Phorum.com.gr

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Evolution Makes Testable Predictions.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. In the 1950's when it was discovered that humans had 23 pairs of chromosomes (one from each parent), whereas the other great apes, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans had 24 pairs, creationists were ecstatic, thinking they finally had evidence to counter common ancestry.

[Chromosomes are packages of DNA that form during mitosis and meiosis.There are two sets, one inherited from each parent. Other Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) (1n=24, 2n=48) whereas humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) (1n=23, 2n=46)]

Evolution made a testable prediction; That somewhere in the human genome we should find evidence of cromosomal fusion. In other words, we should be able to find a human chromosome with the remnants of extra telomeres and centomeres.

Since the loss of all the genes in a chromosome would have been fatal to any species, scientists reasoned that IF the Theory of Evolution was correct about common ancestry, one of two things must have occurred. Either two chromosomes had fused in human's evolutionary past, OR chromosomes had split in the other apes. Using 'Occam's Razor' or the "law of parsimony" which states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (Simply put, it means that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one), the most likely event was chromosome fusion in humans.

Normal chromosomes have a centromere and ends capped with telomeres. It was reasoned that IF two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centromeres and teleomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2 (chromosomes are numbered by length). It was subsequently discovered that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 (for comparative purposes designated as 2A and 2B or 2p and 2q) contained the same genes as human chromosome 2 and if placed end to end the positions of those genes matched those of the human chromosome. Those chromosomes in the other apes also lined up in a similar fashion. The fusion event has been confirmed. In just the last few years science has gained largely complete genomes of two other human species, those of Neanderthal and Denisovans. We see that same chromosome fusion in their genomes as well, indication that the fusion event took place in a common ancestor.

As previously stated, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The greatest test of ANY scientific theory is in its usefulness as a predictive tool. In this case, as with others, the Theory of Evolution has performed beautifully.

References:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2
www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf
https://biologos.org/blogs/...to.../den ... e-2-fusion
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - The Predictive Ability of the Theory - Part I

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. Perhaps the greatest tests for any theory is their use as a predictive tool, and the Theory of Evolution does that beautifully. The first fossils were discovered quite by accident, incidental to some other human activity. There are still fossils discovered that way, but no paleontologist will count on accidental discoveries. Expeditions seeking particular fossils are planned meticulously. Fifty years ago, creationists could derisively point to the fact that science had no transitional whale fossils. But then with the aid of geologic maps funded in part by oil and mineral companies and the Theory of Evolution predicting when in geologic time such fossils were likely to be found, paleontologists were able to locate where in the world the proper marine sediments were exposed at the earth's surface.

As each new discovery came to light, they each showed a range of features from inherited to derived. Each was consistent with what would be expected if the theory was correct. There was no evidence of a derived feature returning to a more primitive form. No derived feature occurring out of place in the geologic record.

When Neil Shubin and his team sought a fossil with transitional features between fish and tetrapod, they knew that the earliest tetrapod fossils were found in fresh water sediments dated about 370 million years ago. It was reasonable to assume that a transitional fossil, if such existed, would most likely be found in similar sediments somewhat older, perhaps those dated at about 375 mya. Geologic maps indicated that there are few places in the world where such layers are exposed at the earth's surface, but one they deemed to have the greatest probability of success was on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. Not exactly ones ideal summer vacation spot.

It took four expeditions in the very short Arctic summers, but they returned in 2004 with nine fossil specimens of a fish they named Tiktaalik. It was a fish, but a fish like no other. It had scales, gills and a swimming tail, but it also had lungs, a sturdy rib cage and muscular fins ideal for pushing through weedy shallow marshes. Those fins had the same arrangement of bones found in land based animals; One bone: humerus (forelimb), or femur (hind limb); Two bones: ulna and radius (forelimb) or tibia and fibula (hind limb), followed by metacarpals and phalanges. Even more interesting was the flattened head with eyes on top whose focus would have been at or above the water's surface, and a neck that allowed it to move its head without having to move its whole body. Here was a Devonian fish, capable of breathing air, watching at the water's surface, most likely for the insects and other arthropods that millions of years earlier had followed plants in colonizing the land.

Recent research has revealed that eyes are very expensive tissue in terms of calorie consumption. That is why cave dwelling organisms are quite often blind. The limited food sources in those caves are the environmental pressure for the elimination of superfluous tissue. Experiments have shown that larger eyes only marginally improve underwater vision, but can increase air vision 100 fold. While we cannot for certain determine the eye size of extinct organisms, the size of the eye socket provides a pretty good approximation. Tiktaalik's eye sockets were quite large, indicating it was most likely searching for prey above the water's surface.

This is a fish at the margin of land and water with many features that would have suited it on land. We cannot be certain that this fish or its progeny was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but if not, it was something very similar to it.

As previously stated, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The Theory of Evolution pointed to where such a fossil would be found, and indeed it was.

References:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 009-0119-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... vograms_04
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-transi/


The Predictive Ability of the Theory - Part II

The best test of any scientific theory is its usefulness as a predictive tool. In that respect, the Theory of Evolution performs admirably. The Theory of Evolution would predict that, IF birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be a progression of derived traits in dinosaurs leading up to the origin of birds and that is exactly what we see.

Perhaps the most complete transitional sequence in the fossil record is that from dinosaurs to birds. Birds didn’t just evolve from dinosaurs overnight, but the features of birds evolved one by one; first light bones and bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings. Yes, wings evolved before flight. Just as there are birds today such as ostriches, emus, rheas, etc. that no longer fly, yet still use their wings for other purposes, there were winged theropod dinosaurs that may have used them to shelter young, for mating displays, or intimidating a predator or rival just as do birds of today.

Long before wings, the forelimbs of theropods evolved to allow them to reach forward to grasp prey with their claws. Those are the Maniraptors. That movement is exactly the same as that required for flapping wings. Archaeopteryx still had those grasping claws as did other early birds. The young chicks of the Hoatzin still retain them. Claws are also evident on many bird species; Emus, Cassowarys and Kiwis still have them on vestigial wings.

Feathers and scales are formed from the same material, keratin. Birds retain scales on their legs; the japanese Silkie chicken has been bred for fully feathered legs, indicating that only slight genetic modification is necessary. Take a look at an Emu; its legs are exactly what would be expected on a dinosaur. It too, has a useless nub of a wing with an equally useless claw. Vestigial remnants are always confusing to creationists

There is a succession of feathered dinosaur fossils with increasingly bird like characteristics i.e. Xiaotingia, Sinosauropteryx prima, Caudipteryx, Sinovenator and others. Any of these fossils showing such a mix of traits can be considered transitional. The whole lineage of feathered dinosaurs could be considered transitional. The fossil record even shows the stages of feather evolution from simple spikes to down to contour feathers and ultimately to quilled flight feathers. Today we have lots of feathered dinosaur fossils; so many feathered theropod fossils in fact, that most paleontologists now think ALL theropods were probably feathered.

There were dinosaurs with wings that couldn't possibly fly, like 5 foot 40 pound Zhenyuanlong suni. There were a great many almost-birds and not-quite-birds, until about 150 million years ago, birds ultimately took flight. Birds or almost birds like Auronis, Archaeopteryx, Shenzhouraptor, Rahonavis, Yandangornis Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Omnivoropteryx, Confuciusornis and Changchengornis retain some dinosaur-like features such as teeth and long bony tails. Evolution is NOT a linear process. Many of these species lived at the same time, displaying a matrix of characteristics. Evolution is a natural experiment. Some things work and get perpetuated, others may enjoy brief success before extinction.

Any organism that can exploit a new environment or food source has an evolutionary advantage.When birds took to the air it vastly expanded their ability to move through and into new environments and rapid diversification followed. With the demise of the dinosaurs, many environmental niches were opened to mammals and birds and again, rapid diversification followed in both groups.

With so many transitional fossils displaying both bird-like and dinosaur-like features, there is an almost seamless transition from dinosaur to bird (as well as a great number of dead end evolutionary experiments) and it is often difficult to separate the two. Doing so requires statistical analysis of nearly 1000 inherited and derived characteristics.

Lest you think of evolution as being a linear process, feathered non-avian dinosaurs continued to pursue differing evolutionary paths. About 25 million years after the origin of birds saw new
evolutionary experiments in Microraptors, four winged dromeosaurs with pinnaceous flight feathers on both arms and legs that were capable of gliding and possibly powered flight as well. Their fossils indicate that for a while at least, they were quite successful. There are some 300 of these fossil 'experiments' in museum collections around the world.

Coinciding with the demise of the dinosaurs, a great many lineages of birds (excuse me, Avian Dinosaurs) and mammals also perished. However, so many environmental niches were opened to mammals and birds that, again, rapid diversification followed in both groups.

The Theory of Evolution predicted that, IF birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be a progression of derived traits in dinosaurs leading up to the origin of birds and that is exactly what we see. It is not just that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs, they ARE theropod dinosaurs,... AND Amniotes AND Sarcopterygians AND Vertebrates AND Animals AND Eucaryotes, because ones ancestry is never lost.

References:
Hairs, feathers and scales have a lot in common
phys.org/news/2016-06-hairs-feathers-scales-lot-common.html

Differences in feathers shed light on evolution of flight
phys.org/news/2015-02-differences-feathers-evolution-flight.html

Using modern genomics to turn alligator scales into birdlike feathers
phys.org /news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html

A new Jurassic theropod from China documents a transitional step in the macrostructure of feathers
The Science of Nature October 2017, 104:74
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-1496-y

A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales
science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/451

New study suggests that any kind of dinosaur could have feathers, not just birds
washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-study-suggests-that-any-kind-of-dinosaur-could-have-feathers-not-just-birds/2014/07/24/

Thor Hanson s Feathers: The Evolution of a Natural Miracle
blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/thor-hanson-feathers-review/

Feathers, Hair, Scales Evolved from One Ancestor
seeker.com/feathers-hair-scales-evolved-from-one-ancestor-1880586713.html

Fossils reveal how ancient birds got their beaks Science 04 May 2018 DOI: 10.1126/science.360.6388.477

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Vestigial Human Traits Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives.

In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn't do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent nictitating membrane or "third eyelid" that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.

You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertcally and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.

Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.

That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent. At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth.

In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother's fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child's weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.

We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them.

Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are more than 13,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry.

They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

Evidence διαβάζω κι Evidence δεν βλέπω ...

Αν το επιχείρημα είναι ότι "επειδή δεν χρησιμοποιείς τους μύες στα αφτιά σου, άρα προέρχεσαι από τον προπίθηκο", αυτό είναι κάτι που με ξεπερνά.


Κάποιοι μπερδεύουν εκούσια ή ακούσια την απόδειξη με την ένδειξη.

stavmanr έγραψε: 09 Απρ 2019, 19:29 Evidence διαβάζω κι Evidence δεν βλέπω ...

Αν το επιχείρημα είναι ότι "επειδή δεν χρησιμοποιείς τους μύες στα αφτιά σου, άρα προέρχεσαι από τον προπίθηκο", αυτό είναι κάτι που με ξεπερνά.


Κάποιοι μπερδεύουν εκούσια ή ακούσια την απόδειξη με την ένδειξη.

They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

OrderAndChaos έγραψε: 09 Απρ 2019, 14:06
μια σειρά απο ξενόγλωσσα κείμενα σχετικά με την εξέλιξη

Όσα ξενόγλωσσα κείμενα και να παρουσιάσεις φίλε OrderAndChaos σχετικά με την εξέλιξη, είναι χαμένος κόπος.
Διότι η θεωρία της εξέλιξης, καθώς ήταν ετοιμοθάνατη,
από εδώ: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4455&start=1230#p574396
και μετά, διαπιστώθηκε ο θάνατός της.

Vassilis_1 έγραψε: 10 Απρ 2019, 13:20

OrderAndChaos έγραψε: 09 Απρ 2019, 14:06
μια σειρά απο ξενόγλωσσα κείμενα σχετικά με την εξέλιξη

Όσα ξενόγλωσσα κείμενα και να παρουσιάσεις φίλε OrderAndChaos σχετικά με την εξέλιξη, είναι χαμένος κόπος.
Διότι η θεωρία της εξέλιξης, καθώς ήταν ετοιμοθάνατη,
από εδώ: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4455&start=1230#p574396
και μετά, διαπιστώθηκε ο θάνατός της.

Και συ, όσες φορές και αν ποστάρεις τους διανοητικούς αυνανισμούς σου (που δεν διαβαζει κανένας) δεν αλλάζει τίποτα. Για την εξέλιξη υπάρχουν κάποιες σοβαρές ενδείξεις και είναι η μόνη θεωρία που εξηγεί την βιοποικιλότητα και την καταγωγη των ειδών. Αντίθετα, η δική σου κοσμοθεωρία είναι αυτό που ήταν πάντα: αρχαία θρησκευτικά ψέματα , χωρίς καμία επαλήθευση ή χρησιμότητα για την ανθρωπότητα. Σκουπίδια δηλαδη.

Vassilis_1 έγραψε: 08 Μαρ 2019, 13:27
Υπάρχει ένα στοιχείο, μέσα από το οποίο, το παράγωγο του αποκεκομμένου
από την Επιστήμη «πανεπιστήμιου»: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=54&start=330#p375264
= η «επιστήμη», ομολογεί το: ΔΕΝ ΞΕΡΩ ΝΑ ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΩ

Ας εμφανισθεί αυτό το στοιχείο.

Εδώ: http://www.physicsmag.com/2015/11/to-bi ... -pote.html
υποστηρίζει το εξής:

Κβαντική εξίσωση επιτρέπει σύμπαν άπειρης ηλικίας

Η «επιστήμη» στην προσπάθειά της να προσδιορίσει την ηλικία του σύμπαντος εξέφραζε ποικιλία
χρονολογικών ασυναρτησιών: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4455&p=463593#p463593

Αν η «επιστήμη» είχε σε απόλυτη εκτίμηση τα είδη χρονομέτρησης που χρησιμοποιούσε, δια των οποίων π.χ. αποφάνθηκε ότι η ηλικία του σύμπαντος είναι 8 δισεκατομμύρια χρόνια, ΣΕ ΚΑΜΙΑ ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΗ ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΖΕ ΤΟ ΕΝΔΕΧΟΜΕΝΟ ΟΤΙ Η ΗΛΙΚΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΠΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΕΙΡΗ.

Η «επιστήμη», λόγω των χρονολογικών ασυναρτησιών που εξέφραζε, ως ήταν φυσικό αυτοπαγιδεύθηκε, με συνέπεια να αναγκασθεί τελικά να παραδεχθεί ότι δεν ξέρει να χρονολογεί, καθώς αναγνώρισε ότι ΟΛΑ τα είδη χρονομέτρησης που χρησιμοποιούσε είναι εντελώς άχρηστα.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι η ίδια η «επιστήμη» πέταξε στον κάλαθο των αχρήστων τις θεωρίες της, περί παρέλευσης εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων ετών.

Επίσης σημαίνει ότι η ίδια η «επιστήμη» πέταξε στον κάλαθο των αχρήστων και τις θεωρίες της, περί Big Bang, εξέλιξης και δεινόσαυρων, μιάς και τις συνδύαζε με την παρέλευση εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων ετών.

OrderAndChaos έγραψε: 07 Μαρ 2019, 20:41
Ζήτησα απο έναν φίλο μου βιολόγο (και υποστηρικτή της εξέλιξης) να μου δώσει κάποιες άμεσες αποδείξεις για την θεωρία.

Όπως αντιλαμβάνεσαι φίλε OrderAndChaos, για να μιλάμε για αποδείξεις σχετικά τη θεωρία της εξέλιξης που σκαρφίστηκε η «επιστήμη», η οποία σε κατευθύνει, πρέπει να αποδειχθεί πρώτα το αν ξέρει να χρονολογεί.

Για να αποδειχθεί ότι το παράγωγο του αποκεκομμένου από την Επιστήμη «πανεπιστήμιου» = η «επιστήμη» ξέρει να χρονολογεί, πρέπει να αμφισβητηθεί με επιχειρήματα η ακόλουθη, η επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένη τοποθέτηση:

Αν η «επιστήμη» είχε σε απόλυτη εκτίμηση τα είδη χρονομέτρησης που χρησιμοποιούσε, δια των οποίων π.χ. αποφάνθηκε ότι η ηλικία του σύμπαντος είναι 8 δισεκατομμύρια χρόνια, ΣΕ ΚΑΜΙΑ ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΗ ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΖΕ ΤΟ ΕΝΔΕΧΟΜΕΝΟ ΟΤΙ Η ΗΛΙΚΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΠΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΕΙΡΗ.

Λοιπόν φίλε OrderAndChaos, ζήτησε σε παρακαλώ από το φίλο σου το βιολόγο αν μπορεί να αναπτύξει κάποια επιχειρηματολογία, ώστε να αποδείξει ότι δεν έχει βάση η επάνω, η επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένη τοποθέτηση.

Θα κάνουμε όμως καλή συμφωνία.

Αν δεν καταφέρει να αναπτύξει κάποια επιχειρηματολογία, θα σημαίνει ότι βάζει και ο φίλος σου ο βιολόγος την υπογραφή του, στα κάτωθι επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένα συμπεράσματα:

Η «επιστήμη», λόγω των χρονολογικών ασυναρτησιών που εξέφραζε, ως ήταν φυσικό αυτοπαγιδεύθηκε, με συνέπεια να αναγκασθεί τελικά να παραδεχθεί ότι δεν ξέρει να χρονολογεί, καθώς αναγνώρισε ότι ΟΛΑ τα είδη χρονομέτρησης που χρησιμοποιούσε είναι εντελώς άχρηστα.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι η ίδια η «επιστήμη» πέταξε στον κάλαθο των αχρήστων τις θεωρίες της, περί παρέλευσης εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων ετών.

Επίσης σημαίνει ότι το ίδιο το παράγωγο του αποκεκομμένου από την Επιστήμη «πανεπιστήμιου» = η «επιστήμη» πέταξε στον κάλαθο των αχρήστων και τις θεωρίες της, περί Big Bang, εξέλιξης και δεινόσαυρων, μιάς και τις συνδύαζε με την παρέλευση εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων ετών.

Επόμενο είναι ότι ο φίλος σου ο βιολόγος βάζει την υπογραφή του και στο αποδεικτικό συμπέρασμα της Επιστήμης,
δια του οποίου η Επιστήμη απέρριψε τη θεωρία της εξέλιξης, καθώς και τις άλλες θεωρίες,
περί Big Bang και παρέλευσης εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων ετών: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4455&start=405#p368080

OrderAndChaos έγραψε: 10 Απρ 2019, 14:56
Για την εξέλιξη

Για την εξέλιξη φίλε OrderAndChaos, προκλήθηκες εσύ και ο φίλος σου ο βιολόγος, ώστε να αποδείξετε ότι έχει κάποια ισχύ, και ως είναι φυσικό δεν τα καταφέρατε.

Οπότε, όπως είναι αυτονόητο, ισχύουν όλες οι επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένες αναφορές που εμπεριέχονται στην παράθεση.

Vassilis_1 έγραψε: 10 Απρ 2019, 17:04 .....

Μπούρδες ταλιμπανιστικές!

Καθυστερημένος θα ήμουν φίλε Nandros, αν υποστήριζα το εξελικτικό παραμύθι,
καθώς και όλα τα «επιστημονικά» κοσμογονικά παραμύθια: http://www.acrobase.eu/showpost.php?p=8 ... ostcount=2
Τα οποία ως ήταν φυσικό δεν άντεξαν σε σοβαρή εξέταση,
με συνέπεια να απορριφθούν από την Επιστήμη: http://www.acrobase.eu/showpost.php?p=8 ... ostcount=3

https://www.reader.gr/news/tehnologia/2 ... filippines


Δεκατρία απολιθωμένα οστά και δόντια που ανακαλύφθηκαν σε σπήλαιο στις Φιλιππίνες ανήκουν σε ένα άγνωστο μέχρι σήμερα είδος ανθρώπου, που πιθανότατα ήταν μικρόσωμος αλλά παρουσίαζε μια απρόσμενη μίξη αρχαϊκών και σύγχρονων χαρακτηριστικών.
Τα λείψανα τουλάχιστον τριών ατόμων αυτού του είδους, που ονομάστηκε Homo luzonensis βρέθηκαν στο Σπήλαιο Καλάο, στο βόρειο τμήμα του νησιού Λουζόν.

Ο Homo luzonensis δεν είναι άμεσος πρόγονος του σύγχρονου ανθρώπου. Ζούσε όμως την ίδια περίοδο με τον Χόμπιτ αλλά και με τον Homo sapiens, υποείδος του οποίου είναι ο άνθρωπος. Ο Homo sapiens εμφανίστηκε στην Αφρική πριν από περίπου 300.000 χρόνια.