Last week they found the Darwin Fish, and now the Human missing link!!!
Scientists have recovered 375-million-year-old fossils of a shallow-water fish in sediments in the Canadian Arctic near the North Pole.
Evolutionary biologists believe that this creature, dubbed Tiktaalik roseae, documents the transition that animals made from the sea to land. Tiktaalik is being touted as one of the most important fossil finds in history—Darwin’s “missing link.”
Fossils unearth proof of human evolution:
"Researchers with a University of California, Berkeley team are now saying they have 'proof' of human evolution. Fossils have been found linking two types of pre-human species." From the article: "The remains of eight individuals found in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia belonged to the species Australopithecus anamensis -- part of the Australopithecus genus thought to be a direct ancestor to humans, according to a report due to be published Thursday in Nature magazine. 'The fossils are anatomically intermediate between the earlier species Ardipithecus ramidus and the later species Australopithecus afarensis,' he said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/sciencepaleontology;_ylt=Apq73Z7wNWOFRgnKBqGgy9wDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhcmljNmVhBHNlYwNtcm5ld3M-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/12/fossil.evolution.ap/index.html
holy back from the dead batman!!
Anyhow, that "link" only proves evolution into the austrelopithicus genus, not into the homo genus.
So the debate still rages on.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
i read about that fish... it is definately an intermediate form because the wrists and hand bones are clearly masked by a fin-like limb.
Creation still has the burden of proof, evolution has its cards to play
The problem is, any evidence is "proof" of both. Point: Any evolutionary changes that are found DO NOT take anything away from the official docturn of the church. Remember that the REAL creation theory says that "God planted the seeds of life" and does not say that God created everything exactly as we see it. That fantacy is only ever told in North America. Strange phenomina really. Figures... It's a ploy to make creationists look dumb OR it's religious zelots just being rediculas as always.
PAX
this thread is too good to disappear
hahaha: true on your part, but it does disarm the crackpots. Besides, we all know the FSM planted the seeds of life
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity for example. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis. hence, The Theory of Evolution.
like it says, a theory has been verified and has yet to be proven wrong. by proven im talking about with actual scientific evidence, not pastor joe's interpretation of a book.
such a hot topic.. obviously not everyone will agree, such fuels the debate. try to think how much more advanced our species would be if religous extremists didnt burn down The Great Library at Alexandria...if it doesnt agree or if its not understood, destroy it.. rofl..
relgion is an excellent method of control, people feel important when they believe they are in control of something.
12.33 @ 111.67 mph [Oct 2009]
Dyno'd on 08/02/09 - Mustang Dyno:
327.6 WHP 333.6 WTQ [10.1 AFR]
Evolution beats the creationism because it has been proven that it happens
This port is huge
Except for two things. The theory of evolution has many misconceptions. One is that it explains the origen of life, it does not. Second, there has not been observed emerging species that can be proven.
Then there's the Creation theory. It is also misunderstood. The real Creation stance is that God planted the seeds of life. That it was God that breathed life into inanimat matter. This has nothing to do with the current theory of evolution and therefore not contrary to it. The real creationist stance does not argue with evolution it only adds that these mechanism were put in place by a devine creator.
Whn there is no contest, there can be no "winner". You'll need to read the entire thread to get the picture and even then it will be incomplete.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Quote:
One is that it explains the origen of life, it does not. Second, there has not been observed emerging species that can be proven.
You are correct that there is no evidence for the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth. Many things, including God seeding or extraterrestrial seeding, are possible as well.
But there are plenty of examples of species emerging. I am in marine biology and I know many examples of species differentiating as we speak. The hamlets of the genus Hypoplectrus are found in the Caribbean and many of them live in the same area. There are identical in all respects EXCEPT for color. Even their genes are too similar to be considered distinct. Yet they are called separate species because blue hamlets 9 times out of ten will only mate with another blue hamlet. When provided with a like-colored mate and a different mate, they will always choose a like color. Studies have shown that these species have just began their transformation into different species and that over time, their genes will become divergent enough that they will not be able to interbreed. Right now, they interbreed and produce crazy "intermediate" hybrids. Despite all of this, each color form has been named and are considered full species.
Another example are Brazilian fishes, whose physical appearance is identical to Caribbean fishes in the same genus. The only difference is found in subtle coloration differences and also mitochondrial DNA divergence. This shows that the Brazilian fishes have been isolated for a long enough time to evolve into new species. And the mechanism of speciation can be traced back only a 5-10 THOUSAND years ago to when sea levels were lower in that area.
This proves that even the most subtle speciation requires thousands of years, way to long for humans to witness, even humans observing for 300 years. I am talking macro-evolution here since we all know micro-evolution and new species of microbes pop up all the time!
Isn't a colour shift denoting a new species a bit of a dangerous position? C'mon. Human poulations split into distinct groups due to geographic isolation and had colour morphs along with a couple other physical attributes. I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 times each colour variant chooses to mate with others in the same morphology. Anyone daring to call a different colour morph a different species would be in a world of trouble, and they'd be wrong. In fact these days the term "race" is also being shot down.
The 1 in 10 fish that chooses to mate with the other colour morph, is it successful? If they produce offspring is that evidence that they are in fact the same species or will we call their offspring a third species?
I will retract the statement that says there have not been new emergent species observed to... I am not convinced thus far that new species emergence has been observed.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
what aboot the mule?
how does this fall into these little categories?
well, obviously humans are different from the fish in that a black person and a white person can produce fertile offspring, often with mixes of both races in their appearance.
The whole "species" definition is complicated because some say a species is only a population that interbreeds and produces viable offspring. Others say species can be differentiated by genetic differences or coloration differences. Some say that populations separated physically by space and time should be separate... all are possible?
So... I cannot put forward an answer to whether the hamlet fish are all separate or forms of one species. They had been considered forms of one species (with diff. colors) but the fact that they rarely interbreed with another color made scientists change their mind. Fish that breed with another color will produce babies with a mix of both parents, but I don't know if the young are fertile or not. Judging from the rarity of natural hybrids, I'd say that this group has just started to differentiate and the line between "species" and "race" is very blurry.
Again, this is going so gradually that it would be impossible to see the speciation over one lifetime. So you cannot say that speciation is not ongoing since it cannot be observed!
^^^exactly...the line gets blurred because different species can reproduce and produce viable offspring (not all mules are infertile, though the majority are infertile, plus you have Ligers and Tygons--and both Lions and Tigers are separate species).
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]^^^exactly...the line gets blurred because different species can reproduce and produce viable offspring (not all mules are infertile, though the majority are infertile, plus you have Ligers and Tygons--and both Lions and Tigers are separate species).
Ahh yes, but ligers and tigons only exist because of man's influence. Influence being key.
We also have things like cabbits and the great american jackalope
What I said was that I was not convinced as of yet. Meaning I don't see this as sufficient evidence, it is my opinion and I left the door open to change my mind later.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
I believe that ligers and tygons can be produced in the wild, saying that each specie is isolated from the rest and there's nothing else to mate with. Ditto on horses and asses.
thus, my conjecture on the matter is that as a specie is isolated, because of the way that a species inherently selectively breeds to survive conditions based on the biome that it's in, it means that with each generation, the differences will start to grow and the isloated species will move further and further apart. Some species within the same genus maintain enogh genetic similarities to a common progenitor that they can still breed, but at some point, the species have grown too far apart to do this sucessfully.
It's also my belief that if humans were isolated for much longer, it's possible that the "races" would have evolved into separate species.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
ah yes but ligers are known for their magical abilities
So are firemen. if you rub their helments they spit in your eye...
back to the thread already in progress...
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
