Home

Emails to EvolutionFAQ

These are emails sent to Evolution FAQ using the contact form. Click the subject to see the response.

I read www.evolutionfaq.com's article titled "The Probability of Life". It spoke about how abiogenesis is a process with many(many) incremental steps, the start of which was a self-replicating peptide. One argument for creationists is that the first steps of evolution can't be reproduced experimentally.

I have just googled evolution and in the explanation it stated- organisms are believed to have developed, also it says- the theory of gradual evolution. I thought that evolution is now considered fact.
The words believed and theory to me seem to suggest that offically there is still some doubt or am I just being too perdantic.
Is the Oxford dictionary beyond reproach? Or just needs an update?
I presume that the Oxford dictioary is based on fact or am I mistaken.

[From a series of emails discussing Ring Species, specifically referencing a Wikipedia article on Ring Species]:

According to the evolution theory, species will gradually become more intelligent, because smarter species will have a higher chance of survival. This is true for all species, intelligence is a trait beneficial to survival for all species. Yet it seems that in comparison intelligence in humans is far more advanced than in any other specie. Human accomplishments, such as flying to the moon or communicating directly with others on the other side of the world, seem far more impressive and remarkable than accomplishments of any other specie.

How is it that humans have continued to evolve with increasing brain/head size when having a larger head leads to more complications and death in child birth and the fact that we use such a small portion of the actual brain.  It seems that natural selection would be acting in a means to evolve more efficiently used brains, not simply larger ones.

I have read some of the results of the mitochondria DNA studies that show all humans descended from the same male female couple. This only makes sense to me since all race can mate and produce offspring that we are all the same species and descended from the same parents. I wonder  what your opinion would be if this research had been extended to other primates. If this study had included other primates such as gorillas, baboon, and such. Do you think it would show the same thing, but further back, that all primates had a common parent?

I have study about entropy, and as you say, life is not a closed system. Life does the opposite of entropy. It creates complex ordering of chemicals and store energy in such a way that it can easily be used. My question is why does evolution seem to favor complexity? in other words as evolution goes on, organism become more and more complex. We finally end up with Man. He is contentious, he has developed spoken and written languages. He can pass his knowledge on to future generations.

How is it that evolution is so intelligent that it could choose what species needs to evolve more, what not, what should evolve to be food for others and so on? Such diversity?

first, i'd like to thank you for this opportunity but there is something i don't understand about evolution. how we humans developed from a single cell organism in the ocean of the earth into this complex organism, i mean information had to be added to the DNA of the single-celled organism in the ocean of the earth for it to produce a more complex organism, right?
where did the information come from?or has it always been there but no expressed?

© Evolution FAQ, all rights reserved.