Admin έγραψε:Το μόνο που έχει αποδειχθεί είναι ότι το περιβάλλον παίζει κάποιο ρόλο στη διαμόρφωση των ειδών. Ο Δαρβίνος αυτό απέδειξε (μιας και δηλώνεις οπαδός του).
Η εκδοχή της εκ του μηδενός δημιουργίας της ζωής όπως είναι σήμερα δεν έχει αποδειχθεί (για αυτό μιλάμε). Όταν και αν αποδειχθεί, τα ξαναλέμε. Μέχρι τότε κάποιοι θα δέχονται τις θεωρίες της δημιουργίας εκ της τύχης και κάποιοι άλλοι θα προβληματίζονται σχετικά με τους δισεκατομμύρια μηχανισμούς που υπάρχουν μόνο στο σώμα τους και δεν είναι και τόσο εύκολο να εξηγηθεί ότι χτίστηκαν εκ της τύχης.
Οι δε αφρικανοί ρατσιστές wannabe άριοι θα θέλουν να λένε ότι όλες οι ανθρώπινες φυλές δημιουργήθηκαν στην Αφρική, για να νιώθουν καλύτερα με τον εαυτό τους (εγκρίνω πάντως
.gif "Teleia")
).
Η δαρβινική θεωρία έχει πιστοποιηθεί και αποδειχθεί! Ο Δαρβίνος περιέγραψε την διαδικασία, δεν γνώριζε όμως τον μηχανισμό πως γίνεται η διαδικασία. Η σύγχρονη γενετική επιστήμη έχει πιστοποιήσει ότι η ζωή εξελίσσεται μέσω της φυσική επιλογής που περιέγραψε, αλλά δεν μπορούσε να αποδείξει ο Δαρβίνος, γι αυτό αποδείχθηκε στις μέρες μας που η γενετική έκανε φύλο και φτερό, πως χωρίζονται τα είδη και ποια σχέση έχουν με τα προηγούμενα και ποιος είναι ο πρόγονος του καθενός. Αυτό που αναφέρεις είναι κάτι ερωτήσεις και αρλούμπες που αναφέρουν οι Creationists (δηλαδή οι Υπέρμαχοι της Δημιουργίας από το Θεό, ότι ανήκουμε στον Αδάμ και την Εύα κλπ), με πολύ φτωχά επιχειρήματα.
Πχ:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eationist/1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
New species evolve by diverging away from established ones and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. Credit: Science Picture Company Getty Images
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
Πάμε να δούμε τώρα τι λέει η σύγχρονη επιστήμη:
https://www.livescience.com/474-controv ... works.htmlModern understanding
Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, Pobiner said. "He observed the pattern of evolution, but he didn’t really know about the mechanism." That came later, with the discovery of how genes encode different biological or behavioral traits, and how genes are passed down from parents to offspring. The incorporation of genetics and Darwin's theory is known as "modern evolutionary synthesis."
The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations. "Mutations are basically the raw material on which evolution acts," Pobiner said.
Mutations can be caused by random errors in DNA replication or repair, or by chemical or radiation damage. Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral, but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism. If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population.
In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random," Pobiner said.
But natural selection isn't the only mechanism by which organisms evolve, she said. For example, genes can be transferred from one population to another when organisms migrate or immigrate, a process known as gene flow. And the frequency of certain genes can also change at random, which is called genetic drift.
Κοίτα τι προσπαθούν να περάσουν στα βιβλία της βιολογίας των μαθητών:
Controversy
Despite the wealth of evidence from the fossil record, genetics and other fields of science, some people still question its validity. Some politicians and religious leaders denounce the theory, invoking a higher being as a designer to explain the complex world of living things, especially humans.
School boards debate whether the theory of evolution should be taught alongside other ideas, such as intelligent design or creationism.
Mainstream scientists see no controversy. "A lot of people have deep religious beliefs and also accept evolution," Pobiner said, adding, "there can be real reconciliation."
Evolution is well supported by many examples of changes in various species leading to the diversity of life seen today. "If someone could really demonstrate a better explanation than evolution and natural selection, [that person] would be the new Darwin," Richmond said.
