Evolution Theory - Literature review Example

Module Module ID: Evolution Theory Thesis ment: Natural and social environment certainly brings about some physical transformations in species, which include complexion, body strength and height etc; however, environment could not annihilate their innate characteristics of their next generation. Outline: Evolution has been a debatable issue for the last many centuries; a significant number of scientists support the notion that the present human form is an outcome of long and continuous evolutionary process. Human beings, according to the supporters of evolution theory, share their ancestry with apes, chimpanzees, baboons and monkeys, due to the very reality that they contain physical characteristics and features, which are almost similar to those of humans. Consequently, the similarities reveal that humans have observed gradual transformations on the basis of their needs, requirements and environmental changes as well all around them. However, the religious circles and other biologists-scientists declare human creation as the outcome of God’s will, where the Lord has created man out of His own image within a jiffy and hence man has not been created under any gradual or evolutionary procedure altogether argued and described by the evolutionists. Since man has superiority over all other living creatures, he cannot share same ancestry with the creatures inferior to him. Moreover, researches also prove that no creature can adopt so many transformations with the passage of time; as if it could be the same, another race could appear from the animals and beasts to challenge the present human race. Introduction: The history and creation of the universe has always been a matter of great curiosity and interest to the philosophers, intellectuals, theologians and social and natural scientists since ever. Theories have been articulated and researches have been conducted in order to explore the origin of the universe and all the creatures living in it. The theologians declare the creation process as the outcome of the intention, will and commandment of the Lord, Who created the universe and countless species within six days only without seeking any help from anyone, due to the very fact that no creature could be in a position to help the Lord. Since the creation of man was also the outcome of one immediate commandment decreed by the Lord, there is no significance or possibility of viewing the present human form as an outcome of the purported evolution process. “Most Europeans at the start of the nineteenth century understood the Bible as inspired by God and as literally true in every respect. They gathered that God worked alone to direct creation, was actively involved in it, and created each living thing in its ideal form or kind.” (The Evolution Dialogues, 2011) On the contrary, a school among the biologist-scientists vehemently argues that all species undergo the evolutionary process on the foundations of the changes taking place in their natural, physical and social environment on the one hand, and the alterations in their physical appearance on the other. Consequently, the needs and requirements of the living beings not only force them to adopt and accept change in their surroundings, but also bring alterations in their physical traits according to the modifications in their environment at large. Darwin’s distinguished work On the Origin of Species (1859) articulates the same. “Why, if man can by patience select variations most useful to himself, should nature fail in selecting variations useful, under changing conditions of life, to her living products… I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life.” (Quoted in Lewin, 1999: 5) However, all biologists-scientists do not see eye to eye with the notion, and scientifically refute the possibility of evolution altogether. They are of the opinion that no species can transfer its ascribed physical characteristics to its next generation altogether, due to the very fact that one’s habits and behavior cannot change the traits of gene. Hence, evolution has been an extremely controversial issue for the last many centuries, where both of these schools of thought are at daggers drawn regarding the justification of the evolution process. “It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption.” (Clark, 1930: 235) Additionally, almost all species, including humans and others, undergo remarkable changes in appearance yet are not deprived of the organs attributed to the overwhelming majority of that specific species. 19th century biologist Lamarck vehemently argues in favor of evolution theory. He submits to state that natural, physical and social surroundings force the creatures to introduce changes in their disposition, movements and even in physical traits too to survive and compete with the hardships and challenges of the environmental changes. These physical changes include the size, texture and form of one or more organs of body. “For instance, giraffe was found in a country where there were no plants on the ground, and the animal had to stretch his neck again and again in his attempt to reach leaves of high trees. Consequently, giraffe’s neck grew longer in order to satisfy his hunger.” (Sharma, 1997: 7) The religious school of thought also opposes evolution theory by arguing that since the evolution doctrine is merely an assumption with no sound proofs for the same, the speculation must not be preferred to the sound authentic sources of divine knowledge and wisdom that manifestly describe the birth process of Adam and Eve and their coming generations in a sonorous and crystal clear manner. Although Lamarck’s theory observed tremendous opposition and criticism by his contemporaries, yet his successor scientists, including Darwin and others, presented almost similar theories for the future years to come. “No one is arguing that Lamarck got everything right, but over the past decade it has become increasingly clear that environmental factors, such as diet or stress, can have biological consequences that are transmitted to offspring without a single change to gene sequences taking place.” (Young, 2008:2) Nevertheless, the scientists and philosophers had been presenting their researches that negate the very idea of the Biblical description of the creation for centuries, yet the evolutionary process theories articulated by Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and Charles Darwin obtained vehement acknowledgement and popularity, in the form of both appreciation and condemnation, from the scientific and dogmatic circles. One of the most contradictory elements behind the very theory is this that man was created as the most superior race and was granted the dominance over the fish of the water and fowl of the air. (Genesis, 1) Hence, since man was created as a superior generation, how can he share a common ancestry with the inferior creatures including, chimpanzee, monkey and ape. Moreover, no one can change his physical form at the time of birth due to the very reality that the same genetic characteristics are transferred to the next generations, which were present in the characteristics of the ancestors. The same notion can be proved by studying the research conducted by 19th century German biologists August Weismann on rats. The scientist deprived the rats, under examination, of their tails, and let them enter into sexual interaction to reproduce their young ones. Somehow, absence of tail in the ancestor rats could not reproduce the tail-less generation altogether. On the other hand, the new generation was born with the same length and trait of the tail that the ancestors maintained before the experiment of depriving them of the tails. Wilson (2007) has elaborated his notion about evolution process among species, where he declares the process as an essential element for shaping them in the present form. Somehow, he does not support the Darwinian doctrine of the conversion of apes into humans. The author discards the false notion that evolution invites any challenge to the religious belief, as humans have also experienced several changes while their living in different societies of the world. Wilson also proclaims that since environment and company certainly leaves indelible impacts upon the personality, activities, dressing, appearance, complexion and language of the individuals, the same also applies to countless other species. It is therefore wild cats are bigger in size and stronger in power than the cats leading a civic life as pets. Hence, their longer tails, bigger paws, lighter colors and wider eyes reveal the impact and affect of environment and needs upon them. The critics also condemn the very idea of evolution by refuting the concept of natural selection. Had natural selection the only way of survival, the greatest and strongest animals like dinosaurs and others would have survived, while rats and lizards would have lost their generation several centuries ago. To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that humans have not adopted the present form from that of apes and baboons; on the contrary, the human species have been reproducing the young ones with almost one and the same characteristics, organism and appearances for centuries, which almost no slightest alterations described and discussed by the supporters of evolution theory. Works Cited Lewin, Roger. Human Evolution: an Illustrated Introduction Blackwell Science Inc. 4th Edition 1999 Sharma, R. N. Anthropology Atlantic Publishers & Distributors 1997 Wilson, David Sloan. Evolution for Everyone: How Darwins Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives Delacorte Press 2007 Young, Emma. Rewriting Darwin: the New Non-Genetic Inheritance New Scientist, 02624079, 7/12/2008, Vol. 199, Issue 2664 MAS Ultra - School Edition Clark, Austin. “Scientists Speak About Evolution: 1” Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia 2010. Accessed on 12/28/2011 http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm Read More