http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists_discover_prehistoric_cave_with_unknown_lifeforms
"a cave containing an ecosystem with unknown lifeforms have been discovered in the Israeli city of Ramle."
""Until now eight species of animals were found in the cave, all of them unknown to science,""
"the cave has been sealed off from the outside world, receiving no sunlight for at least 5 million years, when parts of Israel were under the Mediterranean Sea."
""Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution,""
Cool, but I imagine this happens a lot. Just a guess but I think millions of species are yet to be identified.
The key word I wanted to stress here is evolution.
There seem to be an alarming, growing number of people who don't "believe" in evolution, despite scientific evidence.
This doesn't bring anything new, does it. Those animals haven't changes species before their eyes or anything.
>>4 changed species, i meant
uhhh, is this supposed to be proof of evolution then? Cause lots of animals have lost their eyes like this. I thought it was cool because it's several new species at once.
If you wanna discuss evolution though . . .
Well, "no sunlight for 5 million years", I thought that part sounded quite dramatic, I wanted to say it. :)
-- Sling.
Naturally species without eyes would compete out species with eyes in such an environment. Eyeless species would have other better developed senses, and would also not waste energy on superflous organs. Evolution or not, this is not proof of it, there are eyeless creatures in caves that are not cut of from the outside world too. This is no more proof for evolution than the fact that land-living creatures have legs while sea-living creatures have fens. Not that this is a proof too.
Anonymous Scientist, you really are daft aren't you? You call yourself a scientist, but hide yourself behind a veil of lies and deceit. Like it or not, this IS proof of evolution. You said so yourself. "Naturally species without eyes would compete out species with eyes in such an environment. Eyeless species would have other better developed senses, and would also not waste energy on superflous organs." The rest of your arguement is a total piece of garbage that contradict your previous statement.
>>9
It doesn't contradict his previous statement. What he said first was a hypothesis for what could have happened in the cave.
There is no proof because even if there were layers of skeletons under the ground showing how that particular species lost its eyes, God could have done it.
There is no proof of eveolution because evolution does not happen before our eyes; there are no historical records of a species changing to another species.
Sure, microevolution is known to happen but they don't change species.
There is at least one proof that evolution happens.
Living beings, by definition, create approximate copies of themselves, right? Humans will generate more humans, fish will generate more fish, etc, etc... These copies have errors, that can go from minuscule (vague change in the shape of the skull) to extreme (hydrocephalus, retardation, etc, etc...). Now, these errors can appear on any sequence of genes. It logically follows that some errors will make certain beings slightly better adapted to one's environment (a few more neurons traded for stability, a few more muscle fibers traded for dexterity, ...), and that these beings will have a better chance of surviving and passing on these changes to the following generation. Supposing a few small changes per generation, over a few thousands of generations, you may have changed a specie into another, and over a few million, you may have created a completely new type of organism.
However, It is impossible to prove that we, and the species around us, arose through evolution, as Anonymous Scientist showed. Though, if God did modify reality so that it would be impossible to find (scientific) proof of his creation of our world, I think it is safe to assume that reality is now such that we arose through evolution
Evolution simply put, is our best attempt at understanding natural forces seen in the fossil record of our planet. We can see that there existed simple life forms, then more complex forms, then modern highly complex forms. We do not for instance, find horses in the Paleozoic era. How they evolved, whether by divine or random forces is left up to the individual.
This article has nothing to do with proof of evolution unfortunately. The "proof" of evolution exists in the fossil record.
>>11
No new phyla have emerged since the Cambrian period (300? million BC). Why does some stuff change and other stuff doesn't? Evolution must have limits, the question is "where?"
Uh.
Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.
Comments like "macroevolution does not take place" stem from ignorance about what these terms mean.
> Comments like "macroevolution does not take place" stem from ignorance about what these terms mean.
as do comments like "Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.".
there is not enough evidence to say for sure whether or not macroevolution takes place.
Sure, if you close your eyes hard enough, you can't see the evidence AT ALL!
>>Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.
This statement does not say anything, except that shit changes over time. A quantitative - the "how" - needs to be answered. Otherwise it is [rational] speculation.
>>16
And if you close them even harder, you CAN see the evidence!
or just weird psychedelic spots...
>>17, when you ask for the "how," what precisely are you asking for?
The mechanism? Mutations can arise from many sources, radiation (including ultraviolet light) and exposure to mutagenic chemicals among them. Or are you asking how rapidly mutations accumulate? Obviously it's different from species to species due to differing lengths of generations as well as differing evolutionary pressures and different external factors that can make mutation more rapid in specific environments.
>>18, there IS evidence for the modern version of Darwin's model, whether we want to see it or not. Does the term "Human Genome Project" mean anything to you? Are you aware of the work since 1990 on cladistic comparisons of biochemistry among species, which has become accepted as tremendously strong evidence for evolution without even examining genetic material? Start here:
ttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html
>>20, I am quite familiar with the scientific method.
We observe nature, we form a hypothesis--a guess, in other words--about some aspect of nature, we test it to prove it or disprove it.
The guess can be as simple as "do all bugs and buglike creatures have six legs?" or as complex as "I think the similarity between a pit viper's infrared-detecting pits and the primitive eyelike structures some invertebrates have is so great that there is likely to be an underlying genetic similarity."
Darwin's model has survived all attempts at empirical disproof for a hundred and fifty years. Darwin's model has vast explanatory and predictive power and has proven invaluable in the sciences of biology and zoology.
If you have a better model, then, by all means, if I may quote Frank Zappa, whip it out and show us what ya got.
> We observe nature, we form a hypothesis--a guess, in other words--about some aspect of nature, we test it to prove it or disprove it.
yes, but it's only used for scientific hypotheses.
and for a historical hypothesis such as evolution, neither proof nor disproof is possible without time travel.
Uhh. As I said earlier. The "proof" for evolution exists in the fossil record. I put that in quotes because we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine. Other then that we certainly can predict with resonable accuracy the timelines involved in the fossil record. Therefore time travel isn't necessary. Or do you have a better idea for how fossils got there?
>>23
due to the somewhat unstable nature of the earth's crust and the annoying habit of humans to pick up fossils and put them down elsewhere, fossils cannot be reliably for proof of when or where a particular plant or animal lived.
and if you think carbon dating is accurate, say that to my 3 million year old "lol carbon dating" sign i made 2 years ago.
Wow, thank you for pointing out that the entire fields of archeology and geology are totally meaningless. Now that we've found out, we can finally stop doing them. Your genius outshines even the sun with its brilliance.
>>25
you're missing the point.
my point is that science and history are not the same thing.
it is impossible to have scientific proof of history.
>>23 we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine.
...
Read some Karl Popper and some William of Ockham. Then ponder the true meaning of "pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
Then you and your deliberately non-testable claims get back to us.
I'll make sure to tell the historians, so they can stop too.
Hey, you know what? I just remembered that we can't actually trust the inputs of our sense not be manufactured by some higher being bent on decieving us, either! I guess that takes care of all the remaining fields of science, art and human endevaour!
>>a historical hypothesis such as evolution
So, biology, zoology, biochemistry, genetic engineering, and bioinformatics aren't science?
Someone give this man a Nobel Prize.
>>we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine.
But then again there isnt any evidence that it is either. And i mean actual things that you can see in your face and makes sense to everyone even if they have their own biases or whatever.
Meh, point being the only way we'll ever know for sure is either when whatever religious event happens, whether it be the second coming Jesus, or the Spaghetti Monster coming down from the third moon of the sun, gets his/her/it's ass over to us and tells us.
That or when we're six feet below.
If it's divine, something'll happen then, and if it isn't...well we'll be dead so we wont care. XP
Sure carbon dating isn't perfect, nor can it be used for dates older then around 2 million years but there's other forms of dating. Like lakebed sediment dating or tree-ring dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
There's overwhelming evidence for the age of fossils so to deny the age and dating of fossil records is to misunderstand geology.
>>30
There's a simpler way to check the existence of God. Asking him comes to mind and I can verify it worked for me. However it's a personal experience and few scientists ascribe the validity to the experiment.
>>31
But then again comes the question of personal belief. I myself am a buddhist, and know that i'm a believer in that, such as you are a believer in what you believe in.
But the ultimate answer, the one that we'll know for sure, at which no one and i mean NO ONE will be able to put up an argument against. That's the one that'll come when we go kaputz. Well thats what i believe anyways.
"The cave has been closed off to the public so researchers can examine it further."
man you just know that those researchers will go missing and then we have to send a team of commandos in there that will have to stop whatever is there from getting out. all but one (possibly two if they are a couple) of the commando team will survive.
> "The cave has been closed off to the public so researchers can examine it further."
that means they don't want anyone to know that there's not really anything interesting down there when they try to get grant money to study it.
>>34
I bet there's a big party going on with self-aware dinosaurs
>>35
Under the guise of partying, what they're really doing is trying to figure out whether the dinosaurs believe in GOD too.
^ I meant to add, scientifically, of course.
>But the ultimate answer, the one that we'll know for sure, at which no one and i mean NO ONE will be able to put up an argument against. That's the one that'll come when we go kaputz. Well thats what i believe anyways.
You mean the aliens or the comet that brought life to this planet?
I'll meet an old comet when I die?
you better believe it!
>>40
The Hale-Bopp comet is Heaven's Gate!