How does the dikika baby affect the old theory of man's evolution?

Question

PLEASE!!!!! i really need this to be answered i am very confused thanks...

Answer 1

At that time would it be incorrect to think that perhaps hominid, mammals and all forms of Eomaía were experimental and not the final order of placental mammals.  We are very likely the best and most finite placement of this evolutionary process.  That mammals came and went in the large process of perfection is no surprise.  What comes after us?  The absolute scientific development in laboratories assigned to the further evolution for the survival of the species and the control of factors that make this stage possible are in the approximate order of being of which you and I probably understand even less of than the Dikika Baby found to be a million years of age.

Answer 2

It only strengthens it.  What's to be confused about?  Perhaps its the ramblings of the Christian extremists who claim it doesn't exist using half baked science?

Even Pope John Paul II admitted evloution existed.

Answer 3

This is monumental. Not only does this discovery strengthen our "theory", it provides us with a wealth of new information which I'm sure everyone appreciates as a means to understanding our origins. This in itself is an evolutionary leap; increasing our knowledge base and level of self awareness, that is to say, in "theory".

Answer 4

Erm, a theory is an explanation of a fact, it is NOT set in stone!

Theories CAN change.

So what is your question?

and why the confusion?

If new light is shed on a theory, then the old one is mistaken!

Answer 5

The heart is effectively a syncytium, a meshwork of cardiac muscle cells interconnected by contiguous cytoplasmic bridges.

The gymnarchus (Nile Knifefish) is a nocturnal fish and

has poor vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnarchus_...

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/ab...



http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/ful...

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract...

It uses an organ, which is similar to a radar, to

locate the prey it is chasing. For the radar system of

fishes to function properly, the receptors in the skin

that perceive electrical signals should be extremely

sensitive. Indeed, the gymnarchus can 'notice' a change

in the current intensity as small as 0.000 000 000 000

003 ampere. Such sensitivity enables the fish to

distinguish an ordinary gudgeon from bait in whose body

a man has hidden a tiny steel hook angler. It can steer

through very muddy water even at night using its radar.

Do you think that such an engineering marvels could

have come into being through evolution alone?

The fossil record also shows a sudden,

inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of

both simple and complex life-forms. However,

if evolution were true, there would only be a

very gradual increase in both the numbers and

complexity of such organisms.

Regression of species: Since evolution is

supposed to be continual and random, we

should expect the same process that caused

the emergence of humans from apes to also

produce apes from humans. The law of natural

selection would not prevent this from

happening, because apes remain a stable life

form, able to survive current environmental

conditions.

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable

difference of all. Primates have 48

chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly

superior to them in a wide array of areas,

yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This

begs the question of how we could lose two

full chromosomes--which represents a lot of

DNA--in the first place, and in the process

become so much better.

The leading mathematicians in the century met

with some evolutionary biologists and

confronted them with the fact that according

to mathematical statistics, the probabilities

of a cell or a protein molecule coming into

existence were nil. They even constructed a

model of a large computer and tried to figure

out the possibilities of a cell ever

happening. The result was zero possibility! -

Wistar Institute, 1966.

Under normal circumstances, creatures give

birth to the same kind of creatures. It is

established scientific fact that like begets

like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo

is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that

differs in some respect from its parent.

Although a few mutations have been

scientifically observed that are beneficial,

most mutations produce inferior offspring.

For the theory of evolution to be true, there

must be a fantastic number of creative

mutations that produce new kinds of offspring

which are better suited for survival, and

therefore are favored by natural selection.

Mutations are harmful and deadly, not useful

as "evolution" requires. Cancer is an example

of a mutation.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/a...

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.ht...

One of the most basic, fundamental laws of

science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

states that things in nature always tend to

dissolve and breakdown with the passage of

time, not grow more complex which would be

the case if evolution were true.

http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html