Visionary7

My understanding of evolution is basic and limited.

Here is my explanation of ToE.

Humans have a common ancestry in the primordial ape family and evidence is presented with the pre-historic caveman,the early nomad tribe caveman, and several examples of other evidence. I have debated with Aron-Ra on this topic several times and learned the basic components of evolutionary theory. Where it is only the strong will surive with natural selection in gradual evolution over time.

Is this correct?

Could one explain the specifics of why evolutionists believe what they do from scientific evidence and common ancestry?

Peace

Jet Black

Aron Ra is/was a user on ChristianForums, and I suspect the OP is a copy paste from there.

Visionary7

I originally posted this here at II.

Is natural selection, the way nature evolves and branches into different species with inherited genetic traits? Like Charles Darwin's study of the Galapagos Island finches?

Jet Black

really? oh sorry about that then, I can't remember Aron Ra posting here

[/derail]

Visionary7

I like him.

He's cool. But he denies the Christian faith as a scientific atheist.

I can find him on C+F and invite him to this forum.

. . .

Febble

Not quite. You are correct that the Theory of Evolution posits that modern humans and modern apes share a common ancestry, and that ancestor was a "primordial" ape. But that is only going back a couple of twigs. Humans, modern apes and modern whales also share a common ancestor - a "primordial placental mammal". And humans, apes, modern and kangaroos share a common ancestor - a "primordial mammal". And humans, apes, whales, kangaroos and lizards share a common ancestor, a "primordial tetrapod". And so on. The idea is that the whole of life is related in a vast family tree. We have close cousins and distant cousins living, as well as ancient dead relatives that include great great great uncles and aunts as well as direct ancestors.

And it is not true that "only the strong survive". All creatures die. But the genes of those that die without children aren't passed on to the next generation. What "survives" is not the individual, but the genes of an individual who succeeds in reproducing. This might be the genes of a strong creature, who successfully kills more prey to feed her young, but it could also be the genes of a gentle creature who rears her young more successfully to maturity. "Survival of the fittest" is a poor description. "Survival of the genes of creatures who succeed in reproducing their genes in their young" is not so catchy, but is self-evidently true.

And, as you say, over time, that means that genes that result in individuals with a better chance of reproducing successfully in a given environment will become more prevalent in the population than genes that lead to less good chances of reproducing. And so, over time, the population evolves, and its individual members bear genes that result in individuals ("phenotypes") that are well "fitted" for that environment.

But I'm sure lots of other people will be along shortly to help you out, and corrrect anything I've got wrong.

You could also try this link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1/IIntro.shtml

It's very good.

DMB

I suggest you try to get hold of Richard Dawkins's book The Ancestor's Tale, which looks in some detail at the whole family tree concept. Yes, Dawkins is an atheist, but this book is about biology. He always writes and explains things very clearly.

Peez

Febble gives a good response, I will just add a couple of things.This is a bit vague, but when I think of "caveman," I think of cro magnon, which were Homo sapiens. Therefore if one wishes to look at evidence for the evolution of H. sapiens from non-human ancestors, cro magnon is not particularly relevant.

Talk.Origins has a number or articles that are generally accessable, here are two:

Humans As a Case Study for the Evidence of Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Note that the mechanisms of evolution (e.g., mutation, natural selection, genetic drift) are quite distinct from the fact that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

Peez

Visionary7

I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins, but thanks anway.

Peace

Visionary7

What about Charles Darwin's scientific journals?

Is there a resource where I can read his actual journals on ToE?