There exists a myriad of sources and an evaluation of the evidence suggests that Evolution, in tandem with the available creatures that it describes, is the most fit in providing an accurate description of how the diversity of life occurred....
Fossils, selective breeding and homologous structures have provided scientists with evidence that support the theory of evolution. As they started to study fossils they realised that these were not identical but had similarities with existing organisms. This suggested that organisms changed over time. Selective breeding of domesticated animals also provides this evidence as the domestic breeds have similar characteristics to the wild ones and can still breed with them. As selected wild individuals with desirable characteristics were bred, over time this resulted in a more desirable species from a human point of view. An example of this is the taming of wild wolves and their selective breeding in order to produce the domestic dogs we know today. This suggests that not only have these animals evolved but also that they can evolve rapidly. Finally scientists have found a number of homologous structures within different species. Many bones in the limbs are common to a number of species and therefore suggests that these have evolved from one common ancestor.
To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe’s own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since “natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working,” there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical “evidence” for intelligent design.
Behe’s contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe’s essay will do just fine.
In the essay "The AI Revolution Is On" by Steven Levy, the author stated how new vision of computer intelligence are differ from the past years’, and how useful they are in today’s daily life.
This essay will focus on: the early evolution of our eukaryote ancestor during Precambrian period, plastids origin along the algae family due to second endosymbiosis; discuss the evidence that supports the theory, including further examples of endosymbiosis.
For each team:
1. Timeline of the Eocene epoch (55 to 34 mya; 2 pdf pages): provided, or to be made by each team.
2."Whales in the Making" page of picture strips of fossils and reconstructions of 6 whale-type mammals (to be cut apart, #1-5 placed in envelopes, and # 6 handed to teacher to hold.
3."Discovery: Whales in Transition": Background, Procedures, Narrative, and Discussion Questions (student handout, 3 pdf pages)
4."Whale Evolution Data Table" (pdf, optional), fill in from resources.
5."Origin of Whales and Power of Independent Evidence" article" (excellent resource; 11 pdf pages; optional).
6. OPTIONAL: WORKSHEET for team- or individual student-guided search.
If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.
Scientific theories, however, must fit the evidence. Two examples of the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution — so widely used that I have called them “icons of evolution” — are Darwin’s finches and the four-winged fruit fly. Yet both of these, it seems to me, show that Darwin’s theory cannot account for all features of living things.
New features require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin’s theory, these come from DNA mutations. Most DNA mutations are harmful and are thus eliminated by natural selection. A few, however, are advantageous — such as mutations that increase antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in plants and animals. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are often cited as evidence that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, but they affect only chemical processes. Major evolutionary changes would require mutations that produce advantageous anatomical changes as well.
Wells contends that “Darwin’s theory cannot account for all features of living things,” but then, it doesn’t have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn’t know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine.
Through a combination of scientific evidence and Biblical moralities, the intelligent design theory was established to accommodate believers in the divine Christ and the theory of evolution.