Evidence for Evolution

[lebanongov]

evolution ? common guys it's so simple in exsitence the most importnt rule is you have to adopt to your envirement or you become extinct .now the intreeging part in this is that man "human kind" has evoluted in a twisted way .let me explain : every animal plant adapt his body to the enviremet hew lives in it except human change the envirement so he can live it it "houses ,cars ,tech .clothes ,"wich make me very certain that man with his current physical if dropped as he is now in the middle of nowhere in this planet "earth "wont survive alone without his invention wich makes us all alien to the planet we live in ,at least this is what i think


man in all his mighty stopped his normal and natural physical evolution on this planet ages ago when he started his brain evolution and made himself very dependent on the fake invorement he created
that is only my opinion anyway

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by lebanongov

evolution ? common guys it's so simple in exsitence the most importnt rule is you have to adopt to your envirement or you become extinct .now the intreeging part in this is that man "human kind" has evoluted in a twisted way .let me explain : every animal plant adapt his body to the enviremet hew lives in it except human change the envirement so he can live it it "houses ,cars ,tech .clothes ,"wich make me very certain that man with his current physical if dropped as he is now in the middle of nowhere in this planet "earth "wont survive alone without his invention wich makes us all alien to the planet we live in ,at least this is what i think


man in all his mighty stopped his normal and natural physical evolution on this planet ages ago when he started his brain evolution and made himself very dependent on the fake invorement he created
that is only my opinion anyway

It's not that we evolved in a twisted way, but we were created as a divine creature. Man can manipulate and destroy nature. Something doesn't fit there. If we evolved to survive, then we sure reached a level that has nothing to do with survival, nothing to do with fitting into the eco-system and balancing nature out. We are in a divine sphere and if anything we have tampered with nature's harmonious balance.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by lebanesecanadian

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

I would also like to add that the arguments against Creationism are based on misunderstandings and outright lies. So it cuts both ways. If I ask an Evolutionist what Creationism is according to the Bible, he will quote me Creationism according to some deluded minister. Evolutionists use their brain power to invent theories for the purpose of connecting dots, yet, they will not use their god given talent to study the Bible in depth, rather than listening to traditions of man. What does that tell you?

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Let me make this clear, the fossil record does not show humans evolved from apes. What it does show is extinct species of apes which evolutionists connected to humans. That is why Human Evolution is called a theory, because of the absence of hard evidence and facts. It is a science rich in theories and poor in hard evidence. If it looks like an ape, if it smells like an ape, then by golly it's an ape, and just because some guy says ktashaft l'baroud, apes look similar to humans, similar eyes, ears, nose, and hands to grasp, therefore, they must be our ancestors doesn't make it true or factual science. As a scientist, you have to do better than that, because an ape is closer to a dog than a human in terms of being, intelligence, and capabilities. So, do we say we evolved from dogs? I'm sure you'll find some scientist who has invented such a theory based on nothing. Let's take Gigantopithecus as an example of an extinct ape; scientists don't claim we evolved from this ape, but they try to connect it to gorillas or orangutans. Why? Because gorillas are large enough to fit the profile? Perhaps genetics? We all exist in flesh bodies, so isn't it natural for mammals to have similar genes and traits? Same goes for Neanderthals. Evolutionists took a bunch of extinct species similar in traits, and decided they must have evolved from each other. They unilaterally connected the dots together like a puzzle, and built a theory on a false premise and a shaky foundation absent of hard evidence. Within these baseless theories we find feeble attempts to explain how an Old World ape "rafted" into the New World and evolved. A kid can invent such a theory. Rather than invent theories every other day, why not try to understand the Bible which has been constant for thousands of years. And contrary to popular belief, it does not claim the earth is 6 thousand years old. That is an outright lie. Every species similar or not has it's place and role in the eco-system for a purpose, that's why we see an abdunce of life on earth and that's the way God intended it.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

Let me make this clear, the fossil record does not show humans evolved from apes. What it does show is extinct species of apes which evolutionists connected to humans. That is why Human Evolution is called a theory, because of the absence of hard evidence and facts. It is a science rich in theories and poor in hard evidence. If it looks like an ape, if it smells like an ape, then by golly it's an ape, and just because some guy says ktashaft l'baroud, apes look similar to humans, similar eyes, ears, nose, and hands to grasp, therefore, they must be our ancestors doesn't make it true or factual science. As a scientist, you have to do better than that, because an ape is closer to a dog than a human in terms of being, intelligence, and capabilities. So, do we say we evolved from dogs? I'm sure you'll find some scientist who has invented such a theory based on nothing. Let's take Gigantopithecus as an example of an extinct ape; scientists don't claim we evolved from this ape, but they try to connect it to gorillas or orangutans. Why? Because gorillas are large enough to fit the profile? Perhaps genetics? We all exist in flesh bodies, so isn't it natural for mammals to have similar genes and traits? Same goes for Neanderthals. Evolutionists took a bunch of extinct species similar in traits, and decided they must have evolved from each other. They unilaterally connected the dots together like a puzzle, and built a theory on a false premise and a shaky foundation absent of hard evidence. Within these baseless theories we find feeble attempts to explain how an Old World ape "rafted" into the New World and evolved. A kid can invent such a theory. Rather than invent theories every other day, why not try to understand the Bible which has been constant for thousands of years. And contrary to popular belief, it does not claim the earth is 6 thousand years old. That is an outright lie. Every species similar or not has it's place and role in the eco-system for a purpose, that's why we see an abdunce of life on earth and that's the way God intended it.

This could not be further from the truth. The fossil record is just a microcosm of the evidence. The real damning evidence falls into the genetic, molecular, and biochemical findings.

How do you tell if you and your cousin descended from a common grandparent? Well that answer lies in genetics. Evolutionary biologists, too, can look at the genetic parallels between humans and apes.

In each of us, we carry chromosomes and these chromosomes contain genetic units. Over each generation, these units are split up, crossed-over and passed down to the next generation. It has been happening for ages, much more than you can count. This is how you can tell if you and your cousin are from the same family; by looking at this genetic unit, this same piece of chromosome which your relatives carry an identical copy of. By looking at this unit, we can go so far back as a grandparent or even a primitive specimen (like primates).

In biochemistry, we have seen that there are certain protein-genes which are essential for the functioning of life. We find this in all biodiversity. A certain fraction of the amino acids which make up this protein is common for the necessity of life. However, another large fraction is very random in the arrangement of these amino acids (and by that I mean there are billions and billions of these different functionally-equivalent sequences). So, if these randomly available varying protein sequences perform the same task, then there is no reason to believe that we should find any identical sequence of arrangement in the random units between any two species. The chances of finding such symmetry is so infinitely small, that a chain of zeros would proceed the decimal point.

However, what we do find between humans and apes is that in both sets of amino acids which account for this particular ubiquitous gene, they are completely identical. Between humans and other species, these sequences differ by many amino acids. To explain this in any other terms besides descendance would be relying on infinite improbability.

This is the real evidence. And the number of journals, theses, and academic publications supporting it is too lengthy for me to list here. I would suggest you go to any accredited academic institution and dig through their library or any edifice of information they have.

BTW, the human-ape question is not the determinate factor for verifying evolution. Evolution explains all biodiversity. There are evidences for the morphology of other species including reptiles, insects, microorganisms and much more.

Second of all, evolution is not called a theory because it hasnt been proven. If this is the case, then we would have to assume quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the atom are all 'hypothetical' as well since we are taught the atomic theory, quantum theory, and theory of general relativity in our scientific education (and if you're gonna tell me these are not factual sciences, then I have not much left to say). I dont ever remember being taught the 'atomic law' or the 'law of relativity.'

The term 'theory' in science implies a differential from the term 'law' or 'fact' only in the sense of its complexity. Typically, laws are very simple, axiomatic, and self-evident. Theories are alot more complex and multifaceted. Its really just a cheap game of semantics and convention, when you think about it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

This could not be further from the truth. The fossil record is just a microcosm of the evidence. The real damning evidence falls into the genetic, molecular, and biochemical findings.

Let’s examine these findings.

How do you tell if you and your cousin descended from a common grandparent? Well that answer lies in genetics. Evolutionary biologists, too, can look at the genetic parallels between humans and apes.

There is going to be more parallels between humans and apes, just like there are going to be more parallels between lizards and crocodiles. But, that does not make lizards ancestors of crocodiles or vice versa, it just means they are living and breathing species which live under the same sun, share this same earth under the same circumstances but with different and unique roles within the eco-system. It does not prove that one evolved into the other. That is a theory made up by Evolutionists to explain human origin from a humanistic point of view.

In each of us, we carry chromosomes and these chromosomes contain genetic units. Over each generation, these units are split up, crossed-over and passed down to the next generation. It has been happening for ages, much more than you can count. This is how you can tell if you and your cousin are from the same family; by looking at this genetic unit, this same piece of chromosome which your relatives carry an identical copy of. By looking at this unit, we can go so far back as a grandparent or even a primitive specimen (like primates).

We are in agreement as far as tracing back this unit to our human grandparents; but to somehow connect this same genetic unit to a primate with its own unique genetic finger print, visibly & physically differentiating it from the human species, is unfactual.

In biochemistry, we have seen that there are certain protein-genes which are essential for the functioning of life. We find this in all biodiversity. A certain fraction of the amino acids which make up this protein is common for the necessity of life. However, another large fraction is very random in the arrangement of these amino acids (and by that I mean there are billions and billions of these different functionally-equivalent sequences). So, if these randomly available varying protein sequences perform the same task, then there is no reason to believe that we should find any identical sequence of arrangement in the random units between any two species. The chances of finding such symmetry is so infinitely small, that a chain of zeros would proceed the decimal point.
However, what we do find between humans and apes is that in both sets of amino acids which account for this particular ubiquitous gene, they are completely identical. Between humans and other species, these sequences differ by many amino acids. To explain this in any other terms besides descendance would be relying on infinite improbability.
This is the real evidence. And the number of journals, theses, and academic publications supporting it is too lengthy for me to list here. I would suggest you go to any accredited academic institution and dig through their library or any edifice of information they have.

Let’s agree that chimpanzees are closer to humans in genetic makeup than cats and humans. With that said, the burden of scientifically proving humans evolved from apes falls squarely on the shoulders of Evolutionists. Reliable and objective genetic techniques for assessing the overall genetic similarity of species have not supported the ape-human ancestry theory, but quite the contrary. The data of such experiments demonstrate the human-chimp relation is well outside the accepted range in degree of confirming a link of ancestry between the two species.

BTW, the human-ape question is not the determinate factor for verifying evolution. Evolution explains all biodiversity. There are evidences for the morphology of other species including reptiles, insects, microorganisms and much more.

I understand that, but the same standard or unscientific law is used to determine Evolution of all species.

Second of all, evolution is not called a theory because it hasnt been proven. If this is the case, then we would have to assume quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the atom are all 'hypothetical' as well since we are taught the atomic theory, quantum theory, and theory of general relativity in our scientific education (and if you're gonna tell me these are not factual sciences, then I have not much left to say). I dont ever remember being taught the 'atomic law' or the 'law of relativity.'
The term 'theory' in science implies a differential from the term 'law' or 'fact' only in the sense of its complexity. Typically, laws are very simple, axiomatic, and self-evident. Theories are alot more complex and multifaceted. Its really just a cheap game of semantics and convention, when you think about it.

There are accurate and inaccurate theories. For example, there are five serious theories for the formation of our moon, but only one theory can be right, and the rest can only qualify as nice tries. Of course, there is also the possibility that none are accurate. I’m not an Evolutionist or a molecular scientist, but using common sense I can safely say that based on the lack of hard evidence, preposterous theories that fall under the umbrella of the Theory of Human Evolution, missing links, subjective & biased scientific publishers, militant scientists who are out to disprove Creationism through fraud & deception (there are many examples of this), personal gain etc. I can safely conclude that the Theory of Evolution is about as convincing as human-made Global Warming.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

There is going to be more parallels between humans and apes, just like there are going to be more parallels between lizards and crocodiles. But, that does not make lizards ancestors of crocodiles or vice versa, it just means they are living and breathing species which live under the same sun, share this same earth under the same circumstances but with different and unique roles within the eco-system. It does not prove that one evolved into the other. That is a theory made up by Evolutionists to explain human origin from a humanistic point of view.

Once again, I think you're confusing facts here. No one said we evolved from a mutually existing species. The Turkey did not evolve from the Chicken; humans did not evolve from apes.

What biologists do say is that we evolved from a common origin/ancestor. Humans and apes evolved from a great grandparental species. The monkey is no more or less evolved than the human being.

Brothers show very similar genetic characteristics. Cousins show less-similar genetic characteristics and so forth.

We are in agreement as far as tracing back this unit to our human grandparents; but to somehow connect this same genetic unit to a primate with its own unique genetic finger print, visibly & physically differentiating it from the human species, is unfactual.

The last time I checked, there is no priori which postulates that genetic mapping ends with the human species. What rule dictates that? What makes humans so special that they are superior to something so historical and complex as DNA? DNA is found in all organisms. It is the blueprint of all life. It is found in the entire fabric of biodiversity. To reduce all of this eternal information down to something so young, mortal, and microcosmic as the human species is a very gross fallacy. Our genes and DNA survive for millions and millions of years; but humans die shortly. The genes inside of you are not young, they are almost immortal, but you on the other hand come and go with the very purpose of carrying these genes.

There is no reason why we should superimpose a genetic boundary on the tiny human species.

Let’s agree that chimpanzees are closer to humans in genetic makeup than cats and humans. With that said, the burden of scientifically proving humans evolved from apes falls squarely on the shoulders of Evolutionists. Reliable and objective genetic techniques for assessing the overall genetic similarity of species have not supported the ape-human ancestry theory, but quite the contrary. The data of such experiments demonstrate the human-chimp relation is well outside the accepted range in degree of confirming a link of ancestry between the two species.

How so? How else do you explain that the entire sequence of amino acids, between chimps and humans, is completely identical? Only about 1/3 of this sequence should be identical, because that is a conservative requirement for all species that erupt from life. But how do you explain it for the redundancy in the other 2/3 which is variable to billions of other functionally-equivalent sequences? How do you explain the complete identical sequence (amino acid-amino acid) between the Turkey and Chicken? And how do you explain the sequential-differences between the Turkeys/Chickens and other species? Between human/apes and their fellow mammals?

If you argue for something other than common descent, then you are arguing from the point of infinite improbability.

I understand that, but the same standard or unscientific law is used to determine Evolution of all species.

Well yes and we also apply atomic theory to all matter. The point is there are columns of evidences - from morphological to genetic and molecular - for various different species. At some point, when collecting and analyzing this multitude of evidence - which is distributed along the entire diversity of life - we come to a conclusion: the evolution of the biological universe is a fact, not a theory just as we came to the conclusion that quantum physics is a fact, not a theory.

The DNA and chemistry which is common to all life, makes it prone to the same natural processes just as all celestial bodies in this universe - made up of the same matter - are all subject to the same Keplerian and Newtonian laws.

There are accurate and inaccurate theories. For example, there are five serious theories for the formation of our moon, but only one theory can be right, and the rest can only qualify as nice tries. Of course, there is also the possibility that none are accurate. I’m not an Evolutionist or a molecular scientist, but using common sense I can safely say that based on the lack of hard evidence, preposterous theories that fall under the umbrella of the Theory of Human Evolution, missing links, subjective & biased scientific publishers, militant scientists who are out to disprove Creationism through fraud & deception (there are many examples of this), personal gain etc. I can safely conclude that the Theory of Evolution is about as convincing as human-made Global Warming.

Yes, there are many unproven and nonsense theories: String Theory; multiverse theory; parallel universe theory; matrix theory; cosmological natural selection theory. All these are purely hypothetical. There are no evidences for them.

But for you to call evolution the product of 'militant scientists' and 'biased scientific publishers' puts you in a very difficult position: those same publishers must also be biased in their militant favor of the atom and the quantum particles - in trying to 'disprove' the Einsteinian relativists (since Einstein hated quantum theory and actually denied it, even in the presence of strong evidence that supported it). Hell, even many contributing physicists who proved quantum theory turned out to hate it (although they accepted it). Similarly, even Darwin was in dissonance with what he discovered. I have not read or heard of one historical account projecting any optimisim on Darwin's behalf, when he came across natural selection. For you to [selectively] assume only these evolutionists are 'biased' is to take an infinitely huge leap of faith in a purely one-sided and two-faced hunch.

Why do you just cherry-pick at evolution being a 'biased' theory? If you're going to do that, you have to be intellectually fair and honest, by also brutalizing those other theories I've listed with the same logic you've selectively employed against evolution. What we find is most of these scientific founding fathers inadverdently came across their discoveries. They were simply pioneers. And the present generation of scientists and academic publishers, are simply carrying their message (whether with general relativity or evolution).

If evolution is 'biasedly' propagated by 'biased' scientists, then I guess that also makes atomic and quantum theory the 'militant' result of 'biased' publishers. There is absolutey no reason why atomic theory passes, but evolutionary doesnt - especially when there is no asymmetry in the academically published support for both of them (as you claimed). Not to mention, the leader of the Human Genome Project is a theistic evolutionist, himself.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

Once again, I think you're confusing facts here. No one said we evolved from a mutually existing species. The Turkey did not evolve from the Chicken; humans did not evolve from apes.

According to evolution, some dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved from monkeys and humans evolved from apes. I don't think I'm confusing facts.

What biologists do say is that we evolved from a common origin/ancestor. Humans and apes evolved from a great grandparental species. The monkey is no more or less evolved than the human being.

Again, according to evolution monkeys existed millions of years ago, some remain while some have gone extinct, but humans did not exist 5 million years ago but evolved into the Homo sapiens sapiens of today from an ape. So, before there was Homo sapiens sapiens, there was Homo erectus and even before that Homo habilis and so on...

Brothers show very similar genetic characteristics. Cousins show less-similar genetic characteristics and so forth.

Indeed and that was my point. Humans will show more genetic similarities to apes than cats, but that does not mean we evolved from a common ancestor. It just means we're of the same nature, same earth, and living in flesh bodies which require similar traits to function and survive. But each species has a unique genetic finger print that separates it from the other.

The last time I checked, there is no priori which postulates that genetic mapping ends with the human species. What rule dictates that? What makes humans so special that they are superior to something so historical and complex as DNA? DNA is found in all organisms. It is the blueprint of all life. It is found in the entire fabric of biodiversity. To reduce all of this eternal information down to something so young, mortal, and microcosmic as the human species is a very gross fallacy. Our genes and DNA survive for millions and millions of years; but humans die shortly. The genes inside of you are not young, they are almost immortal, but you on the other hand come and go with the very purpose of carrying these genes.

I think I answered that in part above. We share many characteristics with the animal kingdom because we consist of the same matter, but what separates us from the animal kingdom is our supreme intelligence, or if I may use this term "A Divine Creature" in relation to its environment. This is stating fact, humans are the only creature that willingly and consciously break and manipulate the laws of nature.

How so? How else do you explain that the entire sequence of amino acids, between chimps and humans, is completely identical? Only about 1/3 of this sequence should be identical, because that is a conservative requirement for all species that erupt from life. But how do you explain it for the redundancy in the other 2/3 which is variable to billions of other functionally-equivalent sequences? How do you explain the complete identical sequence (amino acid-amino acid) between the Turkey and Chicken? And how do you explain the sequential-differences between the Turkeys/Chickens and other species? Between human/apes and their fellow mammals?

Your formula does not determine evolution of species, but similarities of species. Evolutionists use bio-chemical similarities to prove inheritance from a common ancestor which is a very weak argument. If something is similar it does not prove evolution occurred. Based on DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn't separate until six or seven million years ago. I'll use this analogy that I read before, "A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities? But are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man." Now, when it comes to living species, they have one thing in common, God created them from the same foundation using the same method for a similar purpose.

Well yes and we also apply atomic theory to all matter. The point is there are columns of evidences - from morphological to genetic and molecular - for various different species. At some point, when collecting and analyzing this multitude of evidence - which is distributed along the entire diversity of life - we come to a conclusion: the evolution of the biological universe is a fact, not a theory just as we came to the conclusion that quantum physics is a fact, not a theory.

Ok, you mentioned genetic similarities above, now provide me with specific morphological evidence of evolution so we can discuss here in more detail. If the theory is based on a flawed foundation, then all methods of proving it right are in vain.

Yes, there are many unproven and nonsense theories: String Theory; multiverse theory; parallel universe theory; matrix theory; cosmological natural selection theory. All these are purely hypothetical. There are no evidences for them.

But for you to call evolution the product of 'militant scientists' and 'biased scientific publishers' puts you in a very difficult position: those same publishers must also be biased in their militant favor of the atom and the quantum particles - in trying to 'disprove' the Einsteinian relativists (since Einstein hated quantum theory and actually denied it, even in the presence of strong evidence that supported it). Hell, even many contributing physicists who proved quantum theory turned out to hate it (although they accepted it). Similarly, even Darwin was in dissonance with what he discovered. I have not read or heard of one historical account projecting any optimisim on Darwin's behalf, when he came across natural selection. For you to [selectively] assume only these evolutionists are 'biased' is to take an infinitely huge leap of faith in a purely one-sided and two-faced hunch.

Why do you just cherry-pick at evolution being a 'biased' theory? If you're going to do that, you have to be intellectually fair and honest, by also brutalizing those other theories I've listed with the same logic you've selectively employed against evolution. What we find is most of these scientific founding fathers inadverdently came across their discoveries. They were simply pioneers. And the present generation of scientists and academic publishers, are simply carrying their message (whether with general relativity or evolution).

If evolution is 'biasedly' propagated by 'biased' scientists, then I guess that also makes atomic and quantum theory the 'militant' result of 'biased' publishers. There is absolutey no reason why atomic theory passes, but evolutionary doesnt - especially when there is no asymmetry in the academically published support for both of them (as you claimed). Not to mention, the leader of the Human Genome Project is a theistic evolutionist, himself.

Why not? When there is an opposing view out there, you will always find on the other side of the fence hardliners that are biased to their own beliefs and hostile to the alternatives. Whether they are Religious or Atheist, each is out to outdo the other using questionable tactics. Its human nature and Evolutionists are not unbiased robots. "Catholic science" was a fact for many centuries in the primitive world because that was the trend, then came the age of enlightenment from religion and we find ourselves today living in a world that is increasingly hostile to the existence of God. An elitist group of Atheists and secularists have monopolized science and gov’t and will spare no expense in their mission to erase God from the minds of men. Evolution is taught in schools as a fact, and to criticize its validity is like criticizing a brick wall; it might not get you burnt at the stake like in the Dark Ages if you criticized the Church, but you will get the cold shoulder for sure. The Theory of Human Evolution is like a fashion, when something becomes fashionable, whether it looks good or not, people will wear it, and it usually takes a small group of people to make it fashionable and mainstream. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discrediting science and all theories; I'm just discrediting Human Evolution. You used Darwin as an example of hating his discovery, so I'll use Richard Dawkins as a similar example who was born a Christian but then rejected the existence of God and later was convinced by the intelligent design argument so he reconverted until he decided the Anglican Church was too dictatorial and full of cr***, so he went back to being an Atheist. If Darwin was alive today, he might have done the same at some point and rejected his own theory. To me an Evolutionist is not familiar with Creationism or simply does not wish to know it.

[lebluv]

بقايـا بشريـة فـي كينيـا تتحـدى نظـريـة التـطـور التقليـديـة

الجمجمة والفك اللذان عثر عليهما في كينيا ويعود عمرهما الى ما قبل مليون و440 الف سنة (رويترز)

قال باحثون إن حفريتين لجمجمة بشرية وفك أعلى تعودان لاثنين من الانواع الاولى للانسان البدائي «الإنسان الماهر» و«الإنسان المنتصب» تشيران إلى أنهما ربما عاشا معاً لأكثر من نصف مليون عام. وتقلب هذه الاكتشافات نظرية التطور الطبيعي التقليدية رأساً على عقب.
وقالت الدكتورة ميفي ليكي إنها عثرت على أدلة تؤكد تعايش نوعين من السلالات البشرية في الوقت نفسه في كينيا، يما يتناقض مع نظرية النشوء التقليدية التي تفترض وجود جذر سلالي مشترك واحد للبشر.
وقالت سوزان أنطون استاذة علوم الانسان بجامعة نيويورك «لقد كان هناك اعتقاد بأن الانسان الماهر تطور ببطء الى الانسان المنتصب.. والآن اكتشفنا أنهما كانا يعيشان معاً. لذلك لا يمكن ان يظل ذلك الاعتقاد قائماً بعد الآن».
فالنظرية القديمة هي أن أقدم نوع من البشر وهو «الهومو هابيلس» (الانسان الماهر) تطور إلى «الهومو ايريكتوس Homo » (الانسان المنتصب) وثم تطور إلى الإنسان الحديث أو «الهومو سابينس».
نشر التقرير امس في مجلة «نايتشر» ويبيّن أن النوعين الأولين عاشا بشكل متزامن قبل ما يقارب 1.5 مليون سنة، في أجزاء من كينيا، لمدة تقارب نصف مليون سنة. ويأتي هذا الاستنتاج بعد فحوص وتحقيقات استمرت سبعة أعوام، وتركزت على جمجمة كاملة تابعة لإنسان «الهومو ايريكتوس» وجدت العام 2000 على مقربة من بقايا أخرى تعود للفك العلوي من جمجمة إنسان «الهومو هابيلس». وبينت الدراسات التي تناولت عمر البقايا أن هذه الفصائل عاشت في أوقات متزامنة، الأمر الذي يتناقض وفرضية أن يكون أحدهما نتاج تطور الآخر.وعثر على الحفريتين في العام 2000 شرقي بحيرة توركانا خلال مشروع بحثي للمتحف الوطني في كينيا.
وتشير الأبحاث إلى أن الانسان الماهر والانسان المنتصب استخدما مصادر مختلفة للطعام وكان سلوكهما مختلفاً ليتمكنا من العيش معا دون أن ينقرض أحدهما.
وقال باتريك جاثوجو من جامعة يوتا وأحد المشاركين في البحث «كانا يعيشان على مسافة سير دقيقتين أو ثلاث دقائق. لا بد وأنهما تعاملا معاً».
وترجع حفرية الفك الأعلى للانسان الماهر إلى 1.44 مليون عام للوراء وهي أقدم من حفريات أخرى عثر عليها من قبل لهذا النوع.
وقال العالم فريد سبور من جامعة لندن «هذه الحفرية الجديدة تشير إلى أن الإنسان الماهر شقيق الإنسان المنتصب وأنهما كانا يعيشان معاً في الوقت نفسه ولم يسبق أحدهما الآخر».
والحفرية الثانية والتي عثر عليها في المكان نفسه بشمال كينيا كانت لجمجمة محفوظة في حالة جيدة تعود لأحد أفراد الإنسان المنتصب ترجع إلى ما قبل نحو 1.55 مليون عام.
وتعد هذه الحفرية اكتشافاً هاماً بسبب حجمها. فهي أصغر جمجمة للإنسان المنتصب عثر عليها حتى الآن وهي ترسم صورة مختلفة له تشير إلى تميزه بتنوع لم يعرف الباحثون بوجوده من قبل. وقد يعني هذا التنوع أنه مثل الغوريلا حيث تكون جمجمة الذكر أكبر حجماً من جمجمة الأنثى أن الإنسان المنتصب شهد بدوره اختلافاً بين الجنسين.
وكان يعتقد أن تقليص الفرق في حجم الجمجمة بين الجنسين هو أحد العلامات المميزة لتطور الإنسان.
وقال سبور إن كل الأدلة المتاحة تشير إلى أن الإنسان العاقل تطور من الإنسان المنتصب في عملية تطور حدثت في إفريقيا قبل مليون عام. ويبدو أن الاثنين جدهما واحد كان يعيش في إفريقيا قبل مليوني أو ثلاثة ملايين عام

[Evolution]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

I'll use this analogy that I read before, "A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities? But are the boat, plane, and car related?

You comparison is invalid..........

Boat, plane and cars are not living things, they can't reproduce, and they are not subject to mutation and natural selection. But living things can reproduce and they are subject to mutation and natural selection. Thats why the polar bear for example have a thick white fur to protect it from cold weather, but other bears that live in warm places don't have a thick white fur.


Our genetic changes very slowly through natural selection and mutation. Thats why it requires a lot of time for a species to evolve into another species

Again, according to evolution monkeys existed millions of years ago, some remain while some have gone extinct, but humans did not exist 5 million years ago but evolved into the Homo sapiens sapiens of today from an ape. So, before there was Homo sapiens sapiens, there was Homo erectus and even before that Homo habilis and so on...

What do you mean here ? Do you mean that Homo erectus and Homo habilis were apes ? LOL

but what separates us from the animal kingdom is our supreme intelligence, or if I may use this term "A Divine Creature" in relation to its environment. This is stating fact, humans are the only creature that willingly and consciously break and manipulate the laws of nature.

What are the laws of nature you are talking about ?

What are the laws of nature that human can break ?

Is there a specific laws that animals follow ? What are they ?

God created them from the same foundation using the same method for a similar purpose.

Evidence ? proof ?

How did god create them ? can you explain ?

It seems that you believe that they were created by unexplainable divine power............

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

According to evolution, some dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved from monkeys and humans evolved from apes. I don't think I'm confusing facts.

All I can tell you is the dinosaurs were completely extinct 65 million years ago, giving way to our mammalian ancestors (or at least the margin that remained thereof the post-extinction period) who comfortably descended from the trees that had been giving shelter to them for so long. Later came the primates, which humans and modern chimps broke off from.

We did not evolve from our cousins.

Again, according to evolution monkeys existed millions of years ago, some remain while some have gone extinct, but humans did not exist 5 million years ago but evolved into the Homo sapiens sapiens of today from an ape. So, before there was Homo sapiens sapiens, there was Homo erectus and even before that Homo habilis and so on...

The modern monkey of today is no less or more evolved than humans. We all represent one generation-line. The monkeys from generations ago, represent a different evolutionary diagram than the monkeys of today.

The variable environments humans and our cousins inhabited determined different morphological trends, which arose from natural selection.

Indeed and that was my point. Humans will show more genetic similarities to apes than cats, but that does not mean we evolved from a common ancestor. It just means we're of the same nature, same earth, and living in flesh bodies which require similar traits to function and survive. But each species has a unique genetic finger print that separates it from the other.

So you're telling me you and your cousins in your family, did not descend from a common ancestor (grandfather)?

I think I answered that in part above. We share many characteristics with the animal kingdom because we consist of the same matter, but what separates us from the animal kingdom is our supreme intelligence, or if I may use this term "A Divine Creature" in relation to its environment. This is stating fact, humans are the only creature that willingly and consciously break and manipulate the laws of nature.

What do you mean by 'break the laws of nature?'

There are some regions of the human brain which are more common to other species (which can be traced to our more distant ancestors) and there are specific parts which differentiate us from most of the animal kindgom.

Methane and carbon dioxide are obviously two structurally different molecules. But they share a chemical history. They were made from the same 'primordial soup' which was synthesized in the nuclear chambers of stars that go back to a common fundamental atom: hydrogen (let alone the fact both these molecules contain a carbon atom).

You can only speak of 'similarity' to such a vague degree. Eventually you have to concede that they actually surfaced from an initial point of origin. This is what our sense teaches us.

The biosphere works the same way. Life itself is a dynamic chemical reaction.

Your formula does not determine evolution of species, but similarities of species. Evolutionists use bio-chemical similarities to prove inheritance from a common ancestor which is a very weak argument. If something is similar it does not prove evolution occurred.

I have simply presented to you cases where certain unique pairs of species express 100% parallel in their amino acid sequence (out of billions of different functionally-equivalent sequences).

In other words, you're telling me this happened by 'coincidence' (which ironically places you in the position of defending the chance-argument).

Based on DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn't separate until six or seven million years ago.

Based on my understanding, the DNA comparison and fossil record implies a divergence between humans and apes, from a common hominoid ancestor, some 5-7 million years ago.

Even considering your numbers, it shows that the estimations are within very tangent ranges.

I'll use this analogy that I read before, "A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities?

Thats an asymmetrical analogy for the following reason: you're comparing artificial phenomena to natural phenomena.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt here: just as biodiversity expresses characteristics which imply some initial common point of origin from which the entire spectrum of nature was erected from, the artificial boat, plane, and car express physical similarities and characteristics which can be traced back to an origin of 'primordial materials' (i.e. raw metals of some kind, steel, etc.)

The same concept can be employed. But the difference is the forces which are driven to organize these two sets of phenomena. In the case with natural phenomena, an inartifical force (called natural selection) organized the inanimate matter of life into complex structures; in the case with artificial phenomena, an artifical force not common to nature (called intelligent design by man) was applied to organize the simple, raw components of materials into complex designs and structures.

Both cases are phenomena, but they are not the same meaning two fundamentally different forces drive them. Consequentially, this does not even afford us the chance to try and put them on the same level of understanding.

God created them from the same foundation using the same method for a similar purpose.

God is a hypothesis, not a fact. Just like string theory, multiverse theory, big crunch theory, anthropic theory, etc. are all purely hypothetical without a shred of evidence.

On the other hand, I have presented genetic (specifically Y-chromosome and mtDNA which are dictators in the biosphere), biochemical, sedimentary, and fossil evidences for evolution.

This is why evolution is a fact and God/string theory are merely empirically untenable illusions.

Ok, you mentioned genetic similarities above, now provide me with specific morphological evidence of evolution so we can discuss here in more detail. If the theory is based on a flawed foundation, then all methods of proving it right are in vain.

Examples:

Bird-Reptile transition: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

Just about two years ago they found a primitive fossil for the snake's ancestor completing the sedimentary column of evidence for snake evolution.

Even with humans, we have a very coherent morphological tree, based on fossil evidence. However, the issue of 'missing links' is trivial for two reasons:

1). They dont disprove the fact that humans' primitive ancestors have been evolving for millions of years (since we definitely have fossils aging over 3 million years old all the way to modern humans); this gradual morphological trend in the fossil history is definitely imprinted with change, diversity, and trial/error over a millionfold+ period of time.

2). Searching for an 'intermediate' is completely subjective and hypothetical. We can very well define our modern generation-line of existence to be that 'intermediate' (perhaps our descendants 30,000 years from now will classify us as such).

I know you did not mention this in your last post, but I know its a point creationists bring up all the time. So I'm just addressing it here.

So yes, the fossil record has testified very clearly in favor of evolution (and remember thats just the fossil record alone).