Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

Calaveras Skull

Click to expand...

On February 25, 1866, miners found a human skull in a mine, beneath a layer of lava, 130 feet (39 m) below the surface of the earth, which made it into the hands of Josiah Whitney, then the State Geologist of California as well as a Professor of Geology at Harvard University. A year before the skull came to his attention, Whitney had published the aforementioned belief of humans, mastodons, and elephants having coexisted and the skull only served as proof of his convictions. After careful study, he officially announced its discovery at a meeting of the California Academy of Science on July 16, 1866, declaring it evidence of the existence of Pliocene age man in North America, which would make it the oldest known record of humans on the continent.

However, its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 a San Francisco newspaper reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke. Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879, with the results indicating it was of recent origin. It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.

Click to expand...

The Castenedolo and Olmo skulls from Italy and the Calaveras skull from California were modern skulls, but all were found in undisturbed Pliocene strata.

Talk Origins is using an out of date creationist reference: Their cited source is eight years more recent. Dr. Morris' source was a Readers Digest article from August 1973, and the error was made by that author, not Morris. It needs to be noted that these bones are not used any more. Most creationists have abandoned them in true scientific fashion as they have been found to be erroneous.

Click to expand...

The Moab Man (also called "Malachite man") is a controversial find of around ten human skeletons in rock dated to the Early Cretaceous period, about 140 Ma. The discovery was made in 1971 by Lin Ottinger in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah and has been used by creationists as an argument for humans coexisting with dinosaurs. John Marwitt, an archaeologist and the Field Director for the Utah Archaeological Survey, examined the fossils and concluded that the fossils were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.

Later examination of the "Moab Man" skeletons indicate that they are unfossilized, and have been carbon dated to between 210 and 1450 years old (Berger and Protsch, 1989; Coulam and Schroedl, 1995)

Click to expand...

THATS FUCKIN MICRO EVOLUTION, our genes can easly change our pigmintation, look at all the human colours. Wheres the new element in the DNA?

Click to expand...

Humans show big DNA differences

DNA comparisons: Gains (green), losses (red), the same (yellow)

Scientists have shown that the genetic make-up of humans can vary hugely - far more than was previously thought. A UK-led team made a detailed analysis of the DNA found in 270 people and identified vast regions to be duplicated or even missing.


A great many of these variations are in areas of the genome that would not damage our health, Matthew Hurles and colleagues told the journal Nature.
But others are - and can be shown to play a role in a number of disorders.


"We were certainly surprised; we expected to find that there would be some variation, but we weren't expecting to find quite this much," Dr Hurles told BBC News.
To date, the investigation of the human genome has tended to focus on very small changes in DNA that can have deleterious effects - at the scale of just one or a few bases, or "letters", in the biochemical code that programs cellular activity.


And for many years, scientists have also been able to look through microscopes to see very large-scale abnormalities that arise when whole DNA bundles, or chromosomes, are truncated or duplicated.
But it is only recently that researchers have developed the molecular "tools" to focus on medium-scale variations - at the scale of thousands of DNA letters.

Big factor
This analysis of so-called copy number variation (CNV) has now revealed some startling results.
It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds.
The researchers were astonished to locate 1,447 CNVs in nearly 2,900 genes, the starting "templates" written in the DNA that are used by cells to make the proteins which drive our bodies.


This is a huge, hitherto unrecognised, level of variation between one individual and the next.
"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," said Matthew Hurles, of the UK's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.


"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.


"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected. We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals."

Evolving story
The new understanding will change the way in which scientists search for genes involved in disease.
"Many examples of diseases resulting from changes in copy number are emerging," commented Charles Lee, one of the project's leaders from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, US.


"A recent review lists 17 conditions of the nervous system alone - including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease - that can result from such copy number changes."


Scientists are not sure why the copy variations emerge, but it probably has something to do with the shuffling of genetic material that occurs in the production of eggs and sperm; the process is prone to errors.
As well as aiding the investigation of disease and the development of new drugs, the research will also inform the study of human evolution, which probes genetic variation in modern populations for what it can say about their relationship to ancestral peoples.

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

You don't understand what macro/micro evolution means...
.

Click to expand...

fish601 said:

macro is not science

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

Tell me why.

Like I explained to you before, macro evolution has the exact same processes as micro evolution, the one and only difference is the amount of time.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

Fish, you aren't even qualified to say if macro is scientific or not. All of your posts indicate an utter lack of knowledge of science. It's not simply a matte of "opinion". It's not a beauty contest.....

Click to expand...

micro can be proven
macro we only believe it can happen
asummption is the mother of all F***ups
they assume macro can happen
they assume dating methods are right
we assume scientist know what they are talking about
we assume text books give us accurate information
people assume marijuana is bad
scientist cant even agree on how bad marijuana is

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

You are wrong, see the small changes that can be quickly seen are observed, the same changes that are small add up and that is where different 'species' occur.


The belief that you hold is that these animals are somehow different. What it really is is that all those very small changes took millions of years to evolve to the point that you call it a different species, family, order, ect. But it still starts from the same point.

One animal does not change into another. It is one animal that a mutation occurs that results in a small change, over time those small changes get passed on to others in its group, usually not even showing differences. But once two parents have a child that carried the same mutation the new offspring has the full trait. If it is benefitial it will be easier for them to reproduce, and slowly those changes occur.

Usually you will end up with several different new types of the same animal, with the original still sticking around.


But the big thing with everything you said, is that you assume all this is wrong. And your only evidence is people that want to sell you the idea of god to keep you in their numbers. They cannot allow themselves to be questioned, because if they allow the holes to be poked, they lose their revenue stream. On the other hand science is constantly being challenged. People everyday question it and test it, and it still holds up to testing. But that is not good enough for you right now. Eventually you may decide to look into the actual facts instead of the churches propaganda, and when that happens you will find it is a interesting place to be.

Click to expand...

mared juwan said:

Do you know how much money they spend to produce a textbook? Do you know why they are so expensive? Because they spend thousands of hours FACT checking. Making SURE their information is correct. Things written in textbooks are far more believable than anything I see typed by a guy named "fish601" with a picture of Jesus as his avatar. Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.

Click to expand...

mared juwan said:

Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.

Click to expand...

fish601 said:

shut me out because i believe something else?

Click to expand...

ReggaeGanja said:

Click to expand...

fish601 said:

all that sounds good but....

Click to expand...

fish601 said:

shut me out because i believe something else?

Click to expand...