Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.
One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.
This is a major find that fills in the gap
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
Qoute from harun Yahya - Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.
Taken from the first part of the "evidence" against evolution from the Harun Yahya site. So he thinks that no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes have been completed.
Well, he is wrong the full genome of Human and Ape has been decoded.
Scientists unleashed a torrent of studies comparing the genetic coding for humans and chimpanzees on Wednesday, reporting that 96 percent of our DNA sequences are identical. Even more intriguingly, the other 4 percent appears to contain clues to how we became different from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, they said.
And you would be well advised to further consider that your DNA will not match my DNA 100%.
What a load of misrepresented gibberish that site is, his first point is already proven wrong.
Among the highlights from the analyses:
Small but crucial differences:
The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness.
Six new genetic frontiers:
Scientists identified six regions of our DNA that appear to have evolved dramatically over the past 250,000 years — including a "gene desert" that may play a role in nervous system development and also has been linked to obesity. They said a seventh region that showed notable change contains the FOXP2 gene, which already has been linked to speech in humans.
Brain genes key:
A comparison of gene expression in various tissues indicated that most of the genetic changes occurring during the evolution of chimps and humans had neither a positive nor a negative effect. However, the testes in the males of both species showed strong evidence of a positive effect. Also, genes active in the brain showed much more accumulated change in humans than in chimps — suggesting that those genes played a special role in human evolution.
Primates' risky business:
Scientists compared the chimp and human genomes with those of mice and rats, and found that both primates carried a greater amount of potentially harmful genetic coding. They speculated that such coding may have made primates more prone to genetic diseases, but also more adaptable to environmental changes.
Clues to diseases:
The genomes contained hints that the chimpanzee genetic code has been attacked more frequently than humans by retroviral elements — such as those present in the HIV virus. Scientists also noted key differences between the genomes that may affect susceptibility to viruses, the workings of the immune system and the progression of diabetes and Alzheimer's disease in humans.
you say evolution took place where is the fossil evidence?
Fossil evidence for what? Do you agree that there was a time when there were no dinosaurs that could fly? Do you agree that the world now is full of bird species that can fly? Would you agree that the fossils of the dinosaurs they find in China with feathers show a transition from non-flying dinosaurs to flying dinosaurs and hence birds?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Who cares about this? Is this more "evidence" than any other fossile? For almost every single fossile found the evolutionists are quick to interpret it into their chains of evolution.
Of course, they do their job which is to interpet the evidence in the light of modern science. As opposed to Theists who do what? Deny that these fossils exist?
Evolutionists are scared of their theory being questioned. I've heard that once, Richard Milton, a science journalist (and a non-creationist) wrote a book which shows that the earth could be as young as 175.000 years. But when Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist, reviewed it he was filled with hate and accused the author of being mentally ill!
Well Dawkins is a little combative but most scientists love a god debate and have no problems with questions. Ask a few.
Atheists often label themselves as critics and sceptics, presumably doubting what they hear and investigate it. And when it comes to religion, they indeed do that. The atheists' main competitor in history is Christianity. And indeed atheists often find a lot of faults in Christianity, tearing some aspects of it into pieces, but are unable to recognize a single fault when it comes to evolution. Indeed, when it comes to evolution most atheists for some reason feel that there is no reason to being sceptical to what is presentated, they just blindly accept it and all kind of scepticism or investigation ceases when it comes to evolution.
So the "sceptics" turned out to be not so sceptical after all, when it comes to the bulk of their ideology...
Care to give an example of this that you have not cut and pasted from the internet? There is no good evidence to suggest that evolution is wrong. If there were I am sure that everyone would love to see it, talk about it, debate it. This is what scientists do for a living.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
what i dont understand is that why is this theory accepted when charles darwin himself said on many occassion that his thoery would not be right
Where did Charles Darwin say his theory would not be right? Darwin was a modest man and a man of science. He did not go about boasting much or claiming more than his evidence would support.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Do you agree that the world now is full of bird species that can fly? Would you agree that the fossils of the dinosaurs they find in China with feathers show a transition from non-flying dinosaurs to flying dinosaurs and hence birds?
Read what I write clearly!
The same way the first dinosaurs appeared, is the same way the other species appeared.
the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!
The same way the first dinosaurs appeared, is the same way the other species appeared.
But in the meantime would you agree that the fossil record shows a long time ago there were no invertebrates that could fly properly. Then some dinosaurs developed feathers and wings, and then there was an abundance of bird species? Is this, in fact, what the fossil record shows no matter what the cause is?
the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!
Evolution can't but science is working on it. For instance,
Experimental demonstration
In the early 1950s at the University of Chicago Stanley Miller demonstrated the primeval soup model for the origin of life on Earth. He passed a spark of electricity through a glass chamber filled with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen (meant to simulate conditions on the young earth). A week later, paper chromatography showed several amino acids and other organic molecules had formed. The model for the origin of life said these molecules were formed in the atomosphere, rained into the ocean, then combined to make proteins, nucleic acids and the other molecules of life.
The early atmosphere of the Earth, before life evolved, was thought to be made up of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. It was hot. If there was a lot of lightening around, conditions in Miller's lab would have looked a lot like the early Earth.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
I would advise you to read History before posting nonsence. Yes you read right nonsense
I think it is likely to be a mistake to lecture me on my ignorance of any historical subject or any branch of science except Islam unless I admit to being ignorant. Even then I think the clever thing would be to give me the benefit of the doubt.
Darwin was an ametuer "biologist" and suddenly on one of his trips he thought hey how about this!
And that is evolution. It came out of the blue
Indeed. What is your problem with that?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
In the early 1950s at the University of Chicago Stanley Miller demonstrated the primeval soup model for the origin of life on Earth. He passed a spark of electricity through a glass chamber filled with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen (meant to simulate conditions on the young earth). A week later, paper chromatography showed several amino acids and other organic molecules had formed. The model for the origin of life said these molecules were formed in the atomosphere, rained into the ocean, then combined to make proteins, nucleic acids and the other molecules of life.[/indent]
The early atmosphere of the Earth, before life evolved, was thought to be made up of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. It was hot. If there was a lot of lightening around, conditions in Miller's lab would have looked a lot like the early Earth.
for the record, Miller didn't get any meaningful amini acids. All he got were useless strands!
And later on Miller's experiment was considered to be noid due to the fact that with the water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, Miller also put a strand of amino acid
the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!
It neither has to explain where life originated, nor does it attempt to explain it. A great many people, including several of the most prominent believers in "intelligent design" believe it originated with God. That has no relevance to subsequent evolution, the whole process of which (they would say) is designed by God too.
Darwin was an ametuer "biologist" and suddenly on one of his trips he thought hey how about this!
And that is evolution. It came out of the blue
More or less. What's your point? He came up with the original theory of evolution by natural selection based on the evidence he saw on his travels. The very fact that it is still around, albeit in a rather different form, demonstrates the man's genius. I'm not sure what the "amateur" has to do with it. Descartes was an "amateur" mathematician and philosopher... Cartesian co-ordinates cane "out of the blue". Newton was an "amateur" physicist and mathematician. The Newtonian laws of motion (including gravity) "came out of the blue". At the time of his most significant work Albert Einstein was working as a patents clerk.. the Special Theory of Relativity came "out of the blue". A collection of college degrees is no substitute for genius.
for the record, Miller didn't get any meaningful amini acids. All he got were useless strands!
It took the Earth 4.5 billion years to come up with what it has got. It took a billion years or so for the first life to appear. You expect Miller to do that well in a few days? Come on, give the guy a break. That he got amino acids at all was impressive.
And later on Miller's experiment was considered to be noid due to the fact that with the water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, Miller also put a strand of amino acid
Says who?
Anyone can repeat this experient. People have. It works sort of.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
The very fact that it is still around, albeit in a rather different form, demonstrates the man's genius.
The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like. the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!
The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like. the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!
How does it deny the existence of God? Darwin, a former student for the priesthood, did not believe much himself, but I don't think he ever came out and denied the existence of God. Besides, science should be followed wherever it goes. So you can't say "If it does not agree with my Beliefs it is wrong". You have to say "If it is true then God wanted it that way".
Besides, Darwinian theory rests on the same three basic premises:
1. The Earth is very old
2. Children look like their parents.
3. Those that do better in the world are more likely to have more children.
Which is these three do you refuse to accept is true?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms between roughly 542 and 530 million years ago (mya). This period marks a sharp transition in the fossil record with the appearance of the earliest members of many phyla of metazoans (multicellular animals). The "explosive" appearance of this adaptive radiation results both from rapid evolutionary change and the limits of previous technology to appreciate microfossils which formed the foundation of the fossil record before this time.
Causes of the Cambrian explosion
There is no universally accepted cause, and the matter is the subject of ongoing debate within the scientific community. A wide range of biological and geological factors have been proposed as possible triggers for the explosion. These range from ecological competition, hox genes and the breakup of Rodinia. Recently scientists have suggested major climatic changes, including a near-global glaciation, may have played a role.
The Cambrian explosion may have been precipitated by several environmental changes occurring in and just before this period. First the Varangian glaciation gave rise to a Snowball Earth in which all, or nearly all, of the oceans are covered entirely with ice. This was followed by a deglaciation and rapid global warming just before the beginning of the explosion itself. In modern Arctic environments, single-celled organisms often form mats on the underside of ice sheets in order to maximize their exposure to sunlight. It is possible that adaptations useful to the maintenance of such colonies also assisted in the formation of the first triploblastic animals estimated to be 570 million years of age (Xiao et al. 1998). In addition, the Snowball Earth environment would have given rise to relatively few ecological niches, so the subsequent deglaciation and global warming may have provided an impetus for rapid evolution to fill many new environments.
Rising levels of atmospheric oxygen during the Ediacaran may have played a role in the emergence of large metazoans which require oxygen for respiration. Recent work has linked this increase in atmospheric oxygen to changes in global soil weathering patterns following the Cryogenian and the possible emergence of a primitive terrestrial Biota (Kennedy et al. 2006).
[edit]
Diversification
Of the 20 metazoan phyla with extensive fossil records, at least 11 first appeared in the Cambrian. Of the remainder, 1 is known to Precambrian and the other 8 first appear more recently (Collins 1994). An additional 12 soft-bodied phyla have poorly defined fossil records, but it is speculated that a significant number of these may also be Cambrian in origin.
Though this period is definitely of special significance in terms of rapid diversification and the emergence of new forms, some of that significance is likely to be overstated by the focus on macroscopic forms in the ways phyla are observed and defined. Molecular evidence suggests that at least six animal phyla had established themselves as distinct evolutionary paths during the Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999).
The sheer variety of forms found in the Burgess shale and other sites, has made some skeptical that single period of ~10-15 million years could have been long enough to give rise to such diversity. An emerging view is that the Cambrian explosion is the macroscopic conclusion to a prolonged period of evolution begun ~30 million years earlier with the innovation of multi-cellular organisms.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears around 543 to 490 MYA
The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like.
As HeiGou said it does absolutely nothing of the sort. It remains because it, or at least its modern equivalent, is the theory that still best fits the facts.
the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!
Again, not true. It is just not compatible with the creation myths that the majority (but by no means all, granted) of Christians and Jews (I don't know abourt muslims) accept are just that - myths. As I said before, the Catholic Church, among others, accepts evolution, which hardly suggests it denies the existence of God! The conflict you suggest just doesn't exist.
I fail to see how I have supported your point when you have claimed creationist theory status to which I am simply saying your point here is "wrong". Since creationism has no supporting evidence other than using "faith", creationism/ID attempts to validate itself by attempting to discredit evolution. Hence, one of the criticisms from creationists to evolutionists is the lack of transitional fossils, they claim teir are none. This post shows that to be a false accusation with this recent discovery so how it is "off-target" defies belief.
Second time around and you still don't get it. I'm not arguing over whether creationism is theory or not - my point is that if you claim it is NOT a theory, then no amount of evidence can falsify it. Evidence only supports or falsifies scientific theories.
yes I did, I even had a ponder on your paradox of a falsafiable theory for something that is not a theory. remember, creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.
In which case your entire post is off-target; evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism, unless you consider both to be scientific theories.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
In which case your entire post is off-target; evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism, unless you consider both to be scientific theories.
That simply doesn't follow. Evidence for a scientific theory or explanation is frequently evidence against a non-scientific explanation. Sufficient weight of evidence may even result in what was once a "scientific" theory no longer being one - such as believing the Sun circles a stationary Earth, or that the Earth is flat.
Creationism is not a scientific explanation for how we came to be here, but it is nonetheless an explanation. Evidence supporting a mutually contradictory explanation must therefore be evidence against it.
I'd point out, again, that creationism and "intelligent design" are NOT one and the same thing, however much some people may wish they were. It is perfectly possible to "believe" in both ID and evolution, and indeed many people do.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Updated 24/7
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks