i'm well into a book at the moment called the human past edited by chris scarre and published by Thames and hudson, it's all about prehistoric man his tools society and where they've been unearthed, i am completely an atheist and do not believe in the bible, god or jesus, the only problem being i can't find any reference to an intermediate skeleton of humans or animals to prove evolution. why is this when evolution is taught in schools all over the world, how can we teach this when it isn't an established fact just more of a theory that seems plausible. in a nutshell

why are there no intermediate skeletons of humans or animals

i have a theory but i'd like to know what you good people think

thanks for reading and contributing to this excellent corner of the internet

well we gota teach something we cant just tell the kids at school we dont know how we got here so dont ask. even if it is wrong it wont kill us. we will have to wait and see


also may i ask what is your theory?

my theory is that we never find an intact skeleton from any era and most varieties of man were around for tens of thousands of years, and intermediate skeletons were around for a fraction of that so what hope do we have of finding it

There are, and saying there aren't is a huge load of well-refuted bunk that some people simply never tire of repeating, and this is the wrong subforum for yet another futile, broken-record creationism thread.

For anyone who's really the slightest bit interested in the matter of transitional fossils, here is a whole, huge FAQ file on the subject, which has been sitting right here on the web ever since there has been a web:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

This is one of the oldest, most rehashed isssues around. Anyone who says there are not transitional fossils simply has not looked and does not want to.

PS: Mods, prithee, does this thread belong here?

Depends on what his theory is.

Australopitheces

shouldnt this be in the religion or skepic section

Are you talking about Darwin's intermediate-phase fossils theory? Because if so, that theory was proven wrong.

Fossils of intermediate forms are all over the place. The FAQ I posted above belabors the point exhaustively.

i don't believe in creationalism at all as i posted in the first place and as far as i am aware ther are sub cultures of early man from different areas of the globe each uniquly different but not sharing any intermediate similarities

If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant.
i found this in the above mentioned link and i'm pretty sure this sums up my theory?

YES this does belong here as i'm NOT talking about GOD i'm talking about the history of man, and i'd just like to say i'm very intrested in this subject i apologise if i've said something that may or may not have been brought up before but just because some people don't know as much as some of you then maybe a friendly ''hey i know what your saying buddy but did you know that your theory has been refuted, try this link hope it helps'' this is more helpful than HAHA WRONG DOOFUS YOU'RE so outdated dumb ass. Knowledge is a tool to help not to bludgeon people over the head with
THNX

search Australopitheces

I think the problem is in FINDING the evidence. There may be lots of evidence out there to show direct connections, but it has not been dug up yet. Finding fossil evidence is actually a little skill and a lot of luck. Most evolution theories point to the evidence that does exist and will indicate what changes happened when.

I'm sure that as long as anthropologists, archeologists and paleontologist keep digging we will continue to accrue evidence of evolution.

Why does creation have to oppose evolution? There seems to be a reason for these two being pitted against each other and the reason is obvious if you do look back through history.

Its at this point someone should recognise that our own history is written deep within all of us and the evolution of mankind is a direction some would prefer us not too follow.

The truth of who and what we are is locked in our DNA and the answers are on our doorstep but will we be allowed to cross that thresh hold and see the truth to how and when we evolved into such a remarkable creation?

We are constantly evolving but it’s the ‘rate’ at which we have we have to question, why so slow?

History dictates hindsight, present allows for insight, combine the two and you gain foresight. To posses all three makes for a useful tool when considering our future and how we would like it to be.

To what gain would it be if all mankind held the truth?

Humans have existed in all kinds of formats yet we seem to be still evolving so that suggests we have yet to reach perfection, well maybe some of you guys struggle to reach in that direction….

Before something can evolve it first has to be created/designed, ask your mum and dad if you turned out the way they envisaged when you first came into this world, are you of their perfect design as it was those who created you?

If we could only ’google’ for the ‘universal truth’, now that would save some time and effort me thinks….

Ciao…

Nice post, JC2!

Anyway, regarding the "missing link" intermediate fossils, this is how I see it:

If human history can be regarded as a jigsaw puzzle, and each fossil, skeleton, etc is a piece of this puzzle, then we still have alot of pieces to find before we have a complete picture right?

And considering the vast amount of earth left to search, these missing pieces may take longer still to find, if they are ever found at all. We just have to wait and see.

But, remember the last time you put a puzzle together? You could see what the picture was before every piece was fitted in. You have an idea of the complete picture, and because of the pieces you already have (the evidence, if you will) you can pretty much assume whats going to be on those missing pieces.

Thats what they are teaching in school. Evolution itself is a proven theory. No one (besides maybe some head-in-the-sand fundamentalist bible thumpers) is disputing the fact that there is evidence TODAY of evolution in animals including humans. We don't have every piece, but we have put enough together to be able to understand some of our history. It is taught that there are missing links, and that the search continues for further evidence. Teachers arent lying to kids and saying "Hey class, today we are learning that we came from monkeys. Scientists have found EVERY species in the evolutionary trail, and the search has stopped because we need no more proof."

Plus, on top of this, what they teach in school changes every year. When something is found, either pointing towards or away from the theories of today, it is changed, and the new class learnes a new theory.

Like next year, when 3rd graders all over the world learn that there are 8 planets in our solar system....

How close a correlation are you expecting or hoping to find?

To find fossils taking humans in steps from 2ft to 6ft at jumps of 1/2" across 2m years is not going to happen.

Likewise finding a slight increase in head volume will be nigh on impossible.

I can't begin to imagine what time frame you would need to piece together human evolution (on the basis it exists), but a sample every 500k years dropping to every 50k would be fruitful.

If I am right in what I remember then humans only really began to evolve in the last 100k years and even in today's society you can find skeletal features of stone age man. The difference being particularly in the brain which obviously doesn't stand too well to time.

The problem is exactly as you state. Every year our history is rewritten, each generation has a different understanding of what history represents, nice tool to keep the dumb dumb.

The facts that are now emerging are that yes species of similarity exist yet, monkey’s are wide and varied as are apes and humans yet we share extraordinary similarities.

Thing is we are actually taking about lineage and how have we evolved within that lineage and the answer is we don’t.

Each species is exactly as it was designed, the 0.1% of changeable DNA within any given lineage allows for individuality not evolutionary change. A species environment changes and that 0.1% is built in to allow us to adapt but the state of evolvement is to shallow to produce what evolutionist’s would have you believe.

Mutation of DNA is how they would push the theory yet we now know that mutation is much like a google factor and is factored out due to this infinite possibility.

They show skeletal remains of several species to promote the idea that we evolve in sequence and then scale it from small to large to fit your ego and it works yet we now know that species replication is specific and does not diverse from its DNA profile, if it does the species will deny it, the mutant will be denied classification, and thus outed as to keep the species pure.

It’s a fact. The kingdom of species is biased to the ‘survival of the fittest’ and any mutations are regarded as deviant, it is then rejected.

All DNA is a strict construct so that species stay pure to their design so it will continue to exist.

Extinction is based upon environment and not true too selection. Its only we humans who contradict the laws of nature, its with this, the ego pushes for answers as to why. A species is singular in design but varied through individualism. The species does not require evolution that is why monkey’s are monkey’s and ape’s are ape’s and we are human.

Its only with divine intervention ( or human ) that species can become entwined and a new one can be designed, the laws of nature dictate the specifics as to each species, that’s what makes them a species.

We are still in the infant stages of understanding the construct of DNA but this truth is already filtering through those who play with these constructs but its there, the truth…
How long before this becomes common knowledge, me thinks hell will freeze over before hand….?

The only creatures that evolve are those who have a consciousness, guess who that is. Evolution only applies to mankind and the physical is still the same as its original design so we still remain true to our design, if we did evolve from apes then some form of intervention MUST of taken place….

Now I know this ain’t going to go down to well with most of you but its already been documented and shelved for further scrutiny.

Its out there, you just have to look….

Ciao…

Very granular records of transitions are relatively uncommon, but they exist.



No, it doesn't. You asked why transitional fossils do not exist. They exist. The above link spends many, many pages giving examples and saying exactly the opposite of what you said.

You named the thread "creation/evolution" and then proceeded to knock evolutionary theory based on a false statement that is standard to Biblical creationism. There is no way to read this as other than what it is-- yet another ill-informed broadside against science on behalf of creationism.

Anyone with the slightest genuine interest in evolution would find out about transitional forms instead of just parroting the old lie that they don't exist.

Science can prove almost anything but it can't explain what made the universe and how it was created I believe the story in Genesis we were created and are the creators

I am a great believer of the science of science not the religion of science so with technological advances it offers a more rational explanation of theory than that of an ancient ideology of theory.

Genealogy is swinging the theory of evolution in a direction that parallels that of creationism, sorry but facts are what science dictates and that is what dictates science, FACT.

The lineage of a species is now reporting/stating, that species do not evolve in the traditional Darwinian theory But are true to their design and will deny mutation so the transitional theory is greatly disputed through the scientific facts that DNA deconstruction is now realising.

Science starts out as theory and through practice become fact. The fact that ‘transitional’ skeletons are ‘out there’ yet have to be so few that the possibilities of finding these is remote to say the least, in that, it lacks the proof and remains still only a theory.

The fact that science based on irrefutable evidence through technical instrumentation now states that species remain true to their design, FACT.

Evolution is a process of transition from one state to another, it occurs in the physical and metaphysical, how it represents itself we have to explore as to ascertain the reason for such an event.

To blindly accept theory without fact is an egotistical academic recommendation in which one can affiliate oneself to a theory and concept that portrays ones intellectual prowess.

The ‘transitional’ theory is a hundred years old but is still struggling to produce factual evidence to support it. It’s the same ideology that holds back the academic structure and is why history is constantly being rewritten and theories once reported to be Facts are left by the wayside even though they changed the coarse of human understanding.

Sorry if it’s a hard thing for some of you guys to accept but that pill will become something you will have to swallow one day soon, FACT…

Ciao…

What a surprise, finding the same old misconceptions about evolution in a forum thread. In case anyone missed any of the other dozen times I've said it:

1. Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. In other words, evolution = change. Nothing more.

2. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the real debate, not evolution itself. Evolution is a fact of biology that has been observed in laboratory and natural conditions. See above if you forget the definition of "evolution."

3. Evolution in no way denies the existence of God or requires God to not exist in order to work. In fact, the existence of God and evolution can live happily side by side.

4. Evolution does not explain the origin of life and has never tried to. The origin of life and the universe is separate from evolution.

5. There are gaps in the fossil record because we still haven't found everything. Fossilization is rare to begin with and requires precise circumstances in order to happen. The fossil record is barely a tenth of the diversity of life on the planet over time. Just because we haven't found them in the two hundred years we've been looking, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think I'm now on my second dozen of times I've typed this out on UM.

JC2, I've studied evolutionary theory pretty extensively and cannot make head or tail of most of your remarks. It is not that I think they're wrong because they're against Darwinism. It's that they're not even coherent in terms of Darwinism. It's not that your position isn't right. It's not even wrong.

The fact is that there is no branch of empirical science that "is swinging the theory of evolution in a direction that parallels that of creationism." None. Quite the opposite. Professional biologists depend in their daily work on the theory of evolution by natural selection. Ask any of them. Indeed, ask anyone with any grounding whatsoever in biological sciences.

This is just another empty propaganda thread where determined creationists will cut and paste the same tired falsehoods and downright gibberish for page after page after page after page. None of you have the slightest interest in any facts, or you wouldn't be saying things like "there aren't any transitional fossils," or that "genealogy is swinging the theory of evolution in a direction that parallels that of creationism." I've seen these threads on forums since before the web existed, and I know with a confidence bordering on certainty that discussion with any creationist is going to prove useless.

But since you and the OP have both come out in favor of creationism, I think it's safe to say the thread should be in a more appropriate forum, like "Spirituality vs. Skepticism," where the rest of the futile creationist threads live.

One of a very few semi-coherent statements:



That's simply a lie. The factual evidence of transitional forms is superabundant. If you're too lazy to crack a simple textbook on the subject, then there is the link I provided. There is no excuse for ignorance on this score. Your indifference to the real facts and science amounts to deliberately posting misinformation. It is typical creationist propaganda.

maybe the reason we can't find intact skeletons is because early human-like societies didnt burry there dead.

Actually, in most cases, history, like science, builds upon previous scholarship, with only occasional times when an entire part of history is completely revised.



No surprise there. Chimpanzees do share around 97% of our genes.



What exactly do you mean by "lineage" and "evolving in a lineage?" Usually, lineage refers to the line of parents, sort of like "Jacob begat Isaac, Isaac begat Karashinikov" and so forth.

One scientist once described the way to get a feel for it would be to line up ALL the mothers in a lineage, from now, and so forth back. Because of the time scale of evolution, we don't generally see the changes in our lifetimes, or even in historical time with regard to human beings.



Completely incorrect. For one thing, if you get enough "individual" genetic changes in a group to the point where the group generally can not breed very effectively with the 'original' population, then you have a new species. It's not as if there is some magic cut-off line where "a group of individuals distinct from another group genetically" suddenly becomes a species. It's a gradual gradient.



Completely wrong. For one thing, look at bacterium, particularly the nasty varieties arrising from over-use of antibiotics. Every single resistant bacterium is descended from one or more bacterium that, when hit with an antibiotic, just happened to have a mutation that allowed it to survive long enough to reproduce, whereas the bacteria without it died.

Moreover, we also know that in small groups, a situation called the "Founder Effect" can occur, which is when certain genetic traits become widespread and fixed in a genetic population. This is why whereas most Mongoloid humans have type B blood, the majority of the Native American population has a different predominating type, in spite of the other genetic similarities.



Since when do species 'cull' mutants? To an extent, every person's DNA has some form of mutation, but the vast majority do essentially nothing, at least in the current environment. What that means is that the majority of mutations do not inhibit the member of a species from breeding, so they pass it on.



Wrong. Survival of the fittest means that the fittest and luckiest survive, not the 'genetically pure.' Look at humanity, for example. Genetic tendencies towards cancer, cateracts, sickle cell anemia, and heart disease have apparently survived 200,000 years of human history, yet these are all deviations that can shorten their person's lifespan.

Read my example above again on the antibiotic-resistant bacteria.



Modern virus researchers would be surprised to hear that, since AIDS has been confirmed to have an 'error duplication rate' (that means a mutation in genetic code) of around 1 in a million, which is extremely high for a virus (hence why treating AIDS was so difficult until recently; the damn thing kept adapting to meet the treatments).



If humans did not vary genetically in groups, then how do you explain the different 'races'? How do you explain the fact that Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle Cell Anemia are concentrated among Northern Europeans and Africans respectively, rather than being equally distributed amongst humanity? The fact is, humans DO vary amongst groups genetically, and this variation, over a significant degree of time and a degree of separation, lead to differing varieties of humans (including Homo erectus, Homo Heidalbergensis, and Homo Sapiens).



First off, two different species do not become "intertwined" and create a new species. Rather, an existing species can split into different species if its groups are separated over time and distance and subjected to selection pressure.



If you had actually read anything about DNA, you would have known that mutations do occur, including serious ones like those that enable the AIDS virus to resist treatment.



You are making an arbitrary distinction based off of nothing but your own belief. Humans share most of their DNA with animals. Is there some 'magic force' that prevents them from evolving as we did?



I would advise the same to you, and suggest you branch out from the creationist websites.

Completely wrong. Mutation is one of the 4 driving factors of evolution. SNP's (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphisms) are present in every single animal. It are these tiny changed that play a big part in evolution. Another, and better example of mutations is polyploidy. Polyploidy is common in plants and creates a new species in the next generation itself.

JC2's posts are pure ignorance in these topics. Good job Bass I feel I don't need to add anything.

I don't even know how you two can make enough sense of this stuff to argue against it. "Mutation of DNA is how they would push the theory yet we now know that mutation is much like a google factor and is factored out due to this infinite possibility." The who what where?

What's a "google factor?"

I think it's the factor that makes your eyes do this:

wat r u talking about the google factor is wat google is made from to help u find stuff

I'm pretty sure this:


Has nothing to do with this:

I dont think this could have been put any better.

Now should we go over the definition of natural selection??

Thank god that the dinosaurs were able to bury their dead for us to uncover at a later date, oh and the plantlife too

For starters, I love this….

Okay, googol is as follows

"The American mathematician Edward Kasner once asked his nine-year-old nephew to invent a name for a very large number, ten to the power of one hundred; and the boy called it a googol. He thought this was a number to overflow people's minds, being bigger than anything that can ever be put into words. Another mathematician then shot back with googolplex, and defined it to be 10 to the power of googol." Here's a review of the 1940 book in which Kasner discussed the googol: Edward Kasner and James Newman. Mathematics and the Imagination http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/k/kasner.htm

As for evolution I agree that it does not represent creation yet without creation there would be no evolution…

Now as for evolution itself it is easy to jump from microbial forms to human forms and trying to represent both as one in the same as regard to evolution is simply futile itself….

Now for all you budding biologists….

I have a finite understanding of technology within the scientific community, cough-cough….

Seems to me that some of you like to refer to text books and try to argue that these books are the bibles to your practice. Its these books that are what are referred to as the building blocks as they keep being added too as time goes by.

What I’m trying to say is that, take a jump along the EVOLUTION of these theories, that are for most of you, still in their infancy in regards to achieving their ultimate understanding of what ever they are referring too.

The science they are currently teaching today is already outdated by the time it hit’s the classroom.

I’m not saying its wrong just outdated. The foundations a theory is built upon must have a strong and practical base as to support the weight of facts that will help to construct and support the results.

All that I am trying to say is that the future of evolution and the theories that have gone before are now becoming more defined in the representation of the evidence that both supports and denies certain theories. Some will continue to be built on where others will be outlawed as fanciful notions.

Bacteria is less complexed than a human, the laws that then apply to its existence are more extreme than that of a human, a simple change within its environment dictates it must respond quickly or it may fail to exist yet the same conditions posed to a human and we adapt with ease.

For some creation is a copout and for others evolution is obscured the fact that one can not exist without the other seems to confuse the whole issue.

We are now at the stage of playing ‘god’ and the question is has this scenario already been played out???

Both science and religion are bound by the same laws, acceptance and denial, the rules of the game are the same its only time that is the real denominator in this equation.

Time will tell….
Have to go as I have someone from Washington dc knocking on one port and someone from Rome knocking on the other…. Love it….

Ciao….

Oh, gotcha. You had said "google" which confused everyone. I know of "googol." Personally, I prefer "bazillion."







Textbooks are useful tools. They teach the basics of whatever field they happen to be in. And when they cover more advanced theories, they say outright that the idea could change tomorrow, but right now, that's the current thinking. Us "budding biologists" (snicker) don't just thump on one textbook and call it our bible. We read scientific journals, articles, and listen to the researchers themselves. We have to, in order to remain scientific. If we were speaking of religion, we could thump one book forever and never have to account for it. Religion and science are fundamentally different.

Everything I said in my numbered post before are the basics that you will find in any basic biology book. It's like saying "what goes up, must come down."



That doesn't mean the basics don't apply. Unless the laws of physics suddenly change and we have to start over, then the basics are just that: basic.



Not everything is outdated. A few of the fine-tuned stuff can be outdated and it's not all cutting-edge science, but the basics are still the same. It's outdated when the school is like the one I attended where we learned Lamarckian evolution, creationism, and that women are incapable of having high-paying jobs. Grade schools don't exactly teach cutting-edge science anyway. They are there for the basics. It's only until someone gets to a secondary school that they get to the more detailed aspects of whatever field they choose.

Besides, colleges don't exactly rely on some textbook that took a few years to get to the classroom. Every science class I've ever had used the latest copy of the textbook for the basics but relied on journals, articles, bulletins, and even visiting researchers in order to keep students up to date. This was especially used in earth science and astronomy classes I've had.



But that doesn't mean some theory is automatically outdated just because it could become outdated. Of course science is constantly changing and growing. That's one of the very basic concepts of science and it's why science can look at the world with an impartial eye, rather than saying "my personal deity of choice did it and anyone who says different is wrong." Any teacher worth their salt will admit that and teach their students the same thing.



The laws apply to us just as equally. We're not special just because we're more complex.



Evolution can stand on its own. Like I've said before, evolution doesn't even touch the origin of life, so why are you saying it needs creation as its crutch?







No, science and religion are not bound by the same laws. For one thing, religion doesn't even follow the same laws as science. Unlike science, religion can make up their own rules that aren't bound by the universal laws. Religion can break the laws of physics and say it's just a matter of having faith. Religion can observe an outcome and claim it was nothing more than a trick of the devil and therefore not real. Etc etc.

If science followed the rules of religion it wouldn't be science at all.

Edit: (1000th post!)

Okay ivy, babe, I know you’re going to hate that so babe….. Well done for the 1000.….

First, I ain’t a religious dude, I don’t subscribe to any religion yet I have looked deep into the philosophical ideology that it is built upon.

I too condemned the religions of the world for a long time and took a scientific stance as that is what my beliefs favoured and my logic dictated yet one day I came across a piece of ancient writing that stopped me in my tracks. When it turned out to be four thousand years old I suddenly realised that things may not be as simple as one might of first thought.

Forget about the new testament and the Muslim scriptures and go back, way back and if it doesn’t’ ring a bell here and there then you lack something that I hope you have already, wisdom.

Through out history there are more strange anomalies that gave me the impression that history is obscured for a reason. I fell hook line and sinker for the whole of conspiracy and wondered why would it be so?

There is most definitely a ‘science to religion’ as there is a ‘religion within science’ they both rely on passion yet sometimes that passion can lead to dogmatic fundamentalism on both sides.

My personal experience of science is it is a well guarded, secretly policed, society that is reluctant to share some of its most beneficial understandings. If you work at one end of the social structure you will see it from that point of view but if you find yourself on the other, for what ever reasons, you just might not like what it is you witness.

Without trying to push a ridiculous concept, I have to watch what I say and when I say it as I have signed away my freedom many years ago yet am still bound by those signatures to tread softly and speak quietly about what I’ve seen and where I’ve been so try to read between the lines instead of being so god damn literal all the bloody time.

Before something can evolve it first has to come into existence. Whether that’s just a simple thought or a complexed organism, it first has to be witnessed so it can then be studied to monitor its evolution.

Trust me here, science has far surpassed the understanding of how and what evolution means in terms of genetics. The notion of transference, migration, mutation is way past the point of simple academics and what the texts still push forward as cutting edge.

I while back, I found myself in the company of a dude, a really heavy dude in a specific field of the bio tech industry. Cutting a long story short he explained to me what his industry ( a small portion at least ) was doing and how advanced their work had become. In short, the word god came up and he then explained how they defined that word, GOD. The G, stands for GIFT, the O, stands for OF, the D stands for DIVINITY, the ability to create life. Speechless, totally speechless.

The building blocks of life are well and truly defined yet the ability to do so is down to a handful of supreme individuals with ego’s to match. Be afraid, be very afraid.

So, we now find ourselves living in a world of those who know and those who, well lets say, sit in classrooms, laboratories, listening, watching for the next Nobel Piece Prise unfolding right before their eyes so society can then pat them on the back for their genius, while elsewhere they are twenty years ahead and they mock as the rest of the world struggles to keep up, shame….

So still argue that transition still exists yet the evidence is still just a theory, a hundred years and still just a theory, time for a reality check me thinks……

Now I’m going to be reprimanded in one form or another for this so I know you guys will scoff and dismiss this as fantasy but alls I ask you to do is think about it, yes evolution is a reality yet not all of it is as real as you would like it to be.

So ivy, babe, I will not be responding to this yet I will have a look at what you have to say so be gentle, lol, please….

Ciao…..

That guy must be nutso like you...

Oh, keep this up JC2! I'm having a ball laughing at your ignorance!
I won't even start picking apart your posts, because you will just reply with more of that funny BS.

As in the words of JC2: Ciao

EDIT: I suggest you go back an re-take High school Biology...You must of slept during class or something.

"I too?" Who else are you talking about?

Are you saying we should teach something that might be wrong just so we dont look dumb?

I like "ivy the plants" summation, with one proviso. Creationism needs to be taken on faith, like all aspects of religion. if you can't do that, it's not worth believing. Now, it is possible that god created everything, including the fossil record, and having personal experience with his rather unworldly sense of humour, i would not preclude that. On the other hand, from a purely scientific point of view the thread author is on the right track. Increasingly evolutionary science is moving away from transitional evolution, slowly occuring over millenia, to climactic evolution, where major changes occur very quickly in relative terms. This would explain scientifically why there are few transitional fossils. Change may even have occured in one "generation". Certainly there are fossils which trace the evolutionary process but those which demonstrate "change in process" are rare. This may also be due to the fact that most changes are not evident in fossil remains, which include only a small remnant of the living body. For example if the human race lost its now redundant appendix this would not be evident in fossil records. While genetics indicates humans once had webbed hands and feet, this also could not be proven/disproven through fossil records.

time for a reality check me thinks……

Now I’m going to be reprimanded in one form or another for this so I know you guys will scoff and dismiss this as fantasy but alls I ask you to do is think about it, yes evolution is a reality yet not all of it is as real as you would like it to be.

So ivy, babe, I will not be responding to this yet I will have a look at what you have to say so be gentle, lol, please….

Ciao…..
[/quote]
[b just a thought while your explaining evolution.If the world is still evolving and the animals are still evolving to suit the changes in the world,and even the flu virus is evolving why dont we see a change in humans,surely with everything evolving round us we to need to change with it.Or are we evolving with out even realising it?

Given the context, I'm guessing the Googlefactor is something related to the Googol (the number 10 ^100) or Googolplex (10 ^10 ^100). But I could just be completely wrong.

EDIT: Thought this was on page 1 still. Didn't realize the question was already answered.

GB,

I'm with you 100 percent, but I couldn't let the above pass without comment.

See, I'm unable to let an opportunity for enlightenment slip by, and I'm surprised that you did in your above statements concerning Sickle Cell.

Many may not be aware of this, but the fact is that people that suffer from sickle cell anemia are rendered practically immune to malaria, which is far, far deadlier. More people die of malaria every year than have died of AIDS since AIDS first infected humans (that last might no longer be true, but it was true as little as two years ago.)

This is just an observed side effect of sickle cell. When you relate it to the genetic group that is most often affected, then note where the highest concentrations of malaria carrying mosquitos exist, it can be seen that sickle cell is actually a survival trait!

Who can say if the ultimate causes of the other diseases you list are not also related to survivability?

Just wanted to not let a good example of what you are saying go to waste.



Ivy,

You're right, except that scientific theories, like species, are all ultimately and inevitably doomed to extinction. With evolution, as with other theories, the basics will be supplanted eventually by new basics which explain not only the original basics, but any newly discovered information. That is how science works. But I'll guarantee you that the basics of evolutionary theory will never be supplanted by "Hocus Pocus Dominocus..." or "Eenie Meenie Chile Beanee..." like the proponents of I.D. seem to prefer.



Mr. Walker,

I think you are referring to the newer evolutionary thoughts that, as far as I know, were first introduced (to the public, anyway) by the late Steven J. Gould - he called it "punctuated equilibrium." Catastrophists, which are today all the rage, push this not unacceptable idea, and sometimes it's based on some very solid science.

I'm not sure about the "one generation" thing, but I suppose it's possible in a large enough catastrophe. It's not very hard for me to imagine the ancestors of Australopithecus coming down from the trees and eventually walking upright over a very short time period, in fact, without even requiring a differentiation in species. That could occur if something in their environment changed very quickly. Think of how quickly a breeder can change the nature of the animals he breeds, and without crossbreeding with new genetic material from other breeds; though without cross breeding, the process is somewhat slower.

Of course, the evidence doesn't suggest anything about a rapid change in the niche occupied by the Australopithecines, but it was only an example. The main differences between Australopithecus and his ancestors (not sure we know of his immediate predecessor,) is the position of the entry of the spinal cord into the brain pan, allowing the animal to walk upright without constantly straining to face forward. Such a change could occur quite quickly indeed, if predators began eating every individual that couldn't look forward to see when it's time to climb to safety. But that's not how it happened, really. As I said, just an example.



Curious2,

Yes, we are:
Humans are still evolving

Harte

cause we haven't found them yet!

Quite true...The allele frequencies of Sickle Cell have remained stable in Africa, while dropping in African American in the US. This shows that it is being selected for in Africa. The Sickle-shape of the cell doesn't allow the protozoan parasites that cause malaria to attach to red-blood cells.

Sickle-cell is the best prevention for malaria..sadly, it can kill you also.

You will find I assure you therefore some scientists found, I read some books relating that.
Physical evolution and mental evolution are two different things. Its their fault of those who are "managing"the religion in this way as it is, since appear disturbances and people don't understand everything. Afterwords we must not forget that church especially catholic just forgot about its own ideology(example:"Opus Dei" a dark order that washes brains along with other sects like mormons who make miliards of $). A lot of atrocities commited by its fault: inquisition, indulgences traffic and so on. What is said in bible must not be taken in hand by first read, i mean that what is writen there you wont understand unless you're initiated in the misteries. It is wrong, and the current church MUST PAY for its FAULT becouse she didn't follow its own ideology and didn't pay attention to the ordinary people. Therefore our church and religion are two different things. Science(relating to materialism and physics), religion(relating to metaphysics and keys to the univers), and politics(the domain that should act in favour of the both) must be in perfect frienship. And therefore remeber that our body and mind are ment to act in favour of both in different spheres and its wrong to say that mind is smth material and is the result of the brains activity, thats stupidness(plain foolness made by "scientists". Evolution of humans is a different event from the appearance of the religion, but the religion and its institution that is no capable to explain the simbols from the bible must not be on the same place, since it was created by capable people. We must not follow what sais the institution who is lying to us but the original ideology created by powerful and wise.

Evolution is a slow process that never stops occuring, it is almost impossible to prove evolution due to the fact that evolution takes millions of years. The theory of evolution is not that old and therefore we cannot proof it exactly because we do not have very much to go on by. The theory in my eyes makes absolutely perfect sense and I completely agree with it, my grand parents are devout god believers and I completely disagree with them on the subject.

Actually, there is OVERWHELMING proof that evolution was how we created. Evolution is a natural law. It happens, and no one can deny that.

To see evolution before your eyes, look at the Hawthorne or Apple fly model. If the eggs are one temperature, they hatch into Hawthorne flies. If they are another temperature, they hatch into apple flies. Its polyploidy right before your eyes.

for once we are in complete argeement on a subject, evolution has been proved mulitpe times

the theory of evolution is genetically, physically, and otherwise, completely impossible.

it is just a theory. nothing more.

although, i am interested in your theory, myself being something of a theorist. please email me.