Planet of the apes: fiction or fact?

By Olteanu Miruna
 Charles Darwin-biography

Charles Darwin is best known for his work as a naturalist, developing a theory of
evolution to explain biological change.

Quotes:

“A man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life.”

—Charles Darwin

Synopsis

Naturalist Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on February 12,

1809. In 1831, he embarked on a five-year survey voyage around the world on the
HMS Beagle. His studies of specimens around the globe led him to formulate his
theory of evolution and his views on the process of natural selection. In 1859, he
published On the Origin of Species. He died on April 19, 1882, in London.

Early Life

Naturalist Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, in the tiny
merchant town of Shrewsbury, England. He was the second youngest of six
children. Darwin came from a long line of scientists. His father, Dr. R.W. Darwin,
was as a medical doctor, and his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, was a renowned
botanist. Darwin’s mother, Susanna, died when he was only 8 years old. Darwin
was a child of wealth and privilege who loved to explore nature.

In October 1825, at age 16, Darwin enrolled at Edinburgh University along with
his brother Erasmus. Two years later, Charles Darwin became a student at Christ's
College in Cambridge. His father hoped he would follow in his footsteps and
become a medical doctor, but the sight of blood made Darwin queasy. His father
suggested he study to become a parson instead, but Darwin was far more inclined
to study natural history.

Voyage on the HMS Beagle

While Darwin was at Christ's College, botany professor John Stevens Henslow
became his mentor. After Darwin graduated Christ's College with a bachelor of arts
degree in 1831, Henslow recommended him for a naturalist’s position aboard the
HMS Beagle. The ship, commanded by Captain Robert FitzRoy, was to take a five-
year survey trip around the world. The voyage would prove the opportunity of a
lifetime for the budding young naturalist.

On December 27, 1831, the HMS Beagle launched its voyage around the world
with Darwin in tow. Over the course of the trip, Darwin collected a variety of
natural specimens, including birds, plants and fossils. Through hands-on research
and experimentation, he had the unique opportunity to closely observe principles
of botany, geology and zoology. The Pacific Islands and Galapagos Archipelago
were of particular interest to Darwin, as was South America.

Upon his return to England in 1836, Darwin began to write up his findings in the
Journal of Researches, published as part of Captain FitzRoy's larger narrative and
later edited into the Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle. The trip had a
monumental affect on Darwin’s view of natural history. He began to develop a
revolutionary theory about the origin of living beings that was contrary to the
popular view of other naturalists at the time.

Theory of Evolution

Darwin's exposure to specimens all over the globe raised important questions.
Other naturalists believed that all species either came into being at the start of the
world, or were created over the course of natural history. In either case, the species
were believed to remain much the same throughout time. Darwin, however, noticed
similarities among species all over the globe, along with variations based on
specific locations, leading him to believe that they had gradually evolved from
common ancestors. He came to believe that species survived through a process
called "natural selection," where species that successfully adapted to meet the
changing requirements of their natural habitat thrived, while those that failed to
evolve and reproduce died off.

In 1858, after years of further scientific investigation, Darwin publically

introduced his revolutionary theory of evolution in a letter read at a meeting of the
Linnean Society. On November 24, 1859, he published a detailed explanation of
his theory in his best-known work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection.

Death and Legacy

Following a lifetime of devout research, Charles Darwin died at his family home,
Down House, in London, on April 19, 1882, and was buried at Westminster Abbey.
During the next century, DNA studies revealed evidence of his theory of evolution,
although controversy surrounding its conflict with Creationism—the religious view
that all of nature was born of God—still abounds today.
 Charles Darwin’s Theory of
Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and
has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and
the flowers -- all related.

Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and
stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is,
complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a
nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the
beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as
"natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next
generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely
different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different
creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection

While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the

evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers
such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the
evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought
something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural
selection."

Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic

mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it
grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass
it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species
would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the
species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables
a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic
equivalent to domestic breeding.

Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic
animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate
undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates
inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous

advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the
past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly
complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the
microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote,
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12
grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing
thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made
up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than
any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living
world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the
ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not
recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose
that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
 Examples of Evolution

1. The Peppered Moth

I’ll start this list with a classic example of evolution which can be found in
many textbooks. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston
betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against
predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the
peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95%
of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why
this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of
camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths
were eaten more frequently by birds.

The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently,

usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a
major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural
selection.
Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks

The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses
a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant
changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of
New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from
laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it
gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth.
Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live
born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the
mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the
first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta.
Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather
is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in
the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body
providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two
populations will at some point separate into different species as each population
becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy.

This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes,

why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species
formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for
their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still
egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

The Arms Race between Crabs and Mussels

Evolution often happens in tandem; a predator evolves an improved hunting

method, and any mutations in the prey species that aid survivability will be
selected for leading to a change in the prey population. We do not have to wait
for a predator to evolve to observe this, however; modern humans have been
transporting species around the world, and thus we can observe new species
interactions. The Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) is an invasive
species in New England which feeds on the native blue mussels. It has recently
been observed that mussels, when they detect Asian shore crabs, develop
thicker shells to stop the crabs eating them. This shell thickening behavior is
costly to the mussels, and so is heavily regulated. The evolutionary factor here
is that only mussels from regions where Asian shore crabs are endemic will
thicken their walls when exposed to the crabs. Those mussels from other
regions do not detect the crabs as a threat. Here we observe the starting shots in
an evolutionary arms race.

Italian Wall Lizards

In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island
of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and
compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod
Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have
thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a
mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to
have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards
is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing
with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of
cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to
slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in
the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel
development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

Cane Toads

The cane toad in Australia is probably one of the world’s most famous
invasive species. It does immense harm to agriculture and native species.
Australia is big, for those who don’t know, and it takes time for an invasive
species to spread. Those toads at the front of the invasion wave are likely those
best adapted for spreading fastest. Of course, these fast-spreading toads will
breed with each other as only other fast toads will be at the front. This is
charmingly called ‘the Olympic village effect’ and will reinforce the adaptations
which put these toads at the front. When toads at the front of the invasion wave
were studied, they were found to be bigger, hardier, had longer legs allowing for
greater speed, and were more active. As a result of these sorts of adaptations the
rate at which cane toads spread has been increasing ever since they were
introduced.
Darwin’s Finches

This is not going to be a simple recap of Darwin’s original observations of

adaptation amongst the finches of the Galapagos. These finches are still helping
evolution be understood. Peter and Rosemary Grant studied the finches on one
of the Galapagos Islands, and have observed evolutionary change caused by
direct competition of two rival species. The medium ground finch was well
established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was
suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a
neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native
medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of
study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have
developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the
invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.
Butterflies and Parasites

Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens

incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the
Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male
embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of
the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had
returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has
disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This
case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout
a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to
mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread
his immunity through the gene pool.

Evolution in the Lab

As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that
evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since
1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations
from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000
generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the
populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been
documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated
genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become
far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided
evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed
the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E.
 coli under similar conditions. “Life Evolves!” This quote is from a brilliant
letter Lenski wrote to a particularly odious creationist.

The Human Evolution

Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of
anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates
– in particular genus Homo – and leading to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a
distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes.

The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including

physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology,
ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.Genetic
studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years
ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene,
around 55 million years ago.

Within the Hominoidea (apes) superfamily, the Hominidae family diverged from
the Hylobatidae (gibbon) family some 15–20 million years ago; African great apes
(subfamily Homininae) diverged from orangutans (Ponginae) about 14 million
years ago; the Hominini tribe (humans, Australopithecines and other extinct biped
genera, and chimpanzee) parted from the Gorillini tribe (gorillas) between 9
million years ago and 8 million years ago; and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina
(humans and biped ancestors) and Panina (chimps) separated about 7.5 million
years ago to 5.6 million years ago. is the evolutionary process that led to the
emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary
history of primates – in particular genus Homo – and leading to the emergence of
Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes.
 The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including
physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology,
ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.Genetic
studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years
ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene,
around 55 million years ago.

Within the Hominoidea (apes) superfamily, the Hominidae family diverged from
the Hylobatidae (gibbon) family some 15–20 million years ago; African great apes
(subfamily Homininae) diverged from orangutans (Ponginae) about 14 million
years ago; the Hominini tribe (humans, Australopithecines and other extinct biped
genera, and chimpanzee) parted from the Gorillini tribe (gorillas) between 9
million years ago and 8 million years ago; and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina
(humans and biped ancestors) and Panina (chimps) separated about 7.5 million
years ago to 5.6 million years ago.

Anatomical Changes
Human evolution from its first separation from the last common ancestor of
humans and chimpanzees is characterized by a number of morphological,
developmental, physiological, and behavioral changes. The most significant of
these adaptations are bipedalism, increased brain size, lengthened ontogeny
(gestation and infancy), and decreased sexual dimorphism. The relationship
between these changes is the subject of ongoing debate. Other significant
morphological changes included the evolution of a power and precision grip, a
change first occurring in Homo Erectus.

Bipedalism
Bipedalism is the basic adaptation of the hominin and is considered the main
cause behind a suite of skeletal changes shared by all bipedal hominins. The
earliest hominin, of presumably primitive bipedalism, is considered to be either
Sahelanthropus or Orrorin, both of which arose some 6 to 7 million years ago. The
non-bipedal knuckle-walkers, the gorilla and chimpanzee, diverged from the
hominin line over a period covering the same time, so either of Sahelanthropus or
Orrorin may be our last shared ancestor. Ardipithecus, a full biped, arose somewhat
later.

The early bipeds eventually evolved into the australopithecines and still later into
the genus Homo. There are several theories of the adaptation value of bipedalism.
It is possible that bipedalism was favored because it freed the hands for reaching
and carrying food, saved energy during locomotion, enabled long distance running
and hunting, provided an enhanced field of vision, and helped avoid hyperthermia
by reducing the surface area exposed to direct sun; features all advantageous for
thriving in the new savanna and woodland environment created as a result of the
East African Rift Valley uplift versus the previous closed forest habitat. A new
study provides support for the hypothesis that walking on two legs, or bipedalism,
evolved because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking. However,
recent studies suggest that bipedality without the ability to use fire would not have
allowed global dispersal. This change in gait saw a lengthening of the legs
proportionately when compared to the length of the arms, which were shortened
through the removal of the need for brachiation. Another change is the shape of the
big toe. Recent studies suggest that Australopithecines still lived part of the time in
trees as a result of maintaining a grasping big toe. This was progressively lost in
Habilines.

Anatomically, the evolution of bipedalism has been accompanied by a large

number of skeletal changes, not just to the legs and pelvis, but also to the vertebral
column, feet and ankles, and skull. The femur evolved into a slightly more angular
position to move the center of gravity toward the geometric center of the body. The
knee and ankle joints became increasingly robust to better support increased
weight. To support the increased weight on each vertebra in the upright position,
the human vertebral column became S-shaped and the lumbar vertebrae became
shorter and wider. In the feet the big toe moved into alignment with the other toes
to help in forward locomotion. The arms and forearms shortened relative to the
legs making it easier to run. The foramen magnum migrated under the skull and
more anterior.

The most significant changes occurred in the pelvic region, where the long
downward facing iliac blade was shortened and widened as a requirement for
keeping the center of gravity stable while walking; bipedal hominids have a
shorter but broader, bowl-like pelvis due to this. A drawback is that the birth canal
of bipedal apes is smaller than in knuckle-walking apes, though there has been a
widening of it in comparison to that of australopithecine and modern humans,
permitting the passage of newborns due to the increase in cranial size but this is
limited to the upper portion, since further increase can hinder normal bipedal
movement.

The shortening of the pelvis and smaller birth canal evolved as a requirement for
bipedalism and had significant effects on the process of human birth which is much
more difficult in modern humans than in other primates. During human birth,
because of the variation in size of the pelvic region, the fetal head must be in a
transverse position (compared to the mother) during entry into the birth canal and
rotate about 90 degrees upon exit. The smaller birth canal became a limiting factor
to brain size increases in early humans and prompted a shorter gestation period
leading to the relative immaturity of human offspring, who are unable to walk
much before 12 months and have greater neoteny, compared to other primates, who
are mobile at a much earlier age. The increased brain growth after birth and the
increased dependency of children on mothers had a big effect upon the female
reproductive cycle, and the more frequent appearance of alloparenting in humans
when compared with other hominids. Delayed human sexual maturity also led to
the evolution of menopause with one explanation providing that elderly women
could better pass on their genes by taking care of their daughter's offspring, as
compared to having more children of their own.

Encephalization
 The human species eventually developed a much larger brain than that of other
primates—typically 1,330 cm3 in modern humans, nearly three times the size of
that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.[21] The pattern of encephalization started with
Homo habilis, after a hiatus with Anamensis and Ardipithecus species which had
smaller brains as a result of their bipedal locomotion which at approximately 600
cm3 Homo habilus had a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees, and this
evolution continued with Homo erectus (800–1,100 cm3), reaching a maximum in
Neanderthals with an average size of (1,200–1,900 cm3), larger even than modern
Homo sapiens. This pattern of brain increase happened through the pattern of
human postnatal brain growth which differs from that of other apes (heterochrony).
It also allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in
juvenile humans which may have begun 2 million years ago. However, the
differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes may be
even more significant than differences in size.

The increase in volume over time has affected areas within the brain unequally—
the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased
disproportionately, and seems to favor a belief that there was evolution after
leaving Africa, as has the prefrontal cortex which has been related to complex
decision-making and moderating social behavior. Encephalization has been tied to
an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet, or with the development of cooking,
and it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased
necessity for solving social problems as human society became more complex. The
human brain was able to expand because of the changes in the morphology of
smaller mandibles and mandible muscle attachments to the skull into allowing
more room for the brain to grow.

The increase in volume of the neocortex also included a rapid increase in size of
the cerebellum. Traditionally the cerebellum has been associated with a
paleocerebellum and archicerebellum as well as a neocerebellum. Its function has
also traditionally been associated with balance, fine motor control but more
recently speech and cognition. The great apes including humans and its antecessors
had a more pronounced development of the cerebellum relative to the neocortex
than other primates. It has been suggested that because of its function of sensory-
motor control and assisting in learning complex muscular action sequences, the
cerebellum may have underpinned the evolution of human's technological
adaptations including the preadaptation of speech.

The reason for this encephalization is difficult to discern, as the major changes
from Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis were not associated with major
changes in technology. It has been suggested that the changes have been associated
with social changes, increased empathic abilities and increases in size of social
groupings.

-tooth size and brain size in hominis

Sexual Dimorphism

The reduced degree of sexual dimorphism is visible primarily in the reduction of

the male canine tooth relative to other ape species (except gibbons) and reduced
brow ridges and general robustness of males. Another important physiological
change related to sexuality in humans was the evolution of hidden estrus. Humans
and bonobos are the only apes in which the female is fertile year round and in
which no special signals of fertility are produced by the body (such as genital
swelling during estrus).

Nonetheless, humans retain a degree of sexual dimorphism in the distribution of

body hair and subcutaneous fat, and in the overall size, males being around 15%
larger than females. These changes taken together have been interpreted as a result
of an increased emphasis on pair bonding as a possible solution to the requirement
for increased parental investment due to the prolonged infancy of offspring.

Other Changes

A number of other changes have also characterized the evolution of humans,

among them an increased importance on vision rather than smell; a smaller gut;
loss of body hair; evolution of sweat glands; a change in the shape of the dental
arcade from being u-shaped to being parabolic; development of a chin (found in
Homo sapiens alone); development of styloid processes; and the development of a
descended larynx.
 Evidence

The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution are based comes
from many fields of natural science. The main source of knowledge about the
evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the
development of genetics beginning in the 1970s, DNA analysis has come to occupy
a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and
especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and
invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how
humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is
anthropology, particularly paleoanthropology which focuses on the study of human
prehistory.

Evidence from Molecular Biology

The closest living relatives of humans are bonobos and chimpanzees (both genus
Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla). With the sequencing of both the human and
chimpanzee genome, current estimates of the similarity between their DNA
sequences range between 95% and 99%. By using the technique called the
molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent
mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split
between lineages can be calculated.

The gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and then orangutans (genus Pongo) were the
first groups to split from the line leading to the hominins, including humans—
followed by gorillas, and, ultimately, by the chimpanzees (genus Pan). The
splitting date between hominin and chimpanzee lineages is placed by some
between 4 to 8 million years ago, that is, during the Late Miocene. Speciation,
however, appears to have been unusually drawn-out. Initial divergence occurred
sometime between 7 to 13 million years ago, but ongoing hybridization blurred the
separation and delayed complete separation during several millions of years.
Patterson (2006) dated the final divergence at 5 to 6 million years ago.

Genetic evidence has also been employed to resolve the question of whether
there was any gene flow between early modern humans and Neanderthals, and to
enhance our understanding of the early human migration patterns and splitting
dates. By comparing the parts of the genome that are not under natural selection
and which therefore accumulate mutations at a fairly steady rate, it is possible to
reconstruct a genetic tree incorporating the entire human species since the last
shared ancestor.

Each time a certain mutation (Single-nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an

individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed
including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation.
By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother,
geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic
marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have
lived around 200,000 years ago.

Evidence from Genetics

Human evolutionary genetics studies how one human genome differs from the
other, the evolutionary past that gave rise to it, and its current effects. Differences
between genomes have anthropological, medical and forensic implications and
applications. Genetic data can provide important insight into human evolution.
Evidence from Fossil Record

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and
hominin lineages. The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the
hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago,
Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago, and Ardipithecus kadabba
dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal
ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is
also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of
African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other
apes.

The question then of the relationship between these early fossil species and the
hominin lineage is still to be resolved. From these early species, the
australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago and diverged into robust (also
called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi)
probably went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo. The australopithecine
species that is best represented in the fossil record is Australopithecus afarensis
with more than one hundred fossil individuals represented, found from Northern
Ethiopia (such as the famous "Lucy"), to Kenya, and South Africa. Fossils of
robust australopithecines such as Au. robustus (or alternatively Paranthropus
robustus) and Au./P. boisei are particularly abundant in South Africa at sites such
as Kromdraai and Swartkrans, and around Lake Turkana in Kenya.

The earliest member of the genus Homo is Homo habilis which evolved around
2.8 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive
evidence of the use of stone tools. They developed the Oldowan lithic technology,
named after the Olduvai Gorge in which the first specimens were found. Some
scientists consider Homo rudolfensis, a larger bodied group of fossils with similar
morphology to the original H. habilis fossils, to be a separate species while others
consider them to be part of H. habilis—simply representing intraspecies variation,
or perhaps even sexual dimorphism. The brains of these early hominins were about
the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as
an adaptation to terrestrial living.

During the next million years, a process of encephalization began and, by the
arrival (about 1.9 million years ago) of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial
capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominins to emigrate
from Africa, and, from 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago, this species spread through
Africa, Asia, and Europe. One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified
as a separate species Homo ergaster, remained in Africa and evolved into Homo
sapiens. It is believed that these species, H. erectus and H. ergaster, were the first
to use fire and complex tools.

The earliest transitional fossils between H. ergaster/erectus and archaic H.

sapiens are from Africa, such as Homo rhodesiensis, but seemingly transitional
forms were also found at Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of African H.
erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H.
antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The earliest fossils of
anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years
ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia; later fossils from Es Skhul cave in Israel
and Southern Europe begin around 90,000 years ago (0.09 million years ago).

As modern humans spread out from Africa, they encountered other hominins
such as Homo neanderthalensis and the so-called Denisovans, who may have
evolved from populations of Homo erectus that had left Africa around 2 million
years ago. The nature of interaction between early humans and these sister species
has been a long-standing source of controversy, the question being whether
humans replaced these earlier species or whether they were in fact similar enough
to interbreed, in which case these earlier populations may have contributed genetic
material to modern humans.
 This migration out of Africa is estimated to have begun about 70,000 years BP
(Before Present) and modern humans subsequently spread globally, replacing
earlier hominins either through competition or hybridization. They inhabited
Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas by at least 14,500 years
BP.

Replica of fossil skull of Homo habilis. Fossil number KNM ER 1813, found at Koobi Fora, Kenya.

Replica of fossil skull of Homo ergaster (African Homo erectus). Fossil number Khm-Heu 3733 discovered in 1975 in
Kenya.
The results of evolution on the skeleton of man as a result of bipedialism.
Brain size in homini.

Controversy
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution
debate or the origins debate) involves an ongoing, recurring cultural, political, and
theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life.
Within the Christian world creationism was once widely believed to be true, but
since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as
an empirical scientific fact. Efforts to sustain the traditional view are widely
regarded in the scientific community as pseudoscience. While the controversy has
a long history, today it has retreated to be mainly over what constitutes good
science education, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the
teaching of creation and evolution in public education. Among majority-Christian
countries, the debate is most prominent in the United States, and to a lesser extent
in Europe and elsewhere, and is often portrayed as part of a culture war. Parallel
controversies also exist in some other religious communities, such as the more
fundamentalist branches of Judaism and Islam.

Christian fundamentalists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans

and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and
cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of
modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They
argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science
("creation science").

The Catholic Church now recognizes the existence of evolution (see Catholic
Church and evolution). Pope Francis has stated: "God is not a divine being or a
magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life...Evolution in nature is
not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation
of beings that evolve." The rules of genetic evolutionary inheritance were first
discovered by a Catholic priest, the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel, who is
known today as the founder of modern genetics.

According to a 2014 Gallup survey, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to

believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view
that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe
humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary
process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising."[21]

The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion, and the
United States National Academy of Sciences states:

“Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has

produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history.
Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths
are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe
and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that
they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.
Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be
those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.”

— National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism

A satirical cartoon from 1882, parodying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, on the publication of The Formation
of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms (1881)

History
The creation–evolution controversy began in Europe and North America in the
late 18th century, when new interpretations of geological evidence led to various
theories of an ancient earth, and findings of extinctions demonstrated in the fossil
geological sequence prompted early ideas of evolution, notably Lamarckism. In
England these ideas of continuing change were at first seen as a threat to the
existing "fixed" social order, and both church and state sought to repress them.
Conditions gradually eased, and in 1844 Robert Chambers's controversial Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation popularised the idea of gradual transmutation of
species. The scientific establishment at first dismissed it scornfully and the Church
of England reacted with fury, but many Unitarians, Quakers and Baptists—groups
opposed to the privileges of the established church—favoured its ideas of God
acting through such natural laws.

Contemporary Reaction to Darwin

The publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 brought scientific

credibility to evolution, and made it a respectable field of study.
 Despite the intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book,
theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews (1860)
largely diverted the Church of England's attention. Some of the liberal Christian
authors of that work expressed support for Darwin, as did many Nonconformists.
The Reverend Charles Kingsley, for instance, openly supported the idea of God
working through evolution. Other Christians opposed the idea, and even some of
Darwin's close friends and supporters—including Charles Lyell and Asa Gray—
initially expressed reservations about some of his ideas. Gray later became a
staunch supporter of Darwin in America, and collected together a number of his
own writings to produce an influential book, Darwiniana (1876). These essays
argued for a conciliation between Darwinian evolution and the tenets of theism, at
a time when many on both sides perceived the two as mutually exclusive. Gray
said that investigation of physical causes was not opposed to the theological view
and the study of the harmonies between mind and Nature, and thought it "most
presumable that an intellectual conception realized in Nature would be realized
through natural agencies." Thomas Huxley, who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas
while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the clergy, coined the term
agnostic to describe his position that God's existence is unknowable. Darwin also
took this position, but prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig
Büchner also took up evolution and it was criticised, in the words of one reviewer,
as "tantamount to atheism." Following the lead of figures such as St. George
Jackson Mivart and John Augustine Zahm, Roman Catholics in the United States
became accepting of evolution itself while ambivalent towards natural selection
and stressing humanity's divinely imbued soul. The Catholic Church never
condemned evolution, and initially the more conservative-leaning Catholic
leadership in Rome held back, but gradually adopted a similar position.

During the late 19th century evolutionary ideas were most strongly disputed by
the premillennialists, who held to a prophecy of the imminent return of Christ
based on a form of Biblical literalism, and were convinced that the Bible would be
invalidated if any error in the Scriptures was conceded. However, hardly any of the
critics of evolution at that time were as concerned about geology, freely granting
scientists any time they needed before the Edenic creation to account for scientific
observations, such as fossils and geological findings. In the immediate post-
Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the
progressive nature of the fossil record. Likewise, few attached geological
significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists. Evolutionary
skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to
adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, or allowed
that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.

Science professors at liberal northeastern universities almost immediately

embraced the theory of evolution and introduced it to their students. However,
some people in parts of the south and west of the United States, which had been
influenced by the preachings of Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, rejected the
theory as immoral.

In the United Kingdom, Evangelical creationists were in a tiny minority. The

Victoria Institute was formed in 1865 in response to Essays and Reviews and
Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It was not officially opposed to evolution
theory, but its main founder James Reddie objected to Darwin's work as
"inharmonious" and "utterly incredible", and Philip Henry Gosse, author of
Omphalos, was a vice-president. The institute's membership increased to 1897,
then declined sharply. In the 1920s George McCready Price attended and made
several presentations of his creationist views, which found little support among the
members. In 1927 John Ambrose Fleming was made president; while he insisted
on creation of the soul, his acceptance of divinely guided development and of Pre-
Adamite humanity meant he was thought of as a theistic evolutionist.
A satirical image of Darwin as an ape from 1871 reflects part of the social controversy over the fact that
humans and apes share a common lineage.

British Creationism
The main British creationist movement in this period, the Evolution Protest
Movement (EPM), formed in the 1930s out of the Victoria Institute, or
Philosophical Society of Great Britain (founded in 1865 in response to the
publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 and of Essays and
Reviews in 1860). The Victoria Institute had the stated objective of defending "the
great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely
so called".[citation needed] Although it did not officially oppose evolution, it
attracted a number of scientists sceptical of Darwinism, including John William
Dawson and Arnold Guyot. It reached a high point of 1,246 members in 1897, but
quickly plummeted to less than one third of that figure in the first two decades of
the twentieth century.

Although it opposed evolution at first, the institute joined the theistic evolution
camp by the 1920s, which led to the development of the Evolution Protest
Movement in reaction. Amateur ornithologist Douglas Dewar, the main driving-
force within the EPM, published a booklet entitled Man: A Special Creation (1936)
and engaged in public speaking and debates with supporters of evolution. In the
late 1930s he resisted American creationists' call for acceptance of flood geology,
which later led to conflict within the organisation. Despite trying to win the public
endorsement of C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), the most prominent Christian apologist
of his day,[citation needed] by the mid-1950s the EPM came under control of
schoolmaster/pastor Albert G. Tilney, whose dogmatic and authoritarian style ran
the organisation "as a one-man band", rejecting flood geology, unwaveringly
promoting gap creationism, and reducing the membership to lethargic inactivity.
[48] It was renamed the Creation Science Movement (CSM) in 1980, under the
chairmanship of David Rosevear, who holds a Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry
from the University of Bristol. By the mid-1980s the CSM had formally
incorporated flood geology into its "Deed of Trust" (which all officers had to sign)
and condemned gap creationism and day-age creationism as unscriptural.

Viewpoints
Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that the Earth was created by God
within the last 10,000 years, literally as described in Genesis, within the
approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher
chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar
age to the Earth's. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist
thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and
other Young-Earth timeframes.

This belief generally has a basis in biblical literalism and completely rejects
science; "creation science" is pseudoscience that attempts to prove that young-earth
creationism is consistent with science.
Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but
that the creation event of Genesis within 6 days is not to be taken strictly literally.
This group generally accepts the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth as
described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory
are questionable. Old Earth creationists interpret the Genesis creation narrative in a
number of ways, each differing from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of
the young Earth creationist view.

Neo-creationism

Neo-creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of

creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a
philosophy. They wish to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-
religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the
public. Neo-creationists may be either young Earth or old Earth creationists, and
hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints (e.g. on the interpretation of the
Bible). Neo-creationism currently exists in the form of the intelligent design
movement, which has a 'big tent' strategy making it inclusive of many young Earth
creationists (such as Paul Nelson and Percival Davis).

Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to
biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and
creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including,
specifically, evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by a creator god,
who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is
therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic)
convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of
the Genesis creation myth; most adherents consider that the first chapters of
Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary
framework or allegory.

This position generally accepts the viewpoint of methodological naturalism, a

long-standing convention of the scientific method in science.

Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing creationism

(including intelligent design). Notable examples have been biologist Kenneth R.
Miller and theologian John F. Haught, who testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District. Another example is the Clergy Letter Project, an
organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American
Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific
reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. Theistic evolutionists
have also been active in Citizens Alliances for Science that oppose the introduction
of creationism into public school science classes (one example being evangelical
Christian geologist Keith B. Miller, who is a prominent board member of Kansas
Citizens for Science).

Agnostic evolution

Agnostic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution,

combined with the belief that it is not important whether God is, was, or will have
been involved.

Materialistic evolution
 Materialistic evolution is the acceptance of biological evolution, combined with
the position that if the supernatural exists, it has little to no influence on the
material world (a position common to philosophical naturalists, humanists and
atheists). It is a view championed by the New Atheists, who argue strongly that the
creationist viewpoint is not only dangerous, but is completely rejected by science.

Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often
leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. Principles such as
uniformitarianism, Occam's razor or parsimony, and the Copernican principle are
claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism,
which is equated by many creationists with atheism.[103] In countering this claim,
philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the
long-standing convention in science of the scientific method. The methodological
assumption is that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes,
without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and therefore
supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of science.
Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that
scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.

Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori assumptions,

error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols, it remains
neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality. Mainstream proponents
accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.

Theory vs. Fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against
the exclusive teaching of evolution.[108] The argument is related to a common
misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In
common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven
assumptions. In science, "theory" usually means "a well-substantiated explanation
of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses." For comparison, the National Academy of Sciences defines a
fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical
purposes is accepted as 'true'." It notes, however, that "truth in science ... is never
final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded
tomorrow."

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

“ Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different
things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go
away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air,
pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they
did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

— Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a

way to distinguish science and pseudoscience : testable theories are scientific, but
those that are untestable are not. In Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come
to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a
metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific
theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character.
 In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping," opponents of
evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and
claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program. For
example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover
magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is
a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated
that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally
religious)."

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-
evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of
life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be
tested." Creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth
is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by
Popper, and claimed it never would be.

In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[120] Only a

few years later, Popper wrote, "I have in the past described the theory as 'almost
tautological' ... I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research
programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and
logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an
opportunity to make a recantation." His conclusion, later in the article is "The
theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In
this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true."

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of

falsifiability in science continues. Simple falsifiability tests for common descent
have been offered by some scientists: for instance, biologist and prominent critic of
creationism Richard Dawkins and J. B. S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil
rabbits were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex
lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water."
 Falsifiability has caused problems for creationists: in his 1982 decision McLean
v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as
one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public
schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science."

Conflation of science and religion

Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is

a religion; it is not a science," in order to undermine the higher ground biologists
claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between
science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally
religious beliefs—or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent
design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of
evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists."

This is generally argued by analogy, by arguing that evolution and religion have
one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples
of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith,
that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of
evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.[129][130] These
claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement
has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use
of a seemingly anti-religious analogy.[131]

In response, supporters of evolution have argued that no scientist's claims,

including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's
theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first
neo-Darwinism and later the modern evolutionary synthesis.[132][133]

Appeal to consequences
 A number of creationists have blurred the boundaries between their disputes over
the truth of the underlying facts, and explanatory theories, of evolution, with their
purported philosophical and moral consequences. This type of argument is known
as an appeal to consequences, and is a logical fallacy. Examples of these arguments
include those of prominent creationists such as Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris.

Science education

Creationists promoted the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis with scientists
criticizing evolution and claim that fairness and equal time requires educating
students about the alleged scientific controversy.

Opponents, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and

science education organizations, reply that there is no scientific controversy and
that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.

George Mason University Biology Department introduced a course on the

creation/evolution controversy, and apparently as students learn more about
biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing, suggesting that
"teaching the controversy" rightly as a separate elective course on philosophy or
history of science, or "politics of science and religion," would undermine
creationists' criticisms, and that the scientific community's resistance to this
approach was bad public relations.[

Freedom of speech

Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching creationism

violates their right of freedom of speech. Court cases (such as Webster v. New
Lenox School District (1990) and Bishop v. Aronov (1991)) have upheld school
districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.

Sources
1.Skoog, Gerald (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". National Science Teachers
Association. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved
2014-08-27.

2.IAP Member Academies (June 21, 2006). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of
Evolution". IAP. Trieste, Italy: The World Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2014-
08-27.

3."Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American

Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-07-31. "Some bills seek to
discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or
'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have
absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching
non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be
taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there
is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of
the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of
evolution is not a scientific one."

4.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20,
2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83.

5.Larson 2004, p. 258: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of

creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific
arguments for their position."

Numbers 1992, pp. 3–240

6.Montgomery, David R. (November 2012). "The evolution of creationism" (PDF).

GSA Today. Geological Society of America. 22 (11): 4–9.
doi:10.1130/GSATG158A.1. Retrieved 2016-01-28.

7.Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez (December 22, 2005). "The Evolution

Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?" (PDF). Pacific Lutheran
Theological Seminary. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary.
Evolution Brief E2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 November 2010.
Retrieved 2014-08-27.

8.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20,
2005). Context, p. 20.

9.Slevin, Peter (March 14, 2005). "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens". The
Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

10.Renka, Russell D. (November 16, 2005). "The Political Design of Intelligent

Design". Renka's Home Page. Round Rock, TX. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

11.Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the
Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
12.Forrest, Barbara (April 2002). "The Newest Evolution of Creationism". Natural
History. Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc. 111 (3): 80.
ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-06-06.

13.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20,
2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9, also Whether ID Is Science, pp. 64–89, and
Promoting Religion, p. 90.

14.Curry, Andrew (February 27, 2009). "Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe".

Science. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
323 (5918): 1159. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1159. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID
19251601. "News coverage of the creationism-versus-evolution debate tends to
focus on the United States ... But in the past 5 years, political clashes over the issue
have also occurred in countries all across Europe. ... 'This isn't just an American
problem,' says Dittmar Graf of the Technical University of Dortmund, who
organized the meeting."

Larson 2004, pp. 247–263, Chapter 11: "Modern Culture Wars"

15. Ruse 1999, p. 26: "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that,
contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed
[Conflict thesis] ... religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently
been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."

16.Cantor, Geoffrey and Marc Swetlitz, (editors). Jewish Tradition and the
Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. 2006. ISBN 978-0-226-
09276-8

17.Burton, Elise K. (May–June 2010). "Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran

and Saudi Arabia Compared". Reports of the National Center for Science
Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 30 (3): 25–29.
ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-01-13.
18.McKenna, Josephine (October 28, 2014). "Pope says evolution, Big Bang are
real". USA Today. Tysons Corner, VA: Gannett Company. Religion News Service.
Retrieved 2016-01-28.

19.Gordon, Kara (October 30, 2014). "The Pope's Views on Evolution Haven't
Really Evolved". The Atlantic. Washington, D.C.: Atlantic Media. ISSN 1072-
7825. Retrieved 2016-01-28.

20.Newport, Frank (June 2, 2014). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of
Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-02.

21.NAS 2008, p. 12

22.Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35

23.van Wyhe, John (2006). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist". The Complete
Work of Charles Darwin Online. John van Wyhe. Retrieved 2014-08-27.