Free Custom «Last Natural Selection» Essay Paper

Root-Bernstein offers diverse evidence to support the fact of biological evolution. According to Root-Bernstein, scientific research always leaves a room for physical explanation to transform from theory to the actual truth, and so is the fact of biological evolution. Science is typically driven by the quest of wanting to discover the truth regarding some scientific observations and already stated facts. In support of evolution, Root-Bernstein uses anatomic features of the body to provide an understanding towards the theory of evolution. He uses homologies to assert that biological evolution is a fact that existed. Homologies are body parts that came from the same embryological parts but perform different functions. An example is the human hand and a bat's wings.

Root-Bernstein also supports the biological fact of evolution through the use analogies; which refers to body parts that perform the same function although they are from dissimilar development origins; an example is the wings found in birds and insects. The other form of evidence that Root-Bernstein uses to support evolution is the modifications that began with four-toed Huracotherium and resulted to the modern day one-toed horse; implying that living things are becoming more and more different over a long duration of time. Root-Bernstein asserts that there are two types of evolution: convergent and divergent evolution. Convergent evolution results from different origins to develop into an organism while divergent evolution results from one living organism into many organisms. Vestigial traits also support the biological fact of evolution.

 

Type of service

Type of assignment

Title of your paper *

Academic level

Pages

Timeframe

Spacing

Currency

  Order now

It is challenging to defend scientific facts based on religion. In this context, Root-Bernstein attempts to convince his student that the difference in the number of ribs between men and women can be used to support the theory of evolution without contradicting religious beliefs. According to Root-Bernstein, differences in the number of ribs are a perfect example of homologies. In an attempt to avoid conflicting with the biblical beliefs, Root-Bernstein argues that the missing ribs in males represents a form of inheritance.

An example was the instance of acquired traits which he explains, by the example of generations of circumcised Jewish and Muslim males, it is apparent that their circumcision has no effect on the presence or absence of the penile foreskin. According to Root-Bernstein, ribs are not sex-linked traits. Therefore, there would be no rational explanation as to why males only should be missing the ribs. In addition, the bible offers no description to the number of ribs that Adam had.

According to Lamarck, acquired traits are passed on to the next generations. Apparently, there is no evidence to support this theory. Lamarckian inheritance proposed that acquired traits are not sex-linked traits and have a chance of being passed on to next generations. On the contrary, the Darwin's theory of natural selection is more of evolutionary theory that stated that traits are acquired, with dire need to survive.

As a result, mutations occur in animals so that in a manner that they can survive the current conditions. Lamarckian inheritance is purely based on the concept of traits that are not sex linked. Therefore, there are no possibilities of being transferred to the next generations. On the other hand, natural selection is induced by the need to survive the present conditions. Concurrent mating results to different species or same species with different traits.

Conclusion

It is difficult to evaluate which one is true between the scientific theories and biblical approaches; especially in matters concerning creation and the theory of evolution, as religion holds some values, yet science is based on proven facts based on available evidence. In my opinion, the theory of evolution is more accurate due to the available evidence, and because it is open to criticism, yet it has not been challenged.