Evolution - Revision history

imported>Nesslig 20: /* The Modern Scientific Usage */

2018-02-10T20:57:18Z

The Modern Scientific Usage

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 10 February 2018
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===		=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===
	Unless the context is specified to be something else, "evolution" refers to an aspect of population genetics - in which case, it is summarily defined as ''"Descent with Inherent'' [genetic] ''modification"''. Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of changing ~~allele~~ frequencies among reproductive populations over generations, which leads to changes in the morphology and/or physiology of descendant subsets. When compiled over many generations, these changes can expand biodiversity when increasing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches that are increasingly distinct from their ancestors and/or cousins. - Or if you prefer, the process by which life forms diversify via ''"descent with modification"''.		Unless the context is specified to be something else, "evolution" refers to an aspect of population genetics - in which case, it is summarily defined as ''"Descent with Inherent'' [genetic] ''modification"''. Paraphrased for clarity, <blockquote>Evolution is a process of changing genetic (alleles) frequencies among reproductive populations over generations, which leads to changes in the morphology and/or physiology of descendant subsets. When compiled over many generations, these changes can expand biodiversity when increasing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches that are increasingly distinct from their ancestors and/or cousins. - Or if you prefer, the process by which life forms diversify via ''"descent with modification"''. </blockquote>[[File:Language family trees.png\|thumb\|484x484px\|That's right: language isn't intelligently designed either. ]]Such a definition, especially the short-hand version "change in allele frequencies within a population over time" (which is based on the '''Hardy'''–'''Weinberg''' principle) is, though very useful, not applicable to all cases. When dealing with evolution observed in the fossil record, where no change in genetic frequencies can be directly determined, the change in morphology is used. A broader definition can also be made that includes other processes that parallel the evolution of life forms, but don't involve life. Viruses are not considered to be alive, but they do reproduce and inherit genetic material with mutations, so they also can evolve. Self-replicating molecules have the potential to evolve as well, and is posited to be one factor that explains the origin of life. While evolution may be a part of abiogenesis by this broader definition, this isn't true the other way around (the assertion that abiogenesis part of evolution), since abiogenesis involves chemical processes that don't count as evolution. Other examples are computer programs such as genetic/evolutionary algorithms and how human language has changed. The evolution of language parallels the evolution of life almost perfectly such that it can be used as a very good analogy to explain to laymen what evolution is and how it works (see the figure above).
	[[File:Language family trees.png\|thumb\|484x484px\|That's right: language isn't intelligently designed either. ]]
	A broader definition can also be made that includes other processes that parallel the evolution of life forms, but don't involve life. Viruses are not considered to be alive, but they do reproduce and inherit genetic material with mutations, so they also can evolve. Self-replicating molecules have the potential to evolve as well, and is posited to be one factor that explains the origin of life. While evolution may be a part of abiogenesis by this broader definition, this isn't true the other way around (the assertion that abiogenesis part of evolution), since abiogenesis involves chemical processes that don't count as evolution. Other examples are computer programs such as genetic/evolutionary algorithms and how human language has changed. The evolution of language parallels the evolution of life almost perfectly such that it can be used as a very good analogy to explain to laymen what evolution is and how it works (see the figure above).

	== A Historical Overview ==		== A Historical Overview ==

imported>Nesslig 20: /* A Historical Overview */

2017-12-14T17:05:53Z

A Historical Overview

Show changes

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Basic Description */

2017-09-19T14:43:13Z

Basic Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 19 September 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:

	== Basic Description ==		== Basic Description ==
	While the term is used in various ways, in this context "evolution" refers to change of inherited traits among reproductive populations over generations, which is summarily defined as ''"descent with'' [~~inherent~~ genetic] ''modification"'' as coined by Charles Darwin. It is a natural phenomenon that encompasses the diversity of all life. One of the driving mechanisms behind this process is ''"natural selection"''.		While the term is used in various ways, in this context "evolution" refers to change of inherited traits among reproductive populations over generations, which is summarily defined as ''"descent with'' [inherit genetic] ''modification"'' as coined by Charles Darwin. It is a natural phenomenon that encompasses the diversity of all life. One of the driving mechanisms behind this process is ''"natural selection"''.

	======<nowiki/>======		======<nowiki/>======

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Origin and Evolution of the Word */

2017-09-08T15:48:47Z

Origin and Evolution of the Word

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 8 September 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:

	<blockquote>''"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, '''<u>evolved</u>'''." ''</blockquote>		<blockquote>''"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, '''<u>evolved</u>'''." ''</blockquote>
	Contemporary scientists, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley Julian Huxley (aka Darwin's Bulldog)], adopted ~~the term "Evolution"~~ and is still in use by scientists today as the accepted technical term, although scientists do use the word in different ~~ways~~. Cosmologists often refer to the process of how stars are "born", change and "die" as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution "Stellar Evolution"]. Under this general and rather nebulous usage, "evolution" simply means ''"change over time"''.		Contemporary scientists, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley Julian Huxley (aka Darwin's Bulldog)], adopted that word and is still in use by scientists today as the accepted technical term, although scientists do use the word in differently at different times. Cosmologists often refer to the process of how stars are "born", change and "die" as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution "Stellar Evolution"]. Under this general and rather nebulous usage, "evolution" simply means ''"change over time"''.

	=== '''Straw-man Definitions''' ===		=== '''Straw-man Definitions''' ===
	Creationists often exploit ~~this semantical aspect of the term~~ to misrepresent evolutionary theory. One infamous example is the [http://creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ "6 types of evolution"] by [[Kent Hovind]], wherein big bang cosmology, nucleosynthesis, stellar/planetary accretion, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all erroneously lumped together under one banner called "[[Evilution\|evilution(ism)]]" as if they were all part of the same theory wherein ''"everything came from nothing without God"''. The creationists do this to create the illusion that their denial of science is limited to just one thing, not to multiple aspects of many different scientific theories spanning many independent fields of science. They also do this to make it seem like a person cannot accept biological evolutionary theory without also accepting all the other theories that they have equated with ~~ToE~~, meaning that they must also accept that the Genesis isn't literal and that [[God]] doesn't exist, so a person cannot be a "true" christian and also accept evolutionary theory. This is obviously erroneous and is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&index=1&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism] as stated by [[AronRa\|AronRa.]] Creationist attempts to straw-man evolution is an easy excuse to explain why most people have such a fucked-up view of what evolution is, but it isn't always their fault. Even popular media that seem to promote evolution as a positive, progressive thing such as "Pokemon", "The X-men" and [https://buyscience.wordpress.com/boring-things-made-fun/5-movies-that-screw-the-theory-of-evolution/ various movies that use evolution as a plot device], only spread misconceptions more often than correct them.		Creationists often exploit semantics to misrepresent evolutionary theory. One infamous example is the [http://creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ "6 types of evolution"] by [[Kent Hovind]], wherein big bang cosmology, nucleosynthesis, stellar/planetary accretion, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all erroneously lumped together under one banner called "[[Evilution\|evilution(ism)]]" as if they were all part of the same theory wherein ''"everything came from nothing without God"''. The creationists do this to create the illusion that their denial of science is limited to just one thing, not to multiple aspects of many different scientific theories spanning many independent fields of science. They also do this to make it seem like a person cannot accept biological evolutionary theory without also accepting all the other theories that they have equated with evolution, meaning that they must also accept that the Genesis isn't literal and that [[God]] doesn't exist, so a person cannot be a "true" christian and also accept evolutionary theory. This is obviously erroneous and is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&index=1&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism] as stated by [[AronRa\|AronRa.]] Creationist attempts to straw-man evolution is an easy excuse to explain why most people have such a fucked-up view of what evolution is, but it isn't always their fault. Even popular media that seem to promote evolution as a positive, progressive thing such as "Pokemon", "The X-men" and [https://buyscience.wordpress.com/boring-things-made-fun/5-movies-that-screw-the-theory-of-evolution/ various movies that use evolution as a plot device], only spread misconceptions more often than correct them.

	=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===		=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Straw-man Definitions */

2017-09-08T15:44:56Z

Straw-man Definitions

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 8 September 2017
Line 21:		Line 21:

	=== '''Straw-man Definitions''' ===		=== '''Straw-man Definitions''' ===
	Creationists often exploit this semantical aspect of the term to misrepresent evolutionary theory. One infamous example is the [http://creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ "6 types of evolution"] by [[Kent Hovind]], wherein big bang cosmology, nucleosynthesis, stellar/planetary accretion, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all erroneously lumped together under one banner called "[[Evilution\|evilution(ism)]]" as if they were all part of the same theory wherein ''"everything came from nothing without God"''. The creationists do this to create the illusion that their denial of science is limited to just one thing, not to multiple aspects of many different scientific theories spanning many independent fields of science. They also do this to make it seem like a person cannot accept biological evolutionary theory without also accepting all the other theories that they have equated with ToE, meaning that they must also accept that the Genesis isn't literal and that [[God]] doesn't exist, so a person cannot be a "true" christian and also accept evolutionary theory. ~~Of corse, this~~ is ~~also~~ erroneous and is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&index=1&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism] as stated by [[AronRa\|AronRa.]] Creationist attempts to straw-man evolution is an easy excuse to explain why most people have such a fucked-up view of what evolution is, but it isn't always their fault. Even popular media that seem to promote evolution as a positive, progressive thing such as "Pokemon", "The X-men" and [https://buyscience.wordpress.com/boring-things-made-fun/5-movies-that-screw-the-theory-of-evolution/ various movies that use evolution as a plot device], only spread misconceptions more often than correct them.		Creationists often exploit this semantical aspect of the term to misrepresent evolutionary theory. One infamous example is the [http://creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ "6 types of evolution"] by [[Kent Hovind]], wherein big bang cosmology, nucleosynthesis, stellar/planetary accretion, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all erroneously lumped together under one banner called "[[Evilution\|evilution(ism)]]" as if they were all part of the same theory wherein ''"everything came from nothing without God"''. The creationists do this to create the illusion that their denial of science is limited to just one thing, not to multiple aspects of many different scientific theories spanning many independent fields of science. They also do this to make it seem like a person cannot accept biological evolutionary theory without also accepting all the other theories that they have equated with ToE, meaning that they must also accept that the Genesis isn't literal and that [[God]] doesn't exist, so a person cannot be a "true" christian and also accept evolutionary theory. This is obviously erroneous and is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&index=1&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism] as stated by [[AronRa\|AronRa.]] Creationist attempts to straw-man evolution is an easy excuse to explain why most people have such a fucked-up view of what evolution is, but it isn't always their fault. Even popular media that seem to promote evolution as a positive, progressive thing such as "Pokemon", "The X-men" and [https://buyscience.wordpress.com/boring-things-made-fun/5-movies-that-screw-the-theory-of-evolution/ various movies that use evolution as a plot device], only spread misconceptions more often than correct them.

	=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===		=== '''The Modern Scientific Usage''' ===

imported>Steve McRae: Added my preferred definition for evolution. Tweak if you like.

2017-09-03T12:01:42Z

Added my preferred definition for evolution. Tweak if you like.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 3 September 2017
Line 52:		Line 52:
	=== '''Darwin's major contribution''' ===		=== '''Darwin's major contribution''' ===
	One might think that Darwin had nothing original to say after reading what was previously said, but nothing could be more wrong. <span>Rarely, a scientific advancement is made in isolation so of course, there were similar ideas proposed before Darwin came along. </span>What Darwin did was taking this whole mess of distributed clues, that others before him have gathered, and put them together along with his own original work into a coherent frame work, aka a scientific theory.		One might think that Darwin had nothing original to say after reading what was previously said, but nothing could be more wrong. <span>Rarely, a scientific advancement is made in isolation so of course, there were similar ideas proposed before Darwin came along. </span>What Darwin did was taking this whole mess of distributed clues, that others before him have gathered, and put them together along with his own original work into a coherent frame work, aka a scientific theory.

			== Steve McRae's Preferred Definition for Discussional Purposes: ==
			Evolution- The change of allele frequency, or heritable traits passed on, in any given population of species from one generation to the next.

	== References ==		== References ==

imported>Nesslig 20: /* A Historical Overview */

2017-08-21T14:37:22Z

A Historical Overview

imported>Nesslig 20: /* The Renaissance and Enlightenment */

2017-07-28T15:45:26Z

The Renaissance and Enlightenment

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 28 July 2017
Line 51:		Line 51:
	* In 1828, scientist Karl <u>Ernst von Baer</u> 1792-1876 worked on the comparison of embryological development of different animal species, arguing against Recapitulation, that development followed the linear progression from "lower" simpler form toward "higher" forms (reminiscent of the Great Chain of Being). Under recapitulation, humans would first become first, then ambiphians, then reptiles and then mammals before becoming humans. But von Baer recognized that development didn't follow a linear progression, but a divergent one. Humans didn't first develop wings or hooves, but the limbs of horses, birds and humans start out as limb buds (similar to each other) before starting their unique developmental path that makes them different. Darwin used this as evidence for common descent, since this pattern (just like in taxonomy) resembles a tree of life. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their development was and the more similar they would be in earlier stages in development, which is also true for organisms more distantly related. Humans and other tetrapods look allot like each other when they first develop their limb buds (as pointed out before), but in even earlier stages of development, they show similarities with the early developmental stages of fish as with their pharyngeal pouches (or Gill slits).		* In 1828, scientist Karl <u>Ernst von Baer</u> 1792-1876 worked on the comparison of embryological development of different animal species, arguing against Recapitulation, that development followed the linear progression from "lower" simpler form toward "higher" forms (reminiscent of the Great Chain of Being). Under recapitulation, humans would first become first, then ambiphians, then reptiles and then mammals before becoming humans. But von Baer recognized that development didn't follow a linear progression, but a divergent one. Humans didn't first develop wings or hooves, but the limbs of horses, birds and humans start out as limb buds (similar to each other) before starting their unique developmental path that makes them different. Darwin used this as evidence for common descent, since this pattern (just like in taxonomy) resembles a tree of life. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their development was and the more similar they would be in earlier stages in development, which is also true for organisms more distantly related. Humans and other tetrapods look allot like each other when they first develop their limb buds (as pointed out before), but in even earlier stages of development, they show similarities with the early developmental stages of fish as with their pharyngeal pouches (or Gill slits).
	* In 1830-1833, geologist <u>Sir Charles Lyell</u> 1797-1875 published ''"principles of Geology"'' wherein he established the ideas made by scientists prior to him. One in particular was James Hutton, who argued that gradual geological processes operating over "deep time" explained the geological features he observed, not unimaginable catastrophes as most scientists believed at that time. Lyell expanded this idea by establishing the principle of uniformitarianism, that geological features are best explained as being the result of the same gradual processes that are observable today, only acting over very long periods of time. We can see rivers eroding rock, inch by inch, each year, which explains how large canyons are formed over a long period of time. These were very influential to Darwin since he adopted the same gradualism approach to his theory. If life evolves to adapt to the environment, and the environment changes by gradual processes, life must also evolve gradually in response.		* In 1830-1833, geologist <u>Sir Charles Lyell</u> 1797-1875 published ''"principles of Geology"'' wherein he established the ideas made by scientists prior to him. One in particular was James Hutton, who argued that gradual geological processes operating over "deep time" explained the geological features he observed, not unimaginable catastrophes as most scientists believed at that time. Lyell expanded this idea by establishing the principle of uniformitarianism, that geological features are best explained as being the result of the same gradual processes that are observable today, only acting over very long periods of time. We can see rivers eroding rock, inch by inch, each year, which explains how large canyons are formed over a long period of time. These were very influential to Darwin since he adopted the same gradualism approach to his theory. If life evolves to adapt to the environment, and the environment changes by gradual processes, life must also evolve gradually in response.
	~~'''Darwin's major contribution'''~~

			=== '''Darwin's major contribution''' ===
	One might think that Darwin had nothing original to say after reading what was previously said, but nothing could be more wrong. <span>Rarely, a scientific advancement is made in isolation so of course, there were similar ideas proposed before Darwin came along. </span>What Darwin did was taking this whole mess of distributed clues, that others before him have gathered, and put them together along with his own original work into a coherent frame work, aka a scientific theory.		One might think that Darwin had nothing original to say after reading what was previously said, but nothing could be more wrong. <span>Rarely, a scientific advancement is made in isolation so of course, there were similar ideas proposed before Darwin came along. </span>What Darwin did was taking this whole mess of distributed clues, that others before him have gathered, and put them together along with his own original work into a coherent frame work, aka a scientific theory.

imported>Nesslig 20: /* The Renaissance and Enlightenment */

2017-07-28T15:44:43Z

The Renaissance and Enlightenment

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 28 July 2017
Line 51:		Line 51:
	* In 1828, scientist Karl <u>Ernst von Baer</u> 1792-1876 worked on the comparison of embryological development of different animal species, arguing against Recapitulation, that development followed the linear progression from "lower" simpler form toward "higher" forms (reminiscent of the Great Chain of Being). Under recapitulation, humans would first become first, then ambiphians, then reptiles and then mammals before becoming humans. But von Baer recognized that development didn't follow a linear progression, but a divergent one. Humans didn't first develop wings or hooves, but the limbs of horses, birds and humans start out as limb buds (similar to each other) before starting their unique developmental path that makes them different. Darwin used this as evidence for common descent, since this pattern (just like in taxonomy) resembles a tree of life. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their development was and the more similar they would be in earlier stages in development, which is also true for organisms more distantly related. Humans and other tetrapods look allot like each other when they first develop their limb buds (as pointed out before), but in even earlier stages of development, they show similarities with the early developmental stages of fish as with their pharyngeal pouches (or Gill slits).		* In 1828, scientist Karl <u>Ernst von Baer</u> 1792-1876 worked on the comparison of embryological development of different animal species, arguing against Recapitulation, that development followed the linear progression from "lower" simpler form toward "higher" forms (reminiscent of the Great Chain of Being). Under recapitulation, humans would first become first, then ambiphians, then reptiles and then mammals before becoming humans. But von Baer recognized that development didn't follow a linear progression, but a divergent one. Humans didn't first develop wings or hooves, but the limbs of horses, birds and humans start out as limb buds (similar to each other) before starting their unique developmental path that makes them different. Darwin used this as evidence for common descent, since this pattern (just like in taxonomy) resembles a tree of life. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their development was and the more similar they would be in earlier stages in development, which is also true for organisms more distantly related. Humans and other tetrapods look allot like each other when they first develop their limb buds (as pointed out before), but in even earlier stages of development, they show similarities with the early developmental stages of fish as with their pharyngeal pouches (or Gill slits).
	* In 1830-1833, geologist <u>Sir Charles Lyell</u> 1797-1875 published ''"principles of Geology"'' wherein he established the ideas made by scientists prior to him. One in particular was James Hutton, who argued that gradual geological processes operating over "deep time" explained the geological features he observed, not unimaginable catastrophes as most scientists believed at that time. Lyell expanded this idea by establishing the principle of uniformitarianism, that geological features are best explained as being the result of the same gradual processes that are observable today, only acting over very long periods of time. We can see rivers eroding rock, inch by inch, each year, which explains how large canyons are formed over a long period of time. These were very influential to Darwin since he adopted the same gradualism approach to his theory. If life evolves to adapt to the environment, and the environment changes by gradual processes, life must also evolve gradually in response.		* In 1830-1833, geologist <u>Sir Charles Lyell</u> 1797-1875 published ''"principles of Geology"'' wherein he established the ideas made by scientists prior to him. One in particular was James Hutton, who argued that gradual geological processes operating over "deep time" explained the geological features he observed, not unimaginable catastrophes as most scientists believed at that time. Lyell expanded this idea by establishing the principle of uniformitarianism, that geological features are best explained as being the result of the same gradual processes that are observable today, only acting over very long periods of time. We can see rivers eroding rock, inch by inch, each year, which explains how large canyons are formed over a long period of time. These were very influential to Darwin since he adopted the same gradualism approach to his theory. If life evolves to adapt to the environment, and the environment changes by gradual processes, life must also evolve gradually in response.
			'''Darwin's major contribution'''

			One might think that Darwin had nothing original to say after reading what was previously said, but nothing could be more wrong. <span>Rarely, a scientific advancement is made in isolation so of course, there were similar ideas proposed before Darwin came along. </span>What Darwin did was taking this whole mess of distributed clues, that others before him have gathered, and put them together along with his own original work into a coherent frame work, aka a scientific theory.

	== References ==		== References ==

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Basic Description */

2017-07-28T08:44:02Z

Basic Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:44, 28 July 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The theory of evolution is the scientific model that explains how and why biological evolution occurs, as well as explaining the unity and diversity of life (not its origins) by concluding that every known species extant or extinct, is the result of evolution through common descent (and a few other processes such as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer horizontal gene transfer]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis endosymbiosis]"). As a result of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory, it represents the [https://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904 consensus of the scientists] in the field of biology and science in general, thereby making it one of the strongest and well-supported theories in science. The theory of evolution is the very backbone of modern biology and understanding evolution has become a fundamental aspect in that particular field of science.		The theory of evolution is the scientific model that explains how and why biological evolution occurs, as well as explaining the unity and diversity of life (not its origins) by concluding that every known species extant or extinct, is the result of evolution through common descent (and a few other processes such as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer horizontal gene transfer]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis endosymbiosis]"). As a result of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory, it represents the [https://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904 consensus of the scientists] in the field of biology and science in general, thereby making it one of the strongest and well-supported theories in science. The theory of evolution is the very backbone of modern biology and understanding evolution has become a fundamental aspect in that particular field of science.

	Understanding evolution (especially how it works) isn't easy. In order to adequately understand evolution, you need to have a basic understanding of many different things, including cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology, palaeontology, taxonomy, and more. <span>It is a very complex subject and passing biology classes in college requires following many lessons on evolution, </span>[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html depending on what schools you are talking about]. Many notable scientists throughout history have devoted their entire careers to this very subject, and many still do. Despite this, there are quite a few people who dismiss the entire scientific paradigm by asserting that evolution is ''"just a theory, not a fact"'' (among other asinine statements), [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201701/the-dunning-kruger-president as if they know better than every expert anywhere ever]. The bulk of this category consists mainly of [http://great-debate-community.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Clown_Car_Posse scientifically illiterate morons].		Understanding evolution (especially how it works) isn't easy. In order to adequately understand evolution, you need to have a basic understanding of many different things, including cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology, palaeontology, taxonomy, and more. <span>It is a very complex subject and passing biology classes in college requires following many lessons on evolution, </span>[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html depending on what schools you are talking about]. Many notable scientists throughout history have devoted their entire careers to this very subject, and many still do. Despite this, there are quite a few people who simply dismiss the entire scientific paradigm by asserting that evolution is ''"just a theory, not a fact"'' (among other asinine statements), [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201701/the-dunning-kruger-president as if they know better than every expert anywhere ever]. The bulk of this category consists mainly of [http://great-debate-community.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Clown_Car_Posse scientifically illiterate morons].

	== <span>Etymology and Semantics</span> ==		== <span>Etymology and Semantics</span> ==