Categories for Evolution

My View on Evolution Essay

My View on Evolution Essay

The creation versus evolution debate is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute. As a result, Americans have spent a great deal of time in debate about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe. Personally, I believe the world is billions of years old, and that all life on earth evolved. I will attempt to provide concrete facts, logical arguments, and solid evidence supporting my view on evolution. With that said, I will also share my personal intuitions and feelings that have led me to believe in evolution.

Lastly, I will make a closing argument as to why you should support evolution as well based on the information presented in my paper. Logically, evolution makes sense to me for many reasons. On the other hand, creationists generally use the Bible as their main doctrine in backing up their argument for creation. However, I believe the Bible, alone, is not enough. With any legitimate argument, multiple sources of evidence are always needed.

While I could list a dozen things that serve as real-life evidence that evolution is true, I will narrow them down to just two.

The first piece of evidence that supports the idea of evolution is genetics. The DNA in our cells reflects each individual’s unique identity and how closely related we are to one another. The same can be said for relationships among organisms. DNA is the molecule that makes up an organism’s genome in the nucleus of every cell. It consists of genes, which are the molecular codes for proteins and the building blocks of our tissues and their functions. Furthermore, DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains (Lunine, 163). Thus, DNA is especially important to the study of evolution. Again, DNA tells us how closely or distantly related we are. With that in mind, think about this. The genetic difference between individual humans is minuscule, at about 0.1%, on average. Compared to human studies, a chimpanzee’s genome indicates a difference of only about 1.2%.

The bonobo, which is the close cousin of chimpanzees, and gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Subsequently, it can be concluded that humans are not only related to the great apes, but that we are apes. No matter what the numbers are, the big point still holds. Humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than any other primates. Throughout history, evolutionists have argued that the DNA of humans and apes show that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. Interestingly enough, apes were found to be existent about 17 million years before humans were even around (Moreland, 231). Therefore, the last common ancestors to fit this profile were monkeys and apes. Some evolutionists would see this information as clear evidence of a human evolutionary tree which is strongly rooted within the great apes. The second piece of evidence comes from fossils.

If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. Moreover, the characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms (Rieppel, 172). The succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex ones, also shows a relationship between new life forms and those that preceded them. Many evolutionists have made strong speculations of these findings, concluding that this is definitely evidence of evolution. In addition, fossil evidence is even more unique to the argument for evolution because it doesn’t stand alone. In fact, evolution becomes even more compelling when combined with other forms of evidence. For instance, the fossil record is consistent in terms of biogeography.

This is paramount, because you would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography and ancient geography, if evolution is true. This also holds truth when examining the anatomy and biochemistry of living species. It appeared that the general order of development for the major types of vertebrate animals was: fish, amphibians, reptiles, and then mammals. If current species developed as a result of common descent, then the fossil record would show the same order of development. Sure enough, the fossil record does show the same order of development. Consequently, fossils and its converging evidence make fossils even more plausible in arguing evolution from common descent (Rieppel, 209). Lastly, I will share my personal feelings towards evolution.

Personally, I feel many Christians disagree with the evolution theory, largely because they believe it contradicts the Bible. Yet, many Christians disagree with each other about the basic principles of Christianity. In my opinion, if a Christian doesn’t believe something to be true, they immediately find a way to say how that argument “contradicts the Bible”. However, the Bible is not always specific, nor is it clear in revealing the truth. In many cases, it almost appears to be written for our own interpretation, which brings me to my point. How can evolution be wrong if everything is based on interpretation? Essentially, I believe in evolution because my interpretation of life and literature, as well as my personal intuition, has led me to believe this. At the same time, my interpretation of the Bible and the book of Genesis is that it’s nothing more than poetry.

Christians might see genetics, DNA, and fossils as evidence for creation. My interpretation has caused me to see these things as evidence for evolution. My point is this: everyone’s view is different, because everyone’s interpretation is different. When it comes to this debate, neither creationism nor evolution is a winner. There are many arguments to be made such as: Biblical truth, fossils, molecular biology, DNA, etc. All in all, there is no scientific evidence to prove either one. Evolutionism is based solely on scientific reasoning. Based on science, evolution has yet to be proven right or wrong. Creationism is based on religion and faith. Based on the Bible, creationism cannot be proven true or false either. The best way solve this, in my opinion, is to go with what you feel. With that being said, many people, including myself, feel that evolution is true.

Works Cited
Books
* Lunine, Jonathan Irving, and Cynthia J. Lunine. Earth, Evolution of a Habitable World. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1999. Print. * Rieppel, Olivier. Evolutionary Theory and the Creation Controversy. Chicago: Springer, 2010. eBook * Moreland, J.P., and John Mark Reynolds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999. Print.

Articles
* Ellen, Roy. “Dangerous Fictions and Degrees of Plausibility: Creationism, Evolution, and Anthropology.” Anthropology Today. 18. (2002): 3-8. Web Resources
* “Creation versus Evolution.” Clarifying Christianity. N.P., 2001. Web. <http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml>.

The Reason Why Women Live Longer Than Men Essay

The Reason Why Women Live Longer Than Men Essay

Scientists are finally beginning to understand one of life’s enduring mysteries – why women live, on average, longer than men. The new research describes how mutations to the DNA of the mitochondria can account for differences in the life expectancy of males and females. Mitochondria, which exist in almost all animal cells, are vital for life because they convert our food into the energy that powers the body.

Dr Damian Dowling and PhD student Florencia Camus, from Monash School of Biological Sciences in the U.

S., worked with Dr David Clancy from Lancaster University to uncover differences in longevity and biological ageing across male and female fruit flies that carried mitochondria of different origins. They found that genetic variation across these mitochondria were reliable predictors of life expectancy in males, but not in females. Dr Dowling said the results point to numerous mutations within mitochondrial DNA that affect how long males live, and the speed at which they age. He said: ‘Intriguingly, these same mutations have no effects on patterns of ageing in females – they only affect males.

‘All animals possess mitochondria, and the tendency for females to outlive males is common to many different species.

‘Our results therefore suggest that the mitochondrial mutations we have uncovered will generally cause faster male ageing across the animal kingdom.’ The researchers said the mutations can be entirely attributed to a quirk in the way that mitochondrial genes are passed down from parents to offspring. Dr Dowling said: ‘While children receive copies of most of their genes from both their mothers and fathers, they only receive mitochondrial genes from their mothers. ‘This means that evolution’s quality control process, known as natural selection, only screens the quality of mitochondrial genes in mothers. ‘If a mitochondrial mutation occurs that harms fathers, but has no effect on mothers, this mutation will slip through the gaze of natural selection, unnoticed.

‘Over thousands of generations, many such mutations have accumulated that harm only males, while leaving females unscathed.’ The study builds on previous findings by Dr Dowling and his team who investigated the consequences of maternal inheritance of mitochondria in causing male infertility. Dr Dowling added: ‘Together, our research shows that the mitochondria are hotspots for mutations affecting male health. ‘What we seek to do now is investigate the genetic mechanisms that males might arm themselves with to nullify the effects of these harmful mutations and remain healthy.’