what is darwin's theory?
451933
Charles Bonnet, and Carolus Linnaeus is the one who invented binomial nomenclature.
755841
The best way to start is to ask yourself what the term "scientific knowledge" actually means.  Don't worry about it in terms of evolution.  If I say "it's a scientific fact that...", what does it mean?  What has to be true to say that?\n\nYou might also consider what is meant by a theory in science and how those change.  There were theories like evolution before Darwin, and theories that attempted to explain the same things.  Why was Darwin's more successful than others?\n\nOnce you have answers to those questions for yourself, then take a look at the development of the theory of evolution and couch your answer in those terms.\n\nThe essay at the link below may help you form your ideas.  It has nothing to do with biology, but quite a bit to do with the nature of science.\n\nGood luck!
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.
827000
You should read John Campbell's article "Rhetorical Analysis of Darwin's Origin". \n\nIts kind of what's been happening in scientific thought since the beginning of science. Theories aren't always necessary accepted for the weight of the scientific evidence alone. Sociopolitical and religious ideologies play a great role in the receptivity of ideas. I recently wrote a paper on the influence of Malthusian population thoeries and the Ideas of Progress influencing Darwin along with a misinterpretion of Newton's mechanistic philosophies that contribued to the accptance of Darwin's theory. \n\nRead also Michael Ruse's "Darwin and Design" or Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea" both talk about the great deal of rhetoric that went into the formulation of the theory. \n\nWhere one model, Mendel's model was able to make predictions, another model, which was purely theoretical (common descent still unproven) was accepted b/c it justified the Victorian's ideas regarding progress and the advancement of humankind, it also justified the population struggled described by Thomas Malthus. \n\nIt was similar to what happened with Johannes Kepler who in trying to convince the established scientific community of elliptical orbits and non uniform circular motion and his defense of Copernicus' heliocentrism, was largely ignored despite the fact his model was able to make accurate predictions, the same goes with the ancient Babylonians whose astronomy was able to make far better predictions than later Greek astronomy. The reasons for the rejection were mainly a result of the biases held by the established scientific community. It doesn't matter how truthful a particular theory may be or its ability to make accurate predictions, its about extrascientific factors and biases that allow for theories to be accepted or rejected. \n\nAnd a reply to the last part of the question, though Darwin may be accused of being the "god" of the atheists he at best was a "muddled theist" according to a letter Darwin wrote to J. Hooker regarding his theological stance. \n\nA good thorough read of primary sources is a good place to start when trying to understand the history of science. \n\n--my two cents :)
762819
I think you were referring to "The Origin of Species":\n\nDarwin's theory, as presented\n\nDarwin opened his argument by pointing to the results of domestication, mostly through artificial selection (though environmental changes, such as more food and protection from predators, were also factors). Comparing domesticated and wild varieties, Darwin showed that the nineteenth-century definition of species was chiefly a matter of opinion, since the discovery of new linking forms often degraded species to varieties.\n\n[edit] The basic theory\n\nDarwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:\n\n   1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.\n   2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.\n   3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.\n   4. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.\n   5. Much of this variation is inheritable.\n\nFrom this Darwin infers: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring; and that these advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection.\n\nDarwin did not suggest that every variation and every character must have a selection value. However, he pointed out that, because of our ignorance of animal physiology and its relationship with the environment, it was extremely rash to set down any characters as valueless to their owners. It is even more important to notice that he did not suggest that every individual with a favorable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favored animals were better or higher, but merely that they were more adapted to their surroundings.\n\nDarwin further infers that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. He puts forward myriad observations as demonstrations of this, and also claims that the fossil record can be interpreted as supporting these observations. Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.\n\n[edit] Variation and heredity\n\nOne of the chief difficulties for Darwin and other naturalists in his time was that there was no agreed-upon model of heredity — in fact, the idea of heredity had not been completely separated conceptually from the idea of the development of the organism. Darwin himself saw variation and heredity as two essentially antagonistic forces, with most heredity working to preserve the fixity of a type rather than acting as the agent of species variability. Darwin's own model of heredity worked out in later works, which he dubbed "Pangenesis", was a mixture of a number of different ideas about heredity at the time. It contained what are now considered to be essentially Lamarckian aspects, whereby the effects of use and dis-use of different parts of the body in the parent could be transmitted to the child. Beyond this, it was essentially a model of "blended" heredity, by which the contributions of two parents (in the form of particles he called "gemmules") were roughly equal. Darwin was confident that even in this model, over long periods of time species would still be able to evolve.\n\nIt was not until the early twentieth century that a model of heredity would become completely integrated with a model of variation, with the advent of the modern evolutionary synthes
963299
"Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer is the best one I've seen yet. It will more than likely contain everything you need.\n\nMichael Shermer, btw, if you're unfamiliar with who I'm talking about, is the founder of the Skeptics Society, who publishes Skeptic Magazine.
655475
Darwin was on his island, waiting around so he could prove something when he noticed that the finches were changing certain features to survive, so somehow he came up with the theory of evolution.\nIf that's what you mean.
746231
ONLY a theory? hehe! Then those people don't even understand the terminology they're using. Yes a theory is a proven hypothesis (versus disproven).  Only when someone can disprove it will it lose it's status.  So evolution is a theory. :)
502419
I heard that Darwin's conversion was just a theory and was a story made up. I found a link on it and talks a bit about it, but I've heard it before. \n\nIt dosent matter, It dosent matter if Charles Darwin was baptised or not, Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins!\nI know this, in my heart!♥
626675
Malthus. His essay entitled "An essay on the principle of population, as it affects the future improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other writers", written in 1798, was one of the sources for Darwin to develop his Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection. \nYou can read the essay here:\nhttp://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/malthus/popu.txt
1180368
Charles Darwin founded the theory of evolution.
340615
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
1104172
You don't understand the definition of a theory and a fact do you? I presume, judging from your words, you believe that a theory is essentially a conjecture, a guess, that sort of thing? Well, you thought wrong.\n\nScientific definitions and mathematical definitions are far different and more precise than everyday language. For us, a salt is that white stuff that preserves foods and gives the food, obviously enough, that "salty" taste. In chemistry, a salt is any ionic compound formed by anions and cations so that the net charge of the compound is neutral. \n\nIn that same manner, a theory is not just a "guess." Theories and facts are not rungs on a ladder of credibility - they complement each other. Theories are really models for explaining a series of natural phenomena, backed by strong evidence. Theories explain facts. Again, they are not "guesses."\n\nAnd, in that manner, evolution is both a theory AND a fact. There is the theory of evolution, which explains it, and there is the fact of evolution. This is similar to the theory of gravity; how the theory explains the fact that gravity exist, and the reason why apples fall down and hit us on the head. \n\nThere is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it is a strongly-backed theory. Also, all theories are incomplete and subject to revision. That applies to all theories - not just evolution. The atomic theory expanded over the last century as the Bohr model evolved into the current electron-cloud model. \n\nAlso, another misconception to clear up - there is nothing proven in science; there is just evidence to support it.\n\nAlso, people who criticize evolution often forget that it doesn't deal with the origin of life, it is NOT random, that the concept of uniformitarianism in science make evolution valid, etc.\n\nI suggest you read a little.
296799
You can thank Darwin for that. His theory of evolution Has lead more people away from God than anything else.
861286
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, in a nutshell:\n\nThere are three observations about life\n1) Variation: Individuals of a species are not all identical.  \n2) Competition: More individuals are born than can possibly survive to reproduce.  \n3) Inheritance: Individuals pass on traits to their offspring.  \nGiven these three things, those individuals in a species that have traits that help them survive better and produce more offspring, will pass those very traits on to those offspring.  So in this way, beneficial traits become more frequent a population, and produce an overall change in the species over time.  \n\nThat's it.\n\nAs for the creation of new species:  If two subpopulations of a species get separated for long enough, then they will change in separate directions, and will eventually lose the ability to interbreed, resulting in (now) two separate species that will continue to change (evolve) in different directions.\n\nThe catchphrase "survival of the fittest" summarizes this idea ... but use it with caution.  It's not just about "surviving" but "surviving to reproduce."  For example, a peacock's tail doesn't really help him "survive" better ... in fact it probably makes him an easier prey for predators ... but it does attract the ladies.  So it makes those individuals with the flashiest tail more "fit" then their homelier cousins.\n\n-------------- A warning about 'tiffany g's answer ---------------\n\nBe careful with answers like 'tiffany g' who copy-paste web pages instead of giving you a link to them, and without giving you the source, so you can check it out.  She is copying from the web-site allaboutscience.org, a thinly disguised Christian/Creationist site.  \n\nMy objection is not with people presenting the Creationist side ... but rather the attempt to hide that fact.  For example, it is deliberately misleading for a site to call itself "allaboutscience.org" when it does not address science topics in general, but only topics like the Big Bang, Evolution, and evidence for the existence of Jesus.  (Watch out for "allaboutphilosophy.org" as well.)\n\nAs a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty, the citation/page finishes with Darwin's famous quote about the eye ... famous because it is always quoted out of context and omits Darwin's very next sentence.  Darwin did indeed write that the evolution of the eye "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  (Note the word "seems".)  But then Darwin continues ... "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."  (See second source, Darwin, Ch. 6.)\n\nIn other words, Darwin immediately refutes the "irreducible complexity" argument, by pointing out that all we need to do is show that the eye can come about through small, incremental changes that each confers a small advantage, no matter how small.  Every single case of "irreducible complexity" yet offered by Creationists has always been shown (usually quite easily) to be fully "reducible."\n\nCreationists love to quote out-of-context from Darwin's Chapter 6, because this is the chapter where Darwin considers possible objections or "difficulties" with the theory, and then refutes them. The Creationists love to quote Darwin's own-words description of the "difficulty", but then omit his
679044
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.