Evolution - Believe in it or not?

My resource was the book, Do Not Open. Not a website, but a book. I paraphrased it.

Uh...

In the world of science, a theory is much more than a random guess (as many people think it is a random guess). A theory was a scientific hypothesis that come out positive after several experiments, and is "promoted" to the rank of theory. A theory can still, though, become a law, after even MORE testing, coming out positive. It's kind of like how a bill goes through Congress: bills are like theories, laws are like, uh, laws, but even laws can be proven wrong if new SCIENTIFIC evidence comes by (genetics, for instance, could of proved Darwin wrong, but it proved him right). We just need to keep on testing it until it becomes law.

Why did that take you so long to reply to? Were you searching it on google?

Anyway. Its still a theory. That means there's not enough evidence. Its able to be speculated about.

No...

I knew THAT already.

Well, I do beleive it, but it doesn't make me an aethiest.

Our RE teahcer (Lol, he sounds like a philosipher. He's so cool ) beleives that Moses made the idea that God made the world, and his story apparently isn't meant to be in a literal sense, but has a deeper fact about God's power.

Well, that's what HE says XD.
Oh, I've gone offtopic, haven't I..?

Anyway, the Evolution theory is still just a theory, as KK said.

You sure you should have a science teacher that believes in a God, or an explanation for things contradicting the scientific view? Wouldn't he try to "sneak" his beliefs in?

I recently did a unit on evolution, adaptation, and mutations in science, so I'll know a little more than last time.

I think (REMEMBER I SAID THINK!) that evolution is just the transformation of one species into another species via adaptation and mutations.

The reason it hasn't been happening lately (by lately I mean in the last couple millenia) is because so many species do not need to adapt or change, so evolution does not happen.

And besides unless anyone can offer another explanation, evolution is the best on we have, and it's the only scientific one, so if anyone offers a religious explanation you are just starting the arguement of Religion Vs. Science which is getting old and annoying and is off-topic anyways, so don't.

You have been warned.....

On the contrary, I just thought I would mention one type of "quick" evolution, that actually happened no earlier than the mid-20th century.

Before the 20th century, many people would die of bacterial infections. However, substances called antibiotics were discovered, which were able to cure those bacterial infections. Thousands of patients' lives were saved by the antibiotics. But towards the dawn of the new millenium, we started overusing antibiotics. Natural selection is causing mutations in the bacteria so the antibiotics are ineffective. This is called "antibiotic resistance". It is an example on how humans change their enviorment, for we are deliberately overusing antibiotics, and as a consequence, the bacteria will soon thrive even with the antibiotics.

So evolution can go fairly quickly if it's that urgent (some plants evolved within 5-10 years due to an urban enviornment), but usually, it takes thousands of millenia.

Technetium43 wrote:

On the contrary, I just thought I would mention one type of "quick" evolution, that actually happened no earlier than the mid-20th century.

Before the 20th century, many people would die of bacterial infections. However, substances called antibiotics were discovered, which were able to cure those bacterial infections. Thousands of patients' lives were saved by the antibiotics. But towards the dawn of the new millenium, we started overusing antibiotics. Natural selection is causing mutations in the bacteria so the antibiotics are ineffective. This is called "antibiotic resistance". It is an example on how humans change their enviorment, for we are deliberately overusing antibiotics, and as a consequence, the bacteria will soon thrive even with the antibiotics.

So evolution can go fairly quickly if it's that urgent (some plants evolved within 5-10 years due to an urban enviornment), but usually, it takes thousands of millenia.

Well I assume that it would be easier for microscopic organisms to evolve since they are so much more simple and are constantly dying and reproducing so it would take way less time.

Yes, and the fact that bacteria have been around Earth (and possibly even some on Mars, where they "hitchiked" an asteroid that crashed into Earth) ever since life in the solar system began, and they reproduce every 20 minutes, so mutations can occur pretty quickly. It also means they're good at adapting to new situations (bacteria can even survive being released into space).

They've been through pretty much anything, and they now know how to make an antibiotic inefficient.

That's not apaptation, actually.
2 monthes ago, scientists working on a project called "rainbow field opt." found that the bacteria are made to use a brain (of some sort) to attack more vunerable area of the body. So eventually we will be able to be ammune to everything.

Adaptation: any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

There is a difference between adaptation and evolution. Straight from the dictionary.

Kool Kat wrote:

Adaptation: any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

There is a difference between adaptation and evolution. Straight from the dictionary.

You see, the definition is basically saying that evolution is when one species changes into another species or at least partially, via other forms of transformation, which makes sense. If a species changes a lot should it be called the same species?

No. The definition of a species is as follows:

If two organisms are of the same species, they share enough common traits to breed with one another. Changes can occur so the "old" version can't breed with the "new" version, so the "new" version will become a new species.

Technetium43 wrote:

No. The definition of a species is as follows:

If two organisms are of the same species, they share enough common traits to breed with one another. Changes can occur so the "old" version can't breed with the "new" version, so the "new" version will become a new species.

Oh so when something changes genetically and it becomes impossible to breed with the previous organism, that is considered evolution right?

Yes. A new species would be created.