Missing Link?
Zarrar Said May 25, 2009
#14 Posted by Artur on June 28, 2009 7:56:36 pm
Re: # 13
Ah, Tahmed, I see you are well schooled in the modern defense of Evolution, which consist solely of Ridicule, Browbeating, and Insults. The Theory of Evolution is certainly not ever defended by facts, intellectual honesty, and true knowledge.
I bet you did not even try to read and understand what I wrote.
Ah, Tahmed, I see you are well schooled in the modern defense of Evolution, which consist solely of Ridicule, Browbeating, and Insults. The Theory of Evolution is certainly not ever defended by facts, intellectual honesty, and true knowledge.
I bet you did not even try to read and understand what I wrote.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#13 Posted by tahmed32 on June 28, 2009 7:02:34 pm
Artur #11/#12 all you have proved is that religious nuts are all the same - whether western (as in your case), or muslim. you only spread your stupidity on different issues (muslim nuts on female education, western nuts on creationism).
#12 Posted by Artur on June 28, 2009 6:48:53 pm
Steven Jay Gould on Lyell and Darwin's Theories.
"The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation...one thing it does show that cannot be attributed to its imperfection is that most species don't change...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as do data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."
In answer to the question "What role do mutations play in speciation?" Gould answered:
"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a species by mutating the species...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change. Something else than natural selection brings about species at new levels, trends and direction."
When asked if there was not stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism, Gould replied:
" The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for [Darwinian] gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into school to study.
Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."
Steven J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College
"Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" 14-Feb-1980
And from 1984
“[Darwinian]Gradualism was never ‘proved from the rocks’ by Lyell and Darwin, but was rather imposed as a bias upon nature. … Has had a profoundly negative impact by stifling hypotheses and by closing the minds of a profession toward reasonable empirical alternatives to the dogma of gradualism. … Lyell won with rhetoric what he could not carry with data.”
Gould, S. J., ‘Toward the Vindication of Punctuational Change’. In: W. A. BERGGREN & J. A. VAN COUVERING (Eds.): Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarian, Princeton University Press, Princeton (New Jersey), pp. 14-16, 1984
The reason for Steven Jay Gould's and for most other leading paleontologists for rejecting Darwin's Theory of Evolution is simply because the fossil record never supported in Darwin's Theory. The fact is that each genome (i.e. each species) appeared abruptly in the fossil record, remained unchanged for their entire duration in the fossil record, and either abruptly disappeared or found to be still alive and well today, including the four oldest species that are said to have lived about 3.8 billion years ago, they are still alive and well and totally un-evolved. Their is no evidence of evolution occurring in the fossil record. Another example The coelacanthe fish was once a candidate for being the first aquatic animal to evolve into an amphibian based upon its' 'evolved' features some evolutionary scientists SAW in the fish's bone features some 450 million years ago. Thought to have become extinct, it was disocovered alive and well in the 20th century. Not only had the Coelacanthe skeletal structure remain unevolved over 450 billion years, neither did its organs and other soft body parts evolve.
In reality, which Gould, an atheist and marxist, could not bring himself to accept, the fossil record actually looks like special creation. I bet they do not teach you this in your Schools! :)
"The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation...one thing it does show that cannot be attributed to its imperfection is that most species don't change...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as do data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."
In answer to the question "What role do mutations play in speciation?" Gould answered:
"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a species by mutating the species...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change. Something else than natural selection brings about species at new levels, trends and direction."
When asked if there was not stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism, Gould replied:
" The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for [Darwinian] gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into school to study.
Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."
Steven J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College
"Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" 14-Feb-1980
And from 1984
“[Darwinian]Gradualism was never ‘proved from the rocks’ by Lyell and Darwin, but was rather imposed as a bias upon nature. … Has had a profoundly negative impact by stifling hypotheses and by closing the minds of a profession toward reasonable empirical alternatives to the dogma of gradualism. … Lyell won with rhetoric what he could not carry with data.”
Gould, S. J., ‘Toward the Vindication of Punctuational Change’. In: W. A. BERGGREN & J. A. VAN COUVERING (Eds.): Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarian, Princeton University Press, Princeton (New Jersey), pp. 14-16, 1984
The reason for Steven Jay Gould's and for most other leading paleontologists for rejecting Darwin's Theory of Evolution is simply because the fossil record never supported in Darwin's Theory. The fact is that each genome (i.e. each species) appeared abruptly in the fossil record, remained unchanged for their entire duration in the fossil record, and either abruptly disappeared or found to be still alive and well today, including the four oldest species that are said to have lived about 3.8 billion years ago, they are still alive and well and totally un-evolved. Their is no evidence of evolution occurring in the fossil record. Another example The coelacanthe fish was once a candidate for being the first aquatic animal to evolve into an amphibian based upon its' 'evolved' features some evolutionary scientists SAW in the fish's bone features some 450 million years ago. Thought to have become extinct, it was disocovered alive and well in the 20th century. Not only had the Coelacanthe skeletal structure remain unevolved over 450 billion years, neither did its organs and other soft body parts evolve.
In reality, which Gould, an atheist and marxist, could not bring himself to accept, the fossil record actually looks like special creation. I bet they do not teach you this in your Schools! :)
#11 Posted by Artur on June 28, 2009 6:01:05 pm
i can not believe that here in 2009, there are still some supposedly 'learned' people who still think that 'Natural Selection' is a means by which species evolved from some assumed progenote (i.e. self replcating first life form) to all other types of creatures that ever lived on planet Earth.
Natural Selection can only select genetic information that ALREADY EXISTS in any given genome.
Definition - Genome: All of the genetic information, the entire genetic complement, all of the hereditary material possessed by an organism, or all members of an interbreeding species.
Natural Selection is incapable of introducing any new genetic information into an existing genome. Therefore, natural selection is only capable of preserving the existance of a species by the selection of existing traits best suited for new or changing environments, such as the finces in the Galapagos or South America. We know today that all of Darwin finches are a single species since they can all interbreed with one another. Dawrin was confused about the finches and misinterpreted his data as evolution in action because he knew absolutely nothing about genetics.
So why did Charles Darwin and the cofounder of the Theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, think natural selection was relevant to their theory, because Darwin adopted an ancient theory on how new traits (i.e. New Genetic information) can be introduced into an existing genome. Then Natural Selection may select any such new information that gives these 'evolved' advantage in the struggle for survival. Time has proved Darwin to be totally wrong in his conception of how evolution occurs.,
Charles Darwin's mechanism for his theory of evolution was an idea going to back to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), it was called pangenesis.
Pangenesis is a theory in which imaginery 'gemmules' containing hereditary information from every part of the body coalesce in the gonads and are incorporated into the reproductive cells. Little did darwin know that his 'Gemmules' did not exist.
Pangenesis is a theory of heredity proposed by Charles Darwin in his 1868 update of his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Just like his Theory of evolution, Charles Darwin's explanation on how small beneficial genetic changes accumulated and passed on from offsrping to offspring proved to be totally wrong. Charles Darwin never had a clue about Genetics. He knew before he published his idea of 'Pangenesis' as his mechanism that it did not work as he thought it would because third generation offspring often had physical traits of their grandparents while lacking some traits that were not present in their parents. this should not happen if Pangenesis were really true. This left Darwin scratching his head. But he published his 'Pangenesis' mechanism anyway, as it was the only theory he had for introducing new traits to the offspring.
Gregor Mendell, a true scientist and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, is the Father of the Science of Genetics, and is considered to be the first geneticist.
Mendel's observations from his pea experiments can be summarized in two principles that hold true today:
The Principle of Segregation
The Principle of Independent Assortment
Mendel came to four important conclusions from these experimental results:
1. The inheritance of each trait is determined by “units” or “factors” (now called genes) that are passed on to descendents unchanged.
2. An individual inherits one such unit from each parent for each trait.
3. A trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.
4. The genes for each trait segregate themselves during gamete production.
The General idea promoted by Charles Darwin and friends was that the Species were not genetically fixed, that species were constantly accumulating new novel genetic characteristics and passing them on to their offspring via Pangenesis. Thus they viewed the species as having plasticity. As anyone could see, offspring were physically similar to their parents, but also had physical traits that were different somewhat from their parents. That over a very long period of time, these small variations from generation to generation would accumulate into major morphogical changes, so much so that the distant offpring will be enormously physically different. An ancient amphibian would have a human as their very distant future offspring. Thus in Darwin's and Wallace's minds, the species were variable and fluid over time, and not fixed to only existing traits existing in previous generations of any given genome (i.e. species).
Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. As Mendellian Genetics became known to be the true mechanism for genetic variation, it quickly became clear that Darwin was wrong about pangenesis and plasticity of the species. Mendellian Genetics re-established the fixity of the species.
This was clearly seen as a devastating blow to Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the co-founder of Darwin's Theory. Alfred Russel Wallace:
From Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
"But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions." James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
Once discovered and popularized, Mendellian Genetics became a cause of concern for the Darwiian evolutionists, and a few tried to discredit Mendel throughout the 20th century, others ignored the negative implications it had for Darwin's Theory of evolution. To this day, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is poor science fiction masquerading as Science.
For more information:
http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm
JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL: WHY HIS DISCOVERIES WERE IGNORED FOR 35 (72) YEARS
Natural Selection can only select genetic information that ALREADY EXISTS in any given genome.
Definition - Genome: All of the genetic information, the entire genetic complement, all of the hereditary material possessed by an organism, or all members of an interbreeding species.
Natural Selection is incapable of introducing any new genetic information into an existing genome. Therefore, natural selection is only capable of preserving the existance of a species by the selection of existing traits best suited for new or changing environments, such as the finces in the Galapagos or South America. We know today that all of Darwin finches are a single species since they can all interbreed with one another. Dawrin was confused about the finches and misinterpreted his data as evolution in action because he knew absolutely nothing about genetics.
So why did Charles Darwin and the cofounder of the Theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, think natural selection was relevant to their theory, because Darwin adopted an ancient theory on how new traits (i.e. New Genetic information) can be introduced into an existing genome. Then Natural Selection may select any such new information that gives these 'evolved' advantage in the struggle for survival. Time has proved Darwin to be totally wrong in his conception of how evolution occurs.,
Charles Darwin's mechanism for his theory of evolution was an idea going to back to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), it was called pangenesis.
Pangenesis is a theory in which imaginery 'gemmules' containing hereditary information from every part of the body coalesce in the gonads and are incorporated into the reproductive cells. Little did darwin know that his 'Gemmules' did not exist.
Pangenesis is a theory of heredity proposed by Charles Darwin in his 1868 update of his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Just like his Theory of evolution, Charles Darwin's explanation on how small beneficial genetic changes accumulated and passed on from offsrping to offspring proved to be totally wrong. Charles Darwin never had a clue about Genetics. He knew before he published his idea of 'Pangenesis' as his mechanism that it did not work as he thought it would because third generation offspring often had physical traits of their grandparents while lacking some traits that were not present in their parents. this should not happen if Pangenesis were really true. This left Darwin scratching his head. But he published his 'Pangenesis' mechanism anyway, as it was the only theory he had for introducing new traits to the offspring.
Gregor Mendell, a true scientist and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, is the Father of the Science of Genetics, and is considered to be the first geneticist.
Mendel's observations from his pea experiments can be summarized in two principles that hold true today:
The Principle of Segregation
The Principle of Independent Assortment
Mendel came to four important conclusions from these experimental results:
1. The inheritance of each trait is determined by “units” or “factors” (now called genes) that are passed on to descendents unchanged.
2. An individual inherits one such unit from each parent for each trait.
3. A trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.
4. The genes for each trait segregate themselves during gamete production.
The General idea promoted by Charles Darwin and friends was that the Species were not genetically fixed, that species were constantly accumulating new novel genetic characteristics and passing them on to their offspring via Pangenesis. Thus they viewed the species as having plasticity. As anyone could see, offspring were physically similar to their parents, but also had physical traits that were different somewhat from their parents. That over a very long period of time, these small variations from generation to generation would accumulate into major morphogical changes, so much so that the distant offpring will be enormously physically different. An ancient amphibian would have a human as their very distant future offspring. Thus in Darwin's and Wallace's minds, the species were variable and fluid over time, and not fixed to only existing traits existing in previous generations of any given genome (i.e. species).
Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. As Mendellian Genetics became known to be the true mechanism for genetic variation, it quickly became clear that Darwin was wrong about pangenesis and plasticity of the species. Mendellian Genetics re-established the fixity of the species.
This was clearly seen as a devastating blow to Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the co-founder of Darwin's Theory. Alfred Russel Wallace:
From Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
"But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions." James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
Once discovered and popularized, Mendellian Genetics became a cause of concern for the Darwiian evolutionists, and a few tried to discredit Mendel throughout the 20th century, others ignored the negative implications it had for Darwin's Theory of evolution. To this day, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is poor science fiction masquerading as Science.
For more information:
http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm
JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL: WHY HIS DISCOVERIES WERE IGNORED FOR 35 (72) YEARS
#10 Posted by Urstruly on May 30, 2009 7:53:25 pm
I thought grandpa gopinath was the missing link - anyhoo if this fossil is that of grandpa then he must be butt ugly in his life - thank God for evolution, we look much better now.
#9 Posted by wiseguyin on May 30, 2009 7:26:25 am
Our grand children will need something to compare and understand the evolution.
LOL .... that was neat !
LOL .... that was neat !
#8 Posted by Regards on May 29, 2009 8:53:24 pm
Tahir has told time and again that he'll not evolve. Why do you insist? Please leave him where he is - in the hermetically closed jar of Allah - Pakistan.
No fresh air or ideas. Such chosen specimens are very fragile. Our grand children will need something to compare and understand the evolution.
No fresh air or ideas. Such chosen specimens are very fragile. Our grand children will need something to compare and understand the evolution.
#7 Posted by tahir on May 29, 2009 5:07:05 pm
No hazrat Ras, the missing link needs to be highlighted in yet another I-log. Do read Chowq more often.
#5 Posted by tahir on May 29, 2009 12:34:03 am
What He says to His chosen men usually stays between Him and them. He abhors those who don't use REASON (to identify Him).
Rest in peace now.
Rest in peace now.
#3 Posted by tahir on May 28, 2009 8:23:06 pm
God honours whom He wills, men just think THEY do so.
Keep on e-volving.
Keep on e-volving.
#2 Posted by zarrar2 on May 28, 2009 6:35:28 pm
aah. my creationist friend tahir,
this was directed right at you.
this was directed right at you.
#1 Posted by tahir on May 28, 2009 7:25:14 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- The Rex Cinema Fire Muhammad Tariq
- A Freedom Of Pain And Hope Rashid Malik
- Bombay Lefties Prashant Bhatt
- Can Pakistan unplug itself from the Matrix? Vivek Balaraman
- She Needs to be Saved Hiba Tanvir
Swat: Paradise Lost
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- Ravi_Kopra: What choice? Can any Abdullah,... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: punjabi mole hi ex... NRO Is Just a
- HisExcellency: re: Agha Amin wrote: "NRO... NRO Is Just a
- Mr.India: Breaking News: Vajpayee,... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Mr.India: Vajpayee, Advani pseudo-moderates, Liberhan... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Diesel: so mulla omar was... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
