oh man, not again. this is the oldest excuse the creationists have used for years. and it does not make much sense.
Fossil evidence has continually and repeatedly destroyed evolution, but instead of abandoning it, the evolutionists just kept modifying their theory.
First we came from apes, we were more advanced than apes, then we found fossils of less advanced creatures occurring later and more advanced creatures earlier, then they modified the theory ... "oh no" they said, we don't come from apes, "but apes and us come from the same ancestor", ... and apes are now just as advanced as us apparently, in terms of evolution ... They are as evolved as us ... In the past we used to have an aspect evolution that explained how or why creatures remained unevolved whilst others would evolve ... They used the idea of niche ... That being well suited to your own niche meant that you will remain as so ... They apply this on to the long "unchanged" shark and crocodile ... However to explain the common ancestor theory they need another idea ... The idea of constant gradual change ... Before it used to be survival of the fittest ... This has not been abandoned, but to explain certain traits they ignore this principle ... For example humans taking care of sick and elderly ... Why do we do that?
The moral creature ... Why only from the ape? Will a dolphin develop morality? Acting or behaving like another thing ... Will a dog behave like a human?
Ask them about the biochemical pathways used in speciation ... Our chromosomes are 46, the chimps are 48 ... How many did our common ancestor have? What was the mechanism that led to the ancestral chromosome structure to become ours on one hand and the chimps on the other hand and why are the ancestral forms now extinct? These are very reasonable questions that people who understand evolution should be asking themselves ... The ones who fail to ask such questions are the ones who don't understand it.
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All Hominidae (with the exception of humans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[SUP]](Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.
When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is apparent that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species. Yes, there are differences, but the overall similarity is striking. The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs.Using high resolution photomicrographs you can see the similarity of the chromosomes between the four species. It also show the similarity of the chromosomes in that every one of 1,000 nonheterochromatic G-bands has been accounted for in the four species. That means that each non-heterochromatic band has been located in each species. The following observations can be made about similarities and differences among the four species:
Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns in all four species. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species. The biggest single chromosomal rearrangement among the four species is the unique number of chromosomes (23 pairs) found in humans as opposed to the apes (24 pairs).
There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line.
Remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
So how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? Yes, the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. The last remaining species of wild horse,** Przewalski’s Wild Horse** has **66 **chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski’s Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring.
Another chromosomal rearrangement has been discovered is shared both by humans and chimpanzees, but not found in any of the other monkeys or apes that were tested. This rearrangement was the movement of about 100,000 DNA pairs from human chromosome 1 to the Y chromosome. So if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?
These terms "fission", "fusion", "rearrangement", "movement", are suggesting they have actually been observed or are they terms being used to explain what could have happened in order to explain how one species becomes another? Also, this assessment above is actually looking at human genes coming from chimp ones, not the chimp and human genes coming from an ancestor ...Have they caught up with latest evolution theory yet? Anyway...what could that ancestor's chromosome structure be?
Regarding the horses ... I didn't know about the fertility of the offspring of a domestic-prezewalski horse hybrid ... It would give them 65 chromosomes !!! How fertile are they? Are they fittest to survive? Does the fossil record of those horses corroborate a common ancestor with wild horses?
Of course bar the ethical problems, do chimps and humans also produce hybrids?
And since we can suggest a fusion of a chromosome, can it be suggested that such a thing be done in the lab and planted in to a host chimp to see if a human can be produced?
Furthermore, what are the natural conditions in which such transfers and beneficial mutations actually occur?
Oh, and by the way please give a bit of information about why the centromere and telomere remnants are actually remnants, and why they should not have existed in the first place?
I think, the oldest fossil of a human ancestor found so far is *Ardipithecus ramidus. *the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.
All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardipithecus ramidus’s feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees.
Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape’s, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, *Ardipithecus’*s contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.
According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape’s, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.
Even in the trees, Ardi was nothing like a modern ape. Modern chimps and gorillas have evolved limb anatomy specialized to climbing vertically up tree trunks, hanging and swinging from branches, and knuckle-walking on the ground.
While these behaviors require very rigid wrist bones, for instance, the wrists and finger joints of Ardipithecus were highly flexible. As a result Ardi would have walked on her palms as she moved about in the trees—more like some primitive fossil apes than like chimps and gorillas.
Male and female Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrids are fertile, unlike all other known interspecific equine hybrids, in which meiosis is almost totally arrested in prophase. In the male Przewalski/horse hybrid (2n = 65) we have shown that a trivalent is formed at the first meiotic division, segregation from which gives two classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa. Both of these are capable of producing normal offspring if they fertilize the eggs of a domestic mare. Chromosome banding studies show a close homology between the karyotypes of the Przewalski horse (2n = 66) and the domestic horse (2n = 64), and it is evident that a single Robert-sonian translocation has occurred, transforming four acrocentric chromosomes of E. przewalskii into two metacentric chromosomes in E. caballus. Thus the parental genetic backgrounds are sufficiently similar to permit normal gametogenesis, with regular segregation from the trivalent of the F[SUB]1[/SUB] hybrid at meiosis. The significance of this is discussed in relation to the evolution of the Equidae
I am no scientist . I will try and post stuff when real life permits . Meanwhile, can U explain your belief (creationism or Intelligent design) . What do you support ? Do you have scientific evidence to support your hypothesis? Has it been observed in the lab or in the span of a human life time to prove that it occurred in a certain way ? How is your theory better that the theory of evolution? What r the strong points ? The study of evolution is ongoing.
I can't believe I have to indulge in this kind of discussion.. This sort of question can only be asked by someone who has never been to college.. Evolutionary biology is taught as valid science in every college.. And subject carries its due accredition like any other subject for a degree..
and this.
it is a vasttt field. you guys really need to do some research to understand the intricacies of it. a lot of peoples efforts and time have gone into it.
Never heard of an evolutionary biologist? molecular evolution? Evo-Devo?
Religion is a conspiracy ... Where the pushers of it lobby and make it legislation and demand it to be taught. There is no greater reason why it is so widespread ... The origin of life according to Religious fanatics is based on creationism and they have nothing else ... The only way they can get their way is to systematically infiltrate the avenues of spreading their lies though the media and state education.
lawl what? first of all they’re base pairings. done in a very precise manner. secondly. you dont understand the subject. so i understand the difficulty strands???
Why should evolution be inherent in biology? Which field of biology is compromised by not believing in evolution?
what field is NOT compromised?
If a scientific discovery complies with the Qur'an, it will be good science, but if it conflicts with the Quran, then for sure there something wrong with the 'science' that was employed in making that discovery/setting the hypothesis.
The problem is with some posters and their literal interpretation of Islam. Otherwise there is no conflict between Islam and the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and there is a consensus in the scientific community that it is a fact of life. Lekin meray murghay ki aik taang!
The method to this madness is to keep asking for more and more details. Since most people on here aren't scientists, they'll evenutally give up and the guy can have his aha moment.
psyah, why don't you present your counter evidence in a scientific journal? All these scientists who've spent their lives doing research hold way more weight than some guy with an engineering degree. They also understand the scientific method better than you and know what is and isn't scientific.
you might say that the scientific journals are biased towards evolution. Remember that evolution has made headway against a very hostile and religiously inclined scientific environment.
strands???