Evolution or Intelligent design ?
-
Peace Student of Allah.
Information subject to " Laws of Physics/ Chemistry".
Laws that haphazardly create themselves. Of course these " Laws" always existed.
Peace to you.
-
I do not know about the inteligent design, but there is such a thing as quantic evolution.Quantic in the sense that it happens at a a quantic level, which in itself is not a chance event and where de cells choose their next step.
In fact at a quantic level it does support a Lamarckian evolution, that is, that the function creates the organ. That could not be said before a better knowledge of the replication was known due to quantic investigations.
I am afraid I am not a great knower of the thing to explain it myself and I am talking from memory, and also it is not that easy to come accross the information in the web, because there are other things with similar denomination that keep coming up, but I consider that line of thought quite coherent and scientifically sustainable than the "chance" and hazard line. Hazard in my view does not exist. What exists is lack of knowledge on our part of all causes of everything. We call our ignorance hazard, that is not saying anything. It is like when people say that things are due to Nature.
Chance is a human idea, not something we know for a fact. We merely do not know the sequence of causes and effects of whatever and we call it chance because we are not able to intervene in the process knowing fully how we can achieve whatever we want to achieve.
Chance is more of an ideological creature than scientific one. Chance makes us "victims", hopeless victims.
Salaam
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Peace Student of Allah.
Information subject to " Laws of Physics/ Chemistry".
Laws that haphazardly create themselves. Of course these " Laws" always existed.
Peace to you.
-
Absolutely no relevance to what we are discussing here. I don't know why you always shift your goal post. You never seem to acknowledge any points made or anything. You simply jump from one thing to another. We aren't talking about physical laws and their origin here.
-
Well, I didn't hear the scientific experts in the field of physics stating that the laws of physics created themselves or even if they did, they did so haphazardly. What are you talking about? Did you know that these laws break down at a singularity?
I am not even sure if you know that these laws are descriptive laws and are not to be confused with prescriptive/legislative laws. For example
Legislative law
http//www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Cambridge/KeepOffTheGrass.jpg
This kind of a "law" necessitates a law giver. It is prescribed/legislated thus necessitates a law giver. However, the laws of physics are nothing like this. There is nothing like "Thou shall not stop if moving and move when at rest unless acted upon by an external force".
Law without law giver
http//wallsinhd.com/images/medium/a-two_rocks_in_an_archipeligo-1006397.jpg
Notice the gap between the two giant rocks? Lets say that the gap is 500 feet by 50 feet. Can you ever feet any rigid object through this gap if the object has both its width and height over 50 feet? The observation that the gap is 50 feet wide tells you that you can not have the horizontal length of the object over 50 feet. Its a form of inevitability that you can not escape. Will you now say that there was a law giver who wished and said "Thou shall not try to push anything through this gap unless its less than or equal to 50 feet in length"?
If you must be confident about laws of nature, space, time, matter etc., please feel free to go and study the universe along with the scientific community. Do your research and publish your papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Other physicists will try to replicate your work and validate the results. Without all of that, its no use going around saying or believing that there is a supernatural being that goes around making physical laws. That is just the "God of the gaps" thing in action. When confronted by knowledge, theists often resort to moving their God to the gap in our knowledge. When we didn't know where lightning came from, it was THE GODS who were credited without ANY EVIDENCE. After we figured that out, their Gods apparently stopped throwing lighting and started creating the environment for lightning. Once we explained that, their Gods apparently stopped doing that too and started creating earth, which will be the home of the environment that gives rise to lightnings. The more we learn about the universe, the smaller that gap of knowledge becomes. But just like ALWAYS, indifferent to the 100% successful track record of science, theists just can't stop slapping the "God did it" sticker onto any damn thing they are ignorant about.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allah -
-
Peace Student of Allah.
Thank you for your post..
Now can we agree that there are still " theories" out there being investigated by Science?
For example
Physics theories provide the basis upon which all of physics is built. As more theories are presented, experiments test them, attempting to falsify them and ultimately prove them ... but before this process can begin, the theory has to exist.
Fundamentals of Theoretical PhysicsClassical Physics Laws
Modern Astronomical Theories
Quantum Physics
A Theory of Everything - Quantum Gravity Theory
Fundamentals of Theoretical PhysicsWhen attempting to develop of physical theory, scientists follow the concepts defined in the scientific method. These are not hard and fast rules, but rather a set of guidelines that remind the scientist that great care must be used in carrying out the study of science
Introduction to the Scientific Method
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Idealized Models
Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics
Classical Physics LawsSome theories have weathered the test of time and moved from the realm of theoretical conjecture to become a cornerstone of the very foundation of scientific knowledge.
Major Laws of Physics
Introduction to Newton's Laws of Physics
Newton's Law of Gravity
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Laws of Thermodynamics
Modern Astronomical TheoriesSome others are still being investigated.
etc... etc..ec..Now if we agree here that research is ongoing, then I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " intelligent design" .
Astronomy, Quantum physics, Dianetics ... are fields which have a great deal of questions ... probably because it's so big! From the beginning of the universe until now, the universe is full of questions and scientists continue to search for answers.
Let us keep an eye on developments....
I will keep you posted.Peace to you.
-
I don't know why materialist atheists have to be so arrogant and boastful while sharing their science views.
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Peace Student of Allah.
Thank you for your post..
Now can we agree that there are still " theories" out there being investigated by Science?
Yes, we may.
For example
Physics theories provide the basis upon which all of physics is built. As more theories are presented, experiments test them, attempting to falsify them and ultimately prove them ... but before this process can begin, the theory has to exist.
Fundamentals of Theoretical PhysicsClassical Physics Laws
Modern Astronomical Theories
Quantum Physics
A Theory of Everything - Quantum Gravity Theory
Fundamentals of Theoretical PhysicsYes, nobody studying nature does not make it not exist. It was there before we gave a damn, it is here now and will be there tomorrow irrespective of our desire to give a damn and study it. But what is your point?
When attempting to develop of physical theory, scientists follow the concepts defined in the scientific method. These are not hard and fast rules, but rather a set of guidelines that remind the scientist that great care must be used in carrying out the study of science
Introduction to the Scientific Method
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Idealized Models
Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics
Classical Physics LawsYes. But I don't see your point. May be you are just writing informative things for the sake of clarification.
Some theories have weathered the test of time and moved from the realm of theoretical conjecture to become a cornerstone of the very foundation of scientific knowledge.
Major Laws of Physics
Introduction to Newton's Laws of Physics
Newton's Law of Gravity
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Laws of Thermodynamics
Modern Astronomical TheoriesSome others are still being investigated.
etc... etc..ec..At this point I feel obliged to let you know that the theory of evolution has stood the test of time for 150+ years now. Charles Darwin set the ball rolling and in the past 150+ years we developed it further as new evidence/knowledge came in. All relevant works in the field of Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Geology, Archaeology, etc in the last 150+ complemented and confirmed the predictions made by this theory. It is then no wonder why the scientific and academic arena accepts evolution along with other theories. The only reason I am writing this bit is so that you don't get to make it sound like evolution is just some random new hypothesis that we are unsure about.
Now if we agree here that research is ongoing, then I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " intelligent design" .
Your logic
Premise Scientific research is ongoing
Conclusion My "evidently wrong idea based on argument from ignorance" is correct as I have strong conviction that my idea is correct.http//businessjournalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Statue-with-head-in-hands-by-Alex-E.-Proimos.jpg
No sir, I beg to differ. Just because everything in science is tentative does not mean that you are allowed to conclude that. Everything we know awaits disproving but that is not to say that therefore any other thing is true or is of comparable nature. Even if something as evidently false and irrational as intelligent design turns out to be right in the future, the time to believe in it is then, not now!! An equivalent example would be someone proving that it is actually the sun that orbits the earth and we somehow made some mistake because of some unknown thing about nature. Now, even if some individual can prove that sometime in the future, we are never justified in believing it now. Do you think I am justified in saying that "I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " sun orbiting the earth""?
This exposes another dishonest thing about creationism and some theists. They claim that they are seeking "TRUTH" but do their research backwards. They start with conclusion and try to find evidence instead of letting the evidence lead them up to the right conclusion. Below is a cartoon showing this asinine methodology
http//www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif
Peace
------------ Student of Allah
-
Peace Student of Allah.
Let me give you a small problem from Evolutionist. Those who believe everything came from a single cell...i.e one species gradually becoming a different species...
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species
. . .he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.
Against the Evidence
But time has not been kind to Darwinism. Paleontologists have certainly found more fossils, but these fossils have only deepened the problem. As the fossils piled up, what paleontologists discovered was not gradual change, but stability and sudden appearance. It seems that most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed, and change very little throughout their stay in the fossil evidence.
This poses quite a challenge for Darwinist paleontologists. One such paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, put it this way
Either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the and say that looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process?in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions.
Large jumps are anathema to good Darwinists because they look too much like miracles. You just can't have, say, reptiles giving birth to birds.
Things get particularly bad with the Cambrian explosion, which paleontologists believe took place about 530 million years ago. In an instant of geological time, almost every animal phylum seemed to just pop into existence from nowhere.
To understand just how big an "explosion" this was, it might help to understand what a phylum is. A phylum (phyla for plural) is the broadest classification of animals there is. As opposed to a single species, like a chimpanzee, a miller moth, or a crow, a phylum takes in a wide variety of organisms.
The phylum that contains humans also contains elephants, squirrels, canaries, lizards, guppies, and frogs. Indeed, it contains every animal with a backbone?and then some.
If the differences within a phylum are vast, the differences between phyla are really wild. As much as a chimpanzee may differ from a fish, it differs even more radically from a sea urchin or a worm. In fact, you could say it's built on an entirely different architectural theme.
That's why the Cambrian Explosion is so troubling for Darwinists. What paleontologists find isn't just the sudden appearance of a few new species. What they find is the appearance of species so utterly distinct they have to be placed in completely different phyla.
Even Oxford zoologist and arch-Darwist Richard Dawkins has remarked, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
As you can see ,these are Sciientists claims, not mine.
These are very weak facts , I am afraid no conclusions have been drawn from your argument either?
Peace to you
Worse yet, after the Cambrian Explosion, almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record?and many go extinct. By conventional dating, that's a 500 million year dry spell.
This is exactly the opposite of what Darwin would have predicted. According to Darwinism, new phyla are produced by the gradual divergence of species. As species split off from each other, they eventually become so dissimilar as to constitute a whole new body plan. Over time, then, we should see new species slowly appearing, followed by the much slower appearance of new phyla?what Havard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould calls a "cone of increasing diversity."
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Once again, you totally ignored everything I said and jumped to yet another random thing. I do not appreciate this goal post shifting tactic of creationists. You are not even concerned with the truth of your claims. All you are doing is dumping one irrational argument after another without acknowledging any points made by me. Every time I point out the flaws, you just jump abruptly to a completely different subject without acknowledging anything. This is not to say that I have nothing to say about every irrational unfounded things you said in your latest post.
Let me give you a small problem from Evolutionist. Those who believe everything came from a single cell...i.e one species gradually becoming a different species...
The theory of evolution is well accepted throughout the scientific/academic arena. I do not see why you must call one an "evolutionist" for that. But I guess in the same way, I am a Gravitationalist/Atomist/etc too. Wrong again, evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origin. Evolution is what happens once there is life. It is not the study of the origin of life. That is a relatively modern study known as Abiogenesis. Wrong again!! Life evolving from single cell does not have any direct link to gradual evolution of species. So you are not allowed to write your sentence in a way that implies that the proponents of evolution believe that speciation happens because of life originating out of single celled organism.
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
Darwinism? Ok, let me assume once again that I am into Newtonianism and Einsteinianism too. Now, this is not true that the fossil evidence should be as gradual as you say it should be. We know about Punctuated Equilibrium. According to that, there were times of slow and rapid changes. Therefore, you can no longer expect there to be a gradual evolution throughout the fossil records. And not to mention that you creationists act like its so easy for us to have all the fossils that are buried in the earth. But let me inform you that till date, whatever we found, all of them supports evolution. They are always found in the places predicted by the theory.
As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species
. . .he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.
I don't know why you creationists obsess of Charles Darwin so much even though we have come a 150+ years from his time and know a lot more about evolution than he did. This is where you go wrong. You assume that like your messengers/prophets and holy books, Darwin must be some infallible prophet with scripture called "The Origin of Species". Darwin ALREADY EXPLAINED why in HIS DAYS there were not enough fossil evidence. Its baffling how you wrote that in your post yet at the same time ignored it (highlighted in red). Now that we have better fossil records and more advanced paleontology, let us look at what we found
The following can be easily found if you have the time to do a few google searches. I am using compilations from wikipedia,talkorigins and a site dedicated to transitional fossils. But don't worry, I'll leave sufficient references for you to validate them
Before I begin, let me first point out that according to the theory of evolution, EVERY FREAKIN LIVING AND NON LIVING THING is a transitional form. But here we go
Apes - humans
Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 myaSimilar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).Fish - Tetrapods
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 200. Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).Dinosaurs - birds
Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.Synapsids - mammals
Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 200 akin to those of modern mammals.Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).Land mammals - Whales and dolphins
Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 196.Protohorse - Horses
Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 200.Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 200.Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 200. They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 200.Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).Miscellaneous
Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 200.
Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 200.
Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod and advanced amniote characters" (Prothero, 2007).
Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).
List of relevant publications (to study the academic literature on the listed fossils)
Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupins I (200 Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Nature 453(7199) 1199?1204.
Anderson JS, Reisz RR, Scott D, Frobisch NB, Sumida SS (200 A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders. Nature 453(7194) 515-518.
Apesteguia S, Hussam Z (2006) A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature 440(7087) 1037-1040 .
Benton MJ (2005) Vertebrate Palaeontology, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.
Clack JA (2002) An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'. Nature 418(6893) 72-76 .
Clack JA (2005) Getting a Leg Up on Land. Scientific American 293(6) 100-107.
Coyne JA (2009) Why Evolution is True. Oxford Oxford University Press.
Dawkins R (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for Evolution. London Bantam Press.
Evans WE (1992) Horse Breeding and Management. New York Elsevier Science.
Florida Museum of Natural History (date unknown) Dinohippus.
Forster CA, Chiappe LM, Krause DW, Sampson SD (1996) The first Cretaceous bird from Madagascar. Nature 382(6591) 532-534.
Friedman M (200 The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature 454(7201) 209-212 .
Futuyma DJ (2005) Evolution. Sunderland Sinauer.
Gibbons A (2009) A New Kind of Ancestor Ardipithecus Unveiled. Science 326(5949) 36-40.
Gingerich PD, Arif M, Clyde WC (1995) New Archaeocetes (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene Domanda formation of the Sulaiman range, Pun Jab (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 29(11) 291-330.
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Zalmout IS, Khan IH, Malkani MS (2001) Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293(553 2239-2242.
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Von Koenigswald W, Sanders WJ, Smith BH, Zalmout IS (2009) New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism. PLoS ONE 4(2) e4366.
Hu D, Hou L, Zhang L, Xu X (2009) A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus. Nature 461(7264) 640-643 .
Jenkins FA, Walsh DM (1993) An Early Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature 365(6443) 246-250 .
Lu J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Macdonald DW (ed.) (2009) The Encyclopedia of Mammals, 3rd edition. Oxford Oxford University Press.
MacFadden BJ (1986) Fossil Horses from "Eohippus" (Hyracotherium) to Equus Scaling, Cope's Law, and the Evolution of Body Size. Paleobiology 12(4) 355-369.
Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277) 43-48.
Prothero DR (2007) Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York Columbia University Press.
Prothero DR (200 What missing link? New Scientist 197(2645) 35-41.Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E (2007) Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16) 6568-6572.
Raven PH, Johnson GB, Losos JB, Mason KA, Singer SR (200 Biology, 8th edition. New York McGraw Hill.
Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.
Romer AS (1969) Cynodont Reptile with Incipient Mammalian Jaw Articulation. Science 166(3907) 881-882 .
Senter P (2006) Scapular orientation in theropods and basal birds, and the origin of flapping flight. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51(2) 305-313.
Thewissen JGM, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST (2001) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature 413(6853) 277-281.
Thewissen JGM, Cooper LN, George JC, Bajpai S (2009) From Land to Water the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evo Edu Outreach 2(2) 272-288.
Thewissen JGM, McLellan WA (2009) Maiacetus displaced fetus or last meal? PLoS ONE.
Van Valen L (196 Monophyly or Diphyly in the Origin of Whales. Evolution 22(1) 37-41.
White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326(5949) 75-86.
Xu X, You H, Du K Han F (2011) An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475 465-470.
Yates AM, Bonnan MF, Neveling J, Anusuya C, Blackbeard MG (2009) A new transitional sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and the evolution of sauropod feeding and quadrupedalism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Zimmer C (199 At the Water's Edge Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. New York Free Press.
As we clearly see, the works of the experts in the field have validated and confirmed the theory of evolution. We found these fossils where the theory predicted them to be found. I have no idea why creationists still act like we haven't found anything. For the love of God!! This list of transitional fossils isn't even an exhaustive one. Yet, its enough to utterly destroy the claims of the creationists that only survive if taken on faith, not evidence.
Against the Evidence
But time has not been kind to Darwinism. Paleontologists have certainly found more fossils, but these fossils have only deepened the problem. As the fossils piled up, what paleontologists discovered was not gradual change, but stability and sudden appearance. It seems that most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed, and change very little throughout their stay in the fossil evidence.
NOP!!!! This is not the way to debunk 150+ years worth of study by experts in the field. What you do is that you write scientific papers in proper scientific journals and wait for peer review. Once you can explain the hundreds of thousands of evidences we gathered in the last 150+ years for evolution, then you get a shot. It is because currently all of them point to evolution. We can not base anything on your opinion. Nobody gives a duck!! Either you go join the scientists in their work and write your Nobel Prize winning papers and get all of them verified by other scientists and face the same scrutiny ANY GOD DAMN SCIENTIST had to and has to go through, or you just stay at home with your faith and believe in what you wish to believe.
This poses quite a challenge for Darwinist paleontologists. One such paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, put it this way
Either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the and say that looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process?in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions.
As I have shown from the evidence we have of transitional forms, NOBODY in the scientific arena is reconsidering evolution. NOBODY. That is the reason it is a respected field that is still being studied and promoted by virtually all relevant and reputable scientific institutions. Nop, you don't get to make it sound like they are in doubt and awaiting some creationist Messiah to save their day. PLEASE, go learn about Punctuated Equilibrium. There are many bottle-necking problems that make it difficult for organisms to evolve quickly before something else is ready. For example, without enough oxygen being present in the earth's atmosphere, the evolution of the species that depend on oxygen will not be so successful, let alone rapid. But once we have an abundance of oxygen, they can thrive.
Lets talk about farming. Before human beings figured this out, the population of human beings couldn't explode. There simply were not enough food to go along. But as we figured out farming, it was possible to sustain more and more people. Therefore evolution had more subjects to act on. Therefore, more mutations and more subjects of natural selection. It is for this reason, you can not assume that in the fossil records, it will be a slow gradual change. There are factors that can cause a rapid transformation. For example the industrial revolution. In a similar fashion, there are many factors in nature that may hinder the progress or aid the progress of a species in a slow or rapid pace. Your assumption that it has to be uniformly gradual is absolute and utter Bullsh*t!!
Large jumps are anathema to good Darwinists because they look too much like miracles. You just can't have, say, reptiles giving birth to birds.
No Sir, we do not think of them as miracles. Please go learn about punctuated equilibrium as I suggested. I have already explained how rapid phases of evolution can take place because of the advent of something new. For example, a change in the environment that supports one type of mutation over the other.
Things get particularly bad with the Cambrian explosion, which paleontologists believe took place about 530 million years ago. In an instant of geological time, almost every animal phylum seemed to just pop into existence from nowhere.
To understand just how big an "explosion" this was, it might help to understand what a phylum is. A phylum (phyla for plural) is the broadest classification of animals there is. As opposed to a single species, like a chimpanzee, a miller moth, or a crow, a phylum takes in a wide variety of organisms.
The phylum that contains humans also contains elephants, squirrels, canaries, lizards, guppies, and frogs. Indeed, it contains every animal with a backbone?and then some.
If the differences within a phylum are vast, the differences between phyla are really wild. As much as a chimpanzee may differ from a fish, it differs even more radically from a sea urchin or a worm. In fact, you could say it's built on an entirely different architectural theme.
That's why the Cambrian Explosion is so troubling for Darwinists. What paleontologists find isn't just the sudden appearance of a few new species. What they find is the appearance of species so utterly distinct they have to be placed in completely different phyla.
Even Oxford zoologist and arch-Darwist Richard Dawkins has remarked, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
As you can see ,these are Sciientists claims, not mine.
Nop, most of them are half-truth and misquotes. Scientific claims are made in scientific papers that get peer reviewed and accepted worldwide throughout the scientific arena. As I have presented to you, nobody doubts evolution in the scientific arena because of rapid stages of evolution. Please, for the love of God, look into punctuated equilibrium. And, it will help if you study it instead of trying to dig things against it from creationist sources which you may copy paste here to give me more things to point out flaws in. That is humiliating and honestly deserved by dishonest people. So I would suggest that you avoid creationist sources and go learn about it from actual scientific sources. Don't you get it? ??? These creationists can never be honest because they start with the conclusion and try to find evidences that fits their conclusions and outright rejects anything that goes against it. That is not honest search for truth.
These are very weak facts , I am afraid no conclusions have been drawn from your argument either?
What in the world are you talking about? Virtually the entire scientific arena is on my side on this. What do you mean by "no conclusions have been drawn from your argument either"? Your refusal to look at the evidence and your refusal to accept the works of 150+ years worth of research simply to stay true to your belief in creationism is not my problem. That is dishonesty that you must throw out of your system.
AND, I can not help but point out that even if I agree for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution is wrong, it does not automatically prove Intelligent Design right. You are working with a false dichotomy here. Its not like the options are Evolution and Intelligent Design. There can be other processes we are not aware of. Why will I conclude that just because we could not figure out how it happened, "THEREFORE GOD DID IT"???? If I prove to you today that lighting has nothing to do with electric charge, will you automatically conclude that therefore "Zeus throws lighting"? I know you won't. It is for that same reason, the burden of proof is on you. But the intelligent design community is not scientific, its religious. They expect not to explain anything, not to present evidence, just to assert that "I can't see how this might come about, therefore God did it".
The fact is however that the theory of evolution is going strong for over 150+ years now. If you must propose an alternative, make sure that you have more than an argument from ignorance to offer.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allah -
Peace Student of Allah.
Thank you once more for the vast information about evolution.
I am not after proving anything to anyone.
However the truth is not as simple as accept what Scientists say, just because they claim they are experts in their field. History has shown that mistakes are made for various reasons. Scientists themselves disagree with each other,for exampleQuote by Robert Locke
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal...
HE GOES ON TO ADD
Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."I read with interest what you are writing. But I do not accept that the Scientists that I quote are ignorant, creationists and that all the facts exist only on the side of your argument..
The field of DNA and Quantum Physics is still young and there are many researchers still working on their evidence.
WATCH THIS SPACE..
Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.
Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.
Anther "pasting "of information fo you , my ignorance is pushing me to look at both sides of the arguments,or like you have put it ,there may be other arguments to consider.
For me it is not over for sure.
Peace to you
-
Changes happened in small gene mutation (for cell based being) which you said "it's not that interesting".
I just told you what might happened in one generation, now imagine what changes can happened in 10 generations, and then 100 generations and then 1000 generations and then 10,000 generations and then 100,000 generations.Salaam,
Can you give an example.
"Disaster", meteoric impact, radiation, climate change happened more often than what human perceived it was to be and it cannot yet be fully predicted. Example Few days ago a snow fell in middle east (egypt, palestine/israel, syria etc..), people get freaked out, everyone think that 'the end is near' / 'sign from God' etc.. Actually it was a normality few thousand years ago. We are entering yet another period of changes in planetary climate.
We do know that human and their hominid ancestor has faced 'near extinction' quite numerous times.
This event is among the example
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theoryHappened around 70,000 years ago and could drive hominid population to very minimum amount.
Coincidentally we see pattern of 'rapid homo sapiens' expansion after 70,000 BP. Rock paintings, stone carvings, remnant of jewelery, all are dated after 70,000 BP.And who shall come up as 'the survivor' for future 'near extinction' event is very hard to guess.
That's why it's very hard to accurately predict 'future evolution' of any being (not only human).RED That's why I think it is better to exclude these kind of things when one wants to set up a basis theory.
I think a basis theory should exclude all external things, a sort of best scenario theory.
I know in practice it has no value but see it like most physics formulas.Let's take another example, let's assume human find a way to terraform Mars. (At present time we do know that there's a presence of ice, snow thus water in mars), and then they colonize Mars. The "evolution path" of human on Mars and human on Earth shall be different. Human on mars probably shall grow bigger and taller than human on Earth due to Mars lower gravity than earth. Yet the virus and bacteria can also evolve to be more deadly than Earth
But can the people on earth still identify them as humans after x generations. What do you think?
Yes definitely, 'wheat' / 'rice' for example is a 'recent introduction', most probably did not exist during dinosaur period.
http//www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.htmlthank you, I will take a look at it
So far the absolute winner is Virus, they evolve faster than everyone else
They can adapt to extreme condition, such as no oxygen, high or low temperature and no sunlight.I think you are talking here about the fastest specie not "race".
In this case the question would be if there are viruses who evolve faster then other viruses?It depends on what do you mean by 'our forefather'.
If it's "The Most Recent Common Ancestor" of every human still living today, then definitely it's "Sub-Saharan African".Current Non Sub-Saharan Africans (Caucasian, Asian etc..) is a product of a hybrid between Homo Sapiens with other Hominid (e.g. Homo Neanderthal, Homo Denisovans etc..)
http//www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal.html
https//genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
Salam / Peace
RED thank you!!! this is what I was asking for.
I assume they have found some bones and skulls.
To what race of today are the bones skulls they found most similar to?
Still to Sub-Saharan Africans or maybe some other race or maybe they are so different that nothing can be concluded?Salaam and thx for your patience answering stupid questions
Bender -
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
Don't worry, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Just kidding.
Salaam SoA,
RED remember this phrase
Yes, every species is subject to evolution.
If you understood what the theory of evolution is, you wouldn't have asked this question.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
You do have an understanding of mutations, right?
yes I have AN understanding yes
There can be neutral mutations, favorable mutations and harmful mutations. Lets say that your parents had 6 children including you. None of you guys are the exact copy of either of your parents. On top of that, you guys only look a bit similar, but not same. The differences that you guys have can turn out to be favorable for all or some of you when it comes to survival and therefore reproducing and giving birth to the next generation. Mutations can give rise to traits that can be effect the evolution of a species. There is also natural selection. Here is a simple way to understand it
Imagine that you have a lot of deer and tigers. Lets imagine a simple scenario where a tiger is chasing these deer to eat them. On average, the slowest ones will end up being eaten more than the fastest ones. This has the effect of giving the faster bunch of deer more chance of survival thus reproduction. So the next generation will have more fast running deer compared to last generation. This is also true for from the point of view of the tigers. The ones that are the worst at hunting deer will have the lowest chance of survival thus leaving less offspring behind. Therefore the next generation of these tigers will have more of the "winners" compared to losers. So these deer and tigers will evolve parallel to each other.
That is just one example of natural selection improving a trait of a species without anyone having to do it for them. Now, when it comes to natural selection, there can be a lot of different environmental pressures. A change in weather can favor a specific type within a species to live over another type within the same species. There are so many things in the environment that can change over time. These changes will end up being favorable for some types and harmful for some. Depending on these, only the types that are fit for their environment gets to be happy and carry on their business.
So, having said that, now it should be easy for you to see why nobody can tell you what ANY species will look like after a 100,000 years. To say that, we have to know what selection pressures the species will undergo in the next 100,000 years. We don't know what specific mutations will take place in the reproduction process. Because of that reason, we can not tell you what they will look like.But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
For that to happen you have to isolate the group. For example, move one group to Europe and the other group to Africa and don't let them interbreed. Stop gene flow within these two groups.
the question was not how.
Yes, human beings are also subject to laws of nature, thus undergo evolution like all other animals.
To ask what race is the most evolved is not a smart thing to do.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
This question assumes that natural selection and mutations have a "GOAL" in mind. That simply is not the case. A human being is not "more evolved" than a Tarantula. There is no set goal. Where in the process of natural selection and mutations did you see any goals? Every animal is at their most evolved state at a given time.
The question did not assume anything the question was asking a question.
Now, we can talk about "most evolved" with respect to whatever thing YOU AND I set as a goal.
You must know about melanin and skin pigmentation and how that protects people from harmful radiation in certain parts of the earth. So near the equator, where the earth receives a lot of radiation, a white person can be considered to have a less fit skin than a brown/black person. Different races and people from different parts of the world are often immune to unique sets of harmful things. It all depends on where their bloodline is from and where they grew up. When it comes to lets say Malaria, you will find that due to the ancestors of a group evolving under situation where they had to combat Malaria, they have better resistance and tolerance for Malaria compared to another group who's ancestors never faced Malaria. This is not to say that one group is more evolved than another. They are all fit for the specific niches they evolved in.
So, please drop that garbage idea of "more evolved" or "less evolved" from your head.
You assume for me some garbage idea, and then you tell me to drop it hmm
Unless you are seriously suggesting that evolution works with plans for making specific things in the future.
I was just simply asking some questions, not suggesting anything. But unfortunately you concentrate to much on assuming things about me.
Which is not the case. I know where you were probably trying to go with this. If I had to guess, I'd guess that you would have brought up racism. Which is sad. Sad because we all already accept that there are people better looking than us, stronger than us, richer than us, but we never say that "THEREFORE THIS JUSTIFIES MISTREATMENT". Somehow, the same people who understand this can't understand that knowing that one group may have some form of physical advantage over the other is not a justification for discrimination.
No SoA, your assuming is not correct.
If you like to know why I am asking this you could just simply ask.
Looks to me better then wasting your time with assuming something false so that you can refute it yourself.If one is that worried about racism coming out of evolution, allow me to tell you this
E= mc^2
Let me assume that you weigh 70 KG. Now let me assume that I have a 70 KG bag of Bullsht. Using that equation I can show that assuming a theoretical conversion with 100% efficiency, you and that bag of shit will give out the same amount of energy. Or one can also point out that you and Bullsht is made up of atoms, quarks, etc. Basically the same thing. Now, knowing this, do you think it is justified for me to treat you like shit? So you already understand that how you treat someone has nothing to do with your scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise I feel obliged to ask you if you feel justified in mistreating anyone that you perceive as poor, physically weaker, relatively worse looking than you?
Was this really necessary?
Anyway I learned that there are more ways how to misuse E= mc^2If you want to learn more about evolution, Google is your friend. You can even buy and read books for better in-depth understanding. There are thousands of video materials available on youtube explaining basic principles and ideas.
Sorry for this lousy post. Didn't get the time to make a proper post.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allahthank you for your advice handshake
Salaam,
Bender -
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
RED remember this phrase
Lol. That was a line from SouthPark. I just didn't want to let the opportunity go. P So I HAD TO say it.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
Yup, now you will keep reminding me of it, won't you? -\
yes I have AN understanding yes
good
But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
- We don't have limits for mutation.
- Given that you have the tools to screen their genetic information and study their DNA, you will be able to identify them. However, it is not necessary that time will change their looks or functions much. This is because of the fact that as long as they are fit for their environment, there is no reason for a mass extinction. However, some of them might branch off to a new species over time. Thats given that you keep them isolated.
the question was not how.
I explained how so that I do not mislead you into thinking that you will get 2 significantly different variant within the same species. So my answer answers your question as "YES" and added the details to explain the qualifiers. Without the qualifiers, the answer is NO. Without forcing them to experience significantly different environmental factors and genetic isolation, the answer will be NO. I hope you understand now why I wrote what I wrote instead of just answering with either YES or NO.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
lol, damn it, its only a matter of time before you sue me for ever having said that. P
The question did not assume anything the question was asking a question.
May be you didn't assume anything at all, you just asked a random question out of nowhere for the sake of it. But in general, we do make a lot of assumptions while saying things or asking questions. Your question relies on the assumption that there is an objective "more/less" evolved state. Without assuming that, you could not have asked which race is more evolved.
You assume for me some garbage idea, and then you tell me to drop it hmm
I was just simply asking some questions, not suggesting anything. But unfortunately you concentrate to much on assuming things about me.If I have done so, let me take this opportunity to apologize. It was wrong of me to assume that your question has the same motives as countless anti-evolution people's questions. If you didn't have that in mind, I am sorry for assuming that and I do apologize.
Having said that, let me explain why I made that mistake. Just so that you have a better understanding of where I am coming from. I have to face anti-evolution people who often rely on either demonizing Darwin or trying to imply that evolution=justification for racism. But believe me, I have never come across a single person who framed everything the way you did, leading up to the "more/less evolved" question, who did not end up demonizing evolution saying that it is justification for discrimination based on differences. But as I've said before, I do apologize for my mistake. I wouldn't have done that if it wasn't for your series of questions being identical to theirs.
No SoA, your assuming is not correct.
If you like to know why I am asking this you could just simply ask.
Looks to me better then wasting your time with assuming something false so that you can refute it yourself.Please read what I've wrote above for my apology.
Was this really necessary?
Anyway I learned that there are more ways how to misuse E= mc^2Given that I was wrong on the assumption, no, it wasn't necessary. But I am glad that you've at least learned how to abuse that equation. P
thank you for your advice handshake
You are always welcome. handshake
Now that all the questions are answered, can you please tell me where you were going with this or if you were just randomly asking that sequence of question for informative purpose?
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
I reject equating Evolution = Darwin. Darwin was nto the first, not by any stretch , to think or pur forward evolution, and he did philosofically promote something worth demonizing. He has been pushed down our throats as the ultimate in science, and he was not such a things. There ar emany worthy scientists, who have no had the chance to be pushed down anybody's throats.
And, for God's sake, when are we going to have enough of divinizing Darwin for a thing he just used and not discover and at that used it worse than many. His theorys, to hold any water today, have had to be indeed watered down.
So please, talk about evolution, but do not equate it with darling Darwin. They are not synonims and it is an afront to scientists who dedicated their lives to science and some times died in utter misery.
Darwin is the best illustration not of the survival of the fitest that he supposedly upheld, but of the survival of the one with the best advertising department.
Salaam
-
I reject equating Evolution = Darwin. Darwin was nto the first, not by any stretch , to think or pur forward evolution, and he did philosofically promote something worth demonizing. He has been pushed down our throats as the ultimate in science, and he was not such a things. There ar emany worthy scientists, who have no had the chance to be pushed down anybody's throats.
And, for God's sake, when are we going to have enough of divinizing Darwin for a thing he just used and not discover and at that used it worse than many. His theorys, to hold any water today, have had to be indeed watered down.
So please, talk about evolution, but do not equate it with darling Darwin. They are not synonims and it is an afront to scientists who dedicated their lives to science and some times died in utter misery.
Darwin is the best illustration not of the survival of the fitest that he supposedly upheld, but of the survival of the one with the best advertising department.
Salaam
As it was Darwin who first proposed the Theory of Evolution . . . so, he did discover it. And there was no one else before him.
-
RED That's why I think it is better to exclude these kind of things when one wants to set up a basis theory.
I think a basis theory should exclude all external things, a sort of best scenario theory.
I know in practice it has no value but see it like most physics formulas.We cannot exclude things, because it's tightly correlated.
It's more complex than trying to came up with 'mathematical model' to predict future economy or future price of a share in stock market (Which nobody has came up with either). Too many parameters involved and we haven't discovered all of the parameters.We haven't even came up with Mathematical model to predict earth's climate behavior.
But can the people on earth still identify them as humans after x generations. What do you think?
People on Mars will definitely be claiming their own 'social identity', We Are MARTIANS and not EARTHLINGS.
Following the same pattern we see on Earth...After X Generations from today on Earth, people will speak new language, english become archaic and evolved to become something new. The word "human" might be comprehended with different meanings, just like the word islam today.
Evolution also happen at unprecedented rate on human's culture, tradition/religion and language. Much faster than human's biological evolution.
I think you are talking here about the fastest specie not "race".
In this case the question would be if there are viruses who evolve faster then other viruses?Unknown at the moment, feel free to do your own research and experiment by comparing different type of viruses.
RED thank you!!! this is what I was asking for.
I assume they have found some bones and skulls.
To what race of today are the bones skulls they found most similar to?
Still to Sub-Saharan Africans or maybe some other race or maybe they are so different that nothing can be concluded?You seem to mus-interpreted the result.
They have distracted and analyze the DNA of Neanderthal and Denisovan and compare the DNA sequences with DNA samples from human still living today around the earth.The results was Non Sub-Saharan African carries the DNA of Neanderthal and Denisovan.
And they found no trace of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA on today's sub-saharan African.The conclusion is Today's Non Sub-Saharan African is the result of a mixing / copulating of Homo Sapiens with Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.
Thus today Sub-Saharan African can claim that they're the "Purest Race" due to the nonexistence of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA within their gene.
Whether it's something good or bad, it depends, most of the Neanderthal and Denisovan gene being inherited within today's Non-Subsaharan African consist of genes which regulate "Antibody" / human resistance to disease. To put it in other words Non-Sub Saharan African have higher resistance to variety of diseases compared to Subsaharan African.
Salam / Peace
-
But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
Or there will be no more human or tiger on earth, and earth as a planet has become uninhabitable.
Evolution also happened on planet, solar system, galaxies and this universe.