Evolution. The Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. The Explanation: Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. Leaves on trees change color and fall over several weeks. Mountain ranges erode over millions of years. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html "The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined."

The only part that's never really been explained to me is how do you get from one species to another. Nature breeding can change you, and make you into different forms, but that doesn't actually explain speciation itself. Where's the threshold?

You're right. It's good to know both sides. That way you have some knowledge when you get in a discussion involving the issue. The theory of evolution is based basically entirely on the Theory of Evolution by Darwin and partial of the theory of Evolution by Lamark. Darwin stated that the enviornment chooses the best fit for survival to live and reproduce offsring. It also states adaptation is an acquired trait given by the parent used as an advantage. --------- Lamark states the law of USe and Disuse. This says that the more you use a limb, the strong it becomes. The less you use a limb the weaker it comes which will later on disappear. This was proven incorrect, yet he stated some strong points which are still used to this day.

Hi- Biological evolution more than a theory, its a biological truth! We have come far in understanding how evolution works, if you will read this very simple overview, it will define evolution and provide some great back-up material for further reading! There are also many interesting articles out there if you're interested in a specific species' evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Creatures that are more able to survive live longer and have more offspring. Occasionally creatures are born with some difference to the other creatures of their species. This difference helps them to survive, so they live longer and have more offspring. The offspring of these creatures will be more likely to have the difference. Thi is a slow process taking millions of years, but over time all creatures will improve because of this effect, more complex creatures will evolve, being suited to survival in more intricate ways. Hope this helps.. I'm not exactly Richard Dawkins, but I did my best

You can't claim to be open minded while admitting that you don't understand the basics of the position opposite the one you've already committed to. That's contradictory: being fair and studying both sides means that you refrain from committing your ego and identity until you fully understand the debate. Beyond that, it's a mistake to commit your ego and identity to EITHER view, because that will distort the space in which the discussion takes place. The truth... whatever it might be... does not benefit from people wrapping their arms and egos around it.

We know that offspring contain a mixture of the characteristics of their parents, different for each one. We know that not all offspring live long enough to have offspring of their own. We know that the characteristics of those offspring, inherited from their parents, will affect their chances of surviving to have their own offspring - some better, some worse. Therefore we know that after a large number of generations, the characteristics which make survival likely will pile up, and the ones which make them unlikely will die away. Therefore we know that the characteristics of a group of animals can change with time. We do it ourselves when we breed domesticated animals. We know that, every know and again, a copying error means that an animal will be born with a characteristic that neither of its parents had - a mutation. Most of these are bad, but a few are neutral or good. So we know that there is, given enough time, there is a bottomless supply of characteristics to allow infinite variation. That is, given enough time and that each of the variants is itself a viable animal. So we would expect evolution to occur to some extent - given enough time (which it does not have if the world is only 6000 years old). So we look at the rocks and find a massive amount of evidence for evolution, and a massive amount of evidence that the world is much more than 6000 years old. Since we know that evolution would occur, given time, that physics says that that time has existed, and we find the fossil evidence of evolution, we believe that evolution has occurred.

How about a philosophical synthesis- Godinna (Her true name) created the primordial soup in which life began and gave it free biological will? ;)

The theory of evolution is a unifing explanation on how all life developed into its myrad forms today. A test of a theory is how well it explains what is found and can be used to make predictions about future discoveries. A theory is a law of science and is treated as trueth, but it is still open to revision and even rejection as new information is found. The theory that Darwin proposed has changed and improved considerably as more information is gathered and more debate has occured. IT is a much different theory than Darwin proposed but there has been nothing to negate the fundamental theory. All the debate on the details in evolution are open to the public are available to anyone willing to go to a college or university library and look at all the information discussed in journals. Any college biology professor would love to discuss the issues with you. To truefully argue which side is more sound you must look at the evidence and the usefullness of the theory. Evolution theory is used to advance science and technology all the time. Can "creation science" be useful in advancing technology. Have any fields of science used creation to improve lets say, plant hybridization? If it can than we have something to debate and evolution will have to adjusted or changed.

Well. We have a common ground here in pro-creation! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth is about 6000 years old and there's OVERWHELMING evidence for it. So I'm most definitely going to help you out here. I don't have much time, so I'll just give you a few things to work with here... First of all, you've gotta define "evoltuion". It has 6 meanings: 1.Cosmic evolution- (ex: big bang) 2.Chemical evolution- Hydrogen evolving to all other elements? 3.Stellar evolution- formation of stars, planets, etc. on their own. 4.Organic evolution- plants giving rise to different kinds of plants 5.Macro evolution- (ex:Bannana->Dog) 6.Micro evolution- (ex:dogs and coyote have a common ancestor) Now, 1-5 and 6 are completely unrelated. Yeah, I'm sure that dogs and coyotes have a common ancestor, buuut that has nothing to do with MACRO evolution. when it comes to evolutionists, I have a question... how do you define right from wrong? Is there any foundation for a moral decision? What's the incentive for doing anything "good" or "right"? And a good foundation of evidence in the Bible, 6000 years ago, God created everything, and 4400 years ago, there was a FLOOD (Noah's ark). There's ALOT of evidence for a world wide flood. Like the oldest tree, 4300 years old. Mud deposits in the Mississippi delta, Erosion of Niagra Falls, age of the Sahara, etc. The evidence is there, and there's ALOT of it, just do a little research, and You'll find it. Hope that helped some!

The theory of evolution was formulated by studying the diversity and unique adaptations of species on the Earth. Originally Charles Darwin studied the the diverse adaptations of finch species in Galapagos Ilses. Later study of the fossil record was added to the picture to give a more complete understanding. Basically the theory of evolution states that animals are under constant competitive and environmental strains in their quest to reproduce. Those that have adaptations that make it easier for them to gather food and exploit their environments will have more offspring. Thus species diversify from common ancestors based on their ability to exploit their unique environments. For instance mankind evolved (according to the fossil record) beginning about 5 million years ago when dense African jungles turned into savannahs. This change favored the development of an Ape that could walk upright (to see predators more easily on savannah), use tools (to take maximum advantage of more scarce resources), and develop larger brains (so as to be able to coordinate hunts, use tools, and woo women). Mankind's evolution reached its current form by around 200,000 years ago.

People get bogged down in specifics before getting the concept of evolution. First - you need to dump the idea (for a moment or two) that the world we see around us was pre-determined. Four billion years ago when the earth formed there was no plan, thought, purpose or other future in view. There were conditions; that's it.

Instead of actually explaining it in words, I found a nice video that explains it pretty basically.

Part 2: Too many people, including many scientists, attribute conscious purpose to life, (whether they mean to or not), such as the idea that a bird species switched to webbed feet because the environment became wet. As far as we know, only humans, by inventing technology, can adapt in this way to differing environments. Someday soon, we will also change our bodies. This does not, however exempt us from consequences both natural and manmade. Here's an anology that may help. Picture a glove and a hand. Which represents the species and which is the environment? The glove is the environment, the hand that fits it is the species. This is the opposite of how we normally see it, because we design a glove to fit the hand. This demonstrates how our "default" thinking does not match how the world works.

Evolution is changes that occur in our inheritable genetic traits that through genetic mutation allow us to become more adapted as a species* to our environment. Natural selection is the 'survival of the fittest' aspect of evolution it allows for the strongest of the population to be able to produce lots of offspring which have similar advantages. Evolution is the conservation of these traits that changes the species population as a whole. All species that exist now or have ever existed decend from a common ancestor around 100,000 years ago. I can't remember what it was but it will have been a simple organism probably similar to bacteria. From this it would have changed through alterations of its genome. It does seem far fetched that we have just been adapted from something so structurally dissimilar but if you think about the generation time of a bacteria and other lower organisms and the possibility to mutate several DNA bases at every generation then it makes it more comprehensible. Another thing which I know creationist have a hard time getting to grips with is how a living organism came about in the first place. This was studied first by Stanley Miller who made primordial soups. Primordial soups are a mixture of the elements and molecules that would be present at the time that evolution was thought to begin. He was able to synthesise molecules similar to amino acids (which are a very essential part of all organisms). From there perhaps other molecules came together to form biological systems. I am not sure how much his work had creditted the theory of evolution but in my opinion it provides some indication of the origin of life. * I say more adapted as a species because mutations in one individual can be beneficial but most of the time they are harmful to the individual.

Here, my way of talking about it. The theory of evolution is survival of species. You allow there is genetic variation between species, right? Or else we'd all look the same. Genetic variation results in differences in the organism, right? Except those differences dont have to just be aesthetic, e.g. red hair vs blonde hair. It can also do things like height, intelligence, number of arms. Depending on the environment, certain "mutations" may be more favourable than others - eg look at giraffes, if you have a gene that gives you a longer neck than other giraffes, you have more access to food. If food below your neck height becomes unavailable, then you're the only one that will survive - the rest will die out. (Not quite so literally, but it'll do for our analogy). This means your genes will pass on to the kids, whilst the other genes are gone. This is, basically, how it works. I argue that evolution is a 100% logical process (genetic mutations occur in gene divisions, and certainly 'micro-evolution' has been demonstrated to work (numerous times), but macro-evolution has not been "officially" observed yet - because the time scale it occurs over is hundreds of thousands of generations.

"It starts with the goo, we graduated to the zoo, and now, YOU'RE YOU!

Science fact beats fiction. Every time. You are just crazy. Legitimately.

Here is a spin for you. In the other answers you find what evolution is. So I wont go into that. You say your pro-creation, for the ones that say your crazy for thinking that way I submit this. People who believe in God will agree he is all powerful can do anything he chooses. That being said we as just humans have giving him limits. He had to create one way alone. Why couldn't he create through evolution? I don't think we evolved from monkeys, however, there is proof of neanderthal man. We could have continually became self-aware through evolution. (Just a thought) Science and faith hand in hand.