evolution in the u.s.a.

[dusk]

I started yesterday in a book about evolution.
And I found out And I didn't knew that The usa doesn't recognize evolution.
And that there are even places there where people don't even
realize that evolution excists.
Maybe for the american people here it is not so strange.
But where I'm from that's old.
I expect that from a country like gnomeland with the little dwarfs.
But a country that finds itself superiour to the rest of the world.
Is the last country I'm expecting that from.

[Janus]

And I found out And I didn't knew that The usa doesn't recognize evolution.
The US recognizes evolution.

It's just that in certain areas, it isn't taught or taught as a simply hypothesis or theory. In those areas, it is given the same credibility as other theories.


And that there are even places there where people don't even
realize that evolution excists.
Even fundamentalists must be aware of it. They simply pay no attention to it.


But a country that finds itself superiour to the rest of the world.
Is the last country I'm expecting that from.
Yes, but the religious lobby is still powerful in the US particularly in conservative areas like the deep South.

[Janus]

Here's some new research that provides evidence for evolution.


Originally posted by BBC News
Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.

The finds are giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.

US palaeontologists have published details of the fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature.

The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

'Missing link'

Before these finds, palaeontologists knew that lobe-finned fishes evolved into land-living creatures during the Devonian Period.

But fossil records showed a gap between Panderichthys, a fish that lived about 385 million years ago which shows early signs of evolving land-friendly features, and Acanthostega, the earliest known tetrapod (four-limbed land-living animals) dating from about 365 million years ago.
In 1999, palaeontologists Professor Neil Shubin, from the University of Chicago, and Professor Edward Daeschler, from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, set out to explore the Canadian Arctic in an attempt to find the "missing link" that would explain the transition from water to land.

After several years of searching with very little success, they hit the jackpot in 2004.

"The really remarkable find came when one of the crew found a snout of a flat-headed animal sticking out of the side of a cliff - that is totally what you want to find because if you are at all lucky the rest of the skeleton is back in the cliff," said Professor Shubin.

The team found three near-complete, well-preserved fossils of the new species, Tiktaalik roseae, in an area of the Arctic called the Nunavut Territory. The largest measures almost 3m (9 ft) in length.

"When we got back into the lab we removed the rock from the bone, and we began to find some really significant stuff," Professor Shubin told the BBC news website.

Crocodile-like

The creature shares some characteristics with a fish; it has fins with webbing, and scales on its back.

But it also has many features in common with land animals. It has a flat crocodile-like head with eyes positioned on top and the beginnings of a neck - something not seen in fish.

"When we look inside the fin, we see a shoulder, we see an elbow, and we see an early version of a wrist, which is very similar to that of all animals that also walk on land," said Professor Shubin.
"Essentially we have an animal that is built to support itself on the ground."

The scientists believe the position of the creature's eyes suggest it probably lived in shallow water.

"We are capturing a very significant transition at a key moment of time. What is significant about the animal is that it is a fossil that blurs the distinction between two forms of life - between an animal that lives in water and an animal that lives on land."

Dr Andrew Milner, a palaeontologist from the Natural History Museum, UK, said it is unusual to find a fossil like this in such good condition.

"This material is amazing because it includes a nearly complete skeleton - which is always handy because instead of assembling the fossil from bits we can see the whole skeleton and be sure that this is how the animal was put together."

Professor Jennifer Clack, from the University of Cambridge, said that the find could prove to be as much of an "evolutionary icon" as Archaeopteryx - an animal believed to mark the transition from reptiles to birds.

"The discovery of the Tiktaalik gives hope of equally ground-breaking finds to come," she said.

A cast of one of the fossils will be on display at the Science Museum in London from Thursday.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Evolution is both fact and theory. The fact of evolution is happening all the time. The theory of evolution explains how and why it's happening.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:05 PM
Evolution is both fact and theory. The fact of evolution is happening all the time. The theory of evolution explains how and why it's happening.
That's very true. It annoys me to no end when people say evolution is theory. It is a fact. Why and how it is happening is the theory.

[which doctor]

Evidence schmevidence. The bible says that the world was created in 7 days. I always believe what I hear in the bible, even if it was written by old men thousands of years ago. It speaketh teh truth!

That's what the typical creationist says ^^

[Zak]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Apr 5 2006, 11:23 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Apr 5 2006, 11:23 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 11:05 PM
Evolution is both fact and theory. The fact of evolution is happening all the time. The theory of evolution explains how and why it's happening.
That's very true. It annoys me to no end when people say evolution is theory. It is a fact. Why and how it is happening is the theory. [/b]
Right but people are mixing up the scientific term "theory" with the colloquial. A scientific theory is rigouresly tested. A hypothesis is what they mean.

You also get this alot when people say "germs are only a theory" like all theories are a bunch of bullshit. I'm curious as to whether or not they think the Theory of Gravity can be so easily dismissed as the "germ theory" and the "theory of evolution"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You also get this alot when people say "germs are only a theory"

What kind of idiots say that? They should be made to lick the bowl of a public toilet.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:43 PM
I'm curious as to whether or not they think the Theory of Gravity can be so easily dismissed as the "germ theory" and the "theory of evolution"
Look up the flat earth society :lol:
I bet you didnt know its all a farce <_<


They should be made to lick the bowl of a public toilet.

Or you could just hand them a microscope.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:03 PM

You also get this alot when people say "germs are only a theory"

What kind of idiots say that? They should be made to lick the bowl of a public toilet.
New-age medical types, and macrobiotics. Spirtual healers. Those kindof people.

[Sanjee]

First of al, excuse me for my bad English. You just have to find a way to read it.

The evolution theory was and still is a THEORY. Scientists have never found a fossil of an animal during the evolution. For example: Homa habilus or the Homo erectus. No one has ever found a single bone of these creatures. Darwin himself said that he had not found any fossils of these creatures. He was hoping that they would have been found later. But even today they are not found.

The chance that a cell is created by pure coinsedence (that&#39;s what the evolution theory says) is narrower than the chance that a huricane rushes over a junkyard, and makes a perfect boeing 747. I can&#39;t say much now, because I&#39;m very busy, but I wil come back.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The evolution theory was and still is a THEORY.

Yes, just like the theory of gravity or the theory of General Relativity.


Scientists have never found a fossil of an animal during the evolution.

Wrong. (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)


For example: Homa habilus or the Homo erectus. No one has ever found a single bone of these creatures. Darwin himself said that he had not found any fossils of these creatures. He was hoping that they would have been found later. But even today they are not found.

Refuted in the above link.


The chance that a cell is created by pure coinsedence (that&#39;s what the evolution theory says) is narrower than the chance that a huricane rushes over a junkyard, and makes a perfect boeing 747. I can&#39;t say much now, because I&#39;m very busy, but I wil come back.

Wrong (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html), again.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Sanjee
The scrap-heap at an aircraft breaker&#39;s yard is unique. No two scrap-heaps are the same. If you start throwing fragments of aeroplanes into heaps, the odds of your happening to hit upon the same combination of junk twice are just about as low as the odds of your throwing together a working airliner. So why is a rubbish dump not as complex as an aeroplane or a dog, when its arrangement of atoms is just as "improbable"?
The combination lock on my bicycle has 4,096 different positions. Each is equally "improbable" in that, if you spin the wheel at random, each combination is equally unlikely to turn up. I can spin the wheels at random, look at whatever number is displayed and exclaim with hindsight: "How amazing. The odds against that number appearing are 4,096:1. A minor miracle&#33;"

Evolution is not a matter of living creatures coming about "by chance". Creatures evolve through mutation in successive generations. In a computer program Dawkins designed to replicate this, a random sequence of 28 letters has a 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million chance of coming up with a certain sentence; but a sequence of successive mutations, ie cumulative selection, can get to the sentence within 50 "generations". This is why a hurricane over a junkyard cannot make a plane - it does not have succesive generations in which to do it. Evolution involves the natural selection of the best improvements of mutation over a period of millions of years.

The evolution theory does not say a cell is created by "pure coincidence". Some reading would aid your knowledge here. I suggest you start with "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, quoted above, or if you&#39;re feeling brave, Charles Darwin&#39;s "Origin of Species".

[Commie Rat]

QUOTE
The chance that a cell is created by pure coinsedence (that&#39;s what the evolution theory says) is narrower than the chance that a huricane rushes over a junkyard, and makes a perfect boeing 747. I can&#39;t say much now, because I&#39;m very busy, but I wil come back.



Wrong, again.

I clicked this link expecting to see a 747 made out of junkyard parts by a hurricane :(

[Janus]

Studies have shown that the split between humans and chimps is more recent than previosuly thought



Originally posted by BBC News
A detailed analysis of human and chimp DNA suggests the lines finally diverged less than 5.4 million years ago.

The finding, published in the journal Nature, is about 1-2 million years later than the fossils have indicated.

A US team says its results hint at the possibility that interbreeding occurred between the two lines for thousands, even millions, of years.

This hybridisation would have been important in swapping genes for traits that allowed the emerging species to survive in their environments, explain the scientists affiliated to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the Harvard Medical School.

And it underlines, they believe, just how complex human evolution has been.

"This is a hypothesis; we haven&#39;t proved it but it would explain multiple features of our data," said David Reich, assistant professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School and an author on the Nature paper.

"The hypothesis is that there was gene flow between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees after their original divergence.

"So, there might have been an original divergence and a separation for long enough that the species became differentiated - for example, we might have adapted features such as upright walking - and then there was a re-mixture event quite a while after; a hybridisation event," he told the Science in Action programme on the BBC World Service.

Gene swapping

Humans and chimps contain DNA sequences that are very similar to each other; the differences are due to mutations, or errors, in the genetic code that have occurred since these animals diverged on to separate evolutionary paths.

By analysing where these differences occur in the animals&#39; genomes, it is possible to get an insight into the two species&#39; histories - the timing of key events in their evolution.

Scientists have been able to do this for some time but the recent projects to fully decode the two primates&#39; genomes have provided details that have taken this type of study to a more advanced level.

The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably less than 5.4 million years ago.

It is a problematic finding because of our current understanding of early fossils, such as the famous Toumai specimen uncovered in Chad.

Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) was thought to be right at the foot of the human family tree. It dates to between 6.5 and 7.4 million years ago. In other words, it is older than the point of human-chimp divergence seen in the genetic data.

"It is possible that the Toumai fossil is more recent than previously thought," said Nick Patterson, a senior research scientist and statistician at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and lead author on the Nature paper.

"But if the dating is correct, the Toumai fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like features suggests that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation between the emerging species."

Commenting on the research, Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, told the Associated Press: "It&#39;s a totally cool and extremely clever analysis.

"My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."

[red team]

And some people, judging by their action and reasoning (or lack of), should be considered more chimp than human. :lol: