When was the first theory of evolution proposed?
82819
For those who said Darwin or Russell, sorry. Both fail. Not only did Lamarck's theory of evolution predate both in modern times but the first theory of evolution was proposed around 2500 years earlier than any of them.\n\nThe first theory of evolution that I know of was proposed by Empedocles around 450BC. \n\nFollow the second link for a full verbatim quote of the theory as it was originally written down.\n\n\nCaveat. I don't claim this is the first theory of evolution. It is just the earliest that I am aware of. It is certainly much earlier than Darwin or Wallace.
374300
Actually, Charles Darwin discredited his own theory before his death, but few evolutionists recognize this fact.  Also, according to the second law of thermodynamics and a little thing called entropy, it is scientifically proven that all things move towards chaos.  Evolution suggests that we went from chaos to order, when, in reality, everything moves from order to chaos (for example, a fire causing wood to turn to ashes).  Personally, I have yet to find a scientific fact that disproves creationism.  Remember, science is simply man's way of explaining God's works.
289835
1.Evolution occurs.  Lineages of organisms change over time.\n2.Gradualism.  Darwin argued that differences between populations of organisms -- even radically different organisms -- accumulate by a series of innumerable small steps through intermediate forms.\n3. Population speciation: Another idea that was original with Darwin. Individual organisms do not evolve and offspring are not different species from their parents. Evolution is a process that occurs in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. \n4. Common descent: This is the major crux for creationists and an idea original to Darwin. He was the first to argue that species had diverged from common ancestors and thus comprise a great tree of life. \n5. Natural selection: Darwin's most brilliant and original hypothesis, independently arrived at by Wallace. Natural selection is the mechanism of change.\n\nIt is important to remember, however, that Darwin wasn't the first to think of evolution.
420
Evolutionary theory seems to point toward the egg being first. All animals on earth mutated and evolved from the first life forms. It's likely that the first chicken as we know it today hatched after eons of genetic mutations and changes.
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
1034859
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj
18974
In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of continental drift.
407738
There is no such thing as Darwin's theory other than that which was written in his original work.\n\nThe concept is called the theory of evolution, and is based more upon changes in genetic material of life forms leading to changes in the ability of some life forms to be better suited to their environment.\n\nHow stupid does the name "Moses's theory of Creation" sound to describe the first few chapters of Genesis?
482562
The theory of evolution (assuming you are lumping this in with the physics of the creation of matter) has the same initiation problem as the Religious one.\n\nWhere did the first matter come from?\nWhere did God come from?\n\nBoth 'sides' will say there has simply been [insert your object here]\n\nPeace out
30306
Evolution is the most explanatory theory we have for the origin of the species.  I wrote up a little essay a while ago on it.  I've listed the original page below - I suggest you check it out if you are interested, as it has the original pictures in tact.\n\n-----------------\n\nEvolution is actually a combination of theories, much to the surprise of the creationists I often encounter. Typically when I encounter a creationist their idea of the multiple theories of evolution involve a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.\n\nThis is, of course, nonsense; macro-evolution is just a description of evolution above the species level. It does not actually act on separate principles from microevolution.\n\nI will explain as best I can, using cites from actual experts in the field.\n\nNow then, I made the allegation that the theory of evolution was actually comprised of several theories...so without further ado:\n\nAccording to Ernst Mayr (who died recently) the five principle theories that comprise the theory of evolution are:\n\n\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution).\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).\n3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities).\n4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity).\n5. Natural selection. [1]\n\n\nSo those are the five theories...what do they mean?\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species: What this basically means is that every individual within a species is genetically different. Every individual's DNA has unique variations (not to the point that every individual constitutes a new species though). These variations usually express themselves in the phenotype.\n\nTo put this in a simpler fashion; no two individuals in a species are alike. \n\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors: All this means is that we came from our parents, who came from their parents. To put it in more general terms, it also means that we all came from one ancestor. Although if I recall correctly Darwin was open to the idea that there could have been a few original ancestors. In any event, one way to test hypothesis is to look at our genetics and to see if we share a genetic history with other organisms. After all, DNA is made up of four nucleotide bases-Tyamine, Cytocine, Adenine, and Guanine- and there is absolutely no reason that the DNA of one species should be related to that of another species unless at some point both species descended from a common ancestor.\n\n3. The gradualness of evolution: Evolution is a gradual process, in that it happens slowly and over a considerable period of time. It's often at this point in the theory that creationists have the most difficulty. This is because they often confuse the 'saltation' with the process of evolutionary change involved in macroevolution.\n\nBefore we go any further I will define a few terms relevant to this part:\n\nSaltation: This was a belief prior to the modern synthesis in the 1940's that scientists attributed to speciation. It was the belief that fully formed organs was responsible for speciation, and it's often also called 'macromutation'-which probably helps the confusion. In the words of Tim Berra, in his book "Evolution and the Myths of Creationism", clarifies the distinction:\n\n\nNo knowledgeable biologists today, and that includes the punctuated equilibrium enthusiasts, advocate single-generation macromutational jumps (mutations with large effects). Amphibians, for example, did not arise from the lobe-finned fishes in a single-generation leap (saltation), but by seeing the muscular fins and lung of the aquatic ancestor gradually refined for terrestrial life. Macromutations do occur, but they are usually harmful (the recipients seldom produce offspring) and therefore relatively unimportant in evolution.[2]\n\n\nMacro-evolution: This is the change of a species above the species level. It d
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
1049016
Putting arguments of a religious nature to one side... Darwinian evolution would say that that which we call a chicken (due to its unique genetic code) would have come from an egg laid by an animal almost a chicken but genetically slightly different. The theory being that a random genetic variation in the DNA of the offspring made it differ from its parent enough to be a different spicies, ie the first chicken. If this is the case, and science supports the theory, then we have a choice to answer your question. We can say that the first chicken egg was laid by a non chicken (the egg came first) or the first chicken came from a non chicken egg (the chicken came first).
1125930
Here are some great books about that. You can find tons of info in them, and I really do recommend reading them. \n\n-Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton\n-It Couldn't Just Happen, by Lawrence O. Richards\n-What Darwin Didn't Know, by Geoffrey Simmons\n-Darwins Black Box, by Michael Behe\n-Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and education, by Phillip E. Johnson\n-Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, by William Dembski\n-The Lie: Evolution, by Ken Ham\n-Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati\n-Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, by Gish\n-Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, again by Gish but it is the revised edition. \n-The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, by Ken Ham\n-That Their Words May be Used Against Them, by ???\n-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, by ???\n-Refuting Compromise, by ??? (I think this one is more for Christians with religious arguments)\n\nThere are many more books on this subject, and many websites. The only problem with the internet is that a lot of the material is not scientific and has no evidence to back it up. Much of it is what you would call "Religious" (but that is not always bad. If you are religious, you want some religious reasons why it is not true). But many of these books are very good. I haven't read them all, but the best case in any I have found so far is "What Darwin Didn't Know." It doesn't really say much about evolution, and nothing about religion. It just talks about how incredibly complex the human body is. Pretty good stuff.\n\n\nEdit: \nI just thought I would respond a little to what the person above me wrote.... I just couldn't resist. \n\nFirst off, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be overcome with an energy source, but that is not all that is needed. Without something to convert the energy, it is useless. Plants do the converting for us, or solar converters. But neither of these things existed in the beginning of life. Evolution would have no usable energy from the sun, so the 2nd law argument still holds. Not to meantion it would take a lot more energy than what the sun and other sources give.\n\nCrystals are not evidence for evolution simply because of the fact that they are not life. Living things and crystals fall into two very different catigories. They simply are not comparable. Even after forming into paterns, they are still chemicals, not living. Even the simplist possible living thing is a million times more complex, and could not have formed by chemical reactions. \n\nFor the plane, what are the parts that are "supposed" to go together in nature? Amino acids perhaps? Well, working amino acids, or what form protiens, need DNA in order to be assembled. It just is not in their nature to go together. But amino acids and protiens are needed for ALL life, and again, they need DNA to form. The only problem is, that DNA is formed from working protiens within the cell. See the problem?\n\nEven if the plane parts don't need to be a plane, they will never assemble into anything that works, much less something that is alive. \n\nAs to the argument of whether evolution is a theory or law, it does not matter. It is really irrelivant whether we call something a theory or a law, it still is what it is. So stop attacking and arguing over what it is called, it simply does not matter.\n\nBombadier bettle... Wow, I really shouldn't get started on this one, but I will. So yeah, the fact that it is more than just a simple explosion, and that it need SPECIFIC enzymes and such to cause the reaction, implies design more than just an explosion. It is the same as with fireflies, which have a similar process for lighting up their bodies. When a firefly lights up, several chemicals are mixed in a specialized chamber. The problem is that the chamber is not needed, and is therefore a disadvantage to the insect, without the explosion. But without the cha
936352
Darwinian theory can't explain which came first as one didn't evolve from the other. Plants evolved from algae and animals evolved from non-photosynthetic eukaryotes.
1104157
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
434636
"Initially expressed in the writings of English philosopher and author Herbert Spencer, and of William Graham Sumner, Social Darwinism first became popular in the late 19th century and continued in popularity until the end of World War II."\n\nMore can be found at the link below. :)
211757
Well, when Darwin first presented his theory in public, he did a joint presentation with Alfred Russell Wallace, a younger naturalist that had come up with the same ideas.\nI'm quoting myself from another answer:\n\n"Natural selection was almost simultaneously "discovered" by Alfred Russell Wallace, a much younger naturalist that was then living in the Malay archipelago (he earned his living by collecting specimens). Wallace sent a manuscript with his ideas to Darwin, and the latter was startled (my guess :P) to discover that Wallace had arrived to the same conclusions that he had been ruminating on for many years (apparently he had been collecting as much data as he could to back up his theory before making it public). Anyway, both Wallace's paper and an abstract of Darwin's work were jointly read before the Linnean Society in England. "\n\n-----------------\nUpdate: I'm adding the rest of my original answer, just in case no one is bothering to look. I don't like the suggested idea that Darwin "beat Wallace to it" because he seems to have been a fair man.\n\nThe concept of evolution was already being considered by many naturalists before 1859; that's partially the reason why Darwin's book was successful at the time and some of his ideas were accepted right away (not so others). In that sense, he was not "original". His greatest achievement was the integration of previous knowledge and the concept of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.\n(...) \nDarwin always recognized Wallace's work (he never "took the credit"). After the publication of Origin of Species, previous writings by two authors, Patrick Matthew and William Charles Wells, were shown to contain concepts similar to natural selection. Again, Darwin himself recognized these works, although he had read neither before publishing his book (if you're interested in more details, check the links below). \n\nSource(s):\nhttp://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm...\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precurso...