Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Well, I was talking about animals, not people, but IMHO both applies.
You see, that is a good example. Why did our ancestors have to get out of the water? Do you think, there is not enough food? Just look, how many creatures there is nowadays. So why?
Just because that was new, no concurence, piece in soul
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
There was a driving force behind the evolution of the transitional species between fish and amphibians. The earth was warming up at this time, meaning oxygen content was decreasing (oxygen saturation being a function of temperature). Some fish evolved methods of breathing air but still being very reliant on an aquatic lifestyle. There are still many extant examples of this including Anabantoids (siamese fighting fish, gouramis, etc), mudskippers and walking catfishes. This led to the evolution of the lungfishes which could survive even longer out of water. Even a slight ability to breathe air was a huge advantage at the time when waterways were drying up and oxygen levels were dropping. By allowing fish to make small moves onto land, the predator evasion and abundant food (insects and worms had made the move to land millions of years earlier) gave these animals a great eveolutionary advantage. Tiktaalik and other intermediates show us the general trend from fish to amphibian.
Fish evolved from amphibians through early - before metamorphosis - puberty. Then the ability to genetically metamorphosis was lost and they began to fish. Swim bladder - the remnant of the ancient pulmones
http://translate.google.ru/translate?pr ... ory_state0
land-water, apparently, were our ancestors Vendian - turbellarian. Today's advanced ground turbellarian have eyes and are the land-water.
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl ... %25D0%25B8
I don't understand much of that because of the poor translation provided by google. However, I would ask for some supporting evidence for such wild claims. Fish evolving from amphibians and everything evolved from flying animals? This is not only absurd but completely contradicts the fossil records, the genetic evidence and certainly defies logic.
You have read about modern land (land-water) Turbellaria, who have eyes with the lens?
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl ... %25D0%25B8
Here's another of the jellyfish, also have a chamber of the eye lens:
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=ru&tl=en
If taxons that have a complex signs to occur each other, then they are these signs and inherit from each other. Because we conclude that: the eyes do not occur frequently and are not transferred "horizontally" in the viral vectors. This "Occam's Razor.
Paleontology has a lot of difficulties. Something is found, something - no. Without skeleton residents Venda left very few traces in the shales, which are difficult to study and few of them. Bony skeletons and shells came later.
Ichthyostega and the latimeria, as it now turns out, lived simultaneously in the same waters. But in this case, they could well be larvae of stegocefal at different stages of metamorphosis in ontogenesis.
Genome of ancient fish and modern amphibians, as well as higher plants three times heavier than a homo sapiens.
The human genome has lost the path of synthesis of "vitamins", "essential amino acids, the absolute regenerationism genes (as in Turbellaria).
So, what is called evolution - it is adaptive devolution loss of universalism.
That's why there is a suspicion that the theory of evolution - is the invention of creationism, that was easy to criticize far-fetched constructions.
We are all in a computer program. As long as the software does not break down the program can reproduce itself infinitely. Genetics cause us to adapt to our environment to survive. This was programed in along with math, physics, and matter. You are really on another planet on vacation experiencing this life. You will die and wake up to your normal mondaine life and be disappointed.
Not really trying to prove anything, just being interesting.
I have read most of the posts, and have kind of concluded there is a root problem between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Here it is: Evolutionists say that creationism is only a religion while saying that evolution is fact, while the truth is that they are both legitimate science. I believe that it takes much more faith to believe that we evolved by random chance then to just believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
As a creationist I do believe in evolution.... But only on the micro-evolution level. The problem is that what Darwin saw in the Galapagos islands was micro evolution. What he and scientists do today is simply take micro evolution and build macro evolution around it. Show me the fossil record of the evolution from amoeba to man. You can't do it because it does not exist.
Also what would be your reasons for not accepting the Bible as credible evidence?
If creationism is a legitimate science, then what is the testable hypothesis or theory of creationism? What predictions does the hypothesis or theory of creationism make and how do we test them?
That's nice, but no one is claiming that we evolved by "random chance." Natural Selection is a selective process, hense the "Selection" part.
Please define the terms "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution."
The fossil record supports the inference that we evolved from simpler organisms. It is not the only evidence for common descent, however. Why do you imply that it is?
Credible evidence as what? The Bible is a theology book, not a Biology textbook.
We are animals, so of course we evolved from animals. But what are you expecting to see from teh evolution of humans? Partial wings sprouting out from people at random? Kinda like The X-Men? That's a comic book, not reality.
Why are you "against evolution?" Are you against gravity as well?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests