Question

Who thinks the theory of evolution is true? i personally believe in natural selection

Answer 1

i bleive in evolution and not by learning but by seeing the proof such take an examples of plants fom bryophyta to angiosperm i found a great link between them wat u say about that but fitst want to know wat do u mean by natural selection here

Answer 2

natural selction
say there is a black speckled moth on a speckled tree, so it blends in and they are safe some have a lot of speckles providing a lot of camoflauge(speckles are white), others have few, therefore darker. later, some factories movein, and the factory's smoke cause the trees(white with speckles) to trees to turn black. now the heavily speckled moths are easily targeted by predators such as birds, and they begin to die out, but now the dark, non-speckled moths have more chances to reproduce and after a few generations, they become virtually te dominant moth, over the speckled ones.

Answer 3

or another example
a bacterium continues to multiply over and over, until one expreiences a mutation to, say, resist a certain antibiotic. once sombody uses that antibiotic to wipe out the other competition, it is now free to multiply as much as it wants.

Answer 4

hmm.... u rit but acc. to ur ques we cant say it natural selectin u cant deny the other evidence of evolution too..

Answer 5

im not denying evolution, that is evolution yes, but the basis of evolution is natural selection. some conditions occur. some things may die out, but others with advantages survive, reproduce and pass that on to thier offspring,. thats evolution right?

Answer 6

sorry i'm new so don't know if my question counts but which which natural selection are we talkin about the neo one or the its older version!!

Answer 7

there isnt a new or old natural selection is there?

Answer 8

i believe in the theory of creation not theory of evolution...
sorry...

Answer 9

the evidence for evolution is indisputable, it has been proven over and over. natural selection is a driving force in evolution but not necessarily the only one. survival of the fittest is a phrase tossed around often when talking about evolution, but a trait doesnt have to give you an advantage for it to be passed to the offspring. its more like survival of the fit enough.

Answer 10

I believe in evolution for sure. Natural Selection leads to evolution. Through natural selection the strongest of the species will survive. Something this will lead to a mutation occurring to make the survivors even stronger. Evolution is mutation. In the Ice Age those who knew how to keep themselves warm and alive were able to reproduce, and in that pass on their genes, creating a mutated being. Natural selection is easy to see when you watch the weaker one's die off, and the stronger one's prosper. Evolution happens over the course of hundreds of years as the stronger ones reproduce, and the weaker ones die off. This is how homo sapiens came to be, at some point natural selection was in our favor, and eventually the Neantherthals died off and we continued to grow. So natural selection aids evolution.

Answer 11

Isn't the theory of evolution linked to natural selection? this is a strange question...lol

Answer 12

Natural selection does make sense, but i think it doesn't count for something as big as 'evolution'.
i mean better species can survive and reproduce, but does that always lead to the extinction of other species? plus, in my opinion, natural selection plays a very minor role in speciation (appearance of new species): there must be some other reason to account for the sudden emergence of a new species which, going down the line of evolution, 'evolves' new and distinct characteristics due only to the action of mutations. So no, i don't trust evolution is true.

Answer 13

The problem people have with Evolution and natural selection is that the human mind cant comprehend how long 3.5 Billion years actually is (how long things have been "evolving").

Evolution through the process of natural selection can happen in tiny increments or changes over vast periods of time and new species don't just "appear". Its not the only method of evolution. Think of the great mass extinction events that have happened and the flurry of evolution which occurred after these events. Natural selection isntusually about a stronger species wiping out weaker species.

Answer 14

i never said natural selection, was the only thing. and survival of the fittest in the same as natural selction. but im just saying people misunderstan evolution, some thinking, like, people will hae pychokinetic powers in the future or something like that. im just saying natural selction leads to evolution

Answer 15

The only reason we even call it a theory, as opposed to a law, is that we're (the scientific community) all pretty well terrified of saying that anything is without a doubt true... aside from concrete mathematics, that is. The concepts behind natural selection have been repeatedly demonstrated in many, many areas to being true beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is really just the very broad effect of natural selection. The only thing keeping many from accepting it is a deep set, social stigma.

Answer 16

In addition, natural and/or artificial selection + speciation + sheer luck + time = evolution

Answer 17

Reply to Edo:
I understand the slow process of evolution and that it has been given enough time to act in nature. What i can't understand is how would a single-celled simple cell change 'over 3.5 billion years' to give rise to unimaginable and complex organisms based on the sole action of chance due to mutations. Here is one example: how is it that a random mutation in the genes coding for epidermal cells of green algae could induce the formation of a new membrane protein in land plants (suberin, i guess) which by chance happens to be a key factor to prevent loss of water in such plants? Is it merely by chance that suberin is a few mutations away from another non water-repellent protein?
As for sudden emergence of species, i was referring to mutations in a specific set of a living species which leads to a mating incompatibillity with the rest of the unmutated herd.Hence, This specific set is a new species. Ignoring the unconvincing reasons behind this kind of mutation, I was wondering how two species - say lions and tigers -can share a common ancestor, and yet each has evolved distinct phenotypes of all kinds more than just at how they mate. Some unbelievable potential of DNA you got there!
Finally, I guess what evolution does best is to attribute what it fails to explain to the power of 'Chance': Abiogenesis, mutations, genetic drift and speciation. Add to it the 'unlimited' amount of time it had to create such an infinite diversity: well what if actually 3.5 BY is not enough to do all that? And if all of this is done at random, how come humans, most recently evolved, are the smartest species to walk this earth?

Answer 18

i dont believe in evolution and neither natural selection. i believe in creation! God create everything on earth. thats the story. the end.