"From Goo, through the Zoo, to You", is how I heard skeptics of evolution explain the principle. I have said it before and I will say it again "Skepticism is good, but it needs to be accompanied with a willingness to learn or atleast an attempt to understand". When the willingness is not there, why would you express yourself in such a manner about the topic? 

​

The theory of evolution, Darwinian evolution, or just plain evolution. These phrases are all used synonymously, but they aren't necessarily synonymous. Charles Darwin made evolution known to a broader public, yes. But evolution has been discussed since about 500 B.C. Ever since Darwin it has been studied extensively, so you can't really call it Darwinian evolution. Since we are talking about biology, just calling it evolution is a bit to simple aswell. Everything that changes over time 'evolves'. So, with regards to biology, the theory of evolution is probably the best phrase to use.

 

Do I believe in evolution? Sure, but that is because the basic principle is nothing more than "change over time". Why would I not accept that as true? I can see that happening myself. Children do not look exactly like their parents and when looking at 'population dynamics' we can see changes in population. A good example is the average height of the Dutch people, who have rapidly become taller and taller over a relative short time. The process describing this phenomenon is Natural Selection (well.... accompanied with sexual selection)

​

Unfortunately 'Natural Selection' and 'Survival of the Fittest' are used as being the same, when they are not. Survival of the fittest refers to a single generation of a species of animal, or even a single animal, better equiped to survive in the circumstances in it's habitat, than other animals. Natural Selection is process of adaptions, in a species of living creature over generations, allowing the species to survive.  

​

These changes might lead to what is known as speciation. Speciation is best explained through the socalled 'ring-species', where one group of a species of animal migrate around a mountain or a body of water, and split their group in to several groups. The part of the group which stays in their original habitat, doesn't encounter new circumstances and doesn't require to change. The groups that do migrate to different regions, encounter different circumstance and adapt in to subspecies. When these subspecies meet, completing the circle or ring, they might have individually have changed thus much, that they can no longer interbreed, eventhough each has originated from the same species. They have become different species. 

​

Speciation is called 'Macro-Evolution'. Adaptation within species is called 'Micro-Evolution'. Within the religious community there is a debate about micro-evolution. Some do believe in adaptation with species, but none of them seem to believe in macro-evolution.  This mainly seems to be caused by animals changing limbs. They don't believe Whales originate from a landdwelling species, even when the fossilrecord suggest they do. And we have examples of animals chaning their habitat. Like the Mudskipper, which is a fish that seems to be an intermediate species between a aquatic animals and a land animal. The Penguin is a species of Goose, which seems to be an intermediate species between a Avian animal and an aquatic animal. 

​

These things are why I am a believer in Evolution. It's quite simple actually. We can see differences and similarities between species. We can see 'Adaptation' happen. We can research 'Genetic changes and similarities'. We can see vestigial organs and ofcourse we have the fossil record. All of which support the 'Theory of Evolution'. 

​