Evolution

[Zeo]

Evolution is, by definition, the heritable changes that have produced Earth’s diversity of organisms. However, evolution has other definitions depending on who is viewing it. Some believe evolution to be an object of heresy, defying everything that they hold dear to themselves. Others feel that evolution is a better means to explain diversity of organisms rather than creationistic views. Further still, some people view evolution as merely a concept that isn’t worth their time. While this last group has no relevance to evolution in general, the previous two do. In the case of the first group, evolution is so offensive to them because the theory of evolution presents a meaning to life in which does not involve a divine. The second group is in conflict mainly because of the first group, because the general population of the world consists of the first group, thereby ostracizing the second group. Although evolution is still merely a theory, anti-evolutionists continue to attack evolution. However, as evidence against evolution appears so rarely, more and more evidence in support of evolution continues to rise to the surface, causing much controversy.

To begin, one must first understand the endeavors of one of the most famous men of all time. That man’s name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was one of the first people to openly speak of the concept of evolution. In his book, The Origin of the Species, he made two very important points ascertaining to evolution. The first being that diverse species had common ancestors. The second point was that natural selection was the mechanism through which evolution occurred. With these two points in mind, Darwin was able to conceive of evolution as a process of change in a species over a great deal of time in order to become better adapted to the environment. This was because each organism left behind many more offspring that the environment was capable of sustaining. Thus, Natural Selection has a hand in the process of the killing off of the organisms least suited to coping with the environment, hence leaving offspring with genes better suited to living in the environment. Using this concept as a model, it is possible to comprehend that all organisms, diverse as they are now, may have developed from much more simple and primitive microbes. However, although Darwin’s theories provided in-depth explanations and an alternative to the given choices of the era, Darwin’s endeavors are still attacked even today, as his theories contradict the very meaning of life so instilled in the minds of the oppressors.

Several views against evolution have similar concepts. Most of which involve the absence of a creator. Some of the more prominent views include the fact that the theory of evolution leaves no room for a grand and divine ‘purpose’ as humans are so accustomed to. In the Bible, which is the doctrine of many creationists, it was said that God created man to take care of the animals and the planet Earth. Some of the most prominent supporters of evolution, who take to the supposed facts that plants and animals had a common ancestor, absolutely refuse to accept the evolution of Man. Another interesting counter-view to evolution is that God perhaps created “numerous beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose”, hence allowing the concept of evolution to meld seamlessly with creationism. This was called polyphyletic evolution. One final theory against evolution is the concept of the ‘soul’, of which evolution has no explanation, other than the extensive and rapid firings of the brain.

Although no theory is without its discrepancies, it is notable that in the movement against evolution, very few seem to grasp the concept that humans and apes are different organisms. Many people still act under the false pretenses that humans evolved from apes and chimps and monkeys and the rest of the primates not mentioned. This however, is a horrible lie, contradicting every theory in evolution in itself. The correct solution is that humans, apes, chimps, and every other sort of primate living today shared a common, less diverse ancestor. A more simple explanation is that humans did not evolve from their primal cousins. Another discrepancy in the countless verbal assaults against evolution is the monkey to man model, depicting a linear transgression from old-world monkey progressing to the normal working-day man, with every stage in between. This is of course, another fallacy, as 1. Man did not evolve from the old-world monkey, and 2. The different hominids depicted on that model did not appear in time in that order. In fact, they did not appear in any order at all. To be more accurate, some existed in the same time frame.

Another discrepancy still is the stereotypical view that organisms evolve and adapt to their environments as they progress through their lives. This is a horrible error of logical thinking, based simply on the fact that an organism’s D.N.A. does not change at all during its life. In fact, any adaptations at all are only revealed through great changes in the environment, in which natural selection takes its toll on those without the adaptation already embedded within their gene structure. Furthermore, it may also be asked why the human race has not ‘evolved’ recently. This is remedied through, again, another simple explanation. That explanation being that due to the amazing capability for Man to create his own environment, complete with controls and set parameters, Man is no longer hampered by the mechanism known as Natural Selection. Hence, no adaptations will be presented because there will be no need for them as such.

One final discrepancy that should be pointed out is that evolution is merely a theory. Although it is extremely believable and supported by vast amounts of evidence, it is still, in every way, shape and form, a theory. One cannot say they believe in evolution, because it is not a fact. It is merely an in-depth explanation ascertaining to the origins of the various diverse species existing on this planet. So many of the anti-evolutionists fail to grasp this, leading some to believe that they may not be as informed as they think they are. This is however, a minor discrepancy that has not greatly affected the debate concerning evolution’s credibility.

Many of these stereotypes exist mainly because society has not been educated otherwise. Furthermore, the anti-evolutionists continue to demand evidence as to evolution and its truth. As previously outlined, humans have not evolved recently due to their amazing ability to create their own environment. Furthermore, that ability has been rising steadily over the past ten thousand years. However, ten thousand years ago was a very different time from today, one with which had various situations in which adaptations were a necessity in order to ensure survival. One such situation is the Sickle Cell Anemia mutation, which is present in a great majority of the African population. The condition, Sickle Cell, concerns an individual’s resistance to a deadly disease known as malaria. The strange shape assigned to the blood cells by the condition prevents the malaria bodies from affecting the blood cells. This is a fine example of natural selection. Back then, when the sickle cell gene was not widely dispersed throughout the population, Malaria swept throughout the population, leaving only a handful of those with the Sickle Cell gene. Those few people had a large deal of resistance to malaria, hence making them more adaptable to the environment. Their offspring also carried the gene, and this new mutation carried out through a great deal of the population, hence creating an evolutionary advantage compared to their past counter-parts without the gene. This is a prime example of how evolution has occurred within the past several millennia.

Throughout the past eons, several different variations of hominid have existed. The first known hominid being the Australopithecus Afarensis, progressing to Africanus, with the Aethiopicus branching off to the side. After Africanus, there came a large divergence in which several variations branched off into whole new species, with the Habilis as our preceding ancestor. Next came the Ergaster, followed by another branching off, which at the ends of each branch included: Homo Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Sapiens. All of these different species have been confirmed through the fossil record. Perhaps the most memorable of all of these various hominids however, would be the Afarensis, of which an actual fossil was discovered.

Discovered by Donald Johanson in The Afar region of Hadar, Ethiopia during1973, the fossil known as ‘Lucy’ has provided what is quite possibly the most solid evidence of the evolution of Man. Lucy was only among the first of many hominid skeletons to be unearthed in the Afar. Lucy was about one meter tall, had a small brain, and walked upright, leading some scientists to believe that perhaps hominids didn’t develop large brains before walking upright. This has raised some controversy, and remains as a discrepancy in the evolution of man, mainly because scientists are still unsure as to the particular aspects that caused man to walk upright. Originally, it was thought that hominids began using tools and walked upright to free up the hands. However, Lucy walked upright herself, and had modern day ‘hands’, yet there was no evidence of tool-use at the site of her discovery.

Another strong example of evidence supporting evolution is the similar homologous structures within several variations of mammals roaming the planet. If the forelimb of a bat, a cat, a human, and a whale were compared, it would be noted that a similar bone structure is present in all four, again supporting Darwin’s theory of all living things having a common ancestor. If, all things were created individually from a ‘divine’ power, then the logical choice of action would be to create a suitable bone structure specified for the species itself. It would not seem logical to give four very different creatures the same skeletal structure. In fact, assuming evolution is correct, the current bipedal structure of man is disadvantageous to human beings. The consistent upright position creates large amounts of stress on the hipbones and spinal structures. However, if Man were created individually from organisms throughout the planet, it would make sense to give Man his own skeletal structure, rather than a modified one from a previous ancestor. (Campbell, Reece, 2001).

As previously indicated, no theory is without its discrepancies. Evolution does indeed have gaps. If examined closely, one will find that the fossil record is incomplete. Several species of hominid that have traits present in current hominids but lacking in previous hominids are missing. Furthermore, there are also various examples of evidence against evolution as well. There are several gaps missing in evolution’s defense. For instance, how does one explain the various different cultures within society today? As underlined in the paragraphs above, environment plays a serious role in the development of adaptations and how a species evolves. However, environment also has an effect on customs. Hence, different environment equals different cultures, customs, and languages even.

Furthermore, it seems hard to believe that humans are capable of conscious thought. Scientists are still baffled as to how we are able to have identity. The concept of a soul comes into play. It is said that God created the souls in each and every person, but there is no physical evidence suggesting this. It may be possible that humans do not have consciousness at all. What humans perceive as identity may be nothing more than incredibly complex firings of neurons creating a large network of thought.

One may also imagine how an adaptation can carry throughout a population in order for the species to be ‘better equipped’ for the environment. While it is highly unlikely that a mutation or some other genetic flaw would have a beneficent effect on an organism, in the event that it does, logic dictates that those without the adaptation would probably be eliminated through natural selection. This most likely would create a bottleneck effect, seriously increasing genetic drift and the rate of occurrence of an adaptation through the phenotype.

Creationism however, is not with its own defense. Although there are several anti-evolutionistic movements in existence, creationism poses the greatest threat to the theory of evolution. For instance, referring to the parting the Red Sea, it has been scientifically proven that the Red Sea is possible to cross barefoot at a particular time. During the time of such crossing, timing would be critical, and predicting tidal movements was not a powerful skill for ancient Egyptian slaves. This leads some to believe in the existence of a ‘divine’ power. However, creationism too has gaps. In the story of Noah, when God flooded the world and rid it of the infidels, the entire world was flooded and two of each animal were taken aboard The Ark in order to reproduce when reaching land after the flood. First of all, it is impossible to completely flood the world in the manner God depicted. Second of all, the estimated number of species existing on this planet is near 6 million. There is simply not enough resources or manpower to sufficiently gather up two of each animal, along with sufficient food for all of them. However, these are merely some of the discrepancies of both views.

In truth, there is evidence stacked against and for evolution. There is no true way to decide what is right, and what is wrong, because sufficient technology to do so is yet to be discovered. There may come a time when Man truly understands his origins, along with the origins of the rest of the planet. Ultimately, Man may never know the true answer to the questions of life. Man may never truly understand what it is that put him here, or whether or not he simply ‘evolved’ from lesser organisms to get here. The only truth Man may ever know is that he is here right now, in the present, acting out his life. This may be the only truth anyone knows.

In conclusion, evolution has many aspects, positive and negative. There are several views against evolution, and several views in support of it. It should be known that people in society devote their entire lives to understanding that which has put them in the position that they are now currently in. The ultimate answer lays within their own minds and opinions, because only what they believe is true will be true for them.

[Tesseract]

Um, somebody summarize this I have no time to rea...zzzzz

[aommaster]

Zeo, did u actaully type that whole thing out? If you did, how long did it take you?

[Thorin]

As far as a non-Christian rebutttle of Darwinian Evolution, read Darwin's Black Box. He comes at it from a micro-biologist's point of view. It's a good read and easy to understand. You can get it cheap in paperback.

 

Your post sounds like a term paper to me. Do want us to critique it for you?

[Thorin]

...the theory of evolution presents a meaning to life in which does not involve a divine."

 

I think it would fit in nicely with deists like Thomas Jefferson. Deism is also known as the clockmaker theory: a higher being made the clock and its mechanisms (laws) and then walked away.

 

...evolution is still merely a theory...

 

So is gravity and quantum physics, but they're still powerful models. Nothing is a "law" anymore.

 

"..all organisms...may have developed from much more simple and primitive microbes."

 

See previous post...

 

Discovered by Donald Johansson...

 

The whole paragraph works as an example, but fails as evidence for your paper's premise. You even bring up the possibility (earlier in the paper) that things can be similar but not descended from one another, like apes and humans. Could Lucy be from a failed branch and not an ancestor?

 

"...logic dictates that those without the adaptation would probably be eliminated through natural selection."

 

This brings up another, probably unintended, question. Why do we have logic? In and of itself, it is not as good a survival tactic (for the species) as say massive reproduction, or a shorter gestation period. Look at the amazing quantities of ants as apposed to the population of humans. I think you need to answer the logic question, which is also present in large octopi, a non-vertebrate.

 

”…it has been scientifically proven…”

 

If you’re going to make that kind of statement, you’d better sight a source. Who said it?

 

In conclusion, your conclusion concludes nothing. At least repeat your premise or thesis.

[admiral_ju00]

oh boy, don't have time to read it all and no hopes of replying at the moment, but just you wait

[swansont]

..evolution is still merely a theory...

 

So is gravity and quantum physics' date=' but they're still powerful models. Nothing is a "law" anymore.

[/quote']

 

Theories don't "grow up" to become laws anyway. Laws are simple mathematical relationships that have been observed to hold true. Nothing more than that.

[Guest SeriousMind]

has anyone head of the people discovered that have really small heads and are really stupid. As a matter of fact one lady trained them like dogs and the small headed people just followed her around like puppies. let me know if u think this is evolution or now or even if u have heard of such people. thanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That doesn't mean a big head makes you smart.

Sperm whale's heads are huge, but they don't make advanced machines. They aren't very smart.

[admiral_ju00]

has anyone head of the people discovered that have really small heads and are really stupid. As a matter of fact one lady trained them like dogs and the small headed people just followed her around like puppies. let me know if u think this is evolution or now or even if u have heard of such people. thanks.

 

and i suppose you can cite your sources???

[aman]

As far as the reference to why would primates walk upright there is the hypothesis supported by a lot of arguments that primates were exposed to a flooded water enviroment, stood upright, lost hair over time and also gained the fat deposits of humans to maintain heat in these wet enviroments. We see better arguments towards evolution as we learn and explore. It seems to make more sense than less the more we learn although we haven't got the whole solution yet.

Just aman

[admiral_ju00]

Evolution is, by definition, the heritable changes that have produced Earth’s diversity of organisms. However, evolution has other definitions depending on who is viewing it.

 

It might be better termed as: Descent with Modification

 

Although evolution is still merely a theory, anti-evolutionists continue to attack evolution. However, as evidence against evolution appears so rarely, more and more evidence in support of evolution continues to rise to the surface, causing much controversy.

 

It is a Theory that 1) hasn't been proven false 2) at this point in time more than likely, it can not be proven false due to the staggering amount of evidence in support of evolution and 3) the thing that was said by swansont.

 

 

To begin, one must first understand the endeavors of one of the most famous men of all time. That man’s name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was one of the first people to openly speak of the concept of evolution. In his book, The Origin of the Species, he made two very important points ascertaining to evolution. The first being that diverse species had common ancestors. The second point was that natural selection was the mechanism through which evolution occurred. With these two points in mind, Darwin was able to conceive of evolution as a process of change in a species over a great deal of time in order to become better adapted to the environment.

 

Agreed on the 1st point. However, 2nd point is a problem.

According to pure Darwinism, there are 2 things that make an organism evolve: Natural Selection and Random Mutations.

 

Another interesting counter-view to evolution is that God perhaps created “numerous beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose”, hence allowing the concept of evolution to meld seamlessly with creationism. This was called polyphyletic evolution.

 

I think that perhaps you were refering to: Theistic Evolution? As It would fit right into the description you've provided. Polyphyletic evolution is slightly different.

 

Although no theory is without its discrepancies, it is notable that in the movement against evolution, very few seem to grasp the concept that humans and apes are different organisms. Many people still act under the false pretenses that humans evolved from apes and chimps and monkeys and the rest of the primates not mentioned.

 

While Humans, Monkeys and Apes are Hominids, it is Highly likely that Homo Sapiens shared a Common Ancestor with the monkeys. This concusion is derived on the Morphological, Phenotypical and Genotypical traits. Homo Sapiens can be much better compared to a Juvenile ape then a fully grown ape or a monkey.

 

This however, is a horrible lie, contradicting every theory in evolution in itself. The correct solution is that humans, apes, chimps, and every other sort of primate living today shared a common, less diverse ancestor. A more simple explanation is that humans did not evolve from their primal cousins. Another discrepancy in the countless verbal assaults against evolution is the monkey to man model, depicting a linear transgression from old-world monkey progressing to the normal working-day man, with every stage in between. This is of course, another fallacy, as 1. Man did not evolve from the old-world monkey, and 2. The different hominids depicted on that model did not appear in time in that order. In fact, they did not appear in any order at all. To be more accurate, some existed in the same time frame.

 

Well, calling it a horrible lie isn't fully right. Misunderstood or MisInformed would be a better choise, in my opinion.

While you right, the Homo Sapiens did not directly evolved from Apes, but rather shared a Common Ancestor some 14 Mya. You are also right that some of the Hominids depicted on such a poster have existed at the same time or before/after, but for the moment, it does a good job depicting the species that haven't yet been found. There are also various models that explain/predict such phenomenon. There are major morphological differences between an Ape and a Monkey. Genetically, we are closer to Chimps, but morphologically, we are closer to Guerillas.

 

Another discrepancy still is the stereotypical view that organisms evolve and adapt to their environments as they progress through their lives.

 

Not entirely true. Under certain conditions, this can be brue as shown by the H-W, granted that every single one of the conditions are met as required by the H-W. But there are other things that can have an effect as well. Mutations, Changes in diet, Selective breeding, etc.

 

This is a horrible error of logical thinking, based simply on the fact that an organism’s D.N.A. does not change at all during its life. In fact, any adaptations at all are only revealed through great changes in the environment, in which natural selection takes its toll on those without the adaptation already embedded within their gene structure.

 

Not true. Even a single mutation w/ in the genome, would mean it's no longer the exact same genome, now wouldn't it?

Also, taking in things like a Mutation, not all mutations are expressed or are Benificial or Detrimental. Most mutations are neutral, plus not all detrimental mutations are selected against, for example the Down Syndrome or the Sickle Cell Anemia. An individual with either of these mutations will and can grow up to be a relatively healthy adult.

 

Furthermore, it may also be asked why the human race has not ‘evolved’ recently.

 

Yes they have. Numerous examples exist, such as the High-Altitude adaptation of the Hymalayans, dentition movement, etc

Or unless you're talking about a certain pre-concieved trait, such as developing an ifrared vision or a bigger brain, etc. Then this would explain by the Orthogenesis theory and that is false.

 

This is remedied through, again, another simple explanation. That explanation being that due to the amazing capability for Man to create his own environment, complete with controls and set parameters, Man is no longer hampered by the mechanism known as Natural Selection. Hence, no adaptations will be presented because there will be no need for them as such.

 

Regardless of the man's capability, Natural Selection is still at play, simply look around for examples, these are countless. As far as why didn't the Homo Sapiens haven't completely evolved yet, would be perhaps that we have not found a new niche to undergo a further major evolution? Even thou this may be erroneous, but I think that for the time being, humans are the Pinnacle of Evolution, but this is subject to change should we do find a new niche[i/].

 

One final discrepancy that should be pointed out is that evolution is merely a theory. Although it is extremely believable and supported by vast amounts of evidence, it is still, in every way, shape and form, a theory. One cannot say they believe in evolution, because it is not a fact. It is merely an in-depth explanation ascertaining to the origins of the various diverse species existing on this planet. So many of the anti-evolutionists fail to grasp this, leading some to believe that they may not be as informed as they think they are. This is however, a minor discrepancy that has not greatly affected the debate concerning evolution’s credibility.

 

I do believe I've already answered this one, so let's move on.

 

Many of these stereotypes exist mainly because society has not been educated otherwise. Furthermore, the anti-evolutionists continue to demand evidence as to evolution and its truth. As previously outlined, humans have not evolved recently due to their amazing ability to create their own environment. Furthermore, that ability has been rising steadily over the past ten thousand years. However, ten thousand years ago was a very different time from today, one with which had various situations in which adaptations were a necessity in order to ensure survival. One such situation is the Sickle Cell Anemia mutation, which is present in a great majority of the African population. The condition, Sickle Cell, concerns an individual’s resistance to a deadly disease known as malaria. The strange shape assigned to the blood cells by the condition prevents the malaria bodies from affecting the blood cells. This is a fine example of natural selection. Back then, when the sickle cell gene was not widely dispersed throughout the population, Malaria swept throughout the population, leaving only a handful of those with the Sickle Cell gene. Those few people had a large deal of resistance to malaria, hence making them more adaptable to the environment. Their offspring also carried the gene, and this new mutation carried out through a great deal of the population, hence creating an evolutionary advantage compared to their past counter-parts without the gene. This is a prime example of how evolution has occurred within the past several millennia.

 

Absolutely beautiful. Well done.

 

 

Throughout the past eons, several different variations of hominid have existed. The first known hominid being the Australopithecus Afarensis, progressing to Africanus, with the Aethiopicus branching off to the side. After Africanus, there came a large divergence in which several variations branched off into whole new species, with the Habilis as our preceding ancestor. Next came the Ergaster, followed by another branching off, which at the ends of each branch included: Homo Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Sapiens. All of these different species have been confirmed through the fossil record. Perhaps the most memorable of all of these various hominids however, would be the Afarensis, of which an actual fossil was discovered.

 

Once again, Absolutely beautiful. Well done.

 

Discovered by Donald Johanson in The Afar region of Hadar, Ethiopia during1973, the fossil known as ‘Lucy’ has provided what is quite possibly the most solid evidence of the evolution of Man. Lucy was only among the first of many hominid skeletons to be unearthed in the Afar. Lucy was about one meter tall, had a small brain, and walked upright, leading some scientists to believe that perhaps hominids didn’t develop large brains before walking upright. This has raised some controversy, and remains as a discrepancy in the evolution of man, mainly because scientists are still unsure as to the particular aspects that caused man to walk upright. Originally, it was thought that hominids began using tools and walked upright to free up the hands. However, Lucy walked upright herself, and had modern day ‘hands’, yet there was no evidence of tool-use at the site of her discovery.

 

What do you mean she was among the 1st? There are others. Lucy is by far one of the most complete Australipithecine fossils found, being at almost 40% complete. Unless I missed other discoveries of such magnitude or there are other Lucy's?!?

 

Another strong example of evidence supporting evolution is the similar homologous structures within several variations of mammals roaming the planet. If the forelimb of a bat, a cat, a human, and a whale were compared, it would be noted that a similar bone structure is present in all four, again supporting Darwin’s theory of all living things having a common ancestor. If, all things were created individually from a ‘divine’ power, then the logical choice of action would be to create a suitable bone structure specified for the species itself. It would not seem logical to give four very different creatures the same skeletal structure

 

Yep, that would make better sence if we were created by god.

 

. In fact, assuming evolution is correct, the current bipedal structure of man is disadvantageous to human beings. The consistent upright position creates large amounts of stress on the hipbones and spinal structures. However, if Man were created individually from organisms throughout the planet, it would make sense to give Man his own skeletal structure, rather than a modified one from a previous ancestor. (Campbell, Reece, 2001).

 

Agreed. Also, it is a morphological disadvantage to be bipedal, for the reason given above.

 

As previously indicated, no theory is without its discrepancies. Evolution does indeed have gaps. If examined closely, one will find that the fossil record is incomplete. Several species of hominid that have traits present in current hominids but lacking in previous hominids are missing. Furthermore, there are also various examples of evidence against evolution as well. There are several gaps missing in evolution’s defense.

 

Just because when an organism dies, it does not in no way ensure it to be fossilized. The conditions for such phenomenon must be met, plus considering other factors such as predators or other hominids who might have scavenged the bones for their hunting and gathering life styles.

 

For instance, how does one explain the various different cultures within society today? As underlined in the paragraphs above, environment plays a serious role in the development of adaptations and how a species evolves. However, environment also has an effect on customs. Hence, different environment equals different cultures, customs, and languages even.

 

Social Cybernetics can explain these. But as a very brief generelization, groups are systems and must be veiwed as such. Taking a reductionistic approach is a sure way to mmisinterpret datum, so the only way to avoid such major mistakes is the systems's(or network) perspective.

 

 

One may also imagine how an adaptation can carry throughout a population in order for the species to be ‘better equipped’ for the environment. While it is highly unlikely that a mutation or some other genetic flaw would have a beneficent effect on an organism, in the event that it does, logic dictates that those without the adaptation would probably be eliminated through natural selection.

 

That's negotiable. If by that, you mean that a random mutation causing such a (detrimental)flaw would mean instant elimination of the organism, then it's wrong in many cases. There are numerous such 'flaws' that exist out there and these organisms or humans still live. If you meant that such a 'flaw' would mean that Natural Selections selects against one's fitness, then it may be more right, but not in all cases, depending on that case.

 

This most likely would create a bottleneck effect, seriously increasing genetic drift and the rate of occurrence of an adaptation through the phenotype.

 

It can, in a relatively small to very small social structure.

 

 

Creationism however, is not with its own defense. Although there are several anti-evolutionistic movements in existence, creationism poses the greatest threat to the theory of evolution. For instance, referring to the parting the Red Sea, it has been scientifically proven that the Red Sea is possible to cross barefoot at a particular time. During the time of such crossing, timing would be critical, and predicting tidal movements was not a powerful skill for ancient Egyptian slaves. This leads some to believe in the existence of a ‘divine’ power. However, creationism too has gaps. In the story of Noah, when God flooded the world and rid it of the infidels, the entire world was flooded and two of each animal were taken aboard The Ark in order to reproduce when reaching land after the flood. First of all, it is impossible to completely flood the world in the manner God depicted. Second of all, the estimated number of species existing on this planet is near 6 million. There is simply not enough resources or manpower to sufficiently gather up two of each animal, along with sufficient food for all of them. However, these are merely some of the discrepancies of both views.

 

No comment. Well, other then the one I highlited, because if this flood has indeed caused such devastation, how come only a tiny portion of the land was covered during this flood as there are other areas where living systems thrived w/o ever seeing this flood?

 

In truth, there is evidence stacked against and for evolution. There is no true way to decide what is right, and what is wrong, because sufficient technology to do so is yet to be discovered. There may come a time when Man truly understands his origins, along with the origins of the rest of the planet. Ultimately, Man may never know the true answer to the questions of life. Man may never truly understand what it is that put him here, or whether or not he simply ‘evolved’ from lesser organisms to get here. The only truth Man may ever know is that he is here right now, in the present, acting out his life. This may be the only truth anyone knows.

 

There is much more of the evidence FOR the Evolution then against, unless one is taking sides with the Religious and Creationists. But other then that, the rest is pretty good.

 

 

In conclusion, evolution has many aspects, positive and negative. There are several views against evolution, and several views in support of it. It should be known that people in society devote their entire lives to understanding that which has put them in the position that they are now currently in. The ultimate answer lays within their own minds and opinions, because only what they believe is true will be true for them.

 

True.

[admiral_ju00]

As far as the reference to why would primates walk upright there is the hypothesis supported by a lot of arguments that primates were exposed to a flooded water enviroment' date=' stood upright, lost hair over time and also gained the fat deposits of humans to maintain heat in these wet enviroments. We see better arguments towards evolution as we learn and explore. It seems to make more sense than less the more we learn although we haven't got the whole solution yet.

Just aman[/quote']

 

and may i have a linky for that please?

[Thorin]

Neo, has any of this helped?

 

BTW- It has been said that Einstein had one of the smallest brains on record. It just depends on how much of it you use (what is the average?) and which parts are most developed (spatial reasoning and such).

[atinymonkey]

Who said that? Oddly, the bisected sections of Einstein's brain are still around. He donated his brain to science, and it’s sent round various universities for study. It’s a normal sized brain, not small and not large.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8805120&dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.bioquant.com/gallery/einstein.html

[Thorin]

Yep, both of your cited articles reference his brain as being within the normal bounds, but they do mention a curios detail about his inferior parietal lobe. That being, it was 15% bigger than the norm. That section of the brain does seen to correlate with spatial reasoning. It may not be causation, but it is an interesting fact, considering his use of mental pictures to formulate his theories.

 

Your articles also mention his unusually thin separator membranes between lobes, which meant he had a greater neuron density then most.

 

This points toward density and lobe size as being more important than head size when considering "intelligence" in any given area of study or application, which may have more bearing on evolutionary discussions.

[Thorin]

Zeo- "Darwin’s theories provided in-depth explanations..."

 

I reread part of your original post and this sentence stood out to me as a possible overstatement. Darwin gave broad theories, which were speculative in their very nature. That is why he remains open to "attack." What gave his theories power were the in-depth examples using modern diversity.

 

You seem to be almost offended that people still debate Darwin's theories and paint dissenters as being almost heretical. I would argue that it is that very debate that you would want to happen. I would not advocate persecution of thought, but a little friction keeps us from getting lazy and hones the argument, discarding the stuff that doesn't work.

 

Zeo- "The ultimate answer lays within their own minds and opinions, because only what they believe is true will be true for them."

 

What a LAZY conclusion! You negate the fact that what is true for one can be imposed on others, making it true (reality) for all. I think the Nazis and Stalin made that clearly possible. Your conclusion also negates the positive force of education and collaboration, both of which seek to introduce previously unknown ideas into the singularly personal mind of the individual and break down the barriers that exist naturally within isolation. Your conclusion is stuck in the ivory-tower of the Victorian and Romantic intellect.

[Yakuzi]

and may i have a linky for that please?

 

It's the Aquatic Ape Theory, this is the best link I could find for the moment, briefly describing what it means:

 

http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

 

Elaine Morgan has written some books on this topic, namely:

- The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

- Scars of Evolution

 

I really recommend these books for anyone interested in human evolution, it's understandable and easy to read...

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0285635182/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/026-9957450-0407660

[admiral_ju00]

interesting. but for the moment, i think this hypothesis deserves the same shelf as that for the Gaia hypothesis.

 

Bipedalism - We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier

 

unlike what's said in the AAT(among others),

1) genus Homo does NOT date 5 mya or more

2) current fossil record places hominid evolution( or arrival) - or rather the split between the greather apes - roughly between 6.5 - 5.5 mya, a bipedalism does not seem too apparent until the age/time h. erectus.

the tree of hominids is very large, and it seems to start about 14mya.

 

 

but i will get that book as i want more details.

thanks for the link.