a small dinosaur. It did however have a wishbone, found in birds, and it had bird like feet. Researchers believe that dinosaurs shrunk in size while adapting to new changes in the environment. Researchers believe birds descended from two–legged dinosaurs, Theropods. The skull itself is believed to have gone from a Velociraptor, to Archaeopteryx, to modern day chickens and pigeons. Some differences from the Archaeopteryx and chicken are the size of the brain, eye cavities, and beak. The Archaeoptreryx had teeth, where as the chicken does not. Dinosaurs started shrinking to enable flight. In Jurassic Park, they compare the way dinosaurs walk, the size or their arms and legs, the hinged knee and ankle, the bobbing of the head when they walk, and their toes. They had to compare them to reptiles because Dr. Wu and to supplement other DNA in to the broken DNA they discovered for clone. The dinosaurs couldn't see Grant if he ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
16. Contradiction Between the Theory of Evolution and the Bible Charles Darwin was a British scientist who founded the theory of evolution and changed the way we think about the natural world. Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 and lived during the Industrial Revolution. As a child, Darwin initially planned to become a doctor, but his plan terminated when he joined the five year expedition on the survey ship, the HMS Beagle, in 1831. In the expedition, Darwin developed a theory and published a book call The Origin of Species. This book was the beginning of what we know about evolution, and it was controversial. The book brought disputations between devoted christians and darwinists on the validity of evolution. During that period of time, most Europeans believed that the world was created by God in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Due to the contradiction, a significant event happened in that past, and it was called the Scope Trial. The Scope Trial was an American legal case in 1925 about a high school teacher, John Scopes, teaching evolution. Teaching evolution violated Tennessee's Butler Act, which is an act that made it unlawful to teach evolution in any state–funded school, so he ended up in prison. John Scopes was just a believer of evolution, but his belief brought him inconvenience and trouble, because evolution and Christianity were two extreme sides that were not able to make peace and mediate. When Darwin died, he took back what he said about the theory of evolution. He states, "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done," (Moore). Darwin took his theory to his deathbed, because he was attacked by the church for developing the theory of evolution. Although Darwin took his theory back, but he had made us wanting to figure out whether evolution really occurred or not. To determine the validity of evolution, there are different modern technologies now that are able to help us decide if evolution really occurred or not. An example of this can be paleontology. Through paleontology, scientists discovered a famous transitional form call Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is able to provide evidence of an evolutionary pathway from dinosaurs to birds. Using technologies, there are ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
17. Evolution Of Flight Research Paper Flight is a very complex function, and in order to develop into what we know now as birds, there are several major evolutionary changes that needed to develop to maturity. In order for fly, the skeletal structure, musculature, respiratory system, circulatory systems, and feathers must all be adapted to allow for an organism to take flight. Many scientists have proposed theories about the origin of flight, but the Arboreal and Cursorial theories have emerged as the strongest cases. Arboreal theories are based around the idea that the organisms climbing into trees jump out of those trees and glide down, eventually adapted to flap to increase drag. This theory is based in the skeletal similarities of gliding animals to those of birds.1 This tree–hopping evolution hypothesis is supported by Archaeopteryx, one of the prime examples of a transitional animal for flight. Archaeopteryx presents with long unfused claws that are adaptations for climbing and grasping.3 In addition, there are also presence of a furcula, and a bid like pes with a reversed hallux. These adaptations also account for... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Any lift that would come out of the winged features would generate drag causing a loss in acceleration. 1 However, just as the Arobreal theory was supported by Archaeopteryx, the Cursorial theory is also strongly supported by this specimen. Archaeopteryx demonstrates a complete set of conical teeth and claws that were sharp and resembling the specimens relative Ornitholestes, a known predaceous animal.3 The Archaeopteryx also resembles therapods with a reversed hallux, hindlimb, and pelvis.3 Even though this theory is supported using fossil evidence, it does have some problems which have lead to the development of theories such as the WAIR ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
18. Evolution Vs. Fossil Records Evolution has been a widely known discussion that many people have had over the past century, the theory of evolution has been welcomed by many scientists yet by some religious people it has been a taboo topic. The thought or the motion to entertain that humans evolved from primates is what some people would shudder and state that it goes against all their religious beliefs. However, scientist have pushed on the fact that evolution is not just a hypothetical or an outlandish theory but a theory that has multiple hard evidence to back it and that to ignore is ignorance and just plain stupidity. Four types of evidence of evolution are fossil records, genetic changes, the geographic distribution of species, and the similarities in embryos of species. One of the evidences of evolution is fossil records, with fossil records being the remains of plants and animals that scientist have found in sedimentary rocks. Fossil records have given us irrefutable evidence of evolution in the past, over a course of a long period of time, proving there is significant variation amongst living things. Evolution is a continuum; all the minor changes over a period of time add up to a major change. On the continuum, fossils are the points that displaying what the organism had become after evolving at that stage in time. Although fossil records are substantial evidence for evolution there are gaps in the fossil records due to the fact of incompletion of the collecting data. As evolution is ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
19. Decoding Fossils of Dinosaurs Dinosaurs lived on earth 65 million years ago. They lived on the earth much before any human being was born. They ruled the earth for over 165 million years, till 65 million years ago. They were huge monsters, even bigger than elephants. The word "dinosaur" was taken from a Greek word which means terrible lizard. But they weren't exactly lizards. Lizards are one type of reptile and dinosaurs are another type. Not all dinosaurs were giants. Some dinosaurs were no bigger than small dogs. The smallest kind was about the size of a chicken. No human being has seen a living dinosaur but, scientists have many ways of learning about them. One important way is by studying fossils. Fossils give scientists a vast amount of information about ancient ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... When a plant or animal dies its stores of carbon–14 begins to get depleted because like all radioactive elements, carbon–14 loses its atoms over a period of time. Its half–life is 5,568 years. Half–life is a period over which a sample of radioactive element loses about half the number of its atoms. Sample of carbon–14 loses half the number of its atoms in a span of 5,568 years. The older the fossil the less carbon–14 it contains. But radiocarbon dating can be used to study fossils that are up to about 40,000 years old. For fossils older than this, other method which uses other radioactive elements such as uranium, rubidium, etc. are used. These can accurately determine the age of fossils that are billions of years old. The geological time scale has been worked out by the paleontologists. The chief divisions in scales are eras, periods and epochs. The eras are the largest of the scale divisions. The major eras were Paleozoic era, Mesozoic era and the Cenozoic era. Among these the Mesozoic era is also called the age of reptiles and is divided into three periods: The Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. The Jurassic period was dominated by dinosaurs. They ruled the land, sea and the air during this period. They were like the kings. В‘T–Rex' means Tynnosaurus rex, most ferocious of all the dinosaurs. The name means tyrant–lizard king. It was so scary and so huge. Tynnosaurus stood nearly 3 meters high at the hips and grew about 13 meters long. ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
20. Essay Tetrapods The early Devonian period is largely considered to be a world of a diverse array of lobe–finned fish, including lungfish, coelacanths, and bony fish. Over the course of time, vertebrates made evolutionary strides with provided them with the ability to travel on land. Coelacanths developed a single boned shoulder girdle, lungfish developed paired fins, and sauripterus developed the major structures on the arm (humerus, radius, and ulna). As these developments progressed and environmental pressures were amounting in aquatic environments, vertebrates began to venture onto land. Sometimes it was for short excursions, sometimes a bit longer. A major step invertebrate evolution was the advancement of the tetrapod, a vertebrate animal with ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Many species are completely aquatic during the juvenile part of the lifecycle. For example, frogs have to reproduce in water because amphibian eggs do not have the protection of the amniotic sac. As a result, the adults must return to a water source to reproduce. As tadpoles grow into adults they form limbs that allow them to walk on land. Because of the restriction to semi–aquatic environment, the tetrapod structure of amphibians is not as diverse as the other classes of tetrapods. However, there are groups that deviate from the norm by a lot. Caecilians are limbless amphibians. At first glance they do not look like tetrapods but the lack of limbs is a derived secondary characteristic. Their bodies have adapted for burrowing in the ground. Reptiles, the next tetrapods to emerge, were a very successful version of amphibians. As opposed to amphibians, reptiles did not require water for the reproduction process they produced shelled amniotic eggs to protect their embryos from the environment. Due to the reduced dependence on water, reptiles were able to explore many new environments and as a result their limbs evolved in a variety of ways. Crocdylotarsians developed a "normal ankle" which swings to the side when walking, making walking slightly more efficient. Dinosaurs developed a hole in their hip socket that allowed them to stand upright and to move significantly faster. Another way some terrestrial reptiles ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
21. Dinosaurs And Birds Essay Dinosaurs and Birds Are birds really dinosaurs or are they simply related? That is a question that has gained new life in recent years due to the overwhelming facts the are pouring in from newly found fossils and studies from fossils that have been found in the past. Two groups have formed in the study of this question: those who believe birds are a direct result of dinosaurs and those who feel dinosaurs and birds must have had a common ancestor. Determining which view is correct is a matter of opinion based on fact. The main problem involves the use of cladistics or phylogenetic systematics to group organisms according to characteristics they share. When one looks at dinosaur fossils, he or she may feel that certain ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Also, support is gaining that Archaeopteryx was not in fact the first bird, but instead a descendent of an earlier bird ancestor that had developed along a different pathway and actually represents an evolutionary dead end. Two opponents of the "birds are dinosaurs theory" are Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina and Larry Martin of the University of Kansas. They believe that birds evolved from some unknown reptile from a time before dinosaurs came to be. One point they make is that flight must have begun from tree climbing or an arboreal ancestor but that all the proposed dinosaurian ancestors were ground dwellers or cursorial On the other side, supporters for the "birds are dinosaurs theory" feel there is an unknown dinosaur bird that was arboreal, or simply that birds evolved flight from the ground by chasing after insects. In recent years other fossil finds have stirred the argument even more. One of these is the fossil named Sinosauroptyrex found in China. It appears to be an important link between birds and dinosaurs. Sinosauropteryx appears to be a feathered dinosaur having a mane of feathers along its neck, back, and tail–a feature until then seen only in birds. Sinosauroptyrex appears before Archaeopteryx and gives a substantial link between the theropods and birds. One opponent of this find is Martin who feels the ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
22. Theropod Dinosaurs Birds have been around for a long time. We see them every day and everywhere we go but have you ever stopped and wondered where they came from and how they fly? Paleontologists, ornithologists, and other scientists have been trying to understand where birds came from, understanding feathers, and why, when, and how birds fly. Most of these questions are still being studied today. The origin of birds began during the Mesozoic Era in the Jurassic Period, about 200 Ma (million years) to 146 Ma ago. All birds today were derived from theropod dinosaurs. Theropod dinosaurs include some of the most recognized dinosaurs today including, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Spinosaurus. The relation between theropod dinosaurs and birds came from the discovery ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... After the discovery of Archaeopteryx it became the "missing link" in connecting the dots to where birds derived from. From studying the earliest feathers and coming up with theories as to why a bird evolved to fly are vital questions that yet to be understood and answered ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
23. What Is Fossil Evidence? Fossil Evidence Fossil evidence is a great way to analyse the effects of evolution. The first statement posed by somebody when a person trying to prove a point is: prove it. Fossil evidence does just that by providing proof in the forms of preserved life–forms which previously inhabited the earth. The stratigraphic column is a layering of sedimentary rocks which contain fossils in them (McMullen et al., 2014). The erosion of these rocks carves through this layering to provide a timeline of fossils. The theory of superposition goes hand in hand with the geological column, this is seen in Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, U.S.A., where the more anatomically complex and younger fossils, such as tetrapods and vertebrates, appear at the top of the geological ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The unzipping of the internal "instructions" which code for body function was discovered and the marvellous molecule of DNA and the genetic code was discovered for the first time in the 1900's (Pray, 2008). Genetic sequencing is the method by which the building blocks of DNA, nucleotide base pairs, are ordered to create a gene instruction (Olsvik et al. 1993). These gene sequences can be used in comparison between different species to link any common genetic traits (Hedges & Kumar, 2002). In Hedges and Kumar article about vertebrate genomes it was found that Homo sapiens, Human beings, had a similar genome size compared to Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee. It was also found that because these animals were phylogenetically similar, there genomes were roughly the same size, but when compared to the genome sizes for more simpler anatomic animals such as Gallus gallus, the domestic fowl or chicken, or the Tetraodon nigrovirdis, spotted green pufferfish, there was a huge difference in genomic sizes with the chicken and pufferfish having substantially smaller genomic size (Hedges & Kumar, 2002). This again shows the evolution of genome size evolution in combination with the evolution of more complex anatomical structures. Molecular biology can be used in other ways such as tracking and comparing differences and similarities in protein structures in microstructures such as vessels or bone fragments. An example ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
24. Jurassic Period Research Paper The Jurassic Period is a time period were new dinosaurs were being discovered and found. It was about 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago. Some of the species that were found in the Jurassic Period are the Stegosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Brachiosaurus, and Allosaurus. Each dinosaur had their own characteristics for survival. The weather in the Jurassic Period was warm and humid. "The tectonic shift took place, several rifts were formed and filled with water, forming, what would later become many of today's oceans and seas. These "oceans" were small and shallow giving way to an excellent, warm, tropical climate." "Surface waters in the low latitudes were about 20 В°C (68 В°F), while deep waters were about 17 В°C (63 В°F)." Some of the plant fossils... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The scientists believe that the herbivores ran out of plants, and trees and so all of the herbivores died and after all of the herbivores died, all of the Carnivores died as well. Another theory is that a big asteroid hit the Earth, and the asteroid caused a global extinction.. The final theory that the scientists thought of happening was a disease. Disease may of happened from one dinosaur getting sick and then it just passed on from dinosaur to dinosaur. I would like to live during that time period because it would be a cool sight to see all of the dinosaurs and seeing what really happened to them. Another reason why I would like to live during their time period is to see what kind of habitat their living in and how they react. The final reason why I would like to live in the Jurassic Period would be that I would like to study their behavior towards other dinosaurs, and how some of them evolve throughout their lifetime. In conclusion, we rely on fossils and other scientific findings to help us understand how dinosaurs lived so long ago. The Jurassic Period was one of the more fascinating periods to learn about and one of the more interesting things that I've ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
25. Theropod Dinosaurs Research Paper Dinosaurs capture the attention of children and adults alike, and many people think that they are long gone. You might be surprised to find that they are not extinct, but rather perching in your backyard. The theory that theropods evolved into birds was proposed nearly a century and a half ago and is supported by more and more modern evidence. You will find that the distinction between birds and dinosaurs will become difficult, as they have so many parallels. The similarities between birds and dinosaurs strongly suggest that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The theory that theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds originated after the discovery of Archeopteryx lithographica in 1861 in Solnhofen, Germany. Thomas Huxley, a strong supporter of Charles... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Ratites and penguins are two groups of flightless birds we have today. The origin of flight is an ongoing debate from scientists, but there are two main theories: that flight evolved arboreally or that it evolved from ground dwelling dinosaurs. Both have compelling evidence. The theory that flight started in the trees begins with WAIR (Wing Assisted Incline Running). Discovered in 2001 by Ken Dial at the University of Montana, it is the way many ground dwelling birds get into trees to rest at night. These birds would flap their wings back and forth (rather than up and down) to generate traction. The larger the wing size, the steeper the angle a bird could run up (Holtz 149). Also supporting this theory is the presence of toes adapted for perching in several species of dinosaurs. From there, the dinosaurs could have glided from tree to tree and eventually taken flight. A ground dwelling origin of flight also has convincing evidence. A study found that non–avian feathered theropods could get a boost of speed by flapping their wings (Sloan 51). Therefore, longer feathers and bigger wings meant faster speeds until flight could ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
26. Archaeop Lotteryx Research Paper Theoretically, birds are said to have evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs by fossils discovered in China, South America and other countries. The fossils were looked with different perspectives than initially, and by analyzing them with special methods. The first known bird to man was the Archaeopteryx, which was discovered around the early 1860s. It had feathers exactly like current day birds however, had teeth, a long bony tail and other factors that put these recognized characteristics under the reptile category of a specific species; dinosaurs. There is much evidence that supports the link between dinosaurs and birds. As stated before, the Archaeopteryx is one of scientists' most valuable sources of evidence and this bird was analysed ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
27. The Ancestry Of Birds: The Evolution Of Birds Garret Lee Mrs. Miller English 12 January 8, 2015 The Ancestry of Birds The debate over the origin of birds has been a heated and controversial topic among not only paleontologists but also geneticists, biologists, and even scholars of religion. The proposal that perhaps birds find their ancestors among the infamous dinosaurs is one that has ample support from various sources of evidence. This highly contested topic is beginning to come to a resolution as the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs receives confirming proofs from fossil, biological, and genetic evidence. It can be concluded that birds can find their distant ancestors in prehistoric dinosaurs. The assertion that a certain clade of dinosaurs were modified by natural selection ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... However, few early on could have guessed that the 'terrible lizards' they were unearthing were the ancestors and relatives of sparrows, ostriches, and penguins. Not only the skeletal similarities observed between dinosaur fossils and the bones of birds, but also biological lifestyle shared traits and genetic and molecular evidence support the idea that birds find in dinosaurs their prehistoric roots. It would be difficult to make a case that dinosaurs were descended from a different source. If in fact the dinosaur–bird connection proves to be true, which is overwhelmingly supported by a variety of evidence, then technically it means that birds are in fact a type of dinosaur (Which Bird). The turkey you eat for Thanksgiving is classified as a species of theropod. The next time that you wake up to the chirping of a songbird, or see a chicken, keep in mind that the animal is actually a ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
28. Hypotheses On the Origin of Birds Essay Hypotheses On the Origin of Birds Since the advent of the theory of evolution the origin of birds has been a thriving topic in science. Many ideas and hypotheses have been presented, but only two stand today: that birds are descendents of ancient thecodont stem reptiles, and that birds are the direct descendents of a group of dinosaurs known as the coelurosaurs. Both hypotheses pose many interesting and insightful ideas based on information obtained from the fossil record. There is not enough evidence at this time to determine which hypothesis, if either, is right. Only more hard work by scientists will tell. Until then we have only speculation, but speculation based in observed evidence. The origin of birds is one of the great ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Theropods are a diverse group of bipedal saurischian dinosaurs (see cladogram). They include the largest terrestrial carnivores ever to have walked the earth. Several characters typify a theropod: hollow bones, three main fingers on the manus (hand), and three main (weight–bearing) toes on the pes (foot). Most theropods had sharp, recurved teeth useful for tearing flesh, and claws were present on the ends of all of the fingers and toes (Hutchinson 2000). It is thought that birds are descendents of the group of theropods known as the coelurosaur or maniraptora. (There is debate as to whether these two groups should be one, so for the sake of this paper, I will refer to them as coelurosaurs.) This group can be typified by such species as Velociraptor and Deinonychus (Hutchinson 2000). The other hypothesis is that birds arose much earlier than dinosaurs from a group known to be the ancestors of theropods: the thecodonts (Dingus and Rowe 1998). Thecodonts were small, agile reptiles with long tails and short forelimbs, thought to include the ancestral stock of all other archosaurs, including birds, all dinosaurs, pterosaurs (extinct flying reptiles), and crocodilians (Anonymous 2000). The Theropod Hypothesis The theropod hypothesis puts the entry of birds into the evolutionary arena after the line of descent had continued from thecodonts to the saurischian dinosaurs and their subsequent split into
29. ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
30. Alborum Plumae Research Paper Early yesterday morning, a previously undiscovered species was found above the snowline in the Mount Kosciuszko National Park, New South Wales. The discovery was made by a the well known biologist, Dr. Ella Beard, who upon curiosity of observing the snow fixed abnormally firmly to tree branches, climbed the tree and discovered these small feathered creatures perfectly disguised as cumulated snow. The creature, now known scientifically as Alborum Plumae, hides perfectly as snow lumps on tree branches. It is believed to spend the majority of time in a stationary position, only using its wings for flight from predators. Many of the Alborum Plumae traits are easily comparable to birds. They has a thick layer of down insulation, allowing them to retain warmth while sedentary, zygodactyly feet for gripping branches, pneumatic bones to aid in flight, huddling behavior for retaining warmth, and wings for escaping predators. It is not completely bird–like however, as it has sharp incisors for eating hard nuts found in gum trees in surrounding areas, and has four legs. It has not yet been confirmed which class this animal belongs to. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... In this position, the wings of the Alborum Plumae lower around the curve of the branch to look like snow, and protect their otherwise exposed feet. When moving, the creatures mainly climb along branches, gripping with their sharp claws. This movement seems to only take place in low visibility. The only other observed behavior to date is in flight, when threatened directly by predators. In these circumstances, the whole group (known as a storm) take flight simultaneously and fly to safety. This was only observed by Dr. Ella Beard when she disturbed ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
31. Who Needs Netflix? Docos And Cool? Who needs Netflix? Docos and chill!By Sabrina Delgado I snuggle in for another movie night as the buttery smell of palm oil free popcorn wafts through the room. But I'm not waiting for the newest blockbuster to load, I'm waiting for an acclaimed documentary that has snagged my interest. No longer are they stifling classroom videos from the 'golden ages', but intriguing films that are enjoyed by many. Including me. As a twenty–year–old who can't afford to travel, I have taken a liking to documentaries that allow me be anywhere in the world, even if it's just for an hour or so. Years of Living Dangerously (2014), produced by James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger, shows the scary reality of climate change and how the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Thanks to oceanographer Ben McCartney, I know now that to find the perfect wave one must know the "length, durations and speed of winds associated with a storm developing over open ocean." Now all you need is a surfboard and bom.gov.au and you're ready to let loose. Not only did I learn the science behind surfing, but also the life–threatening risk that Visser was putting himself into by attempting to ride a 10–meter wave at the perilous location of Jaws. The suspenseful non–diegetic sound alerted me to the dangers of the deep as Visser endeavoured in his first deep diving experience. The enthralling music played with my thoughts as I sat en the edge of my seat, biting my nails. This was truly a moment in surfing history. In this digital age of likes, comments and snaps, it's extremely easy to lose focus on things that are right in front of you. Although, unlike many people of my generation, I don't immediately turn my nose up at anything old, dusty or dull. In fact, I share a love for an old but intriguing man by the name of David Attenborough. In his newest documentary, David Attenborough: Natural History Museum Alive (2014), directed by Dan Smith, the fascinating facts of both creatures long gone and the museum itself and its development are exposed. With extinct animals brought to life through the magic of CGI, it felt more like an adventure movie than a documentary. I ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
32. Advantages Of Birds Birds are warm–blooded vertebrate creatures that have wings, quills, a snout, no teeth a skeleton in which numerous bones are combined or are missing, and a to a great degree proficient, one–way breathing framework (Padian &Chiappe, 1998). Flying winged animals have solid, empty bones and effective flight muscles. Most winged animals can fly. Birds have an extremely solid heart and an effective method for breathing– these are vital for flying creatures to fly (Serono & Rao, 1992). Winged animals additionally utilize a great deal of vitality while flying and need to eat a ton of nourishment to control their flight. The capacity to fly has grown autonomously commonly all through the historical backdrop of the Earth (Padian &Chiappe, 1998). Birds... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... and Puerta, P.F., 1997. New evidence concerning avian origins from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature, 387(6631), pp.390 –392. Ostrom, J.H., 1976. Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Biological Journal of the linnean Society, 8(2), pp.91–182. Padian, K. and Chiappe, L.M., 1998. The origin and early evolution of birds. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73(01), pp.1–42. Paul, G.S., 2002. Dinosaurs of the air: the evolution and loss of flight in dinosaurs and birds. JHU Press. Qiang, J., Currie, P.J., Norell, M.A. and Shu–An, J., 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature, 393(6687), pp.753–761. Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C., 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China. Science, 255(5046), p.845. Wellnhofer, P., 1994. New data on the origin and early evolution of birds. Comptes rendus de l'AcadГ©mie des sciences. SГ©rie 2. Sciences de la terre et des planГЁtes, 319(3), pp.299–308. Zhou, Z., 2004. The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes, and perspectives from fossil evidence. Naturwissenschaften, 91(10), ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
33. Charles Darwin's On The Origin Of Species I am a member of the Royal Society, I fully support Charles Darwin and his work on gradualism and the idea of natural selection. I have read Darwin's book On the Origin of Species and have read the work of Hough Falconer who is a paleontologist that found early fossil evidence to support Darwin's theory. In our world we are surrounded by variation, variation can be seen in habitats, plats, animals, and humans. Their needs to be variation throughout life so that organisms will be able to survive and reproduce. Through what I have read, I believe that variation is necessary in order for species to evolve. In society, creationist and scientists debate about how the world came to be. It is questioned if God created the world in six days or if... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Darwin knew that he had an incomplete fossil record and some gaps in his work. Archaeopteryx was discovered two years after Darwin published his work. Hough Falconer, a good friend of Darwin's, believes that archaeopteryx is the missing link to Darwin's work. Thomas Huxley a friend and supporter of Darwin states that "archaeopteryx is a transitional species and one that helped show the connection between birds and reptiles" (Benchmarks: September 30, 1861: Archaeopteryx is discovered and described, 2011). If Darwin knew about archaeopteryx it would have gave his theory better support. Darwin claims that organisms evolve from transitional ancestors. We are able to see how this is true in archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary transition which gives us evidence to better understand the evolutionary process. Darwin knew that somehow a simple species evolves into something more complex. Darwin believed that species share traits from a common ancestor. Archaeopteryx would have given Darwin a clear idea on how exactly species evolve from ancestors. Archaeopteryx is important scientific evidence that gives us evidence about evolution, it is an evolutionary stepping stone that shows how species evolve and change over time. Darwin could have benefited greatly if he knew about archaeopteryx before he wrote his book because it would have given him more support for this theory of natural selection and evolution. ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
34. Archaeopteryx: Transition Between Dinosaurs And Birds A fossil found in the 1860s named Archaeopteryx was a said to be one of the most important finds for evolutionists. Archae is what is now called as a transitional fossil, and this specific transition is between dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx is indeed classified as a bird, but the Archaeopteryx has unique features that are not possessed by birds. The Archaeopteryx does not have a bill, its trunk region vertebra is free whereas in birds it is always fused, and the Archaeopteryx has teeth which no modern day birds have. Some of its more avian features are its opposable hallux which just means it has a 'big toe' which is a common trait found in birds not dinosaurs, and of course feathers, among other features. Evidence supporting Creationism Generally, it has been relatively easy for one to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Scientists almost all agree with Darwinian theory but about 40% of them incorporate a "higher being" in the process and believe that this "being" uses what we see as 'random processes". Some biologists claim that, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." while another has stated that God did not guide the process, "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place." Theistic evolutionists have claimed that all living things have evolved from one original life form, but that "God" created this original form thereby directing the process. Progressive creationists explain that over the billions of ages God has intervened once in a while in a major way to speed–up change, but then allowed Nature to take its own course. But despite the many people who are ambivalent, there are not enough. There will most likely never be a compromise between creationists and Darwinists but this does not necessarily mean that the two ideas are fundamentally opposed to one ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
35. Horseshoe Crabs For years, directors have made several movies insinuating what life would be like if dinosaurs were living on Earth today, such as what dinosaurs would look like and how they would act. Archeologists, paleontologists, and other researchers have proven the existence of dinosaurs. Fossil, preserved remains, evidence dates back to over 200 million years ago ("Dinosaur"). Each fossil, or remains, gives identifying information about the creature that once lived. Experts have revealed dinosaurs to be in the reptile category. Nevertheless, not all reptiles are dinosaurs. However, aquatic, land, and air life in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic eras in which dinosaurs lived and the Cenozoic era, also known as the present time, animals share many similarities. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The transition started with the Triassic period bringing on animals such as dinosaurs. A familiar animal, the Crocodilians also referred to as crocodiles first arrived during the Triassic period along with turtles. The most common period throughout the Mesozoic era is the Jurassic. The Jurassic period is known for movies such as Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, but it is where reptiles began to dominate the world until theCretaceous period. Crocodiles are closely related to birds. The Archaeopteryx, one of the first birds, contained similar characteristics of nonavian dinosaurs such as teeth, feathers, an extended vertebral column to form a long tail, and a big brain ("Dinosaurs"). During the Cretaceous period, vegetation flourished, large reptiles, dinosaurs, began extinction, and accurate birds, seen today, thrived. Both crocodiles and birds live on Earth and are the closest thing to dinosaurs anyone will ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
36. Essay Outline The Evidence For Natural Selection Outline the evidence for natural selection Comparative Anatomy Different organisms that have similar basic structures, but can be used for different purposes are evidence for a common ancestor. These are called homologous structures. An example is the pentadactyl limb, which is the basic structure found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The basic structure is formed of: –One bone in the upper limb –Two bones in the lower limb –Five fingers of toes In bats, the limb is a wing, and does contain the finger structure, which are extended across the wings and skin stretched over. Within a whales fin, they possess a fully formed pentadactyl limb. Analogous structures in organisms are structures in different species that have ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... As well as this, certain blood proteins are found in a number of species. When genetic code (DNA and RNA) is used by a cell, it builds amino acids in a sequence, which forms protein. Chemical tests can determine whether one species has the similar blood proteins to another, thus showing evidence of evolutionary relationships. Organisms with a common ancestor have a close number of amino acid sequences in common. For example, chimpanzees and humans have no difference in their amino acid protein count in their haemoglobin – evidence for a common ancestor. Palaeontology Fossils provide a record of how organisms have evolved overtime, as they contain the remains of life trapped in sediment, ice or amber and preserved for over millions of years. Transitional fossils, which provide evidence for evolutionary change, have features that show the transition of characteristics of organisms from ancestors to descendents. An example is Archaeopteryx, which featured reptilian features, including teeth and skeleton, however, also had feathers and a wishbone sternum (used to attach muscles for flying). The evidence of the fossil shows the evolutionary transition between dinosaurs and ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
37. Different Types of Ducks There were many different types of ducks in these locations but there were only a few I was able to recognize: Ruddy ducks– dive for their food Very easy to spot these ducks because the male has a bright blue bill, the bottom of their head is white and the top is black. The female is not as easy to recognize but the top of its head is a darker brown whereas the bottom is a lighter brown/ white. Mallard– dabbling These ducks are the most common ducks found around New York state. They have a yellow bill with a green head and a white band around its neck. Common goldeneye– dive for their food The reason why this duck is called the goldeneye, is because it actually has gold colored eyes. The male ducks have a shiny green head with a white circle on its cheek. Its body is black and white. The female, like every there female, does not have as many colors. The head is brown and like the male, has golden eyes. The body is grey/white. 2. a) Flamingo: Its feet are long, skinny and webbed.They have 4 toes in total, three toes pointing towards the front and one smaller toe in the back. This is because these birds are almost always in the water and using their webbed feet for swimming and stirring up food from the bottom. Their beak is hooked shaped, and their lower bill is much thicker than the top. This allows for the flamingo to be filter feeders, looking for tiny shrimp. Heron: The heron's feet have three long toes, two in the front and one behind to support their body when ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
38. Summary: The Thing With Feathers Missing Link in the Debate: Evolution versus Creation Simon Zhang October 1st, 2014 Life Science PrГ©cis In the essay "The Thing with Feathers" David Quammen discusses the existence and evolution of the missing link between birds and reptiles: Archaeopteryx. He explains that the Archaeopteryx is one of the first dinosaurs with feathers and the essay suggests that this species was the transitional stage between reptiles and birds. In the process, Quammen also states two of the major theories that outline how and why the Archaeopteryx might have developed feathers, as well as how it might have given them an advantage over non–feathered dinosaurs. The aborealists' theory suggests that the Archaeopteryx developed feathers to glide ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Using clear examples and evidence as well as the evolutionary concepts found in David Quammen's essay it is obvious that the existence and missing links are clear indicators of evolution. Missing links are species which relate major biological categorizations together, these species show the emergence of a novel traits though still retaining their old ones. In the case of Archaeopteryx, it still had many dinosaur–like features but had developed non–dinosaur–like feathers, as a result this species shared similar traits with both dinosaurs and birds. Since birds and the Archaeopteryx share many of the same characteristics it can be argued that birds evolved from Archaeopteryx which is evidence that modern animals are descended from extinct species. However, this is only speculation because many other different species evolved feathers over the eons and any one of those animals could be the predecessor to our modern fowl. Regardless of which animal the modern fowl descended from, be it Archaeopteryx or another feathered dinosaurs, the evidence still stands that feathers were evolved and passed down the evolutionary tree to modern birds which opposes the creationist's theory that all animals were created at the same time and that evolution is not occurring. Apart from the Archaeopteryx there ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
39. Radiometric Dating Essay Darwin's theory of evolution was a ground–breaking discovery for the study of life. Although Darwin gets most of the credit for the discovery his influences Charles Lyell, the father of geology and Erasmus Darwin, a pre–Darwinian evolutionist, made great contributions to the theory. The majority of the scientific community was quite receptive to Darwin's evolution by natural selection theory because it provided an explanation for many things that the current origin of life theory, special creation, did not. The scientific community did have some trouble accepting his work because it did not describe how the evolving genes were transferred from generation to generation which was a very important piece of information that would solidify his for ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... Radiometric dating is a technique that utilizes unstable isotopes of natural elements. Because these unstable isotopes eventually decay at a constant and singular rate despite any environmental changes such as temperature or moisture changes. The unit used as measurement is a half–life which is the amount of time it takes 50% of the original isotope to decay into the next isotope or daughter isotope. Basically the amount of half–lives is multiplied by the length of the half–life to estimate the age of the object being tested. Every element used has a different half–life and that makes each useful for measuring certain types of material. Some have longer a half–life and thus a longer effective dating range. Potassium–argon dating is useful for dating material that is extremely old. This method is used by geologists to replace relative ages based on rock formation with absolute ages. The dates found from the radiometric technique are accurate because the sources, the individual radioactive isotopes, are unchanging and unaffected by environmental factors. This means that the radiometric data will always be precise unlike relative dating which relies on the theory of uniformitarianism, the theory that geological history is made up of endless and uniform ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...
40. Jurassic Era Research Paper The beginning of the Jurassic brought a new climate. The weather changed from arid, dry, and seasonal to humid, hot, and stable. The weather allowed for lush jungles to flourish, and with the lush jungles, the dinosaurs. The weather change was due to the supercontinent Pangea breaking apart. Two new smaller supercontinents were formed, Gondwana and Laurasia. The supercontinents now had more area that was touching the ocean. This meant the water from the ocean made the supercontinents more humid than before. The dinosaurs thrived in this climate. New species are being discovered to this day from the Jurassic Period due to the immense diversity amongst them. The species diversity included three main dinosaur groups, the Sauropods, the Theropods, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ... The main dinosaurs that died off were Sauropod dinosaurs, long necked, four legged dinosaurs, and stegosauridae, class holding Stegosaurus. Other species that died include ammonites, similar to the living animals called nautilus, many marine reptiles, and bivalves, relatable to modern mollusca. Not much is known about this extinction. It is mainly linked to climate change. So far, no connection to volcanic activity or an asteroid has been made. This extinction gave way to the Cretaceous Period. The Cretaceous Period had a similar climate to the Jurassic, warm. The geography, however, was changed a drastic amount from the previous period. The Earth had very high sea levels at this time due to the lack of polar ice caps. The supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwana were breaking apart into the continents that are the same in the present day. Although the continents were the same, they did not yet look exactly the same. The continents will be further shaped by volcanic activity and tectonic plate activity. The shaping of the modern era was under way. Many other animals besides dinosaurs lived during the Cretaceous. These animals were very diverse and included pterosaurs, ancient flying reptiles, ... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Free Essays
Citation Generator

Argumentative Essay: Evolution

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Richard dawkins and jerry coyne: rhetorical analysis.

In “One Side Can Be Wrong,” Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne argue that teaching creationism along side evolution does not make sense, and that creationism has no business being in the science classes. Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne are evolutionary biologists at Oxford University and the University of Chicago. They published this essay in the Guardian in September 2005, seeking to appeal to middle-aged parents. They argue that creationism cannot provide any positive evidence to create a controversy and therefore should not be taught in schools to children and teenagers. On the other hand, there is a substantial amount of evidence for evolution where debate and conversation can arise.…

Summary Of The Lie Evolution By Ken Ham

Both are taught in schools, but public schools will not teach creation for being a religion. Public schools will teach evolution; because, they see it as a science. Evolution says that life comes from time, chance, and natural processes; whereas in Creation, life comes from God the Creator. Evolutionists will say that there is no God and say that only evolution is fact. People who “research” evolution could not have known that life formed over billions of years; because, they were not there to observe any of it. The only one to have observed all life from its beginning is God. Evolution is a religion; because, it requires a belief in it.…

Orthodoxy and Progressivism: America’s Battle over Education and a Silent Majority

Given the many battlefields that exist in America’s Culture War on public education, the main focus will be on the contemporary battlefront in the debate to include Intelligent Design in the public schools’ science curriculum. From the vast amounts of information that exists on this topic alone, it is important to define ID, identify the polar opponents, and understand a brief view of their core issues.…

The Fallacy in Teaching Macroevolution as Scientific Theory

A seemingly endless debate continues over the legitimacy of teaching evolutionary theory in classrooms, particularly in communities where religion plays a prominent role in community life. Some church leaders, teachers and school board members argue that alternate explanations provided by creationists or proponents of intelligent design should be taught alongside those of evolutionary theorists in science classrooms. People who are proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to offer a retort, usually suggesting that evolution is a proven fact; while denouncing the two aforementioned opposing views as belief systems which cannot be subjected to scientific analysis. Therefore, they suggest, such views are not appropriate subjects for science classrooms.…

Argumentative Essay On Into The Wild

Happiness is worth more than all the money in the world, even it is worth dying for. In the novel, Into the Wild from 1997, Jon Krakauer reveals a young man’s, Chris McCandless, life risking journey to Alaska where McCandless had planned to rediscover himself: However, this adventure became fatal and throughout the novel Krakauer uses his own life experience and other people’s positive relationship with Chris to defend him from the public, even though Chris was called an idiot because his dream ended his life. Krakauer develops a strong defense for McCandless by using McCandless’ family background, relationships he built along the way, Chris’ struggles, and other explorers with similar experiences to protect him from the negative feedback readers developed by reading Chris’s story . The purpose of this novel is to change the reader's negative opinions towards the article because when it was published readers believed that his purpose was to be a rebellious kid and seek attention from others,…

Evolution Veruse Creationism-Apa Style

Magner, L (2001). Evolution and Creationism in American Public Schools. Science and Its Time, Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/omah25471…

Cosmological Argument

ANS: Court decisions have disallowed the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in high school biology classes, because it is believed to be a form of creationism, a religious theory that can’t be backed up by evidence and proofs. The theory of Intelligent Design states that humans are too complicated to have evolved from random chemical and physical forces.…

Creation vs. Evolution in Schools

In Today’s society there are many things that parents would like to control for the well being of their child while he or she is growing up. An example of that is when you see a parent deny their kids of listen to a certain kind of music or watching a certain show. Every parent has their own idea of how they believe that there child should be raised. The same concept applies when it comes to teaching. Adults want to filter what is being taught which leads to the argument of creation vs. evolution in schools. Some adults think it is blasphemous to teach evolution and vise versa with creation in the class room. This is an issue that has raged on for years and will be explored starting with the teachings of evolution.…

Evolution Alongside Creationism School

In the essay “Why Evolution should be taught in public school” by Laura Kahn. According to Kahn, we need to educate the next generation of scientists on understanding how microbes develop and change to give them the tools to develop treatment against antibiotic resistant bacteria emerging viruses, and other deadly microbes. As she learned from her time in medicine, she recognizes the necessity of learning evolution to develop treatments in this rapid microbial environment. Unfortunately, certain aspects of society insist that religious doctrine be taught instead of evolution. According to a 2005 Harris poll, a majority of U.S citizens believe in creationism. Another survey show that two-thirds of U.S citizen believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Mrs. Kahn believed if we fail to teach science in public schools we would become scientifically illiterate. Therefore, we need to remain vigilant that our children receive a good science education to further enhance human understanding, and a good science education includes learning about evolution.…

Why Evolution Theory Should Be Taught

Evolution Theory should be taught at schools.Whenever various debates have taken place in parts of the country regarding whether evolution should be taught in schools, I have always observed the situation with a degree of skeptism; the education I received never attempted to dissuade us from learning about evolution, and while none of my classes ever taught evolution with as much depth as Ernst Mayr attempted to convey in What Evolution Is, both systems taught it as a fact – one that we took for granted. The debate on the use of the word "evolution" in the Georgia school system initially appeared to to be an irony of anti-evolution tendencies, although Superintendent Kathy Cox has not commented on the theory of evolution itself; "the unfortunate truth," stated Cox as her rationale, "is that 'evolution ' has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum" (Gross A10). Whatever her own beliefs on the subject are, however, the elimination of the term "evolution" may provide cool comfort to the theory 's opponents, but its overall effect is merely to hamper the student 's understanding of what evolution entails. Evoultion should be taught in schools because simply changing the wording of evolution and vaguely covering it will only confuse students more. It also has many scientific facts and discoveries to back it up. Also, with natural selection and population changes, even younger students will take notice.…

The Importance Of Creationism In Public Schools

Throughout history, religion and science have been in constant clashes, and one of the most recent clashes is whether if creationism and/or intelligent design should be taught in public schools.…

Weston Meehan

Before the Evolutionary theory’s inception the four burning questions of man has been who am I, where did I come from, why am I here, and where do I go when I die? The answer to these questions has always been some sort of religion, and that this world has a designer with an incredible plan. Now as time has progressed a very dangerous solution was introduced to the world and with its arrival it is changing the very fabric of humanity. The new religion of the day is science and this affects our legal system, school system, and thought process. These effects over time can be detrimental to the minds and morals of us as a society.…

Intelligent Design in Public Schools

Since the day immigrants landed on the shores of this Nation it has been a high priority of the government to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to receive a equal and proper education. The Public school system is an opportunity for children of all social and economic backgrounds to obtain a standard education in this country. For the most part, if a student is willing to put in hard work and good effort, they are provided with the potential to take their education to the next level and then onwards to a fulfilling career. In order for the system to be as effective as possible, a consistent standard must be implemented around the country. The theory of evolution and creationism has become a sensitive issue as of late and many feel changes need to be made in how it is taught in public schools.…

Evolution Persuasive Essay

Evolution- a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The theory of evolution is a theory that many can argue to be true. Others will argue that it is not true. I believe that the theory of evolution is true.…

Charles Darwin's Argumentative Essay: Proof For Evolution

Evolution, ever since its introduction by James Hutton in the early 1700s, has been a very controversial topic with many people opposing the various theories presented by scientists throughout the years. In modern science, evolution has come to be accepted by many scientists around the world, with significant amounts of evidence from various fields of science provided to support Charles Darwin’s theory of naturally selective evolution - “survival of the fittest” and adaptation.…

Should We Change Species to Save Them?

When traditional conservation fails, science is using “assisted evolution” to give vulnerable wildlife a chance.

Credit... Photo illustration by Lauren Peters-Collaer

Supported by

Share full article

By Emily Anthes

Photographs by Chang W. Lee

This story is part of a series on wildlife conservation in Australia, which Emily Anthes reported from New York and Australia, with Chang W. Lee.

Published April 14, 2024 Updated April 16, 2024

For tens of millions of years, Australia has been a playground for evolution, and the land Down Under lays claim to some of the most remarkable creatures on Earth.

It is the birthplace of songbirds, the land of egg-laying mammals and the world capital of pouch-bearing marsupials, a group that encompasses far more than just koalas and kangaroos. (Behold the bilby and the bettong!) Nearly half of the continent’s birds and roughly 90 percent of its mammals, reptiles and frogs are found nowhere else on the planet.

Australia has also become a case study in what happens when people push biodiversity to the brink. Habitat degradation, invasive species, infectious diseases and climate change have put many native animals in jeopardy and given Australia one of the worst rates of species loss in the world.

In some cases, scientists say, the threats are so intractable that the only way to protect Australia’s unique animals is to change them. Using a variety of techniques, including crossbreeding and gene editing, scientists are altering the genomes of vulnerable animals, hoping to arm them with the traits they need to survive.

“We’re looking at how we can assist evolution,” said Anthony Waddle, a conservation biologist at Macquarie University in Sydney.

It is an audacious concept, one that challenges a fundamental conservation impulse to preserve wild creatures as they are. But in this human-dominated age — in which Australia is simply at the leading edge of a global biodiversity crisis — the traditional conservation playbook may no longer be enough, some scientists said.

“We’re searching for solutions in an altered world,” said Dan Harley, a senior ecologist at Zoos Victoria. “We need to take risks. We need to be bolder.”

The extinction vortex

The helmeted honeyeater is a bird that demands to be noticed, with a patch of electric-yellow feathers on its forehead and a habit of squawking loudly as it zips through the dense swamp forests of the state of Victoria. But over the last few centuries, humans and wildfires damaged or destroyed these forests, and by 1989, just 50 helmeted honeyeaters remained, clinging to a tiny sliver of swamp at the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve.

Intensive local conservation efforts, including a captive breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary, a Zoos Victoria park, helped the birds hang on. But there was very little genetic diversity among the remaining birds — a problem common in endangered animal populations — and breeding inevitably meant inbreeding. “They have very few options for making good mating decisions,” said Paul Sunnucks, a wildlife geneticist at Monash University in Melbourne.

In any small, closed breeding pool, harmful genetic mutations can build up over time, damaging animals’ health and reproductive success, and inbreeding exacerbates the problem. The helmeted honeyeater was an especially extreme case. The most inbred birds left one-tenth as many offspring as the least inbred ones, and the females had life spans that were half as long, Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues found.

Without some kind of intervention, the helmeted honeyeater could be pulled into an “extinction vortex,” said Alexandra Pavlova, an evolutionary ecologist at Monash. “It became clear that something new needs to be done.”

A decade ago, Dr. Pavlova, Dr. Sunnucks and several other experts suggested an intervention known as genetic rescue , proposing to add some Gippsland yellow-tufted honeyeaters and their fresh DNA to the breeding pool.

The helmeted and Gippsland honeyeaters are members of the same species, but they are genetically distinct subspecies that have been evolving away from each other for roughly the last 56,000 years. The Gippsland birds live in drier, more open forests and are missing the pronounced feather crown that gives helmeted honeyeaters their name.

A helmeted honeyeater, with a yellow breast and crest, a gray back and a black eye mask, perches on a branch with its beak open.

Genetic rescue was not a novel idea. In one widely cited success, scientists revived the tiny, inbred panther population of Florida by importing wild panthers from a separate population from Texas.

But the approach violates the traditional conservation tenet that unique biological populations are sacrosanct, to be kept separate and genetically pure. “It really is a paradigm shift,” said Sarah Fitzpatrick, an evolutionary ecologist at Michigan State University who found that genetic rescue is underused in the United States.

Crossing the two types of honeyeaters risked muddying what made each subspecies unique and creating hybrids that were not well suited for either niche. Moving animals between populations can also spread disease, create new invasive populations or destabilize ecosystems in unpredictable ways.

Genetic rescue is also a form of active human meddling that violates what some scholars refer to as conservation’s “ ethos of restraint ” and has sometimes been critiqued as a form of playing God.

“There was a lot of angst among government agencies around doing it,” said Andrew Weeks, an ecological geneticist at the University of Melbourne who began a genetic rescue of the endangered mountain pygmy possum in 2010. “It was only really the idea that the population was about to go extinct that I guess gave government agencies the nudge.”

Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues made the same calculation, arguing that the risks associated with genetic rescue were small — before the birds’ habitats were carved up and degraded, the two subspecies did occasionally interbreed in the wild — and paled in comparison with the risks of doing nothing.

And so, since 2017, Gippsland birds have been part of the helmeted honeyeater breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary. In captivity there have been real benefits, with many mixed pairs producing more independent chicks per nest than pairs composed of two helmeted honeyeaters. Dozens of hybrid honeyeaters have now been released into the wild. They seem to be faring well, but it is too soon to say whether they have a fitness advantage.

Monash and Zoos Victoria experts are also working on the genetic rescue of other species, including the critically endangered Leadbeater’s possum, a tiny, tree-dwelling marsupial known as the forest fairy. The lowland population of the possum shares the Yellingbo swamps with the helmeted honeyeater; in 2023, just 34 lowland possums remained . The first genetic rescue joey was born at Healesville Sanctuary last month.

The scientists hope that boosting genetic diversity will make these populations more resilient in the face of whatever unknown dangers might arise, increasing the odds that some individuals possess the traits needed to survive. “Genetic diversity is your blueprint for how you contend with the future,” Dr. Harley of Zoos Victoria said.

Targeting threats

For the northern quoll, a small marsupial predator, the existential threat arrived nearly a century ago, when the invasive, poisonous cane toad landed in eastern Australia. Since then, the toxic toads have marched steadily westward — and wiped out entire populations of quolls, which eat the alien amphibians.

But some of the surviving quoll populations in eastern Australia seem to have evolved a distaste for toads . When scientists crossed toad-averse quolls with toad-naive quolls, the hybrid offspring also turned up their tiny pink noses at the toxic amphibians.

What if scientists moved some toad-avoidant quolls to the west, allowing them to spread their discriminating genes before the cane toads arrived? “You’re essentially using natural selection and evolution to achieve your goals, which means that the problem gets solved quite thoroughly and permanently,” said Ben Phillips, a population biologist at Curtin University in Perth who led the research.

A field test, however, demonstrated how unpredictable nature can be. In 2017, Dr. Phillips and his colleagues released a mixed population of northern quolls on a tiny, toad-infested island. Some quolls did interbreed , and there was preliminary evidence of natural selection for “toad-smart” genes.

But the population was not yet fully adapted to toads, and some quolls ate the amphibians and died, Dr. Phillips said. A large wildfire also broke out on the island. Then, a cyclone hit. “ All of these things conspired to send our experimental population extinct,” Dr. Phillips said. The scientists did not have enough funding to try again, but “all the science lined up,” he added.

Advancing science could make future efforts even more targeted. In 2015, for instance, scientists created more heat-resistant coral by crossbreeding colonies from different latitudes . In a proof-of-concept study from 2020, researchers used the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to directly alter a gene involved in heat tolerance.

CRISPR will not be a practical, real-world solution anytime soon, said Line Bay, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science who was an author of both studies. “Understanding the benefits and risks is really complex,” she said. “And this idea of meddling with nature is quite confronting to people.”

But there is growing interest in the biotechnological approach. Dr. Waddle hopes to use the tools of synthetic biology, including CRISPR, to engineer frogs that are resistant to the chytrid fungus, which causes a fatal disease that has already contributed to the extinction of at least 90 amphibian species.

The fungus is so difficult to eradicate that some vulnerable species can no longer live in the wild. “So either they live in glass boxes forever,” Dr. Waddle said, “or we come up with solutions where we can get them back in nature and thriving.”

Unintended consequences

Still, no matter how sophisticated the technology becomes, organisms and ecosystems will remain complex. Genetic interventions are “likely to have some unintended impacts,” said Tiffany Kosch, a conservation geneticist at the University of Melbourne who is also hoping to create chytrid-resistant frogs . A genetic variant that helps frogs survive chytrid might make them more susceptible to another health problem , she said.

There are plenty of cautionary tales, efforts to re-engineer nature that have backfired spectacularly. The toxic cane toads, in fact, were set loose in Australia deliberately, in what would turn out to be a deeply misguided attempt to control pest beetles.

But some environmental groups and experts are uneasy about genetic approaches for other reasons, too. “Focusing on intensive intervention in specific species can be a distraction,” said Cam Walker, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Australia. Staving off the extinction crisis will require broader, landscape-level solutions such as halting habitat loss, he said.

Moreover, animals are autonomous beings, and any intervention into their lives or genomes must have “a very strong ethical and moral justification” — a bar that even many traditional conservation projects do not clear, said Adam Cardilini, an environmental scientist at Deakin University in Victoria.

Chris Lean, a philosopher of biology at Macquarie University, said he believed in the fundamental conservation goal of “preserving the world as it is for its heritage value, for its ability to tell the story of life on Earth.” Still, he said he supported the cautious, limited use of new genomic tools, which may require us to reconsider some longstanding environmental values.

In some ways, assisted evolution is an argument — or, perhaps, an acknowledgment — that there is no stepping back, no future in which humans do not profoundly shape the lives and fates of wild creatures.

To Dr. Harley, it has become clear that preventing more extinctions will require human intervention, innovation and effort. “Let’s lean into that, not be daunted by it,” he said. “My view is that 50 years from now, biologists and wildlife managers will look back at us and say, ‘Why didn’t they take the steps and the opportunities when they had the chance?’”

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Chang W. Lee has been a photographer for The Times for 30 years, covering events throughout the world. He is currently based in Seoul. Follow him on Instagram @nytchangster . More about Chang W. Lee

Evidence for Christianity

Announcements
Apologetics
Pain and Suffering
The Existence of God
Bible Teaching
Foreshadows and Prefigures
Manuscript/Textual Issues
Church History
Other Religions
Archaeology
Anthropology
Historical and Messianic Prophecy
Reliability of the Bible
Resurrection of Jesus
Supernatural
Manuscripts and Textual Questions
Prefigures and Foreshadows
Archaeology and the Bible
Practical Christianity
Ask A Question
Bible and Science
Spanish Content
Perspectiva Mundial
Powerpoints
About Dr. Oakes

Hello, please login.

Four Christian Views of Evolution: An Essay

An Article by John Oakes, PhD describing four Christian views of evolution, along with strengths and weaknesses of the four views. This essay is intended as a guide for the upcoming forum at the 2010 ICEC in Irvine, CA.

Four Christian Views of Evolution

We at ARS will be sponsoring a four-way forum titled "Four Christian Views of Evolution" on Saturday evening, June 12, 2010 in Irvine, California as part of our annual International Christian Evidences Conference at Concordia University. In preparation for this event I thought it would be useful to provide for people a general description of the four views which will be defended and explained in the event. The four views are as follows:

Young Earth Creationism

Intelligent Design

Progressive Creation

Evolutionary Creationism

One of the biggest problems we had in putting together this event is that, although one can make useful distinctions and characterizations, there is no clean, clear-cut division between these and other Christian views of evolution. Our speakers, including myself, resisted being cast into the mold of a particular view. Even the names for the categories generated some disagreement. If you have the pleasure to attend the forum at our conference, do not count on the four speakers precisely lining themselves up with the four views I am outlining below!

Before entering into a tentative description of the four categories of thought on evolution represented by our forum, let me begin with the qualifier in the title. This forum is about four Christian views of evolution. We are assuming that a Bible-believing follower of Jesus who accepts as an historical fact the resurrection of Jesus can fall into any of these four categories as far as their view of evolution goes. Without question, all four of our speakers accept theism-that God takes an active role in his creation. The speakers all believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross as a sacrifice which, for those who put their faith in Him, can bring about forgiveness of sins.

We considered including a deist in the forum. The deist believes in God. He or she sees design in nature and acknowledges that there is a Creator, but believes that God does not actively intervene in his creation. Deists generally reject belief in supernatural intervention in the world. This being so, deists do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and have a very limited view of biblical inspiration. By biblical definition, then, they are not Christians. Because we wanted to ask believers to consider uniquely Christian views of evolution, we decided to exclude deistic evolution from the discussion.

I will begin with a very brief but general description of the four Christian views of evolution as I see them. After this, I will list some of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the four views. Let me acknowledge that, as one of the four presenters in the evolution forum, I have a definite view about which of the four views is preferable. I do not pretend to be unbiased and am sure my inclination will show up one way or another in this essay, but it is my intention here to give a relatively unbiased description of the four Christian views of evolution. Please bear in mind, as I have already said, that the four views described below are guidelines to help us think about different ideas of evolution and probably no one fits exactly any view I can describe.

The young earth creationist (YEC) view begins with the assumption that the days of creation in Genesis chapter one are literally twenty-four hour periods over which God did his work of creation. The proponent of this view in our forum is Dr. Kevin Anderson. Young earth believers accept the "traditional" interpretation of Genesis, with all its implications-be they in the area of cosmology, creation of organic life, creation of species and theology. The young earth view generally (though not always!) has been associated with a Calvinist view of the fall of humanity. They tend to believe that before Adam and Eve fell, there was no animal death. The fall of Adam and Eve brought in physical death for humans and caused corruption of the physical world. Their fall was an "Original Sin" of which all human beings afterward are held guilty.

If we accept YEC, then evolution-at least as conceived by Charles Darwin in his seminal work Origin of Species -quite literally has not happened. So-called microevolution of course is possible, but even this is strictly limited. Different dogs may represent descendents from an original dog created by God several thousands of years ago, but even a fairly modest macroevolution is completely eliminated from consideration. Several thousands of years is simply not enough time for random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection to produce new species from the originally created species.

Bottom line, YEC believes in fixed species and completely rejects the theory of organic evolution commonly known as Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Those who take this view believe quite literally that on the third through sixth twenty-four hours of God’s creative work, all species which have ever lived were created ex-nihilo (ie. out of nothing) in a form virtually the same as can be seen today. This being true, the YEC view has trilobytes, dinosaurs and other now-extinct species which can be observed in the fossil record as having lived just a few thousand years ago. Indeed, they lived right alongside modern human beings. Perhaps these species went extinct as a result of the flood or perhaps for other reasons. Either way, YEC does not reject the idea of species extinction, but it does reject the creation of new species being created over great periods of geologic time.

To summarize, the YEC position is that the entire content of the first several chapters of Genesis are literal accounts of what actually happened, both in the order of what happened and even in the amount of time the writer or writers of Genesis seem to imply.

The title for our second view of evolution is really quite unfortunate. The fact is that all four of our presenters at the forum as well as all four views of evolution described here agree with the idea of intelligent design. All Christians together accept that the universe was created with overwhelming evidence for an inconceivably intelligent designer. The YEC and the evolutionary creationist (EC) together agree with the psalmist that "Heaven and earth declare the glory of God," even if their view of general revelation is significantly different.

Having said this, one of the views of biblical cosmology, geology and evolution has in the public media been given the label "Intelligent Design." In fact, the one who is taking this view at our forum, John Clayton, is not particularly enamored with this label, but we are more or less stuck with it. So, how can we characterize the view of what has become known as the intelligent design movement? Advocates from within the Intelligent Design movement have accepted the scientifically supported claim that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They also generally accept the scientific consensus that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old. Advocates of this view do not believe that the "days" of creation are literal twenty-four hour periods. Some take the literary view of Genesis, rejecting the chronology of the events in Genesis chapter one, but more ID’ers take the day/age view and accept that the chronology of the creation account of Genesis, although representing vast ages, is more or less correct.

It seems that the thing which unites those in the ID camp is that they are quite skeptical of organic evolution in the broadest sense and reject a strict interpretation of common descent. They are "interventionists." In other words, as a rule, the intelligent design view is that God intervened miraculously to create organic life in the first place and that he also intervened at various times in the distant and even the more recent past to create the various "kinds" of life. This supernatural intervention includes the special creation ex nihilo of human beings. There will not be a strict agreement amongst intelligent design advocates as to how broad or narrow these created kinds are. Generally, they reject macroevolution but accept microevolution, but how great an amount of change might have occurred by natural, undirected processes will vary greatly in this school.

At the risk of over-simplifying, the intelligent design view is strongly associated with the concept of "irreducible complexity." They have attempted to prove that one can scientifically demonstrate that some changes which are required by random Darwinist evolution simply could not have happened by any believable series of fully random events. Such irreducible complexity as a scientific and mathematical theory proves that naturalistic evolution is an incorrect view. There are "gaps" which natural processes simply cannot fill. The ID movement does not reject evolution entirely. In fact, they generally support the teaching of evolutionary theory in classrooms, but advocate the inclusion of evidence for supernatural intervention in origin of species as well.

To summarize, the intelligent design position accepts the geological and cosmological implication of an ancient earth and universe, and therefore reject the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis one, but they reject using the evidence for common descent as proof that God did not create various "kinds" of life and instead claim that science requires accepting that there are gaps which require supernatural intervention.

In the interest of "truth in advertising," let me say that the view we are labeling Progressive Creation is the one I am taking in our upcoming forum. Let me also say that I really do not like this label. One reason for this is that the ID view can be described as progressive creation. I prefer the label theistic evolution for the third of our views of evolution, but my colleagues in the forum do not necessarily agree with my taking that label for the simple reason that all of us are theists and all of us are describing a view of evolution which can be seen as theistic (although I will argue below that EC has some deistic aspects in its view of evolution).

Putting aside for now concern over the label, let me describe our third view of evolution. I, and those who happen to agree with me [1] and are willing to be called progressive creationists, accept that the earth is quite old (approximately 4.5 billion years, as claimed by scientists) and that the universe is also very old (about 13.5 billion years). Like those in the Intelligent Design camp, PC’ers (whether they are politically correct or not) believe the "days" of Genesis chapter one are not literal. Those in this camp may lean toward a more literary view of the Genesis creation account [2] , or may take the view of scientific concordism, that there is at least a general scientific truth in the chronology, if not the time span, in Genesis.

The main distinction between this view and Intelligent Design (at least as defined above), is that it accepts the main implications of evolution. It sees common descent as a scientifically verified hypothesis. The Progressive Creationist is skeptical of scientific "gap arguments," claiming that such arguments are weak and that historically they have not held up well to scrutiny. What distinguishes this view from Evolutionary Creationism, is that it rejects for theological reasons the conclusion that evolution is a fully random process-completely devoid of the interventionary influence of God. The PC argument is that God is not distant, but that he is involved in his creation. There is a kind of free will in history, in our personal lives and in the way nature works, but God does, at various times and for reasons of his own intervene in our personal lives-to answer prayers, for example. God does not jerk us around and constantly interfere with our freedom by working miracles, but he definitely is involved. The same is true in history. God allows for a general free will in history, but God has intervened in subtle ways and even in dramatic ways. For example he influences the hearts of world leaders such as Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar and he also intervened to bring Israel out of Egypt and to send his Son into the world.

If it is established that for us as individuals and for nations as well that God gives a general free will, but that he does influence and even dramatically intervene for reasons of his sovereign will, then the PC perspective is that almost certainly this is what God has done with nature. Nature, by it fully random self, would NOT have produced intelligent, soul-containing creatures able to know God. The Progressive Creationist does not have a problem with the scientific evidence for common descent. He or she is even prepared to accept the possibility that all life has a single progenitor, although the possibility of multiple creations is not completely ruled out. The main point to be understood here is that the "evidence" for theistic interference is not scientific. Rather it is a theological argument. This position rejects the God-of-no-Gaps position of Evolutionary Creationism, but accept as more or less established the common descent of all or of nearly all life.

The fourth Christian view of evolution which will be defended in our forum is known by some as Evolutionary Creationism. In our forum, this view is represented ably by Denis Lamoureux. Perhaps the most well-known advocate of this view is Francis Collins, former head of the Genome Project and now head of the National Institutes of Health. The evolutionary creationist accepts the common scientific view of the age of the earth and of the universe. He or she goes still farther and accepts the rather strong evidence for common descent as sufficient to conclude that the natural processes of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and so forth, as described in neo-Darwinian theory, is sufficient to explain the evolution of all species, including human beings from the simplest early life form or forms. God is sufficiently wise to have created physical circumstances which inevitably led, through thoroughly random, natural processes, to the final result, which is the existence of intelligent, sentient beings, capable of having a relationship with God.

The Evolutionary Creationist typically is prepared to accept that even our consciousness and our ability to have a relationship with God has "evolved." He or she believes that if God had to intervene in the process he had established, this would somehow lessen God, as he would have to have multiple "fixes" to the process he created. This position, as I described above, is a God-of-no-gaps theology. All EC supporters I know of believe that life itself was created by God only indirectly. In other words, he created a universe and a world in which life was spontaneously created. This ties in to the tendency of EC supporters to reject supernatural intervention by God into nature in general. It is essentially a deistic view, not of theology, but of the workings of nature.

As for Genesis chapter one, those who accept EC will be nearly unanimous in rejecting scientific concordism (the idea that there is real scientific information in the Genesis story, even if in metaphorical form). Instead, they will take the literary interpretation of the Genesis creation account. In other words, they accept the theology of the first several chapters of Genesis, but not the history of this material. God was accommodating the knowledge base of ancient Hebrews and giving them theological information about Him as creator, as one who wants a relationship with us and so forth.

It will probably be fair to generalize the EC position to say that it rejects the idea of a "fall" of man occurring in the Garden of Eden. In fact, as a group most evolutionary creationists say that there was no Garden of Eden at all, but that this story represents the fall of all of us from the innocence with which we were created, and our separation from God due to our own, individual sin. Therefore, this view, in accepting that God’s "finger" is not moving the process of change over time, also rejects the Calvinistic idea of the fall of man and original sin.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Four Christian Views of Evolution.

The YEC position is strong in that it gives great honor to the Bible and places the idea of verbal inspiration on a high pedestal. The other three perspectives will of course reject this conclusion, but the young earth position clearly represents the most natural interpretation of the literal sense of Genesis chapter one. As a rule, the young earth Christian believes that biblical authority trumps general revelation. If science seems to point one way, but the Bible another, the Bible wins; period. Of course, one can see this as either a strength or a weakness. One could use as support for this line of thinking the fact that all Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead and clearly this cannot be reconciled with a purely scientific mode of explanation.

The weakness of the young earth position is that it requires rejecting general revelation almost entirely. General revelation is the idea that God reveals himself, at least to a limited extent, through what he has created. The reason this creates a problem for the YEC position is that they reject the implications of cosmology, geology and biology. Despite the evidence from the red shift, cosmic background radiation and so forth, the YEC believer must reject big bang cosmology. In doing so, they reject the entire science of cosmology. Similarly, the YEC position requires that we reject the evidence of radioisotopic dating techniques, sedimentary layers, the evidence for plate tectonics and so forth. Basically, the young earth position must reject the two main paradigms of geology-uniformitarianism and plate tectonics-as an illusion. So YEC rejects scientific cosmology and geology, but they must reject a great chunk of biological theory as well, as nearly everything we think we know about how living things work is reliant on an evolutionary perspective. If we reject cosmology, geology and major parts of biology, then how is it that nature declares the glory of God?

It is this author’s contention that the YEC view can only really work if it is taken as a purely theological position. What I mean is that it is nearly inescapable that the universe and the earth are quite old. To reject this is to refuse to look at the scientific evidence. Galileo once told his opponents that if they wanted to reject heliocentrism, they were going to have to stop looking through telescopes. The same applies to the young earth position, unless one proposes that God created the earth, as is, several thousand years ago, but he created it with an "appearance of age." The reason the YEC group rejects this is because it puts them in an uncomfortable position of believing that God somehow tricked us when he put those dinosaur fossils in the ground and put the light in transit from distant galaxies, even though the light would not have had sufficient time to reach earth if they have only existed a few thousand years. My response to this is, who are we to tell God what to do? When Jesus created fish, it was ready to eat. Was he deceiving the people? No, he was doing what God has every right and power to do.

In summary, the theology of the YEC position and the great honor it gives to the sovereignty of God and the inspiration of his words is a strength, but the "science" of the YEC position is extremely weak. They must reject cosmology, geology and much of biology as an illusion. It is this author’s opinion that the young earth believers would do themselves a favor if they defended their faith in the young earth only on theological rather than scientific grounds.

Among the strengths of the intelligent design position is that it has a very high view of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Although some ID supporters are prepared to question some of the chronology of the Genesis creation account, they generally accept scientific concordism and agree with Jesus and the other Bible writers that there is historical truth in the first several chapters of Genesis. The ID believer accepts fully the scientific implications of cosmology and of geology. They have a strong and defendable position on the physical world as general revelation of God’s divine nature. The intelligent design supporters as a whole are prepared to accept most of the implications of what we know from fossil and DNA evidence with respect to the relationship between large classes of species.

Of course, one can see it as a strength or as a weakness, but the ID camp in general rejects the full implications of neo-Darwinism. They see huge chasms or gaps in the evidence which random processes simply could not cross. Whatever one thinks, we can concede that gap arguments are difficult to prove. For this reason, even if the ID position is correct (and personally, I am quite prepared to accept that they may be) it is open to legitimate complaint from scientists. Bottom line, supernatural intervention into what we know already on some level is a natural process is difficult or perhaps even impossible to prove using science. Miraculous intervention is, by definition, not a "scientific" event and it certainly is not capable of being reproduced in the laboratory. Of course, this does not prove that the gaps are not there, and it does not prove that God did not create particular species at various points in time or that he did not zap into existence various complex biochemical systems, but it is hard to defend this in a scientific setting.

So the weakness of ID is not in its theology. Its theology is quite strong. It allows for theism in our individual lives, in history and in the physical world. Its weakness, such as it is, is in its science. It accepts cosmology and geology but it does not fully accept biology. At least that is how some will view the matter. Its scientific arguments will quite likely remain weak. In fact, just in the last ten to fifteen years, a number of ID supporters have had to change some of their claims of certain gaps in the formation of complex enzyme machinery because experimental evidence showed that the supposed "gap" was fully bridgeable by natural events. Speaking for myself, I happen to agree with the idea of supernatural intervention by God in the process which led to higher forms of life, but I prefer not to rely on gap arguments and to let my theism with respect to evolution remain a theological claim.

Yes, of course I am going to critique this view! It certainly has weak points. The strengths of the PC position is that it, like ID and YEC agrees with the verbal inspiration of the Bible. It is consistent in that it accepts a theistic view of how God interacts with individuals, with history and with nature. It has a consistent view with regard to how God interacts with people, with peoples and with creation. Here it agrees with ID and YEC. It is also consistent in accepting more or less fully the scientific conclusions of cosmology, geology and biology. The virtually "slam dunk" evidence for common descent is seen, not as an illusion but as a reflection that in fact, life has evolved through largely random processes, except with the "finger" of God determining the path of change. It does not rely on scientific "gap" arguments. Instead it replaces a scientific argument against random design with a theological one, so will not have to back down when claimed gaps are filled in by science.

So the strength of PC is its consistent view of theology and science, but its weakness is that it is vague and really hard to tie down scientifically. It will probably be seen as quite convenient to claim that God has intervened in the natural process by which life changes, but to create a position which does not have to defend this view scientifically. To quote from a personal comment from my EC friend Dr Denis Lamoureux, "I certainly cannot teach that in my science classroom." Good point. This view sounds like an attempt to make everybody happy, but sometimes when we try to make everyone happy, we make no one happy. This view is a bit complicated. It has a lot of nuance, allowing for both free will in nature in almost all cases, but holding out for undefined (and therefore hard to disprove) theistic interventions, whereas EC and YEC (and perhaps, but to a lesser extent ID) are simpler and easier to defend logically.

My personal response to the claim that this view is a bit too complicated and that it is a bit fishy because it is hard to tie down is that I believe God is simple yet in some ways he is complicated. He can at the same time foreknow yet not predetermine. He can perfectly balance love and justice. Jesus is with God and he IS God. That is a tough one to logically explain. I also believe that God can wonderfully balance his sovereign will and our freedom to choose, and that he does so in the way he interacts with his creation.

The strengths of evolutionary creationism are the consistent way it deals with scripture and with the evidence of science. EC’s view of God’s omniscience and omnipotence is very strong. Supporters of this view see God as so powerful that at the moment he created the universe, a series of events was set into place which would inevitably lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, including one with an atmosphere and the conditions for primitive life to form spontaneously, and even eventually would lead to us. This is not some sort of weak God who has to correct the path of his creation. What an awesome God this is! To top it off, the Evolutionary Creationist position can, in principle, bring to an end the incessant arguments and even attacks from those scientists who for philosophical and semi-religious reasons oppose even theological arguments for supernatural interventions in the physical world. Even if, in the end, it turns out that God does indeed intervene in nature, it sure would be nice to end the fruitless angry debate with atheists and scientific materialists. Evolutionary Creationism is in full concord with cosmology, geology and biology. Evolutionary Creationism, despite complaints and even accusations which might come from the YEC supporters, fully accepts the theological implications of the Genesis creation account. God created us. We rebelled against God. Sin brought in separation and Jesus brought redemption. Of course, all four views agree on this.

The weakness or the EC position is that its theology can be seen as problematic. It has God relating to us as individuals in a way which includes free will, but also has God interacting with us, answering our prayer and influencing us. Similarly the EC believer accepts that God has intervened in history. He allows for freedom of action by peoples, yet acknowledges that God has intervened in history in quite dramatic ways at various times. So, God intervenes with us as individuals and he directs the course of history, yet, the EC position rules out a priori God intervening in "natural" physical processes-in the path by which humans came to be. God-of-no-gaps is a theological position, not just a scientific one and in this we see what might be thought of as an inconsistency. Does this mean that the EC position is wrong? No. But it can be seen as a weakness.

Another weakness of this position, at least as some might see it, is that most EC Christians reject entirely the historical content of the first few chapters of Genesis. If they are right, then Adam and Eve literally never existed as actual persons. Our God-likeness evolved and was not imparted miraculously. Not all EC supporters take this view, but most do. Probably Noah did not exist either. Opponents of this view will point out that it certainly seems that Jesus, Peter and Paul believed in the historical reality of the events in Genesis. Were they wrong? Or perhaps Jesus and Paul were accommodating themselves to the common view of the day in order to get across theological truths. The thought of Jesus accommodating to the common view of his day is certainly unfamiliar to most Christians, but that does not mean, by definition that it is an incorrect view. In any case, some will see this as a weakness of the Evolutionary Creationist perspective.

I have attempted to present this introduction to Four Christian Views of Evolution in a spirit of grace, to present each view fairly and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each view in a relatively unbiased way. The forum coming up should be an exciting time. Please plan on coming with an open mind. It is our hope that this public forum will create understanding and greater unity within Christianity as a whole. Whether or not your view changes as a result of this event, we sincerely hope that you will go away with a greater appreciation of the broad range of legitimate Christian perspectives in this area of intersection between science and Christian theology.

[1] This would include Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace with Science and professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University (personal communication).

[2] The literary view of Genesis chapter one accepts the theological implications of the creation account, but not what some see as the apparent scientific content of the creation story. In other words, the Genesis creation account is to be seen strictly for its literary content as poetry. It describes theological themes, but not chronology. Whether the "events" occurring on the fifth day happened after the "events" on the second day is not germane to what the inspired author is trying to tell his audience. The days are not ages at all. They are categories of what God did.

Science and the Bible by Dr. John Oakes

Four Christian Views of Evolution by John Clayton, Dr. Kevin Anderson, Dr. John Oakes, & Dr. Denis Lamoureux

Buy Now: Book | Kindle | ePub

Field Manual for Christian Apologetics by Dr. John Oakes

ICEC 2010 Science and Christianity with Dr. John Oakes

ICEC 2009 Jesus: The Witness of History with Dr. John Oakes

The Christian Story, Volume 3 by Dr. John Oakes

Buy Now: DVD

Vol 01 ARS The Existence of God by Douglas Jacoby & Dr. John Oakes

A Survey of World Religions by Dr. John Oakes

Vol 09 ARS Apologetics and World Religions by Dr. John Oakes & Dan Conder

Is There A God by Dr. John Oakes

Vol 10 ARS Christian Apologetics: Answering the Hard Questions by Dr. John Oakes

Buy Now: Book

That You May Believe by David Eastman & Dr. John Oakes

The Problem of Pain and Suffering by Dr. John Oakes

ICEC 2011 Christianity and the Paranormal With Dr. John Oakes

Christian Theology: How You View God Really Matters by Dr. John Oakes

Vol 07 ARS Archaeological and Apologetics by John Wilson, Douglas Jacoby, Dr. John Oakes, & Foster Stanback

The Kingdom of God: Past Present Future by Dr. John Oakes & Robert Carrillo

Return, Restore and Rebuild by Dr. John Oakes & James Shults

Daniel: Prophet to the Nations by Dr. John Oakes

Buy Now: Book | Kindle | ePub | MP3

From Shadow to Reality by Dr. John Oakes

How to Interpret, Understand and Faithfully Apply the Scriptures by Dr. John Oakes & Mark Wilkinson

The Christian Story, Volume 1 by Dr. John Oakes

Golden Rule Membership by Dr. John Oakes with Ron & Linda Brumley

Vol 05 ARS The Role of Prophecy in Christian Apologetics by Dr. John Oakes

Vol 04 ARS Science and Christian Apologetics by Dr. John Oakes

ICEC 2007 Science and God with Dr. John Oakes

In Christ by Dr. John Oakes

The Christian Story, Volume 2 by Dr. John Oakes

Lessons From Daniel: Prophet to the Nations by Dr. John Oakes

ICEC 2013 Christianity and Culture with Dr. John Oakes

Vol 06 ARS Apologetics and the Christian Worldview by Dr. Robert Kurka

Vol 03 ARS Biblical Criticism and Inspiration by Glenn Giles

Hebrews: Living By Faith by Dr. John Oakes & Robert Carillo

Judas: Another Gospel? by Dr. John Oakes

Church History: Understanding its Influence and Impact On Us by Dr. John Oakes

Perseverance: Hanging on to Jesus through Hebrews by Dr. John Oakes & Robert Carrillo

And He Shall Reign Forever and Ever Bringing Truth and Clarity to the Study of Revelation by Dr. John Oakes

Jesus Through the Eyes of John by Dr. John Oakes & Robert Carillo

Vol 02 ARS The Bible: Reliability, Inspiration, and Inerrancy by Dr. John Oakes

Understanding Islam by Dr. John Oakes

Vol 08 ARS Jesus and Christian Apologetics by Dr. John Oakes

Mormonism: What Does the Evidence and Testimony Reveal? by Dr. John Oakes with Douglas Jacoby

Freedom For What? Finding and Using Your Gifts to Serve God by Dr. John Oakes

Reasons For Belief: A Handbook of Christian Evidence by Dr. John Oakes

find articles, apologetics bible church history other religions philosophy science, q&a, apologetics bible church history other religions philosophy science practical christianity, slideshows.

Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution

Show More Creation versus evolution is a world renowned topic that has been argued upon for an extended period of time, by a wide collection of people. There are many people with very different facts on each, but in the end it is still an ongoing debate. Scholars for Creationism have their arguments, but scientists also have their arguments. There are things that have resemblance for both, but they can’t seem to come up with a compromise of where the first atom came from. That is why I did some research into this topic a little more, and interviewed a teacher at the high school who is for evolution so I could see both sides more clearly. I am for creation, and always have been since I was little. Not only because it’s what my parents taught me, but …show more content… Like just about all things argued, there are similarities and differences between the topics of discussion. The answer he gave actually surprised me. It was a yes. A definite one at that, without any hesitation at all. “In science they have actually found a scientific Adam and a scientific Eve that they can trace everyone in the world back to.” Which goes along with the Bible story about Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve, but that's a different topic). Adam and Eve is the the story of the first humans on earth. He then said “Where the difference comes into play, is where these came from”. In science it says the Big Bang Theory is what created everything. The amazing thing about what God did, was he made man out of dust, and from that man’s rib, he created woman. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” I was surprised to hear an answer like that, because I had never heard of that coming from science before. I knew that there had to be some similarities because in most arguments, there seems to be at least one thing that matches up, but I had never even heard of there being an Adam and Eve in science. (Genesis 1

Gregory Bassham Controversy

He uses numerous explanations to back his argument. According to the essay, the main purpose of teaching the controversy is that science is a system that promotes open-minded, critical thinking, and extensive examination (Basham). So, with that in mind, students must be pushed to think…

Scopes Monkey Trial

Over many years, the controversy between Evolution and Creationism has taken on a whole new perspective. John Scopes, a young high school substitute teacher, was charged with illegally teaching the theory known as evolution in 1925. During this time, Creationism was mainly taught in all schools. This theory that God created the world and all life within it. At this point in time, Evolution has dominated our curriculum, it is the process by which living organisms evolve and adapt (“Introduction”).…

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools Essay

Should evolution be a required component of biology classes in high schools? Yes, I do believe evolution should be a required component of biology classes in high school. Evolution is the theory that organisms change over time, biologically, chemically, emotionally, and physically. This theory is widely accepted by the scientific community. I believe that evolution should be taught in high school classes because the theory falls within the constitutional parameters unlike creationism.…

Argumentative Essay: The Origin Of Species

There has always been much controversy over your theory of evolution; a theory that has lasted or almost 160 years, with not a single piece of evidence presented that disproves the fundamental validity of that theory. In fact, it is being supported time and time again by fossil records. However, thats not to say your theory is perfect. The point of a theory is not to be perfect. The ideas you have presented, however, are the best and most scientifically grounded ideas we have about the way species evolve and change.…

Evolution In A Christian Worldview

There are many beliefs about the origin of the universe. Many people believe that the world was created differently which creates a countless number of worldviews. For some, they refer to the Bible to get a better understanding of how the world came to be. The first two chapters of Genesis explain this belief. For others, they may choose to take a more scientific approach and attribute the creation to chemical and biological means.…

The Old Testament Is Still Relevant Today

Modern scientific thought includes many theories pertaining to the origins of the world, especially the evolution of man. The Old Testament gives correct instruction and starts with the wonder of God’s work as it directly relates to people. First, God made our world (Genesis 1:1-25), next he created us (Genesis 1:26-27). There is no better explanation of what we are and that we are beholden to our Creator.…

Analysis Of Stephen Gould's Evolution As Fact And Theory

In the essay, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Stephen Gould defenses Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution over the beliefs of creationist on God creating all organisms in the world. To further his support, he states his three arguments which are observational evidence, the imperfection of nature, and transitions found in fossil records to demonstrate that even though evolution is just a theory, there are plentiful evidence of facts that supports it. The essay was not just about justifying the theory of evolution to the creationist but also to reject the ideas of blindfolded views on scientific creationism. Throughout the essay, Gould acknowledges many of the major perspectives of the scientific world to support the theory of evolution that…

Argumentative Essay On Evolution In Schools

How did the life of this human race begin on this grateful planet? People have grown over time. Evolution is one of the most controversial topics to earn about. People must not be forced to be taught evolution. Humans must be entitled to their own beliefs.…

Argumentative Essay On Extinction Of Animals

The extinction of animals and living organisms is something most humans do not put into perspective, possibly until it’s almost too late. For example, humans don 't realise that their everyday lives are build around these creatures; what we eat, how we breathe, and how our world develops. I myself never thought about a world without whales, manta rays, tigers, plankton and owls and how important they are in my life until I came across the documentary Racing Extinction and the book Sustaining Life.... This new documentary shows examples of the harmful effects that humans cause on the world. Things like climate change, black market sales and the vanishment of animals, has sent the 220 countries the documentary aired in, in an uproar.…

Argumentative Essay On Human Evolution

Evolution has received mostly negative feedback from society, especially from non-scientists. Perhaps, evolution is controversial because it speaks to the beginning of humanity. Controversy originated from individuals’ religious backgrounds and faith in a higher being but they do not consider the definition of evolution. Noted by David Jacobs—Professor of Animal Evolution and Systematics at the University of Cape Town, non-scientists believe evolution states that human evolved from baboons. However, evolution only claims that humans and other non-human primates share a common ancestor (Jacobs, 2015).…

Argumentative Essay: Is Evolution Right Or Wrong?

Many people go against evolution completely go against the theory of evolution; this is mainly due to religious reasons. However, science normally does not lie evolution has been proven in many instances and has not been proven wrong yet. To understand evolution one must first figure out the definition, who has studied evolution, and the history of evolution as a whole. Evolution is a pretty common word in any science class which means that most people understand what it means. However, with that being said there are many meanings that come along with the word evolution.…

Argumentative Essay On Creation And Our Identity

There have been many debates on creation and our existence. When did life begin and what started it all? After all, we’re here. We breathe air in. We make decisions that spur action.…

Christian Evolution And Creationism And The Origin Of Man

No one knows exactly how the universe or humans came to be. However. evolution and creationism are both theories providing evidence to how humans can to existence. While both provide details, creationism is based more on beliefs and faith, whereas, evolution is based on data and facts. Creationism is based on the fact that life was created suddenly, and how humans and apes were created separately.…

Argumentative Essay: Nature Vs. Nurture

Have you ever caught yourself acting like your mom or dad? Nature vs nurture debate is an interesting discussion about whether genetics or parenting has a bigger impact on our lives. Nature is genetics a pretty big thing to make the person we are today. But then we have another big part, nurture, which is the environment we live in. My opinion is that nurture is more powerful, because it is how we are raised and where we live.…

Ready To Get Started?

Create Flashcards
Mobile apps
Facebook
Twitter
Cookie Settings

IMAGES

Evolution Biology Theory Argumentative Essay Examples
Evolution as fact and theory thesis in 2021
Evolution Essay
FREE 15+ Argumentative Essay Samples in PDF
evolutionary theory project essay
Discursive essay on evolution.

VIDEO

Argumentative Essay Topic Selection
What is argumentative essay || teach chnnal
Argumentative Essay
CSS English Essay Evolution #css #essay #evolution #shortsvideo #shortsfeed #shorts #viral #reels
Argumentative essay review CCA character
Incorrect Arguments Against Evolution

COMMENTS

Argumentative Essay On Evolution
Argumentative Essay: Is Evolution Real? Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Over time evolution has been suggested and proven. Some people think evolution is fake, but there is lots of evidence to prove it is real.
Do we need a new theory of evolution?
B ehind the current battle over evolution lies a broken dream. In the early 20th century, many biologists longed for a unifying theory that would enable their field to join physics and chemistry ...
Overview: The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution
Evolution: A Glossary of Terms. Creationism - The belief that the creation story in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible book of Genesis is literally true and is akin to a scientific explanation for the creation of the Earth and the development of life.. Creation science - A movement that has attempted to uncover scientific evidence to show that the biblical creation story is true.
Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution
Argumentative Essay On Evolution Vs Evolution 1412 Words | 6 Pages. If evolution was a true event that happened, there should be many transitional species today that scientists could study. Today scientists don't have any live animals that are thought to be a transitional species that is going to evolve into something else. With similar ...
Creationism vs Evolution
Evolution is defined as "the development by natural causes of all organisms, those today and those yesterday, from other forms probably ultimately much simpler and originally perhaps from non-living substances"(Ruse, 12). ... One argument against fossil evidence is the idea that fossil dating could be inaccurate. Fossil dating is done using ...
Evolution Argumentative Essays Samples For Students
Evolution Biology Theory Argumentative Essay Examples Evaluation is the biological change in the populations inherited characteristics. Charles Darwin theorized that evolutionary biology is the sole result that led to the modern man.
Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates
This anthology consists of 13 essays written by professors trained in biblical studies or theology, writing on the interpretation of Genesis (by which they almost exclusively mean the first chapter of Genesis) since Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). After a brief Introduction by the editors, the book is then divided into three parts: "Engaging again with the Scriptures ...
Evolution Biology Theory Argumentative Essay Examples
Published: 01/16/2020. Evaluation is the biological change in the populations inherited characteristics. Charles Darwin theorized that evolutionary biology is the sole result that led to the modern man. In his theory, he established that the diversity in population could have only resulted from the change in inherited characteristics.
Writing an Argumentative Essay on Evolution
An Argumentative Essay on Evolution: Finding the Right Proof. Very often in high school or in college you would get an assignment to write an argumentative essay. Evolution is often one of those assigned topics in humanities classes. Regardless of your personal religious beliefs, evolution is an accepted notion in science.
Evolution Argumentative Essay
Evolution Argumentative Essay; Evolution Argumentative Essay. 274 Words 2 Pages. As an enthusiast of science in general, I do truly enjoy subject's biology, chemistry or even physical science. I remember every year looking forward to which science class I was assigned in grade school and the labs we would do.
Learning the history of evolution and primatology
Throughout the cases are various materials from the personal papers of Stephen J. Gould, the influential paleontologist, historian, and evolutionary biologist who spent much of his career ...
Creationism vs. Evolution
Creationism says that God is the creator and has been since the beginning of time. However, the evolution theory has come to question this. Science has come to contradict the creationism theory and so one needs to believe what they like. Creation theory however can't be proved wrong because it is religious in nature.
Teaching Evolution In Public Schools Argumentative Essay
There are various important arguments for teaching evolution rather than creationism in public schools. British scientists claim that pupils must be taught unequivocally that science support the theory of evolution (Creationism, 2006). Five years ago, the Royal Society further support this view. The society's 2006 statement said that pupils ...
Argumentative Essay On Evolution
1. Argumentative Essay On Evolution Madison Wenig Mr. Kellerman Honors Biology 2 19 May 2017 Evolution There always has been a controversy whether evolution really did happen or not. Many evolutionists, philosophers and biologists have presented sufficient evidence that evolution is true. Yet there is still debate about this contentious topic.
Argumentative Essay On Human Evolution
J. Merritt Emlen notes three mechanisms that show a strong correlation between natural selection—or evolution, and human behavior. First, classical selection occurs when beneficial genes are selected before they are chosen as a result of environmental effects (Fisher, 1958; Hamilton, 1964; Smith, 1964). Natural selection then acts on a group ...
Argumentative Essay: Evolution
Evolution persuasive essay Evolution- a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The theory of evolution is a theory that many can argue to be true. Others will argue that it is not true. I believe that the theory of evolution is true.…. 296 Words.
Argumentative Essay On Is Evolution Real
Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution Creation versus evolution is a world renowned topic that has been argued upon for an extended period of time, by a wide collection of people. There are many people with very different facts on each, but in the end it is still an ongoing debate.
Should We Change Species to Save Them?
This story is part of a series on wildlife conservation in Australia, which Emily Anthes reported from New York and Australia, with Chang W. Lee. For tens of millions of years, Australia has been ...
Argumentative Essay About Evolution
Argumentative Essay About Evolution. Improved Essays. 591 Words; 3 Pages; Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. As the years progress, scientists make scientific breakthroughs about evolution or creation. My main goal in this paper is to give 6 or more scientific facts and discoveries to help support my belief in ...
Four Christian Views of Evolution: An Essay
This essay is intended as a guide for the upcoming forum at the 2010 ICEC in Irvine, CA. Four Christian Views of Evolution. John Oakes. 6/3/10. We at ARS will be sponsoring a four-way forum titled "Four Christian Views of Evolution" on Saturday evening, June 12, 2010 in Irvine, California as part of our annual International Christian Evidences ...
Argumentative Essay About Evolution
Argumentative Essay: Is Evolution Something To Fear? For instance, evolution helped in creating the phylogenetic tree which established the linkage between different species and linked species to a common ancestor. However, people who liked the idea of humans being the dominant species did not favor the idea of "humans [descending] from ape ...
Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution
Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution. Improved Essays. 1094 Words; 5 Pages; Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. Creation versus evolution is a world renowned topic that has been argued upon for an extended period of time, by a wide collection of people. There are many people with very different facts on each ...

Argumentative Essay On Evolution

Essay on Why Evolution is True, by Jerry A. Coyne

Essay about Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Will the Earliest Hominid Please Standup?: Evoultion Exposed Essay

Essay about Argument and Natural Selection

Evolution Is Real

Essay about Evidence for Evolution

Essay on Creation vs. Evolution in the Public Schools

Arabidopsis Thalian The Role Of Evolution In Species

Spitzer Hall: Exhibit: Human Biology And Evolution

Argumentative Essay: Is Evolution Real?

Argumentative Essay: Friend, Evolution

Argumentative Essay On Evidence Of Evolution

Argumentative Essay On Creation Vs Evolution

Persuasive Essay On Creation Vs Evolution

A Study Of Charles Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Related Topics

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

More on this story

Charles Darwin autograph manuscript could fetch £700,000 at auction

Rare orchid flourishes in Charles Darwin’s gardens after two-year project

Stolen Darwin journals returned to Cambridge University library

How should we address Charles Darwin's complicated legacy?

Charles Darwin's notebooks reported stolen from Cambridge University

Charles Darwin's ailments are 'typical of Lyme disease' in UK

The Wider Earth review – Natural History Museum's Darwin spectacular

The removal of Darwin and evolution from schools is a backwards step

Regions & Countries

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Report Materials

The Age of the Earth

Other Topics

Human Evolution

Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Evolution: Education and Outreach

An Argumentative Essay on Evolution: Finding the Right Proof

What Is Evolution?

Natural Selection as an Evolutionary Mechanism

Common Ancestry

DNA Similarities

All Things Considered…

I Need To Write

Money Back Policy

Get to Know

2. Unlimited revisions

3. Tracking system

Log in into your account

Evolution Argumentative Essay

The Strengths Of Sam Harris's Argument Against Francis Collins

John T Scopes: The Guilty Of Teaching Evolution In Education

Compare And Contrast Darwin And Kansas State Board Of Education

How Did The Scopes Monkey Trial Affect Society

Examples Of Dualism In The 1920s

Into The Wild Argumentative Essay

What Was The Significance Of The Scopes Trial

John Scopes Monkey Trial Analysis

Argumentative Essay Frankenstein

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools

Argumentative Essay 'Cost Of Survival'

Argumentative Essay On Into The Wild

Argumentative Essay On Gene Editing

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools Essay

Essay on Global Warming - Argumentative

More about Evolution Argumentative Essay

Learning the history of evolution and primatology

Grappling with a paradigm shift in science

Learning the history of science and ideas

Creationism vs. Evolution Essay

Works Cited

Teaching Evolution In Public Schools Argumentative Essay

Cite this page

Other Pages

Argumentative Essay On Evolution

Recommended

Argumentative Essay: Evolution