National Geographic Evolution News
national geographic evolution
Researchers from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, have drawn together 200 years' worth of oceanographic knowledge to investigate the distribution of a notorious deep-sea giant – the king crab. The results, published this week in the ...
Read moreEvolution: Crabs go deep to avoid hot water - EurekAlert
Mating between the rare California tiger salamander and the introduced barred tiger salamander has created a monster—at least for animals that dwell in the ponds of California 's Salinas River Valley. (See a map of the region .) The new hybrid ...
Read moreHybrid "Superpredator" Invading California Ponds - National Geographic
Surprisingly, the model suggests that primates (such as lemurs, monkeys, apes, and humans, among others) might have evolved larger brains as a result of the need to move quickly from tree to tree—not, as commonly assumed, to hunt for fruit or ...
Read moreNut-Size Ancient Skull Explains Our Brains' Bigness? - National Geographic
According to a report in National Geographic News, the 1.5-inch-long (4-centimeter-long) skull belongs to the long-gone Ignacius graybullianus, described as a cousin of our earliest ancestors, which arose less than ten million years after the ...
Read morePrimates evolved larger brains to hop between trees - New Kerala
There is nothing odd about touting paleontological finds, particularly in the age of cable TV. National Geographic and the Discovery Channel do it frequently. And while this fossil's publicity campaign might seem a bit de trop, it is also vaguely ...
Read moreUncovering Our Earliest Ancestor - Washington Post
CEO and President James P. Hackett admittedly had wanted equal benefits for all his 13,000 employees for years but feared domestic-partner benefits would lead to requests for other potentially costly benefits, such as full coverage for live-in family ...
Read moreOne CEO's Fight for Domestic-Partner Benefits - Diversity Inc
When it was announced in March that Georges St-Pierre had signed an endorsement deal with Gatorade Canada , observers pegged it as a major step forward in MMA's "mainstream" market acceptance. As with Caol Uno and his Nike sponsorship in Japan ...
Read moreGSP's Gatorade deal hits the U.S. - ESPN.com
Stop the presses: Dana White speaks frankly into an amplifying or recording device. ESPN Radio 1100 squeezed UFC president Dana White for details on rumors that Chuck Liddell may fight Rich Franklin in UFC 103 on September 19 in Dallas. This after ...
Read moreWhite (shockingly) candid about Liddell, TUF - ESPN.com
Read moreNational Geographic Evolution Search Links
Warning: file(http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=national+geographic+evolution&format=rss&FORM=R0RE) [function.file]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request
in /home/yourwe25/public_html/evolution/gaat/soeke.php on line 4
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/yourwe25/public_html/evolution/gaat/soeke.php on line 4
Resolved Question: Please help....Christians only. Thanks. A close relative is leading me away from....?
God. Not intentionally...or maybe it is. This person and I just (couple min ago) got in a small fight about evolution. One of my strong Christian friends was over and while my close relative was talking about how national geographic traced her DNA back to India etc. My Christian friend said that the magazine was an "evolutionist magazine" and left it at that.My close relative knew she said something so after we dropped my friend off she asked what. I told her about the evolutionst magazine and she said the church was polluting the young peoples minds!!! PLEASE HELP ME! I shook my hand and turned away and as she was walking out the door she yelled that in this country she had freedom of speech, Please please help brothers and sisters in Christ. I have felt I have been wandering from God and what she said just upsets me to the core. How do I make her understand and RESPECT my belief. She used to be Catholic but now she's not. I don't know what she is. She questions religion, thinks that evolution and the bible match up. HOW CAN I HELP HER?! HOW CAN I HELP ME! PLEASE PLEASE HELP! moreResolved Question: A question about evolution. Can advancements in the area of reading, medicine, etc. be treated as evolution.?
Before i begin i need to make it clear that i'm looking for people who are accepting of evolution in some form or another as at least a plausible cause of the development of life forms on this planet. Not looking for religious answers in the least. Also, my limited understanding of evolution is merely what i read in articles from sources like national geographic, or scientific weekly. I did read the origin of a species a while back, but i am not pretending to be an expert on the subject by any means. Again, i dont care what god thinks about this. I have a theory, (or something like it) that we can classify medical advancements, such as the polio vaccine, as us taking evolution into our own hands. Whereas before, evolution in most other species has relied on the random selection and success of genes in isolated species, we have developed methods of altering our surroundings sufficiently enough to at least make evolution, for us, void of natures whims. Writing, and more specifically books, would be another example of us taking a limited memory, and creating as an extension of ourselves in writing and language. Couldn't you consider that as us modifying our "brain" without the underlying genetic requirements? There are all kinds of ways humans have either modified, changed, created or destroyed our environment/surroundings that i feel could be counted as us literally "taking evolution into our own hands." Now i know that other species create nests, or build caves, or use sticks to eat termites, but i beleive that the sheer scale of our change and creations makes their small developments miniscule, merely the precursor to our own global changes. Not to mention, there has never been any creature other than man (as far as we know) to write a book, or cure itself of disease in a single generation. I hope this is worded well enough to be read, sorry if its not, its terribly late and i'm a bit under the influence. I just recently hopped onto yahoo! q's and this seems like a good question. But oh yeah, my actual question is: What do you think of this, and if you have heard of this somewhere else, where. Does this sound legitimate or just not make any friggin sense at all. moreResolved Question: Do you know that the Whale has proven Evolution right?
It's the best study of the case for evolution. A National Geographic program explained they have all the fossils, no missing links anymore. From a wolf like animal that liked to hunt fish to a whale that had atrofied mini back legs all is there. moreResolved Question: Does science disprove religion?
Science is what disproves what religion believes as truth The more science finds out about what has really happened it lets religion down in a nice way. |For example 50 years ago it was against all religions that there was a big bang or evolution to be truth. You may have gotten banned from your religion if you said you believe they may have happened. Now religion has no quarrels about a big bang happening or even now there is room for them to understand that evolution and religion can co-exist Why is it that we don't hear about science saying there must be a creator on any of the cable channels like the discovery channel or national geographic. Could it be because science has to watch what they say about a god? Or could it be that since science deals mostly in what we call facts and religion doesn't? moreResolved Question: Do you believe in evolution? did you know the "Missing Link" is still missing?
Imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater’s tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, ‘discovered’ at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show last year, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17; millions more read about the find in November’s National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of ‘a true missing link’ connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution. "Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000 "Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God "There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky "Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977 "The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." G. K. Chesterton And before you say it, I can post this in religion if I want. The Atheists claim to have no religion and they sure post here a lot. LHOOQ, By the look of your pic, you are a lot closer to the missing link then I am moreVoting Question: Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion, a few questions please?
1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist. Why is this? 2. Man can't create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer? How dishonest? 3. Where did females come from (in every species)? Where did they come from? 4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels? 5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record. Why not? 6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There's a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth. Why do athiest say it was a dino? 7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution's many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future." Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers. How can they defend there lies? moreResolved Question: Where can i find this info, i saw it on National Geographic?
One day, last year, i saw an episode of national geographic that said some rattlesnakes aren't rattling anymore (technically as easily) because of the hunting of them. The whole rattlesnake round up caused it in this one area or something. I need it for biology for evolution and adaptation of species moreResolved Question: Is'nt it creepy how they're are people that are over 45 using the internet?
i mean i was a youtube one day and i was at national geographic channel video called "SnowBall Earth?" And i had a conversation whit a guy and realize that he's FORTY! DoradoGate: Impossible! Where on a global warming. ShadowBreaker9867: Yeah it´s true this is impossible..unless god wants to make the earth into a snowball srikanthpm : True. If God existed he/she would. ShadowBreaker9867: Since he does.He wouldnt. srikanthpm: Well the snowball Earth did happen there's more than enough physical proof of that, which proves God is a myth. YouTube "Chistopher Hitchens" and you'll see what I mean:) ShadowBreaker9867: I actually dont want to knwo what you mean,If god created the earth,us,animals and the whole universe.I honsetly cant belive that it was just created by a giant boom? What proof is theyre? My proof is the bible. generations when the lord told moses about adam and eve.The Lord did make a snowball earth,The ice age.But animals had the choice to go south.and they have fur.But evolution is a myth.Are you going to belive that you came from a monkey? srikanthpm : God didn't do any of that either. The proof is the ice core research that has been done and many other studies that have been carried out. Just realized you are too young for me to be arguing with. The way humans behave especially the ones that quote "God's word", it's not tough to see how we could have come from monkeys:) ShadowBreaker9867: Oh jees im fighting whit a forty year old man!. Oh no im so scared.Just freaken end it. srikanthpm: yeah. Pray to god that will help. You're better off burying your head in the sand. If god can't help Satan can. Also, learn to spell sweety that may help you earn a living later in life. ShadowBreaker9867: Dude,if your like fourty,shouldnt you like have a life,a job, a family? other than talking to sixteen year old girls that belive in god? srikanthpm : some of us are smart enough to do all of that without a sweat. ShadowBreaker9867: Well sorry, xP My dad is also fourty,but he happily has a life. srikanthpm : I'd love to discuss this with your dad. He can't have much of a life if he believes in something that does not. WHY WAS A FORTY YEAR OLD IN YOUTUBE DISCUSSING MAN KIND WHIT ME??? It's like, the internet is for information, which is for school! which is for younger people, myspace;young people!,YOUTUBE: YOUNG PEOPLE! Some sites could be for old people but i think they should spent their time whit their family and their job.. I mean 30 year old newly weds can still go to the internet and junk.. But FORTY? c'mon! that's just plain creepy! moreResolved Question: Those who believe evolution, intelligent design, what are your thoughts on this?
Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say. In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea. Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s. While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said. In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory. "We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful," Irschick said. What they found, however, was shocking. "The island was swarming with lizards," he said. The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said. The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said. The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained. Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet. Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids. "They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure." Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider. The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population. The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded. Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. "That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said. While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile brethren, they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or insects, a subject of future study, Irschick said. The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University. What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study. There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added. "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." This seems to fly in the face of both (classic) evolution theory, requiring small changes over several generations, as well as intelligent design. What are your thoughts? Sorry it wont let me post the link, but you can just google "italian wall lizards" and its the 4th link, from national geographic. Mongolia - are you suggesting that a species can undergo the radical changes described in this article in only a handful of generation? Keeping in mind that such a low number of generations leaves almost no room for natural selection or even statistical probability for such useful mutations? Samsa - I know they usually apply this quote to global warming, but I think it fits here well: "Any theory that explains everything, explains nothing." Spazzy - no, read it again: Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. Samsa - (sigh....) I am not here to argue. If you don't understand my question, you don't have to answer. The point was, evolution advocates point to the large numbers of generations to explain how beneficial mutations can arise from natural selection. This is a case where there were no large number of generations. The article indicates 30, my personal research actually indicates that wall lizards have about 2-3 years for sexual maturity, hence only 10 to 15 generations (not sure where they got the 30). Either way, not enough for evolution as it is classically understood/explained and defended. Obviously my point was not I.D. propeganda, as I also discredited my own theory in the original question. The idea is, does the theory of evolution need to be revised, or are these scientists wrong, or is this a special situation? moreResolved Question: The name of this documentary? 10 Points. ?
I'm trying to find the name of the documentary that was aired on either Discovery Channel or the National Geographic Channel....maybe even the History Channel. It was about the evolution of humans. I remember in one scene (towards the end) the Neanderthals kept finding the tools the Cro-Magnons were leaving behind. They were really puzzled as to where the tools came from. There was a scene where they went off in search for food (I think either 3 or 4 Neanderthal males) and one of them froze to death and they buried him the the mysterious Cro-Magnon tool. Then they went on in their journey for meat. They finally saw the Cro-Magnon men as the Neanderthals were getting ready to spear a (mammoth? don't remember). As they were inching forward a stream of spears and arrows flew towards the animal and a bunch of Cro-Magnon men appeared. The Neanderthals were taken aback and they gave up their hunt. They lost hope as they saw that the Cro-Magnon men were superior at hunting. I do NOT think it was Discovery's Walking with Cavemen. Thanks! moreResolved Question: Don't "Believe" in Evolution? How about some Proof?
The case of the italian wall lizard should do. Here's an excerpt from an article, I also saw this on National Geographic. Link to follow. "Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades, the 5-inch-long lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads and a harder bite, researchers say." Link: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080522/news_1c22lizard.html Now, there's no way you could say that evolution via natural selection is "just a theory." We have now seen adaptation in nature, in addition to the fossil records. Of course, some can still say "God guides evolution" and that's.....fine. Not really testable, so it holds no water. I equate that to saying "it's magic." Just as valid since neither is disprovable at this point. But everybody is entitled to believe it. Just don't say the evolutionary process itself does not exist. moreResolved Question: The existence of God by scientific views.?
So alot of skeptics have said they if there is no real evidence of God then he doesnt exist. I say, there is a difference between Believing and Knowing. Belief is in the heart, Knowledge the mind. Which makes us feel better? The Heart. But the skeptics are to arrogant and close minded. So i took to a scientific views and found very little evidence that God and those of the bible dont exist(meaning there is a strong chance they did) They also decided to give a date of what year the religions existed. Like Buddism is only 1500 years old. Thats true, in Japan. It is much older in China. They gave 1000 years for Taoist. But Taoism was also studied during the first emperor of china and beyond. 2500+ years Science has been wrong alot even proving themselvs wrong on occaions. The 10 plagues of egypt all happened. Aswell as the wall of water. Anyway back to the question. What if, God was a real human being who existed 5000 years ago. What if he was this "{Psiconic}". An evolved human who did have the power to re-create the world. The bible says God created the world in 7 days. But it mostly revolved around the Garden Eden. What if in reality, he built the Garden of Eden in 7 days and prevented sins from entering. Do you think God was evolution? Very confusing. Also, can anyone who answers, give me some sites with information on biblical information please. I dont use sites very often, instead i learn from the discovery channel and national geographic :). SHould have mentioned. I am raised Catholic, but i am also spiritual. The evidence of the 10 plagues actually happened. was on a doco called, The tales of the bible, facts and fictions. King DAvid and Goliath were all real men. There are evidence of water rising for the past 4000 years. Moses lived 3000 years ago. But they all just happened on the day Moses said they would happen. Proof that God was real? No idea. Just because you know something isn't real, doesnt mean it isn't fake. Heart is stronger than mind. We only use 10% of our minds. I on the other hand, am using 12%. A thing called Telepathy. Finding Physical evidence of a Spiritual being is kinda funny. moreResolved Question: Do Christians believe in any part of evolution?
If not what makes you think evolution is untrue? Doesn't DNA and Carbon 14 prove evolution to be correct? Isn't the Neanderthal evidence of evolution? Isn't Lucy evidence her being dated 2.9 million years old? Doesn't the layers of earth showing millions of years in different age mean something? And the fossils in these layers? Doesn't human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago? Doesn't the Vestigial organs like the human tail bone prove we evolved from animals with tails? Its accepted everywhere... By National Geographic and Time Magazines. Also its accepted by the Scientific community. Does any of these facts point to evolution to being a possible fact? moreResolved Question: The problems with evolution. What are your thoughts?
Special thanks to all Christians everywhere how helped put this togeter. It has been demonstrated many times, however, that the “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see Jackson 2003). Here is a recent example: Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would? Here is another interesting item: Tens of millions of fossils have been found beneath the surface of the earth that provide us with a veritable library of what life was like upon the ancient earth. And the record contains some surprising mysteries. For instance, one of the foundation stones of the evolutionary theory is that of “natural selection.” This is the idea that in the struggle of life the stronger survive while the weaker are eliminated. This was Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” While there is some truth in the principle, it is taken much too far by the disciples of Darwin. If this has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time one would expect to find in the fossil record evidence of the increasing hardiness of the species as time passes. Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are. For example, the January, 2000 issue of National Geographic magazine reports the discovery of a huge depository of fossils in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “Digression!”—not progression. It is commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those “proofs” employed by novices to suggest an earth millions of years old. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away. But here is a bizarre news item: According to an article published on January 5, 2000 by the Reuters News Service, doctors in Taiwan recently performed surgery on a seventy-six year-old woman. In her abdomen they discovered a fossilized fetus that had been conceived forty-six years ago. The report asserted that only three such cases have been recorded in history. The tiny fetus (0.7 ounce) had solidified into a rock-like substance, hardened by calcium buildup. The theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told—especially when it has the fumes of “science.” Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God—and a responsibility to him. For them, that is simply out of the question. What are your thoughts? moreResolved Question: Your comments on the following two thoughts ? Please no silly answers !!?
religions have put forward creationism as the answer to evolution. But in doing so, they make a claim that is both unscriptural and unbelievable. It is that the heavens, the earth, and everything on the earth were created by God in 6 days of 24 hours each—yes, in just 144 literal hours! This teaching has caused many to ridicule the Bible. But is a “day” in the Bible always 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” This one day includes all six of the creative ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a “day” is simply a measured period of time. A “day” with Jehovah can be a thousand years or several thousand years—as were the creative ‘days.’ On this point, therefore, the Bible account is reasonable and compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8. The Origin of Life How do advocates of evolution explain the actual origin of life? They say that some billions of years ago the ocean surrounding the earth may have become an “organic soup,” though still lifeless. Then, they explain, ‘a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by a most improbable accident.’ Miraculously, this reproduced itself to form other molecules that clustered together to form a living cell. Could anything sound more fantastic? The writer who gave this description stated in his foreword: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” Yes, fiction, but hardly science! National Geographic has said that the programmed instructions (DNA) in one tiny cell “if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books.” How ridiculous it is to say that the living cell created itself accidentally in some primeval soup! Far more reasonable and understandable is the explanation given by the Bible writer David, who wrote at Psalm 36, verses 5 and 9: “O Jehovah, . . . with you is the source of life.” As advocates of truth, we must support that basic Bible teaching moreResolved Question: Proof?! thanks to the Brain.?
In evolution it is claimed that life started out as a single cell organism and expanded into what we have today. Also, If i am correct, that we evolved or are evolving into only what is neccesary. ie. baby finger is shrinking because now that we don't have webbed hands we don't need it. why then is our brain capable of storing memories from 10 life times. (read in a national geographic mag.) why is it so powerful, and with an average age of 80 years, times 10 would put the human life cycle at approx. 800 years. Read Genesis again. how old did people live to in the beginning of the book. (other than abel) moreResolved Question: Do you know the difference between Embryonic Stem Cells & Adult Stem Cells?
I watch NOVA, Nature, National Geographic & a number of PBS shows that are filled with Evolutionary presupposition, because even though I don't agree that Evolution is scientific, I find the other, real science contained interesting. Before you dis this video, watch it & even fact check it if you want. It's filled with secular sources for the facts given. People, we are being deceived by the secular media in the U.S. about this topic. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/cloning-stem-cells/cloning-stem-cells-value-of-life midnight, how awesome to meet a real person who has ben helped by ethical stem cells! Thanks for taking the time to answer. Concerning IVF, I do oppose that in its most common form as well--actually lost a few long time friends over the matter & also have considered adopting frozen embryos--except the process is very difficult & many obstacles to overcome. I learned that only 1 in 6 of frozen embryos survive thawing, etc. to acheive implantation. That is heartbreaking to me. I think that IVF process should at least be changed to cryogenically preserve woman's eggs, not the fertilized embryos that are already human. I actually don't agree with our current president's take on allowing ESC research because "those embryos would meet death anyway" argument. I think like the ESC & ASC difference, people (partly because of media & medical establishment's dishonesty concerning reproduction) are largely ignorant (sometimes even willingly ignorant) about the reality of the IVF process. In the language of the process human embryos are called "a blob of cells", abortion is called "selective reduction" or "difficult decisions", all the unethical parts of it are disguised by such deceptive language. However, I admit that not enough is being done to fight against it even by those who should be. moreResolved Question: Theory of evolution, new evidence?
Has anyone seen the special on National Geographic (I just watched it last night) about species genes and dna? It provides extensive information on new research comparing human genes to all other animal genes. They found one huge difference, which is a defect in the gene that causes jaw muscle growth. Jaws and jaw muscle in gorillas, for example, take up the majority of the head, large head/skull, small brain. They theorize that this specific gene defect caused smaller jaw muscles, which left room for brain expansion, as our brains grew larger, the skull and jaws got smaller, which explains larger brow bones and jaws in our early ancestors. What are your thoughts on this, just in general? I grew up despising science and the theory of evolution because I am a christian, but hard facts seem worth talking about at least. moreResolved Question: Does this set back the Creationist theorists? ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html From NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, no less! Could this be scientific proof of evolution in progres? I am a amazed. Almost everything the creationist didn't happen is happening, and is happening now. I am surprised this isn't all over the media. I am in shock. moreResolved Question: An evolution question for the Naturalists.?
In an article in National Geographic they state. "Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years....." They go on to say that they started with 10 lizards and ended with 5,000. The say all this happened in 30 years. One more thing before the question. Creation science states that all animals were created fully formed about 6,000 years ago. Their DNA contained all the information and genes to allow for a limited amount of variation. Any change in the animals is due to this information being able to be swapped in and out of use by genes. So, limitied variation is the observable evidence, Both camps agree. My question is, why does this article present the observable evidence of variation happening quickly, because of gene swapping, as "abnormal" but call the unseen millions of years normal. They say it would normally take millions of years. Well it didn't, so wouldn't that refute the theory that these changes take millions of years and that they are not due to random single point mutations. This is on top of the bunch of other experimental evidence that shows large percentages of populations changing in a single generation because of an introduced enviromental pressure. This shows non random gene swapping, not random single point mutations. You would think that observable, testable evidence carries much more weight than unseen millions and millions of years. moreResolved Question: Why do Creationists have to make seperate sites and videos to preach their "science"?
Seriously, "answering Genesis", "talk origins", "Dr. Dino", stupid youtube videos? Can't you use something like National Geographic or LiveScience or anything that talks about "science" in general not just evolution? moreVoting Question: What should i do? Am i crazy?
I was in biology class today and i came in late. The teacher had already started showing the class a video about darwin and his theory of evolution. I suddenly realised that the documentary seemed so similar to another we had watched in biology. In fact, we had already watched it. I could predict what they were about to say in the video. When i told my friends, they told me we havent watched it before... So did my teacher. I dont have national geographic channel at home, it was not a de ja vu and i have not seen a preview of it. I have watched the entire video in that same biology class with that same teacher and same students!!! Am i crazy? Everybody thinks so!! What do i do? moreResolved Question: where can i watch episodes of national geographic channel online?
where can i watch episodes of national geographic channel online? specifically the program about the evolution of man and empires of india. I saw it on the tv recently and i wanted to watch it again. please help asap. thanks! moreResolved Question: Spiritually speaking: Isn't this proof of human evolution?
I was reading up on the villages in the Andes last night. Sorry this was an actual book, I am sure you can search through the National Geographic sites if you feel the need to prove this. It was speaking of the villages, the highest in the world. These reside at 10,000 feet in the air, above sea level. And according to the locals, they always lived there. The story spoke specifically of their mutated reproductive systems. They in fact have evolved through a few generations to be able to conceive and reproduce at this altitude and thin air climate. The reason this came to question in the article was that the Spanish tried to populate these villages as well. To migrate, so to speak. And these people cannot conceive, in fact nobody but the locals have adapted, or evolved to allow human reproduction. This odd evolution of the human reproductive system is now being studied. And science is trying to understand how and why these changes took place. Either way they literally have changed their own reproductive systems out of necessity for survival. Is that not proof of human evolution...change to survive? moreResolved Question: Question about Evolution?
my friend told me that all the species featured in this photo http://www.allviewpoints.org/ISSUES/INTELLIGENT_DESIGN/GRAPHICS/human_evolution_small.jpg, have existed all together at the same time, is that true? i asked my freund where did he get that info and he told me he watched it in the National Geographic http://www.starlarvae.org/SL_graphics/evolutionchart.jpg moreResolved Question: what do you think of this theory about jesus and aliens??
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS”: WAS JUDAS AN ABDUCTEE? sources: The Gospel of Judas sources: Edited by Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst sources: Published in book form complete with commentary by The National Geographic Society. “Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star. Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it”. The release in April 2006 of a translation of the recently discovered ‘Gospel of Judas’ that has been tentatively dated to 130-170 C.E., has been the cause of great controversy. Many have made the claim that this ancient text indicates that Christ actually instructed Judas to betray him and that Judas was in reality a favoured apostle who was simply obeying orders. The line goes that all this had to be done so that Jesus could demonstrate the Resurrection and thus be acclaimed the Son of God. Judas it seems, according to this interpretation, was a mere instrument to help achieve this. Another inference taken from the Gospel is that Judas was a confidante of Christ who was privileged enough to receive private instruction in the ‘mysteries of the kingdom’ However could it in fact be the case that quite the converse is true? Could “The Gospel of Judas” contain evidence that Judas may have been following an agenda that was not human in origin ? At one point in the Gospel Judas relates to Jesus a dream of a house surrounded by “great people”. In his dream Judas asks to be let into this house. Jesus replies to Judas: “Judas, your star has led you astray ………No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom [46] and I have taught you about the error of the stars”. Jesus thus talks about “the error of the stars” and tells Judas that his “star” has “led” him “astray”. This prompts Judas to ask Jesus: “Master, could it be that my seed is under the control of the rulers?” Could the “stars” refer to actual locations out in space? Could “the error of the stars” refer to the “error” of the entities who come from these locations? Could Judas be asking Christ directly if his own biological line could be alien controlled, “ruled over” by a “host of angels of the stars”: “Master, could it be that my seed is under the control of the rulers?” Could it be that Jesus is suggesting the dominance of Judas by an influence of some extra-terrestrial aspect, the alien ‘fathers’ that according to Nigel Kerner’s thesis have sponsored the ‘evolution’ of Homo Sapiens Sapiens? If all the above is indeed so, it would infer that something in or about Judas is connected to the alien cartel. This inference is backed up by a remarkable account of a certain incident in which Jesus asks Judas to look up at the sky at something which resembles a space-ship: “Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.” It may be that an abduction experience is then described: “Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it”. Could this “star” have been Judas’s particular alien sponsor, the breed of aliens (from a planet in another constellation of stars out in space) that had intercepted his biological line? http://www.songofthegreys.com/ moreResolved Question: Do you think God REALLY exists (i need proof)?
I am 14 born ino a christian catholic family and forced to go to church. Part of me thinks there is a God up there but 75% doubts it. I mean there is no proof of God except the bible, and I personally don't belive in the bible because it was man-made and the writer or writers could have lied. Watching national geographic, the history channel and stuff like that, there is PROOF that we humans were created through EVOLUTION and not by "GOD" so I basically don't know what to think anymore. i am scared that as i grow up, i will start losing more and more faith please help. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD? moreResolved Question: Why do atheists prefer conjecture over facts? Opinion over evidence? Emotion over logic?
For example: the fossil record. The fossil record has shown stasis, not change, in species. According to scientists, species emerge, remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, and then become extinct in basically their same form. Any changes are minute and superficial. Paleontologists, who have been seeking to confirm evolution for 150 years, have only found a handful of supposed "transitionals." (There's debate among paleontologists as to whether the few individual "transitional" species found are actually "transitional.") There have been thousands of distinct species found. And per species, sometimes thousands of fossils are found. There should also be thousands of "transitional" species to fill the gaps. There are not. In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Another example: ancient Biblical manuscripts. Atheists claim that the Bible has been rewritten and edited many times. They claim that the Bible we have now is NOT the Bible as it was originally written. They go to great lengths to claim this and come up with various theories and hypotheses as to how this was supposed to occur. For example, the “documentary hypothesis” claims that the book of Genesis was written by, not one man, but several writers. Their evidence? Speculation. Not one ancient manuscript supports their claim. In reality? Manuscript evidence is a very close equivalent to the fossil record: it manifests stasis. Biblical scholars have Greek and Hebrew Master Texts, which are compilations of all of the thousands of manuscripts. One example is the Nestle-Aland master Greek text, which has a nearly exhaustive list of all known variants. So you can basically have the entire evidence of New Testament manuscript evidence in your own hands. It shows that the ancient manuscripts are better than 99% the same. The differences that do occur are, like the fossil record, are minute and superficial, and usually concern word order or spelling and do not affect meaning. We have two areas where the data shows stasis, not change. So, why do atheists tend to lean toward the less likely conclusion in both cases? Some wrote: "If you're just going to make things up, there's little point in trying to give you a serious answer." "For the most part, everything you have written is a lie. I hope you're proud of yourself." I did not make this up. Although I don't have a catalogue of every fossil ever found handy, I do have several Greek master texts that show textual variants. They are amazingly the same. "You need to look at the fossil record in a very strange way to find stasis." "Stasis? All of science would need to be a lie in order for you to truly support that conclusion. Do you believe there is a conspiracy in science to hide the truth? This is fantasy..." My argument was for "stasis," or virtually no change in both the fossil record and existing biblical manuscripts. This is common knowledge to professionals in relevant fields. I am constantly amazed that atheists seem to deride and poke fun at creationists, but really don't know much about their own beliefs. See another of my questions: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqBziZ1azl7KIuGy8ycucnbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080521183127AANirkD As for stasis in the fossil record, I was referring to species that have come and gone. I was not referring to the complete fossil record as a whole. Individual species have arrived, then gone extinct. I already said that earlier: "According to scientists, species emerge, remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, and then become extinct in basically their same form." Why does all science have to be a lie to support my conclusion? Others, even evolutionists and atheists, have drawn attention to the very same things that I have. For example, Carl Sagan wrote in chapter 2 of Cosmos: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Sagan said this in the midst of a quite lengthy argument in favor of evolution. Nevertheless, the premise of my question was that atheists tend to see the evidence, but make conclusions that are inconsistant with it.) Also, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is an evolutionary theory proposed (I believe) by atheists, is based on the fact that the fossil evidence tends to show stasis, not gradual change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium (Many don't like Wikipedia, but this is an adequate summary of punctuated equilibrium) *Several* people have criticized my use of the term "stasis." For example: "Stasis?! . . . Everyone knows that's total bull, you need to do some more research before you go picking fights on random websites." The funny thing is, "stasis" is not my wording, but the wording used by evolutionists themselves when describing the fossil record. Thanks to Gribbling for being the only one to try to legitimately answer my questions. You list supposed transitional species, but they are only "a handful," just like I said before. There are thousands and thousands of species in the fossil record. So there should be thousands and thousands of transitional species. There are not. And scientists are oftentimes in disagreement as to what is and is not a transitional species. You mention that *all* fossils are *transitional.* But this statement is a tautology. It is based on the assumption that common descent is true. Punctuated Equilibrium is viewed by some as a blow to the theory of evolution. It was proposed because the fossil record *does* show stasis. It did not show what Darwin predicted, so they had to come up with something else. Punctuated Equilibrium has not been proven and may only exist in people's minds. You mentioned Biblical events like Adam and Eve and the flood, but I did not. I only mentioned "manuscript evidence," that is, how do all available manuscripts (thousands and thousands) compare to one another. I did not mention the events that the manuscripts contain. You also seem to imply that I believe the earth to be only 6000 years old. I do not. The Bible does not mention the age of the earth (despite what young-earth creationists believe). Your argument about the Hebrew word "almah" has no bearing on Biblical manuscript evidence. You are referring to a passage in Isaiah. Every Hebrew manuscript always has that word as "almah." When it is quoted, in Greek, in the book of Matthew, it always uses the same Greek word, "parthenos." Incidentally, "almah" means "maiden," which carries the meaning of "virgin" implicitly. The apocryphal gospel accounts you mention are not included in the earliest catalogues of inspired New Testament works. They were never considered inspired by the authorities of the church. There is no solid evidence that they ever were. Critics might claim they were, but this is based solely on speculation. It is a hypothesis. This fits into the category that I have already mentioned: "[Critics] claim that the Bible we have now is NOT the Bible as it was originally written. They go to great lengths to claim this and come up with various theories and hypotheses as to how this was supposed to occur." You mention supposed contradictions between the gospel accounts. Again, this has no bearing on manuscript evidence. The Gospel accounts have remained the same over time, according to available manuscripts. Any supposed contradictions between the accounts have always been there, and have not been changed. There is *stasis.* moreResolved Question: Is this New Theory true : Universe Created by Intelligent Being?
John Roach for National Geographic News said? On any given starry night thousands, perhaps millions, of people crane their necks skyward and allow their minds to swirl around two fundamental questions: Are we alone, and why are we here? According to a lawyer and science enthusiast in Portland, Oregon, not only is the universe full of life, but some of it may be intelligent beyond our wildest imagination. He also says that collectively as intelligent beings we are entwined in our ultimate destiny: to give birth to another universe. "Intelligent life is, in essence, the reproductive organ of the cosmos," said James Gardner, the lawyer who moonlights as a scientist. He has pulled together his theory—called the selfish biocosm—from the disparate fields of physics, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and cosmology. Gardner has published pieces of his theory in several peer-reviewed scientific journals and wraps it together in his recently published book, Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe moreResolved Question: Piltdown man is a hoax. Did Nat Geographic contribute to the fraud?
A national geographic special called from "ape to man" put the piltdown man on the "evolution tree" at so many millions of years along with a couple other "examples". The weird thing was that about thirty or more minutes later they mentioned that it was a hoax. Did they contribute to the fraud by stringing their viewers along for that much time? Actually, I did see it and the piltdown was the BEST BEST example of a missing link. One minor detail was that it IS a known fraud. It should not have been in there period or explicitly stated as a fraud from the first mention. NG loss credibility with me by that. -- As far as I know, Piltdown is not mentioned in textbooks that are current. That is why I was perplexed. Oops, it was not Nat Geographic but THE HISTORY CHANNEL that made this video in 2005. moreResolved Question: How and why did the human brain get so intelligent?
I heard on this show on National Geographic called "Human|Ape" (or something like that) that because what we evolved from had weak jaws and nothing to defend itself with when it was in danger, it developed super intelligence. Is that true??? [ I am asking it here because everyone seems to post evolution questions here and no one answers my questions in the Biology category. ] Maybe advanced would be a better word?? You guys know what I mean... National Geographic could have said something else but I am pretty sure that I heard this. moreResolved Question: Help finding the name of a documentary (Saw it on National Geographic)....?
I need help finding the name of a documentary I saw on National Geographic... I think it was an episode of the "Is It Real?" series, but I'm not sure.... It was about aliens and how they might have helped boost evolution by mating with us. It mentioned how they might have helped us by giving us their tools so they could use us to get gold for them. And how the ancients were guided by the aliens to make crazy buildings like the pyramids and giant land drawings and everything.... What was the name of this documentary? moreResolved Question: Have you ever tried to find information on evolution on the internet.?
What did you find? I always find pages and pages of creationist websites. I have had to go back 3 or 4 pages to get to Harvard, or National Geographic. What does that tell you? 'Me thinks thou doth protest too much.' There is zero evidence to support creationism, why should it be a part of science.? moreResolved Question: Ladies, would your boyfriend or husband let you watch a show that taught evolution as fact?
I know there are some neat shows on the national geographic and discovery channels, but I totally hate it when they try to throw in garbage to promote evolution of humans or animals. That is why I wouldn't let my woman watch a show like that unless I was there to censor it, mute it, or cover her ears. Women didn't come from monkeys, they came from man's side (or rib), and they need to know that and not be taught anything contrary. moreResolved Question: Since the National Geographic fraud and others, exposes evolution as a pathetic theory, why not abandon it?
The National Geographic fraud showed the world just how far supporters of evolution will go!..Berkeley professor Phillip Johnson comments, "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble."...In the months that the faked dinobird fossil was proudly on display at National Geography’s Explorer's Hall in Washington, D.C., some nine million school children filed by to see it--leaving with their imaginations filled with images of feathered dinosaurs that never existed. This is a disgrace, a powerful reminder that scientists often see what they want to see, especially when it supports a theory, like evolution, that they cherish...The paleontologists who so anxiously search for any fossil evidence of a “missing link,” in the hopes of once and for all being able to banish God and religion from the study of origins, have been blinded by their own adherence to the religion of Darwinism.... To Phil - God was not wrapped in that shroud,..and yes faith -healers are phony.! To Phil - That you don't KNOW about the National Geographic fraud...speaks volumes! To Aeriel c - One mistake? You're kidding me right?...Piltdown apeman, ‘the greatest hoax of the 20th century...other frauds pushed on a gullible public, including Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the peppered moths story and National Geographic’s fake ‘feathered dinosaur’ Archaeoraptor...Darwins finches..."Piltdown Horse"- Fossils, lined up like ducks in a row, give the false impression that one came from the other....Evoltuion is like an "inebriated prostitute" supported by her "atheistic-paramours" ! science geek - still handing out his wife's "ben-wa-balls" eww "fishy" To metzkeb - Science proves the existence of "God"...Physical laws such as Thermodynamics...offers undisputed proof that the physical universe had a "beginning" ... (Now try this "at home" experiment with any 5 yr old....place a tennis ball inside an empty box...close the box...now tell that 5yr old..the temmis ball...got into the box WITHOUT...any "intelligent" assistence...that the ball..just POPPED out of nowhere....see how easy that was !! moreResolved Question: Since "true evolution" is impossible, why is "adaptation" confused with evolution ?
Adaptation is in harmony with the bible..because animals 'STAY WITHIN THEIR KIND"...Animals can breed within its family kind. Animals have been created to allow for small adaptations "within its kind". ....What's never seen are animals (evolving) into another KIND..Leading ornithologist Dr. Alan Feduccia wrote "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound feathered dinosaur. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that". Cited in J. Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p 58, from Science, 259(5096), p 764-65. Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, equated the belief that birds are descended from dinosaurs to “…one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age — the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” – Open Letter to National Geographic Society, 1999 To - MarisKaler - Thanks for that GOD-HONEST-ANSWER...."adaptation" is confused for "evolution" which has NEVER been observed..in nature (One species into another "kind"... To Jim - Are you saying that Dr. Storrs Olsen of the Smithsonian Institute is misqouted? (Keep Dreaming!)... Birds did NOT evolve from reptiles/Dinosaurs....(deal with it! To scryer_m..Since you have your bible open..let me direct you to Genesis Chapter 5 verse 4 - "Adam came to be 800 years old while he became father to sons and daughters"........Now scryer turn your bible to Genesis Chapter 4 verse 17.."Afterwards Cain had intercourse with his "wife" and she became pregnate"......."Mankind was "closer" to genetic perfection (hence Adam's very long life of over 800 yrs!!...(in this case "Direct decendent" from their once genetically-perfect-parents..therefore both Cain & Able..married their sisters.... To Jim - If we had to rely on "evolution" the animal kingdom would still be swimming in that primordial soup..since abiogenesis is impossible note - Geneticist Michael Denton remarks: "To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, ... were composed by a purely random process is an affront to reason". Physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the spontaneous generation of life by random molecular shuffling is a ludicrously improbable event’...Jim do you doubt those two scientist?...Or since you're on the internet your 'smarter" ......Quoted in H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 1977 (1888), 2:652. Quoted in Michael Denton, Evolution: A theory in crisis, Bethesda, MA: Adler & Adler, 1986, p. 43. To Timespond - Typical (atheist) view....discredit those within the community...that ventures off the "ranch"..here's more - Gareth Nelson and Norman Platnick wrote in 1984: ‘We believe that Darwinism is a theory that has been put to the test in biological systematics, and has been found false. Quoted in Alexander Mebane, Darwin’s Creation-Myth, Venice, FL: P&D Printing, 1994, p. 30....Your use of that phrase "Quote mine" is code-speak for "Let me try to discredit ANY research with this catchy phrase".....If the evolution theory is so SOUND....those qoutes should not exist....that they do..speaks volumes about the state of the evolutionary theory...which I repeat has NEVER been seen occuring in nature...(Adaptation is not true evolution)!... To jonmcn49 - "I think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty. It doesn't describe anything. The weaker people die, a lot of stronger people die too, but not the same percentage. If you want to say that is natural selection, maybe so, but that's just describing a process. That process would presumably go on until the last plant, animal and man died out." *Norman Macbeth, "What's Wrong with Darwinism" (1982). [Paleontologist at American Museum.]..Of course you jon is many time "smarter" than the scientist quoted above..because you're on the internet... To emucompt - This one is for you - evolutionist: ......*Gordon R. Taylor: "the theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or definitely wrong. Let me briefly summarize them. "(1) The suddenness with which major changes in pattern occurred and the virtual absence of any fossil remains from the period in which they were alleged to be evolving. "(2) The suddenness of new forms 'radiated' into numerous variants. "(3) The suddenness of many extinctions and the lack of obvious reasons for such extinction. "(4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations both at the level of organs and of complete organisms. "(5) The variations in the speed at which evolution occurred. "(6) The fact that subsequently no new phyla have appeared, and no new classes and orders. This, which has been much ignored,is perhaps the most powerful of all arguments against Darwin's generalization. CONTINUE BELOW To emucompt - (Continue from above) "(7) The occurrence of parallel and convergent evolution, in which similar structures evolve in quite different circumstances. "(8) The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). "(9) The appearance of organs before they are needed (pre-adaptation). "(10) The occurrence of 'overshoot' or evolutionary 'momentum'. "(11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration). "(12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all. "And, one might add here, the failure of various conceivable patterns to emerge, despite the overwhelming tendency to diversify. (The curious absence of six-legged tigers.)" *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 137-138. Of course emucompt you're much more intelligent than this dedicated evolutionist scientist..because you're on the internet..... To timespond - If that "illusion" helps you to sleep...I understand... NOTE - (qoute-mining) = codespeak for ..Attempting to discredit contrary research To timespond - "In a universal sense" LMAOO...you mean what? misquoted?..Their comments stand on its own....(I know it hurts) To timespond - The following applies to you - "In listening to evolutionists, while maintaining impartiality, one can detect many such flaws of logic. If someone makes an assumption regarding an observation and then uses that observation as supporting grounds for the assumption, his or her claim is a circular argument". To save the wolves - Evoltuion is change (gradual) Puntuated, whatever from one kind into another - "All vertebrates evolved from a single common ancestor and share certain inherited characteristics, most notably a backbone. As the descendents of the first vertebrate evolved new features, more species branched off the tree, creating the diverse group of more than 50,000 vertebrates alive today. Like most major evolutionary groups, vertebrates originated in the sea. All vertebrate species, including humans, descended from these early fishlike creatures. To this day, the majority of all vertebrate species still live in the ocean" - From the American Museum of Natural History.....Now if Animals started from the sea....dramatic "changes" (EVOLUTION)..needed to occur....So your "semantics" Is enlighting..and humorous..... To METZKEB- LOL...Lets see..you "started" with Bacteria...the "bacteria" is now resistent....So that you now have.....new species of (uh oh - "bacteria" ...LOL....WHEN YOU GET BACTERIA to "evolve" into a new kind..of animal-"kind" get back to me....otherwise...you're witnessing the allowable variations with the "bacteria" species...you started with "bacteria" and finished with "bacteria".....plain and simple! .. To "the_eye" You failed to see the context behind those statments...this Birds did NOT evolve from Dinosaurs..PERIOD....Remember the "Archaeopteryx"..Feducci...agrees Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs...so the above qoute is correct....He's under the illusion they came from tree dwelling animals...well my next series of question will BLOW that myth..out of the primordial soup..! To Question - Birds neither evolved from tree dwelling animals OR Dinosaurs...that's why both of those camps can rightfully argure their respective points......Dr. Alan Feduccia can pursue his fantastic tree dwellling "bird" to his hearts content..but I'll remind you of this - The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."....and so question such as..How did the "feather" evolved...will go unsolved until you realise it was created. moreResolved Question: How do conservatives feel everytime a documentary about evolution, the big bang, man made global warming,?
or the 4.7 billion year history of the Earth... comes out in the Discovery, Science, History, National Geographic, etc, etc channels? Are they part of the liberal conspiracy too? moreResolved Question: Anthropological reason for racism....?
First off I'm NOT a racist. I just want to get opinions on my theory.On National Geographic there was a show on how we all started off in Africa then moved to Central Asia and so on. As we moved from place to place we evolved from dark skinned and flat nosed Africans to pale skinned, pointed nosed Europeans, round faced, chinky eyed Asians or Native Americans/Central Asians with tanned skin and pointed noses and so on.My theory is that the reason there is racism towards people with dark skin is because built into our brains is that being dark is the beginning of evolution like being less advanced or something(Once again, I'm not racist I DO NOT think that people with dark skin are beneath me or ugly or whatever. Living where I do & knowing the people I know i.e. people from every race and continent, I have noticed that people consider traits that are found on Africans less desirable i.e. dark skin. In Africa and Asia there's a mindset that if you're paler you're prettier.That's a fact) moreResolved Question: How do cons feel when time after time, evolution, the big bang, man made global warming,?
and the 4.5 billion year history of the planet keep showing up on the Discovery, Science, History, Animal Planet, National Geographic, and Smithsonian Channels? Libs can't be the only ones who enjoy these edutainment channels. Do you think it is all one big tin foil hat liberal conspiracy? sura, I watched the little Ice age documentary. At the end, all the scientists warned us about continued man made global warming. They were all believers. See just because rabbits have been dying of natural causes for a long time, does not mean the rabbit you killed with a rifle also died of natural causes. Scientists have looked at the data and concluded that what we are experiencing is not a natural cycle. moreResolved Question: Are you going to hell because you do not deny evidence that you can see.?
Evidently, according to some religious fanatic, if you are intelligent enough to read science books and watch National Geographic and have seen the mounds of evidence that supports evolution than you are going to hell. I am not kidding, some one actually believes it is a sin to think. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtMsjnHskQ81uEWVPQ7EGY_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071020081238AAIXw09&show=7#profile-info-wflOruH1aa If you are hellbound, like me, give me a star. Chicky, I am there sweetie. I'll bring the Margaritas. moreResolved Question: How do conservatives feel when they watch documentaries about evolution, global warming, the big bang?
and the gradual 4.5 billion year history of the planet on... the History, Science, Discovery, Smithsonian, Animal Planet, and National Geographic channels? I know I'm not the only one who loves these edutainment channels. Some cons have to enjoy these too. Do they flip the channel when these documentaries come out? solaron, Conservatives as in "paleo-conservatives" are the ones with a strong fundamentalist faith in christianity. Neo-conservatives on the other hand are more likely to have more liberal views on social issues and religion in government. I remember this one article about how neo-cons in the white house were making fun of Pat Robertson (or was it Jerry Falwell) behind his back. They were using him for votes but poking fun at him behind his back. Terry, The big bang is about the origin of the universe, not about the origin of life on earth. moreResolved Question: fundie christians do you watch tv channels like discovery, animal planet, history, national geographic etc?
do you watch any "educational" television? i'm actually not trying to insult you, but there are thousands of educational programs out there which basically go against your beliefs, such as evolution and the world being more than 6000 yrs old etc. do you ever watch them? what do you think about them? oregon flower - i use fundie in a positive way, i assure you. my fundie friends in here know i love them. i'm just to lazy to type out the long version (and there weren't enough characters allowed) sparkles - i think you took the question out of context. it society it's called educational tv, but it does go against a fundie's view of the world moreResolved Question: Headline; "Odd Skull Boosts Human, Neandertal Interbreeding Theory." Do you believe Neandertals ever existed?
Here's the link to the national Geographic article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070802-neanderthals.html I understand the theory of evolution. I'm curious how this fits into that in your eyes. I know that Neandertals existed. Because we have found so many fossils. I just wanted to hear the polar point of view. Doesn't look like I'm going to get to. moreResolved Question: is this copied?
The results of a recent survey carried out in the U.S. revealed the fact that 20% of Americans believe that Sudan is in Asia, when it actually is the largest country in Africa. One third of young adults think that if it is noon in New York then it must be noon in Los Angeles too. Half of young Americans, I kid you not, can’t find New York on a map. Moreover, only 37% of them can’t find Iraq, although U.S. troops have been there since 2003. Many more can’t locate Afghanistan. These issues have raised concern both in mass-media and the government. Emily Stover DeRocco, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor stated that across the country, tens of thousands of geospatial workers are needed to fill positions that are going begging. The 21st century begins to stress out the importance of having hi-tech geographical tools (a.k.a. GIS) and the necessary general knowledge in this domain. But what exactly is GIS? Since its development in 1964 by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada, humanity has greatly benefited from GIS. Geographic Information Systems are used for capturing, storing, analyzing and managing data referring to earth. The data is then used to create interactive imagery of different areas. One basic example of the usefulness of a GIS gadget is the following. Think of a certain area which has been thoroughly scanned by a satellite. The information has been transferred to a computer and a 3D map has been created, so as to have a topographical image. Meanwhile someone develops software to find out how any given area will be like in a number of years depending on the recent evolution of the land. If the software and the topographical data are linked together, it is easy to predict the future outline of any region. Another example of the benefits we gain from GIS technology is the GPS (Global Positioning System). Now we all know how useful they can be when you’re visiting your relatives who have recently moved to another town and you’re completely unfamiliar with it. But what is more, GIS developments have helped us throughout the 80s and 90s in scientific investigations, criminology, history and cartography. In recent years, more and more people have realized the positive effects of these Geographic Information Systems. As one of the members of the National Geographic Society said, “GIS are really leading geography into a second Renaissance. The level of geographic understanding and literacy is still extremely poor.” GIS training courses have been included in university studies and all over the world governments are implementing and adapting this technology to their needs. No sooner had the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture signed a contract with ESRI Nederland B.V. to expand its GIS implementation for various agricultural programs such as managing rural areas and subsidy control for farmers, than the improvements started to be seen. In brief, it really works! So what more is there be said about GIS? Well, a lot more! ESRI organize a GIS Day each year on November 14 to present the new developments to the general public. Their purpose is to create geographic awareness. And that is exactly what GIS can do in the long run! moreResolved Question: Why do so many Americans (not other countries) think evolution is only a "theory?"?
National Geographic reports that 66% of Americans (and like 20%) of Europeans think evolution is only one of competing theories that explain life on earth. Even serious priests, rabbis, ministers, and imams agree -- evolution is scientific fact supported by evidence. Where is the evidence of Noah's Ark? moreResolved Question: I was just told that the motive of the creationist is the truth and God created all. Agree or disagree?
A 95-million-year-old marine lizard with minuscule front legs may shed new light on the evolution of modern reptiles, particularly snakes, scientists have reported. The fossilized remains of the reptile represent the earliest known example of a lizard evolving toward a limbless state, according to experts who described the new species. The creature's vestigial, or no longer functional, forelimbs barely protrude from its long, snakelike body. Although its rear legs were of normal size, researchers said the lizard was probably an eel-like swimmer that spent little time on land. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070326-lizard-snakes.html I realize that a 95 million year old lizard does not prove that God did not create him but it does support the age of the earth as being far older than 6,000 years. So tell me folks, Are you going to go to National Geographic for unbiased answers or are you going to go to Answers in Genesis? LOL! moreResolved Question: evolution theory is getting stranger?
this theory that native americans came from africa europe africa australia is getting nonsense now they first thay came from asia now there saying everywhere including africa it appeared on national geographic moreResolved Question: Thoughts on this quote on religion?
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News October 18, 2004 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html please skim over article before rambling on and not making and intelligent responses. thanks moreResolved Question: right and solid definition of evolution please?
I thought theory of evolution won in the battle with creationist . the late Carl Sagan explained evolution on the old television programm " Cosmos" I was quite impressed when Carl said touching trees " trees are not direct relatives to human". national geographic channel has also fine editions about evolution I am not a scientist but from school days the question about the origin of humans including me still lingers in my mind. I believed evolution theory was right , but the more I speculate on it , the more doubts I find about evolution theory, to tell the truth. But stil I didnt cast the evolution theory. even among todays scientists and biologists , the definition of evoution and understanding of it slightly differs. their explanations sometimes are ambiguous. now I want to know moreResolved Question: Who believes in the the rediculous concept of Evolution?
Darwin's theory had been ripped apart in every aspect of modern science. Through the fossil record, to micro-biology, to physics and the blatant violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to the mathematical impossibility of a random creation of a cell to the Evolution FRAUDS that have found there way into Science text books and National Geographic! How can anyone even take this thing seriously? http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/... moreMore National Geographic Evolution Results