what is charles darwin theory about the man's evolution?
445160
Actually, Darwin NEVER said we evolved from monkeys! (Quoted from my Biology Professor at LSUA). There is this huge creation/evolution stink going around, but all evolution states is what has already been stated...the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.  Now he DID say we could have all resulted from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, just so happened that the monkey developed one way, and the humans another way, but he doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever.  The result is evolutionary adaptation, the accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.  In modern terms, evolution is defined as a change over time in the genetic composition of a population.  in 1859, Charles Darwin published a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".  Look it up and check that out.
160247
There is a huge amount about the history of evolution on the web. Look it up. \n\nThere were many similar theories before Darwin and roughly at the same time as Darwin, like Wallace's theory, or Darwin's grandfather Erasmus. \n\nDarwin took a long voyage on the Beagle and gained information that confirmed his theory. \n\nThe theory is that natural selection is a process acting in nature, where individuals of a species best suited to their environments will pass on their characteristics to their offspring ("survival of the fittest"). Eventually this will lead to new species. \n\nSome comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters.
41337
We don't believe in Darwin's theory. Like my honey said, if man came from monkey why haven't monkeys continued to mutate. After millions of years, monkeys are still monkeys.If monkey mutated to the form of man, shouldn't  man continue to mutate to something.....
236776
Charles Darwin discovered the process of evolution. Evolution is a natural process by which novel traits are passed on from generation to generation, and an observable fact (i.e. you look a little like your mom and dad, for instance). Over long periods of time, you get a large variety of lifeforms.  No one really argues this; even modern religious fundamentalists accept it.\n\nHis 'theory' to explain the mechanism of evolution (how it works) is called 'natural selection.' \n\nWhile a large majority accept evolution, there are some who question 'natural selection' as its mechanism and instead suggest that 'super-natural selection' is at work (i.e. God).\n\nThis really isn't a 'flaw' per se, but more like a difference of opinion on the mechanics of evolution.\n\n===========================\n\nOh, and don't be confused by the common use of the word 'theory' and the more technical, scientific use of the word 'theory'.  In every day use, the word 'theory' often suggests a guess or conjecture, as opposed to a fact.  In scientific terms, 'theory' means a collection of facts which have a relationship to each other, and are not opposed to each other.
183805
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 theoty 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
1042151
Evolution is a *fact*.  It is not a theory.  The theory part of evolution is related to the *mechanism* of evolution.  The best known theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's, which is called natural selection, or "survival of the fittest."  It is his explanation on how evolution can occur.  This theory may or may not be true (and it most likely is because it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense), but it does not make evolution itself impossible if that particular theory didn't pan out.  \n\nPeople don't want to "believe" in evolution because they feel it is contradicting their particular religious beliefs, which, by the way, is just silly.  Another reason could be that it is difficult for us to comprehend things that happen over a long period of time, like a small stream that has carved out an entire valley.  Evolution of living organisms takes a really really *long* time.  It doesn't happen overnight.
345654
Wikipedia has a good summary:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_species\n\nAn extract from this wikipedia page:\nDarwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:\n\nSpecies have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. \nPopulations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. \nFood 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. \nIn sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant. \nMuch of this variation is heritable. \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.
1169151
Charles Darwin, the discoverer of evolution; Watson and Crick, the discoverers of DNA
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
357308
Charles Darwin explored exactly that when he wrote about his Theory of Evolution. Read his works!
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.
746973
Because  Darwin's theory on human evolution is more of a hoax...than a theory duh! why would man be evolving, then, suddenly stop. and now for the past 1000 yrs in human history no apes have even come close to becoming man.  its as if the evolution idea was selectively predestined to reach an optimum, then disintegrate. Apparently, only an engineer must predetermine at what point it reaches a projected result or completion....just like an architect would circumscribe the white house on a drawing board, which  becomes a finished building with rooms, halls, parking lots,etc and ultimately  the US presidential residence. However, only the creation theory in all of history has held sway and stood the test of time while reasonable as well as coherent in its thesis.
1040585
Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: \n\n1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view. \n\n2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region. \n\n3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species. [This is now contested by a view of episodes of rapid change and long periods of stasis, known as punctuated equilibrium]. \n\n4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. \n\nhttp://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
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?
1114799
There is NONE! Everything he wrote was thought up! - And proven WRONG! Also - have you ever seen the title of his book, The Origin of Species? The actual title is: Ther Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured RACES  in the Struggle for Life\n  Darwin hated Black people, and any body that wasnt his "race". He ended up marrying his 1st cousin becausehe wanted to make a superior race(every one else is stupid). What ended up happening was all his kids ended dead or seariously retarded. And it was his book that gave the idea to Karl Marx for communism! \n  So there has NEVER been any proof for evolution! Every thing in museums that is based on evolution is  a lie! Why don't you ask about the skull links in the Smithsonian! Nothinbg for evolution has been proven!  It is purely religion!
1038944
evolution is right,  just read the work of charles darwin,\n\n\nexactly,  this is ridiculous\n\nto understand something we would have to expirience it\n\ni am trying myself to expirience god and not having much luck
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