Some people say that Charles Darwin's theory is not true. Can you explain it to me?

I believe that the question is asking for clarification on Darwin's Theory of Evolution vs. asking for clarification on why people might not believe it.

Often, people assume that Darwin was the first person to think that species evolved and changed over time. That is simply not true. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution in 1809. That’s 50 years before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Darwin’s theory obviously gained more popularity in the long run than Lamark’s because of Darwin’s explanation for how the mechanism of evolution possibly works. Darwin’s theory involves things like adaptation, fitness, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. I’ll take each one in turn.

Through normal genetic changes that result from sexual reproduction and mutations, organisms exhibit small changes from generation to generation. Some of those changes allow a particular organism to be better adapted to a particular environment. An organism that has a beneficial adaptation has a higher level of fitness, and that gives the organism a better chance to survive. That’s why it’s called the survival of the fittest. A surviving organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes. That means the next generation will likely have the beneficial adaptation. A small change has now occurred in a population of organisms. To an observer, it appears as if nature has naturally selected the better adapted, more fit, organisms to survive and pass on their traits. Darwin said that if given enough time, these small changes will add up, and large changes will occur across a species. The changes would be large enough that the current species no longer resembles the original, and a new species has been born. Darwin’s theory explains how species can greatly evolve through small changes.

As for why people might not believe it, in my experience it deals with their religious convictions. For example, some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. That means that Earth and the entire universe were created in six, 24 hour periods. That argument is continued throughout the Biblical history, and some people then believe that Earth is just over 6,000 years old. They don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, because it requires a lot more time than 6,000 years to have passed.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog