In my previous topic , (a serious question) i admit that the example chosen wasnt adequate and convincing through the eyes of the evolutionist because he beliefs that the human eye-brow havent been placed there from nothing but that its is the result from natural selective effects on our previous "ancestors", thus the hair from the primate forehead have minimized into our modern eyebrows.
Please keep in mind that in the end of the previous topic , (if you could read between the lines) you would find that it was meant to be only a simple example , thus expressing something much more difficult to explain.
However ill get to the real issue now: Natural selection could have led to less hair through means of "evolution" because that the genetic sequence required to do it is there , that is to say that through sexual processes it is possible to loose hair.
Its just the same with the famous examples of the lighter moth population that became black because the lighter moths died when the effects of the industrial evolution had done their job keeping the trees black. HOWEVER before the industrial revolution there had always been black moths, the genetic requirements had always been there, it was only the relation between quantity that was different.
The same with the development of the human races, if a caucasian tribe decides to live in Africa for a very long time(lets say 25000)years the tribe would eventually be black, they would have the best weapons against the sun . So far the creationist absolutely agree with his companions, the evolutionist.
But please separate the above examples from lets say the "evolutionary process" required to transform a reptile into lets say a mammal. As mentioned before natural selection doesnt have a concioussness so the great differences couldnt have occured through a random selective process, the complex organs required to give birth to a living specie instead of laying an egg just isnt in the genetic information of the reptile. Everything had to be planned ahead through random mutations inorder for the birth process to work while having the same function required to lay an egg in the meanwhile until the final function of all those halfdone complex organs could actually work and replace the earlier way of giving birth.
Indeed such a creature doesnt exist and such a fossil remain has never been found(shouldnt there be millions and millions of them)
Hope youll be able to answer this honestly and please dont dissicate my post as before and give un awkyard answer.
Once again guys : ) Good luck!
Edit by Adminnemooseus: Added spaces between paragraphs, and tweeked other formatting a bit
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2002]
Hi Andya and quetzal, thanks for responding so quickly
You are both using the term vestigial organs very frequently and Andya even mentions the yoc sac in the mammalian embryo to be an ancient leftover.
I have have to mention that sciencist document that they have been witnessing a constant reduction in what was previously called vestigial organs.
The yolk sac is one of the protective membranes surrounding the embryos of birds reptiles AND mammals. The embryo derives nourishment from the yolk sac via a system of blood vessels. In birds and reptiles the yolk sac encloses the yolk but in most mammals a fluid replaces the yolk.
So it isnt a vestigial organ.
And this isnt the only mistake that has been made. The constant reduction of vestigial organs since the latest fifty years have only one answer, knowledge replacing ignorance.
According to the theory of common ancestry between reptils and mammals, answer this question please: The differences between those two groups isnt only that one lies an egg and the other gives birth to living creatures although none of you succeded in answering that previously (without stating that species such as the therian reptiles where transitional forms, they had only ONE way of giving birth and no sign of an alternative way on its making).
There are also more differences: reptiles are cold blooded and mammals are warm blooded, reptiles have scales and mammals have hair(the previous example of the hair of the human eyebrow existing only through mutation is appliable here).
More examples is the jaw and the ear, all the mammallian ears consists of three bones and the reptilian of one, the jaw structure is also very different where on mammals all the teeths are located on a single mandibular bone but on reptiles there are three bones in each mandibular side.
Evolutionists claim however that the single reptilian earbone evolved into three, this theory has been disproved because no such fossils have been found(not even one that implies that that transitional bones are on theyre making), and the question of how the species would be able to hear or eat or (give birth mean while) is unanswered by evolutionists.
So if evolutionists claim some theories, why dont they back it up with proofs instead of speculations.
This is why the famous evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewinis forced to state in an interview: "The transition to the first mammal wich happened in just one ore mostly to lineages, is still an enigma"
Edit by Adminnemooseus: Added spaces between paragraphs and tweeked other formatting a bit
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2002]
Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise. Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why: Lets say for an example that we are both proffesional archeologists and we both share the same view about evolution ,thus we place each of those fossils we would find into one of the two categories, mammals or reptiles. Then whenever we find a fossil that has its own quite distinct skeletal structure yet resembling one of the categories we have set up(even in a very little way), we hurry to place it under one of the fixed categories or at its peak we would say ,"well it maybe is an ancient subspecie evolving to this or that" and possiblitys that suggest anything else but the theory of evolution is completely out of the question. That way of thinking isnt so scientific at all because our conclusion will be influenced by the parameters we have set up.
And let me once again repeat that each fosil that has been found has all the the features required to live successfull. In other words none of the foosils shows that they were "transitional" forms caused by random mutation because NONE of them has the caracteristics indicating it(asymmetrical forms or useless ineffective halfdone organs). Evolution has no conscioussness and between the time a mutation has ocurred and the time needed to by means of natural selection establish a symmetrical form, there is plenty of time for generation after generation to have traits possessing these "abnormal" shapes. But none exists, I hope youll be able to open your eyes and see things from a different perspective, that is the scientific way of approaching the issue.
Naldacon, in theory, isnt it possible to find such a fossil?, if we keep looking, however you wrote that it is the same as you telling me to come up with a complete list of all my ancestors from Adam and Eve. First of all, Im not a christian, Im a muslim, so for instance there is nothing that implies it. In sura 2 ( it is decreed" We have made guardians ( or something similar in english) on the earth, thus the angels replied" what! have you made them guardians , those who destroy the earths customs, and shed blood" this makes it clear that there were people living on earth before, and if you ponder deep enough youll see that Adam and Eve are meant to be an allegory symbolizing mans common ancestry. You see, in the quran there isnt anything rejecting the scientical evidence at all, none, its only a guidance for man to behave and it also contains some miracles for us to appreciate it as a holy book, nothing else. In short , he created everything in its full form and natural selection is a way maintaining our distinct attributes for generations to come.
Hey, finally got an openminded reply by Andya and Naldacon. Andya, I respect your theory as a fellow muslim, that live could have evolved through natural selection. However there are some differences that should be made clear. The difference between evolutionists and creationists isn`t just that the evolutionists believes that life adapts through a natural selection, the main difference of course is that they reject Allah. I believe a muslim should never accept that microbial life was created 500 million years and that was it, evolution did the rest. On the contrary, Allah guides evolution into what he whants. That indeed explains why there isnt a smooth graduate transformation seen in the fossile records but gaps followed by another fully formed specie. Ive read somewere a thing that makes alot of sense. Lets say that you own a house and that you decide that you wish to have another room. What would you do, start building another house with that extra room or just rebuild the existing house into what you prefer. I believe I know your answer, sincerely, Delshad