What are the top five contentious issues within evolutionary theory? I have nothing to offer in this subject and don't plan to post again in this thread regardless of what comes up, so mocking me or the question is pointless. However think of this: If I asked this in a forum of Jehovah's Witnesses the answers would involve matters of daily life never addressed by the Governing Body. If I asked it in a Catholic forum and the debate got heated some would say the other half were heretics or non-Catholics. Therefore if this thread inspires no dispute among you, I'll have no choice but to declare you guys a cult.
Well given Catholics dont have an issue with evolution I have to wonder at your real motives about wanting to discuss the topic
main one is that mass comes from energy in time The three are the trininity That math to describe that transitition is what the world is looking for/awaiting coool line item and it evolved with an understanding because many minds had not evolved with the quality wording/understanding, to comprehend the answers in an evolved (educated fashion) the majority on the globe are not as unevolved as to tithe for a religion "the cult of personality"
What are the top five contentious issues within evolutionary theory? 1-Did the first self replicating systems originate in a reducing atmosphere and were clay crystals used as a substrate. 2-Was passage through the galactic plane the cause of the major extinction events. 3-What caused the Cambrian Explosion. 4-Did the evolution of the modern metazoan animal phyla predate the Cambrian Explosion. 5-Did the Acheaosaura(dinosaurs) produce the birds or was there a common ancestor. If you think the principal questions relate to humans, don't flatter yourself, you're not that important.
a drive by poster if there ever was one... if you have nothing to offer why should we offer anything, you've declared yourself pointless and irrelevant... and we have no choice but to declare you and your post a waste of time....
Absolutely not Mounting evidence suggests the explosion may not have been as explosive as first thought As before, there is mounting evidence the explosion was a lot more extended Well the whole feather thing is a real hot button topic these day Agree completely
nothing of your inquiries has anything to do with substantiating evolution as a process of life, within nature of which wavelength? Reducing? I learn. no such thing pole reversal of the earth's magnetic fieild. Big subduction zones can occur. irrelevant I bet metazoan rain all over the universe common in my eyes as the migrating birds had the same lung chambers to handle low 20% Oxygen versus I believe just prior was in the 31% range (which caused the extinction. To a peasant student as I we are the evolved lives of them past generations. It's us humans describing these events for the next generations that should be honored greater than any religion.
I just saw this one today about the disagreement of when and where dogs were first domesticated: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dog-genetics-spur-scientific-spat
I agree that we humans are but a flicker in the flame of evolutions candle.....yet we are also the ones discussing this. The next step in evolution is happening right now, and it is micro not macro.
Getting off my science high horse You obviously know evolutionary theory! Or as they say in the Sci-biz, "know your ass from an aspirator." However your comment about the next step in evolution being micro not macro intrigues me. Could you elaborate?
ghonapsyphilherpalaids is not only a creation (manmade) but also defining with a weeeeee bit of humor genetics (Venter, craig) ............................. life from the base lipids and evolving everyday!
It seems to me our species has adapted to the environment we evolve in through changes in the brain wiring rather than large scale genetic mutation as the dominant form of evolution. With this rather unique change, the speed of this has apparently increased. Our species may very well be physically different in a million years.....but the world have created will as well.
Change in wiring of our brains seems to be less evolution and more of utilization of adaptive features inherent to the existing brain. Unfortunately adaptive evolution requires some connection to the improvement and the increased capacity for the possessor of the improvement to produce more progeny than those without the improvement. In the case of humans and intelligence the process seems to currently be in reverse. [video=youtube;icmRCixQrx8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8[/video] The evolution of intelligence, like any adaption is the result of rather pitiless and harsh stresses on a species. Premature death of the 'unfit', genetic isolation to amplify recessive mutations though at the possible cost of deformity. Starvation, predation, competition of genomes, novel reproductive strategies, including deceit, rape, and bribery are very common. Without a world wide holocaust that brings back the Four Horsemen I'm afraid that the engine of natural selection is pretty much dead as a mechanism for human progress. That does not of course rule ARTIFICIAL selection augmented by science. But of course without some type of collective genetic control such as a planetary eugenics program, the chances of making changes to the overall human genome that will permanently transmit to future generations is slim. There is evidence that the current human brain is approaching a thermodynamic design limit on complexity that cannot be bypassed by organic evolution. http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/ailab/teaching/neuralnets2013/The_Limits_of_Intelligence.pdf However all is not lost. Collective networking of human brains may be a mechanism for bypassing the complexity limit. Also intelligence isn't the only thing that needs evolving. A casual look at our sorry world history shows that though our intellects may soar, our capacity for cooperation, empathy, forgiveness, foresight, humility, and understanding are still crawling in the gutter. Many of these qualities have been neurally mapped and may be subject to appropriate hormonal influence or electrical stimulation. Perhaps these should be areas for future research into our evolutionary destiny.
In this we disagree...placing any facet of evolution into a human life span...or generational defeats much of the concept. I am referring to periods of time that encompass hundreds of thousands of years, but also dealing with the last few thousand as testimony to my theoritical proposition. Melliniul time is a minimal frame to vie evolution within, and vary little represents within it. I just see something unique taking place over the last thousand years or so....and postulate we are witnessing something rather Amazing. Then again....I am half drunk.
Of course not. Evolution as a process of life is beyond dispute. All of the issues mentioned are as yet unsettled withing the theory of evolution. I'd add one more, though: Were the dinosaurs warm blooded?
The top issue as of now concerns Darwin's doubt. After all he had conjectured as so reasonable and rational, the doubt remained that there had been enough time during the 5-6 million years of the Cambrian Explosion for all the amazing diversity to have suddenly appeared in the rocks fossils. It was rather hard to ignore that right after the Proterozoic Era, most of the animal phylum were already established with very complex organisms, including insects. The does not appear to be any macro-evolutionary links between earlier animals and those for which fossils have been found. /// When Charles Darwin finished The Origin of Species, he thought that he had explained every clue, but one. Though his theory could explain many facts, Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, the Cambrian explosion, many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwins Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal lifea mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological informationstored in DNA and elsewhere in cellsto building animal forms. Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.
Before we can rationally discuss something like this, we must agree on certain definitions. To start, the word intelligence is both misused and misunderstood in general. An example is when people advocate the idea of the existence of Intelligent Design, implying that we can obvious see in nature that this entity exists. Furthermore, it is implied that the presence of intelligent design of life forms requires an intelliegent entity, euphemistically called the creator god. But intelligence is not something present in the designs of living creature. It on the contrary, is something which to some degree or another is intrinsic to whatever that designed life form might be. Man has intelligence, which does not necessarily require that another intelligent creature was able to so design him. Furthermore, a machine spits out certain products which one can immediately see were produced by machines. There is no conflict with this machining of products and the natural laws which were networked together such that living products unfolded which naturally can survive in the environments where they were machined by the forces of nature. What is intelligence except that it is the attribute by which living organisms recognize the Truth which conforms with the Reality in which they exist? Do we not measure Intelligence by the number of truth answers one submits in a formal testing???
About those intermediate species: Exactly where does blue become red? Where does one species become another?
sound logic I will try to be a better addition within the evolution. monkey to man is not an evolution. Doma tribe (3 toes) is an existing evolution (macro). and these threads are in and of themselves micro (evolving) I didn't check. I know the process of evolution to the letter of mass/energy/time. The details you are debating are items that are from fossils and science. Some of the folk that deny evolution based are Darwin's rendition are just idiots. Darwin never even used the word 'evolution' (first edition) of his most famous publication.
This is actually a super important point. Darwin (as a theory) pretty much got everything wrong. Survival of the fittest, red of tooth and claw etc etc. What he nailed brilliantly was the overall concept. Basically he gave us the flat pack version of the history of life in this planet and later researches had to find the wooden dowels and screws to put it together properly.
Newton had that quote "standing on the shoulders of giants' It means we are learning (evolving) from the previous knowledge. Darwin didn't even have a laptop and capable of photographing what he witnessed. Heck, if I had a bic lighter and walked side by side with jesus up to the rabbid, they would have been calling me god.
