Evolution is called such a natural process of development of living nature, in which the genetic composition of populations is gradually changing, resulting in a transformation of the biosphere. Several theories explain such mechanisms, the most famous being Darwin's doctrine of natural selection.
Today, evolution, as a natural process, is considered to be a well-established scientific fact. That is why there are myths that need clarification.
The theory of evolution is about the origin of life. In fact, this scientific doctrine tells about how life developed after its inception. There is no denying that evolution is also interested in a clear understanding of how life appeared on the planet. However, this is not the most important thing for this teaching.
In the process of evolution, organisms always get the best qualities. It is known that the strongest survived as a result of natural selection. But nature has awarded us with many examples when these were far from the most perfect organisms. Examples include mosses, crayfish, sharks, and fungi. These organisms have remained unchanged for quite a long time. They were able to adapt to the changing environment in such a way that they could continue to live without improvement. Other organisms have undergone major changes, but this has not always been a leap forward. With a change in the environment, even evolved organisms could not always adapt to new conditions.
In the course of evolution, life changed at random. Natural survey cannot be considered as some kind of random process. In order to survive and reproduce their offspring, many creatures living in the aquatic environment had to move more quickly. As a result, those who did better at this task survived. The offspring of these creatures already received these useful characteristics, continuing the cycle. So it is not worth considering that evolution is a random process, such an opinion has no basis.
Natural selection is an attempt by organisms to adapt to new conditions of life. In fact, in the course of natural selection, organisms did not try to adapt at all. This process allowed different creatures to reproduce and survive. The developing organism itself is not able to engage in genetic adaptation to new conditions.
Natural selection gives organisms what they need. This natural process does not have any intelligence, natural selection cannot clearly indicate which species needs what. It's just that if there are genetic variations in a population that help to survive in the natural environment, then such features will be inherited by next generations. The population itself will increase. And if there is no genetic variation, then it will either appear over time, or the population itself will continue to live without significant changes.
Evolution is just a theory. The scientific language of theory is an idea well proven by facts that can, with the help of logic, determine some properties of nature. But other definitions of the concept of "theory", in particular, implying "guess" or "guess", only bring more confusion into the unscientific world. Those who deal with science, but do not understand its foundations, confuse two different concepts.
Evolution is a theory of crisis. In science there is no doubt about whether evolution actually took place or not. There are some doubts about how it really was. Attention is paid to every little detail of this complex process. Certain nuances lead anti-evolutionists to assume that the theory of evolution is a theory of crisis. In fact, this teaching is the mouthpiece of science to which scientists around the world listen.
There are some gaps in fossil history that disprove evolution. Among the fossils there is much evidence of transitional forms. Some of them indicate the transformation of dinosaurs into modern birds, others about the evolution of whales and their ancestors into land mammals. Unfortunately, many transitional forms have been lost. However, they did not survive only because they existed in such conditions that made it impossible for the fossils to survive. Science does say that there are quite a few gaps in evolutionary change. However, the theory of evolution itself does not refute this in any way.
Evolutionary theory is actually incomplete. This science is still in development. New research constantly supplements the theory with amendments, new facts, which may even slightly change the idea of evolution. In this case, this theory is similar to all others in a similar respect. And only evolution is the only possible plausible explanation for all the existing diversity of life on the planet.
The theory of evolution contains many inaccuracies. Science is a fairly competitive field. In the case of evolutionary theory, all identified shortcomings were quickly corrected, and the doctrine was corrected taking them into account. Creationists have put forward many arguments against evolution. Scientists investigated them, critics simply could not stand such theses. In fact, all these "inaccuracies" appeared due to a misunderstanding of the theory itself or a distortion of its concepts.
Evolution is not a science, because it cannot be observed. This opinion is erroneous, since evolution can be both tested and observed. The misconception lies in the fact that for many, science is laboratory experiments conducted by scientists in white coats. But a large amount of scientific information can be collected from the real world. For example, astronomers cannot physically contact the objects of their research - stars and galaxies. But they receive information through observations and experiments. A similar situation has developed in the case of evolution.
Nearly all biologists reject Darwinism. Scientists do not refute Darwin's teachings, it is just that this theory is constantly changing due to the receipt of new data and knowledge. The great scientist believed that evolution is slow and measured. But today there is evidence that, under some circumstances, this process may accelerate. But any serious scientific challenges to the principles of Darwin's theory were never thrown. But scientists were able to deepen his teaching on natural selection and even improve. Thus, biologists do not reject Darwinism, but simply modify.
Evolution entails immoral behavior. All animals have some kind of behavior that is shared with other representatives of the same species. Dogs behave like dogs, worms have their own lives, people have their own. How can a child behave like another creature? That is why it makes no sense to associate evolution with some kind of unnatural or immoral behavior.
Evolution supports the notion of correct justice. About a hundred years ago such a direction as social Darwinism appeared in the philosophy of society. The doctrine became so popular that there were even attempts to apply the theory of biological evolution to social norms. It was believed that society should help the weak to die. Moreover, this will not only be the perfect confirmation of the theory of selection, but also correct from the point of view of morality. Such an idea was even scientifically confirmed in some way, they referred to biological evolution, which made this approach very rational. But that was the time of attempts to use science in other matters. It is good that humanity rejected social Darwinism in time.
Scientists should pay attention not only to the theory of evolution, but also to other options for creating life. There are quite a few theories of the creation of our world, mostly of a religious nature. It is simply impossible to imagine all of them. But none of them is fundamentally scientific research. Therefore, there is no need to teach students such anti-scientific theories. After all, schoolchildren and students study precisely science, and attempts to replace it with religious beliefs can direct young people in the other direction.