General•What is the theory of human evolution?

  • And most importantly why are all these scientists so convinced that it is 100% absolutely true.

    I am challenging the large section of science and society that presents a solidified version of human evolution evolving directly from primates

    "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun. One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."" ~Richard Dawkins

    "Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority." ~James D. Watson

    I'm not so sure. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing just wondering what the details are of the theory.

    I'm just starting to examine it deeper.

    So let's begin.

  • Let me ask an introductory question. What do you mean by "they are saying that evolution is practically infallible"? They are saying that things evolve, and I recently watched a show discussing new developments regarding how new developments in DNA explain more of the unknowns about evolution.

    I think this excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact may clear things up for you.

    "The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.

    The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments.

    The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.

    The distinction between fact and theory is not limited to the study of evolution. The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, while there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

    On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other, so care may be needed to determine an author's meaning."

  • Infallible in the sense that we descended from primates.

    I asked my brother these questions:

    We evolved from monkeys right?

    So, why are there still monkeys? Why haven't they evolved to humans? Do they have some kind of slow release evolutionary gene that is hindering their evolution into humans?

    Also, why isn't there some kind of middle evolutionary stage between monkey and us?

    Did evolution just happen at some point and stop?

    Also, how did our complex brain evolve from monkeys with in hundreds of thousands of years? (I.e.The emergence of the frontal cortex)

    My brother said:

    "Yes we evolved from primates, but you have several misconceptions. It’s more that we share a common ancestor with modern day monkeys. This means there was an animal from which both monkeys and humans evolved. Its not that the creature millions of years ago was the same monkeys we see today. It also doesn’t mean that monkeys are on a track to evolve into humans. By contrast, a crocodile is a creature that has been around and remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. So, millions of years ago, you would have seen a creature that is pretty similar to what is seen today.

    Do you see the difference?

    We did not evolve from the monkeys and chimps that we see today. Monkeys evolved to be different because they have had different environmental pressures. We share 99% of our DNA because at some point in the past we shared 100% of our DNA, we were the same creature. Since then we have diverged so that our DNA is slightly different now.

    Also there actually are several intermediate steps. Look at this chart I found from the University of Georgia....

  • So to expand a little upon what I mentioned above, the animal Australopithecus anamensis became both humans and chimps. A. anamensis no longer exists because it evolved into humans and chimps. A anamensis also diverged again to become the Neanderthals as well as several other primate hominid species that did not survive.

    There are also several other fossil intermediaries between A. anamensis and human."

    In addition I was linked to a handy dandy chart: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122/116HominidAges07.jpg

  • I liked what "sepslugseven" said (whats your name again?)...I agree

  • Excerpt from me and Aaron's conversation on messenger:

    Aaron: Darwins theory of evolution

    me: i think what you are going to find if you look deeper that the people who are actually studying evolution would call the theory something that is constantly changing

    Aaron: and evolution itself
    might be a good idea
    i like the idea of the theory and facts

    me: Well who gives a crap about that, some has been proven right, some has been proven wrong of darwins theory

    Aaron: indicating yet again its very complex

    me: the "idea" of the theory and facts isn't an idea at all, but an actual description of what the two terms mean
    it's where the miscommunications begin and people are arguing against evolution, which is fact, instead of against a specific theory of human evolution that they disagree with

    Aaron: ok so I want to discuss where we evolved from

    me: so you want to discuss current theories of human evolution

    Aaron: yes

    me: ok well then you are going to have a hard time arguing against human evolution though, because we evolved from something, unless you believe god molded us out of clay

    Aaron: I just believe what is commonly believe is flawed, ie the primates evolution

  • me: and science from what i have seen is more like we want to figure out how this works, as opposed to all snooty acting like they know how it works

    Aaron: well im glad

    me: I would be inclined to agree with you from what i have seen. I think we evolved like your brother said from common ancestors but what he ISN'T telling you is that those are the same common ancestors of VASTLY different creatures so it isn't at all like "we evolved from monkeys" it's like our DNA evolved and DNA itself evolved and created different patterns of life

    Aaron: that should be posted

    me: so I am not sure there is an actual argument, just a discussion once everyone realizes what the others are saying

    Aaron: Yeah pretty much

  • Here's another problem: science is typically not appreciated and utilized by the academic community initially.

    I was just watching in that documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Ga5G9Pqtc&feature=related) how Darwin's Origin of Species was very appreciated by Materialist philosophers (much more so than academics) like Karl Marx particularly with the atheism aspect.

    So, it was immediately taken a perverted for political gain.

  • Yeah so the shadow lived even back then huh?

  • There was the misconception that cells and life could just emerge out of non-matter. (i.e. maggots emerging from the meat)

    Louis Pasteur said in response to Darwin's findings, "Can matter organize itself? NO! Today, there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves." ~Louis Pasteur Fox & Dose origin of Life, p. 4-5

    Russian biologist Alexander Oparin set out to explain how the first living cell--the alleged common ancestor of all living beings according to the theory of evolution could emerge.

    Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution. ~Alexander Oparin, Origin of Life, p. 196

    Yet when Oparin sought to find the origin, his efforts ended in failure.

    "Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life originate on earth?" ~Jeffrey Bada Earth, February 1998

    It appears that every attempt to prove where life came from has failed.

    So, I wonder if anyone else studied where life came from?

  • The theory of evolution claims that this cell came into existence by chance.

    "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer Nature, 12 Nov, 1981

    James Watson and Francis Crick who discovered DNA in 1955 found life was much more complex.

    Francis Crick confessed that a structure like DNA could have never emerged by chance.

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLH81kN-vSY&feature=related)

  • "There is no mechanism in nature to carry out the alleged process called evolution. There is no natural mechanism whereby a single cell can be transformed into a more complex living creature and then go on and become the ancestor of millions of different living species."

  • "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can increase the information in the genome?" (Professor Dawkins speechless after being asked this question at 8:22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTXyQbuRifk&feature=related)

    I don't actually understand the significance of the question although he elaborates simply saying that life is much more complex than being a self emergent creation.

  • Fossil records provide scientific answers as to question of the origins of living beings.

    According to the theory of evolution all living things descend from a common ancestor. Took place through minor and successive variations over a very long period of time.

    The theory argues that first the unicellular beings turned to marine invertebrates who merged on to land a turned into reptiles. Birds and mammals evolved from reptiles.

    Assuming this is true the next question is about transitional forms. There ought to have been numerous intermediary species linking one living species to another.

    If reptiles evolved from birds, than shouldn't there have been half bird half reptile creatures at one time on the planet?

    These creatures should have half developed organs.

    "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed...Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains." ~Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st ed., p. 179

    "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" ~Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st ed., p. 172

    (FYI most of this information is coming from the documentary Collapse of Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QBwGAPGvDI&feature=related)

    Darwin postulated that these transition species would be found in fossils. And were there transitional fossil records found?

  • "The Cambrian period marked a profound change in life on Earth. Before the Cambrian, life was on the whole small and simple. Complex organisms became gradually more common in the millions of years immediately preceding the Cambrian, but it wasn't until this period that mineralized — hence readily fossilized — organisms became common. This diversification of lifeforms was relatively rapid, and is termed the Cambrian explosion."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

    Cambrians are a species the were found over 500-530 million years ago.

    During this period, many species jellyfish, starfish, trilobytes and snails emerge all of a sudden.

    The eye of the trilobye is the first eye the appeared on earth. The honeycomb eye structure of trilobyes has survived since 530 million years without a single change. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite)

    Dragonflys and bees have the same eye structure as the trilobyte.

    The significance is that the Theory of Evolution (TOE) species must have evolved from preexisting forms. However there is no known lifeforms who existed prior to the trilobytes and other species from the Cambrian period. They came into existence all of a sudden.

    "It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." ~Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker 1986, p 229

    "If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." Charles Darwin The Origin of Species 1. ed. p. 302

    All other species (amphibians, birds, mammals) that have occurred thereafter have all appear "all of a sudden" with no transitional forms.

  • "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." ~Marc Czarnecki, Evolutionist and Paleontologist

  • The documentary makes the claim that that a 400 million year old shark fossil and modern shark have the same body structure (as do the others) indicating that once they were created they did not undergo any additional evolution.

    How could fish who have respiratory systems, excretory systems, muscle structure and metabolisms designed to live for water to have transformed into land dwelling animals by stepping out of water?

    Random mutations caused the evolution? Reptiles are covered with scales and are cold blooded. Birds have a lung system unlike that of any other land animal and are warm blooded.

    How could scaly reptiles who lay eggs turn into furry animals who give birth to their offspring?

    How could this evolutionary cross over have occurred?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMY0kR_7ZU4&feature=related

  • 6,500 different ape species have lived thus far and the majority are extinct.

    Australopithecus found in 1924 by Raymond Dary paleontologist. Argue it is a man-like creature. When compared with chimpanzee skull, there is no important difference between the two.

    Fossils used by evolutionists like "Home Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Sapien Archiac" belong to different human races. The fossils are similar to those people living today. The structural differences can be found in different human races today.

    These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. ~Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, 1981, p. 62

    You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public." ~Earnest Hooten, Up From the Ape, 1931, p 332.

    The Piltdown Forgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man) was a fossil introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This was found to be a forgery.

    The Nebraska Man in 1922 was based around a single fossil tooth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

    Supposedly many of these skulls are still being presented.

    I don't believe these points are the full solution but they have illuminated some very important pieces to this puzzle.

  • "How could fish who have respiratory systems, excretory systems, muscle structure and metabolisms designed to live for water to have transformed into land dwelling animals by stepping out of water?"

    Will take a while to see what information I have related to what you just said, since you wrote a lot, but this is what I just watched a documentary about involving the way DNA works. It had to do with a specific fish, that still has a known ancestor today, having fins that could push them up to be outside of the water.

    I agree with you that we should take evolutionary science that says oh we are from "x", i can prove it, worth a grain of salt. There is a lot of progress being made, so we will just keep learning.

    Nevertheless I will see if i can help with anything you wrote here when I return from my haircut

  • HOW ABOUT THIS
    "Theory" of Evolution VS Intelligent Design

    I come from the science background and to me based on what I have learned...Evolution is a THEORY about changes happening(in genotype of species) due to factors like mutation environment etc.

    BASICALLY
    modification or changes (EVOLUTION) NOT NOT NOT Creation. Cells does not arise from chance...although mutation does arise from external factors or some unknown factors.

    MY POINT IS: I believe in Intelligent Design BUT that does not undermine Evolution. Also, Evolution is different for different species...so just because one species never evolved does not mean you can completely ignore EVOLUTION.

    TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK?

  • I agree about..."Origin of Species"...where Darwin NEVER mentions the word Evolution...maybe he was thinking about Creation at that point...WHO KNOWS?!?!?!...BUT BUT thats not how modern science interpret it as. We don't deal with Creation...we only modify ;)
    You can never create a carbon atom or an electron or a proton !!
    NOW there are some physicist, with the help of proton collider, are trying to reach singularity and come up with (again) A THEORY of Creation !! (which is a different thing all togather)

    anyways,
    COOL TOPIC THOUGH

  • It is my understanding that the problem with evolutionary theory is the lack of evidence in the fossil record. If the theory of evolution is true, then there should be lots of transitional forms found in the fossil record.

    'By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

    If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

    The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record. '

    http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm

  • Stephen Druesedow said on facebook:

    "Terrence Mckenna points out that as the co-discoverer of evolution Alfred Russell Wallace pointed out that evolution can explain many things about how why we have a variety of species in the world according to slow genetic changes and adaptations, but it doesn't explain something like how a caterpillar turns into a butterfly...which is a radical change within the course of one species lifetime."

  • I agree with Divya with regards to the part creation and part evolution.

    Part creation because no matter what ANYONE says, we are here, but here is also everywhere and everywhere also seems to be nowhere. Something was created, some just think it jumped straight to humans, I believe that the real answer is more complicated than I can comprehend. But i basically believe that some form of intelligence created a universe that was capable of expanding and improving itself in every conceivable manner.

    Part evolution because life clearly evolves. There is plenty of evidence of that. That isn't even really debatable. The debate is HOW did something go from point A to point Z. I think anyone saying that debate is settled is clearly insane, and I think any scientist currently involved in genetic and DNA research would agree with me. Unfortunately I don't know enough about those topics to make a really intellectual addition.

    Scientists are working to figure out the clearly defined gaps in evolution. I think we all truly have to reach the conclusion that the science behind evolution (all sorts, human and otherwise) is just massively unfinished and enjoy the new revelations we get along the way.

  • Aaron, and my thermometer can tell me the temperature but it can't tell me how tall I am. How does it's inability to calculate one thing reduce it's ability to calculate another in that instance?

    I am pretty sure science has a good idea of how the caterpillar metamorphosis happens. What are you trying to illuminate with that quote?

  • Hey Divya, I agree they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, I think it's more of a micro and macro perspective.

    Evolution seeks out to explore and explain the smaller micro details and I think Intelligent Design seeks to explain the big macro details.

    Evolution is a VERY important as a concept, theory and fact so it absolutely needs more attention.

    I'm simply saying Scientists, Evolution is NOT a open and shut case and Intelligent Designers you are clearly ignoring the other side.

    Again it always comes down to examining the evidence of both sides and deciding for ourselves.

    Right now a lot of the evolution supports seem to give credibility only to the credentials of the person explaining, describing or otherwise providing insight about the validity of the theory. Why is that?

    Here are some facts that I believe are connected:

    Based on my research about the creation of the educational system I see that science has been very contrived.

    I would call it a conspiracy theory except now I have verified and documented evidence to prove my case.

    "John Dewey worked for his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University from 1882-86 under Hegelian philosopher George Sylvester Morris. Morris got his doctorate from the University of Berlin under the same teachers as Bonesman, Daniel Gilman. Dewey is considered to be the social pioneer in the Hegeleniazation of American Schools.

    John Dewey wrote in My Pedagogic Creed:

    "The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living."

  • And this is the core of the problem with education. Why am I bringing this up? Because the deep rooted problems behind what we learn, where we learn it and how we learn it.

    The Hegelian philosophy mentioned above is designed to keep disciplines apart.

    "What we learn from this is that Dewey's education is not child centered but State centered, because for the Hegelian, "social ends" are always State ends.

    This is where the gulf of misunderstanding between modern parents and the educational system begins. Parents believe a child goes to school to learn skills to use in the adult world, but Dewey states specifically that education is "not a preparation for future living."

    The Dewey educational system does not accept the role of developing a child's talents but, contrarily, only to prepare the child to function as a unit in an organic whole--in blunt terms a cog in a wheel of an organic society. Whereas most Americans have moral values rooted in the individual, the values of the school system are rooted in the Hegelian concept of the State as the absolute.

    "We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Nazism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions--Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett and so on---all Bonesman, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of "right" and "left".

    They financed and encouraged the growths off both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the "reductionist" division in science, the opposite of historical "wholeness". By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts."

    From: America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of the Skull and Bones by Anthony Sutton

  • I am mentioning this because these are historical facts behind the creation of trendsetting education institutions which have undoubtedly influenced the studies you have engaged in.

    Does this data mean evolution is bullshit? No.

    Does this data indicate that there has been a plan in place to control the education system and the content within since the late 1800's and possibly even earlier? Absolutely.

    Therefore, based on this data alone I challenge you to actually research the source that a lot of this alleged information has come from.

    I like the fact that things are more international, however, by no means do I consider ANY scientific body 100% absolute simply because of human intervention, interference and control.

    I would dare you to say that science has 100% control to study whatever mysteries it wants and have unlimited funding to do so.

    No, I believe specific study of subject matter are VERY carefully screened and controlled. If you can prove this is NOT true I would be very happy to review that data.

  • Chris, I posted that quote mainly because I thought it was an interesting concept to point out. I agree with your taking the temperature point. I think it's just showing how explaining one thing does not mean that it can be ported over to another thing. Meaning if you can't explain a process within a species, that says to me that a lot less is known that people tout as fact.

  • Chris, my quote about the credibility was in response to my friend Ed:

    Ed Rodriguez:

    "I agree completely Paul... You can't be a trusted source in something you've never studied. I don't want my chemistry teacher to build me a bridge. I also don't want my dentist performing open heart surgery (don't care if he watched the instructional video 40 times) Intelligence is nothing without the corresponding knowledge and application.

    Morelike your biologists evolution comment, I don't know any physicists that don't believe in the big bang and if they don't, they are not considered a trusted source.

    I used to be very religious, altar server, usher... and then came math, science, and engineering. The numbers and logic make a lot more sense than blind faith in someone's oral interpretation of another person's written interpretation on "miraculous things" that happened over 2000 years ago. They push faith as the answer to every question; if you can't figure it out, just have faith. Interesting strategy but it didn't help me at all on my final exams."

    Not saying I disagree but I do think there is more to this. I.e seems like a lot of "partisanship" among academics.

  • Remember the conversation me and mike and you were having last night? Even objectivity is inherently objective because it is impossible to exist outside of the influence of philosophy. And you are saying "SCIENCE" which is an extremely vast term, is contrived because people have cherry picked information to serve their own purposes?

    You know as well as I do that a lot of science is conducted with integrity, and that you can't vilify the whole because of the perceived deficiency of one of it's parts.

    I don't see it as an inherently bad thing that people tried to chose what they considered important aspects of different knowledge to present them in a social institution called schools. The problem lies in the oversight and legislation of the system, to serve the needs of those other than the students themselves.



  • Chris just pointed out a great point,

    What' I am really arguing against is a philosophy of saying that current science is complete science in extremely complex matters such as evolution.

    And I find it repulsive when people say "Oh he's in x field and therefore cannot comment on the y field."

    I simply believe the picture needs all the letters of the alphabet to work together not choose which letter is the best...

  • ME AND AARONS SIDE CONVERSATION (easier than trying to write an essay about it lol)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    me: you shouldn't be generalizing science, your brother and ed are not spokespersons for the field of science as a whole. They are extremely young and want to be knowledgable, but they are using very little available information

    Aaron: Yeah but they are making very strong comments

    me: I completely get your problem with what they are saying

    Aaron: I suppose you're right though

    me: i totally understand that, but that doesn't reduce the meaning of what other scientists are doing with regards to evolution

    Aaron: still though , they are like people saying the bible is THE answer
    That's true
    I agree with that

    me: yeah your problem is with the philosophy your brother is choosing to use in his exploration of the field of science

    Aaron: lol always has been

    me: it's amazing how all these things get mashed in together though to the point where you somehow find yourself arguing against evolution, when you are really arguing against a philosophy of saying that current science is complete science in extremely complex matters such as evolution

    Aaron: Definitely

  • You're right I overgeneralize a lot and that has been my weakness historically in discussions of such topics.

    I just wanted us to realize the influences on how we think and like you're saying fully understand the entire range of parts of the whole.

    I just want to see what scientists, academics, scholars etc have the most progressive encompassing platform.

    That is probably the next thing we should look at, who is on the cusp of researching evolution and such complex topics?

  • Absolutely. I think that also prevents us from having to reinvent the wheel in terms of poking holes in arguments that have already been altered or disproven based on new information.

  • Sweet, I feel better and a little smarter.

  • Any comments about the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

  • I got into that in great detail about 6 posts from the top. There is DEFINITELY an absence of transitional forms.

    "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." ~Marc Czarnecki, Evolutionist and Paleontologist

    This is a VERY big deal. Darwin's theory hinged upon these transitional forms and they are yet to be found.

    Species are appearing with no evolutionary history. This has even been admitted by evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins.

  • I think the reality of the world we live in is far different than what is observed and measured through scientific process. The problem is that science is taken as absolute fact, when it is closer to functional description.

    This is something society will need to overcome in order for us to evolve as a people. THAT is evolution. ;-)

  • I didn't read all of this because y'all are giving me a headache. But one thing you have to understand regarding genotypes and phenotypes is that they are not totally dependent upon each other due to simple Mendelian genetics. There can be hundreds of genotypes and a few phenotypes so while it looks as if there are limited (or just unseen - fossils, etc) transitory organisms, there may be many that vary genotypically (genetic makeup) and just not outwardly (phenotypically). Genetics is a tricky thing. It is entirely possible and probable that the previous 30 genotypes of Animal X resulted in phenotype A but the next most complex genotype, #31, results in phenotype B. So something that may seem abrupt is really anything but.

    I do not know how life originated. I have my hypotheses but who knows who or what is right. But think of this, as human beings, we have approximately the same types and numbers of genes as a pufferfish. It's in the regulation of those genes (euchromatin vs heterochromatin) that we see internal and external differences that result in varying phenotypes.

    I do agree with FreemanRAM that science is functional description because there are many things that science cannot explain and the business of science itself is so flawed that it's often difficult to know what to believe and what to continue to question. Although being a scientist by schooling, I'd say question everything.

Want to take part in this discussion? Click one of these: Sign In Apply for Membership
Back to Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to take part in the discussions, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Remember: Post with love.



HOME  |   ABOUT  |   CONTACT  |   THE GAME  |   FORUM  |   PRODUCTS & PROGRAMS  |   CONTRIBUTE  |   TWITTER  |   FACEBOOK  |   DONATE
© Copyright 2008-2010 by The LOVEolution. web design by getCarbonated.