Evolution Research Paper Sample
As a global content agency, we present you an example of Evolution Research Paper, written by our expert writers. Look at the below paragraphs to deepen your knowledge and analyze the sample research paper.
Evolution Research Paper: Abstract
The evolution theory has been suggested by Darwin on November 24, 1859, which means 160 years before our time. Although this theory has already ingrained in our society, people are still struggling to understand and accept it. There are different aspects of remarks in this matter to whether to take it or not. Even most of the educated people are having a hard time to understand Darwin's theory. This paper aims to explain the reasons behind the non-understanding of the non-acceptance of evolution theory. Three different sources have been used to maintain scientific credibility. There are five different approaches not categorized in the paper but can be distinguished while reading, such as insufficient understanding of the empirical evidence and the essence of modern evolutionary theory, inadequate knowledge of the nature of science, various psychological factors, religion, and political and social factors.
Keywords: evolution, cognitive dissonance, NOS, Darwin’s theory
The evolution theory has been suggested by Darwin on November 24, 1859, which means 160 years before our time. Although this theory has already ingrained in our society, people are still struggling to understand and accept it. There are different aspects of remarks in this matter to whether to take it or not. Even most of the educated people are having a hard time to understand Darwin's theory. It is hard to believe and perceive that our body functions did not evolve to walk, eat, or see. On the other hand, it is easier to think that divine powers created us with this intelligent design to live. In addition to that, there is the concept of the "meaning of life."
Method and Results
I have used Google Scholar to find the related papers, and I have searched about the keywords that I believe will be useful for my article. The topic is critical and popular. That is why I did not struggle to find sources. I looked up for new concepts and approaches which are scientifically validated and appropriate for modern evolutionary thinking. In this survey, I have understood that this subject is highly extensive and intricate to acknowledge it precisely. One must research and try to perceive the concepts accurately without transcendental approaches.
The natural selection and evolution concepts were emphasized 160 years ago, but still, even scientists argue its meaning, try to comprehend, and accept its validation. People tend to believe that there is a divine power that made possible all the "real" consonant of our physical world because it is hard to believe that there is no "meaning" in life. Also, the concept that "the world is created for human and human functions perfectly because of the "intelligent design of God." Most of the controversies are thrown out for consideration from religious groups and communities because evolution underhandedly threatening the concepts of "being" in their minds and their dignified meaning of life though what really evolution is meaning, and this generally happens due to inadequate understanding of the empirical evidence.
When Charles Darwin published his book, "On the Origin of Species," in 1859, the importance of evolutionary idea was increased. In conjunction with evolutionary ideas, the objections to those ideas also came to prominence. The evolution theory claims that species arose through descent with modification from a single common ancestor in a process driven by natural selection. The method of evolution rejected by scientists with different theories, but over time, the theory was accepted in scientific communities. Since the 1940s, it has been uncontroversial among biologists with the modern evolutionary synthesis explaining the evidence. Most denials and criticisms of the theory have claimed by the religious communities, not the scientific communities.
During that time, some of the communities changed their beliefs. They accepted the explanations through "theistic evolution." Still, there are also many groups that do not accept the evolution at all due to creationism, the belief that the universe, life and people were created by divine forces. Creation-evolution controversy has always been the most crucial conflict that cannot be perceived by societies around the world. It is the focal point of the debates between religion and science. Creationism has various branches, and some of them, such as neo-creationism, intelligent design and creation science, debates the idea that creationism is as scientific as the evolution theory (Allmon, 2011). They claim a creator or intelligence design that has the same qualifications to be taught in education as evolution theory. These arguments against evolution theory have become prevalent and contain objections to evidence, plausibility, morality, methodology and scientific validation. Scientific communities do not accept these objections as accurate because, most of the time, it is the misinterpretation of scientific methods, evidence and psychical laws.
Initial approaches and studies of the basic principles of science by the teachers who are qualified and the scientist will help the people to approve what the theory of evolution refers to, a view that based on the reality that should be accepted worldwide rather than dogma and mysticism. Still, people reject the idea, and the number of these people in the cake is higher. The agents of non-acceptance of the evolution theory can be grouped into categories such as a deficient understanding of the empirical evidence and the composition of modern evolutionary theory, lacking knowledge of the natural science, religion, psychological factors, political and social factors. This variety of premises is not adequately acknowledged by most of the scientist, instructors, and reporters. The extensive rejection of the theory is a much more complicated issue than it is to be thought by many.
Therefore, solutions to the widespread belief that evolution is not valid must include specific ideas and approaches not only about religion and science controversy but also modern theories and evidence. The ideas must also include the optimum communication of empirical evidence for the theory, more precise explication of the nature of science and particularly emphasizing the various compelling psychological impediments that evolution theory demonstrates to most of the people since the idea is counterintuitive. The intuitive theory is not belonging to Darwin; the argument assumes finality. We cannot easily accept that our body is not made for their current functions. It can be claimed to be reasonable to find structures we see and observe in the world have designed for their tasks, and it is indeed an intelligent design as expressed by Bishop Paley in his "Natural Theology" (Paley, W. Natural theology. American Tract Society). Paley claimed, if there is a watch on the beach, it proves the presence of a watchmaker, all of the living creatures show the divine power.
The matter is often argued, and even in the scientific literature, the subject of biological design is so distinctive that it frequently appears. Matt Ridley, who is highly component in evolutionary biology, states an instance: "Reverse transcriptase is a gene that functions no purpose at all as far as the human body concerned, but it is useful to the AIDS virus" (2017). Indeed, one cannot find it surprising to consider about any biological structure which are presenting well-adapted functions. The final view is ontologically proved to be wrong, but epistemologically, it is an acceptable alternative when describing how things are working.The principle of the evolution theory of Darwin is more challenging to perceive. First of all, one needs to be recognizing the elements that make the examples credible such as Darwin's finches, the rough struggle for life in various natural habitats, the vast waste of what is achievable in contrary to what is perceived. Darwin developed the argument 160 years ago, and he started with the description of the diversity of domestic pigeons. Currently, people do not have a better way, even though the examples have been adequately extended, peculiar through genetics, molecular biology, and bioinformatics.
However, even among biologists, few are those who can supply, on the point, healthy response to the inquiry that Emma Darwin addressed to her spouse and that he tried to answer in the affiliate "The Difficulties of My Theory." She was accessible to get that transformation/selection can analyze a lot upon evolution, but how can it account for a leg or a gill since they must first exist before selection can take place? Darwin replied that nothing completely new appears in evolution; everything happens in a continuous loop, even if it is deep and twisted. Darwin offered some advice, for instance, the fragile extensions between head and legs of a the galeopitheque, suggests a likely wat toward a flying mammal.
The conflict between reality and intuitive understanding has always been around. The idea that the Earth revolves instead of the Sun, the Copernican idea also emerged vital problems in the past, but currently, the whole world accepts it as self-evident. Although the evolution theory of Darwin proposed 160 years ago, people still cannot take the idea. The hypothesis non-acceptance of a specific scientific outcome, the theory or the idea is generally because inadequate information is intuitively engaging, exclusively to instructors, who evaluate their job typically to be communication and explication of such outcomes, theories and ideas. Some segment of familiarity with empirical "truths" is required for analytical acceptance of the ideas about the material planet (Dubochet, 2011). There is a shred of significant evidence that some non-acceptance of the evolution theory is due to lack of sufficient familiarity with the understanding of the "evidence," the fact that evolution itself has happened and what modern evolutionary theory asserts.
In the general segment, various studies have found that level of instruction is correlated with acceptance of the evolution theory in a positive way through this relation seems to administer less for the intelligent design, many lawyers of which are highly educated. For instance, only 38% of American adults acknowledge that half of their genes in partial with apes; less than half of the adults can supply the littlest description of the role of DNA in genetics. Scientists and instructors similar commonly case that one of the most prominent elements of non-acceptance of evolution is extensive lack of understanding of the "nature of science" symbolizes that in the notable sight 2005 court case on educating intelligent design in school classrooms. Enhancing pupils' understanding of NOS (nitric oxide synthase) is the primary goal of science in the long term.
Another aspect of the problem is that philosophers of science and the scientists themselves still disagree about the nature of science. Customarily, "the scientific method" has been demonstrated as a "fairly rigid sequence of steps, followed like a recipe and leading to irrefutable results" (McComas et al. 1998). The hegemony of realism in science has been standing for a long time. However, it existed roughly, almost from the beginning of the science, with another line of thought, which gives priority the equal parts between human pursuits, like bias, social influence and subjectivity and science. It also argues debates that despite the ultimate success of science, people are not sure about the conclusions as we love to think. These ideas have been debated on various names such as relativism, skepticism, constructivism, deconstructionism, and post-modernism.
Accordingly, there is a fundamental paradox to solve in science: Humankind is considered to have the ability to perceive, sense and comprehend some of the elements of the world, the "real" parts. Yet, the skill is not perfected, and what we make of the world is, mostly shaped because of our feelings to things, our prejudices, hopes, desires, fears and preconceived thoughts as it is by empirical observations and onerous philosophy. To this view, science as scientists does it contain a batch of social interactions and the process that shaped the evidence, explanation, the role of the theory and the development in scientific knowledge. Brown and Gibson stated the idea neatly (1983), "most practicing scientists acknowledge that a scientific inquiry is much more like working on a puzzle or being lost in the woods than baking cookies or following a roadmap."The non-acceptance of the evolution theory also brings new and progressive researches to the order of the day a large and growing one stresses powerfully to a dominant role for psychological agents in how and why specific thoughts are more effortlessly adopted than the others, and which agents constitute remarkable but often undiscovered elements of the rejection of the theory. It can be grouped into two categories and more (Barnes et al., 2020). First, the various processes by which the individual's mind seems to overcome what senses perceiving it and which draw attention to making the decisions that appear contradictory to the anticipated empirical state of the world. Second, are precise, natural psychological elements and biases in how humans perceive and interpret the world.
When logic and rationality contribute to human thought, it is influenced by scientific approaches. However, still, human reasoning is shroud with affective impacts such as wishes, emotions, hopes, beliefs, illusions, and faith. One explanation for these psychological devices seems to be curtailing "cognitive dissonance," which leads an individual to avert or reject extra information that is likely to broaden the dissonance and to look up additional knowledge that will decrease the dissonance. Cognitive dissonance has been considered as a clarification for or subscriber to an array of human behaviors that are entirely against logical and rational appraisal of accessible empirical knowledge that would convey advice, including wishful thinking, gambling, optimism, entrepreneurship and many others that individuals do every day. Such behaviors sometimes are highly advantageous. For instance, optimism is often correlated with better health and peace of mind.
Moreover, there is another psychological dissociation, intentionally or unintentionally seen in non-acceptance of evolution called "self-delusion" or" self-deception," this dissociation allows individuals to assure themselves to think or accept what they logically "acknowledge" is not so. How we feel can also influence what we accept as accurate. Besides, various studies have shown that evolution theory runs counter to elements of human psychology. Also, some of the authors labelled it as "counterintuitive." For instance, acceptance of evolution will resemble a stable current world of shared knowledge is a conclusion of a never-ending change and that convoluted structures emerge from less convoluted without an intentional designer. These "everyday modes" of acknowledging may be natural patterns and modes of perceiving, which collectively often contribute to resonate exceeded with creationist ideas. The patterns or biases can also be seen in early human evolution and among such possible cognitive prejudgments, "two staples of Western philosophical thinking" in precise expressing "serve to inhibit the expression of natural explanations for the origins of species" (Evans, 2001), and the change: essentialism and teleology.
Essentialism has often been described as one of the primary historical obstacles to accepting evolution before Darwin. The thought that all creatures are stable, unchanging, and separate. This idea also appears to have a deep source in human psychology. Finally, the teleological thinking, the concept that innate items have some goal direction provided by self-directing vital power or a divine source, which is the purpose of their performance. Evolutionist claim that the Darwinian evolution approach is inherently non-teleological because it does not anticipate the future, and it is not goal-directed.
Evolution Research Paper: Conclusion
The theory was claimed by Darwin on November 24, 1859. Even though this theory has already rooted among many individuals, people are still struggling to understand and accept it. There are different aspects of remarks in this matter to whether to take it or not. Even most of the educated people are having a hard time to understand Darwin's theory. This paper has focused on explaining the reasons behind the non-understanding of the non-acceptance of evolution theory. Three different sources have been used to maintain scientific credibility. There are five different approaches not categorized in the paper but can be distinguished while reading, such as insufficient understanding of the empirical evidence and the essence of modern evolutionary theory, inadequate knowledge of the nature of science, various psychological factors, religion, and political and social factors.
Allmon, W. D. (2011). Why Don’t People Think Evolution Is True? Implications for Teaching, In and Out of the Classroom. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(4), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-011-0371-0
Barnes, M. E., Dunlop, H. M., Sinatra, G. M., Hendrix, T. M., Zheng, Y., & Brownell, S. E. (2020). “Accepting Evolution Means You Can’t Believe in God”: Atheistic Perceptions of Evolution among College Biology Students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0106
Dubochet, J. (2011). Why is it so difficult to accept Darwin's theory of evolution? BioEssays, 33(4), 240–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201000142
Evans, E. (2001). Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0749
Humphries, C. J., Brown, J. H., & Gibson, A. C. (1984). An Establishment Biogeography. Journal of Biogeography, 11(4), 363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845009
Masci, D. (2019, February 11). For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate. Pew Research Center. https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/.
Mccomas, W. F. (1998). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. The Nature of Science in Science Education Science & Technology Education Library, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3
Multiculturalism and Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture, 393–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3770-8_13
Origin of HIV. (2017). A Guide to AIDS, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21840-6
Paley, W. Natural theology. American Tract Society.
Thank you for reading. If you need further information, feel free to have a look at our essay samples or contact us at live chat.
Recently on Tamara Blog
In today’s world of pandemic, most people have finally understood the significance of public health. In this direction, one should highlight the drawbacks for minor populations and risk groups. Accordingly, in this assignment, six articles related to hand-hygiene standards, locus of control and marginalized populations, children with type 1 diabetes and ASD, pregnant adolescent woman, elder neglect in US, and the impact of financial crisis on healthcare have been annotated.