• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Indian education minister dismisses theory of evolution because no-one 'ever saw an a

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
OP
V

V.Balasubramani

Guest

prasad1

Active member
Evidence of Evolution

Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossilsenable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
 

prasad1

Active member
Genetic Evidence

DNA

Through news accounts and crime stories, we’re all familiar with the fact that the DNA in our cells reflects each individual’s unique identity and how closely related we are to one another. The same is true for the relationships among organisms. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that makes up an organism’s genome in the nucleus of every cell. It consists of genes, which are the molecularcodes for proteins – the building blocks of our tissues and their functions. It also consists of the molecular codes that regulate the output of genes – that is, the timing and degree of protein-making. DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains.

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.


While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average –
study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, andhumans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.


No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.


http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics


Of course, there are Flat earth believers even today. You can not convince them.
It will be a waste of time.
 
Last edited:

prasad1

Active member
[h=1]Five Proofs of Evolution[/h]
In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution.
by Richard Peacock


1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution


You Can Lead a Camel to Water, But You Can't Make Him Drink



 
OP
OP
V

V.Balasubramani

Guest
There are 19,400 results to counter the topic.... want to read all.....???
[h=1]9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False[/h]
Charles+Darwin+was+wrong+eye+quote.jpg


Darwin's complete quote can be found
here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.


Read more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html
 

prasad1

Active member
I thought that I had become immune to stupefying and jaw-dropping statements from our BJP leaders after Mr. Modi's assertion that Lord Ganesha is the finest example of organ transplant from Vedic times, Mr. Piyush Goel's claim at Davos last year that unemployment in India is a positive development because it indicates that entrepreneurship is picking up, the Rajasthan Education Minister's revelation that the Mughals were actually defeated at Haldighati, Yogi Adithyanath's declaration that the Taj Mahal does not reflect the culture of India, the discovery by an RSS seer that cowdung slapped on a smartphone stops radiation, Mr. Modi's claim that malnutrition in Gujarat was the result of girls dieting in order to get good figures, Mr. Sangeet Som's re-writing of history by revealing that Shah Jahan had built the Taj Mahal to imprison his father in it, Sakshi Maharaj's advice that the only way to protect Hinduism was by ensuring that every Hindu woman had at least four children. Maybe one day all these pearls would be compiled in a textbook for the benefit of all the piglets in the gradually emerging animal farm that was once a proud country. But wait- this stream of drivel has not yet dried up, as Mr. Satyapal Singh has just established.

Mr. Singh is a junior Minister in the Human Resources Ministry and is an ex-IPS officer ( I specifically mention this latter bit because it gives a clue as to how the telomeres in his brain function). Last week he went on record to state that Darwin's theory of evolution was zilch because none of his (the Minister's) ancestors ever saw an ape turning into a man, and all text books should be corrected to delete any mention of this theory. Mr. Singh is a fascinating study of the Indian, particularly the BJP, politician: the moment they get elected they become instant experts on all subjects. Normally, their deep knowledge of things they have no clue about would provide us much needed amusement as we stand in various queues, but matters become a bit worrying when a Minister of Education seeks to fashion text books in his own ignorant image.

Mr. Singh, sir, the ape did not turn into man in the manner of Clarke Kent turning into Superman in thirty seconds. Actually, it took millions of years- about six million years, to be precise- and progressed through various sub-species of hominids, including the Florensiensis and the Neanderthalensis, before arriving at your respected ancestors, Homosapiens ( incidentally, sir, before you take off on another ill-informed tirade, the Homo in Homosapiens has got nothing to do with homosexuality.) And no one in your family witnessed the "event" because they were all probably too busy leaping from branch to branch in search of breakfast since there were no subsidised Parliament canteens back then. And, presumably, Mr. Singh also believes that the dinosaurs never existed because his ancestors did not see them too. Actually, to be fair to the honourable Minister, his breath-taking view of palaeontology can be traced to his training as a police officer. For our men in khaki ( the RSS no longer wears khaki) seeing is believing and they must have an eye witness for everything- that is why most of their time is spent in " locating" eye witnesses rather than solving the crime. Hence Mr. Singh's insistence that if no one saw an ape turn into a man then Darwinism has to be trashed, especially as it would be difficult- even for our Indian police- to find a witness to an event that occurred millions of years ago. But the Minister has a good opportunity to validate his theory in reverse- whether man can turn into an ape- since it appears to be happening all around us these days with great evolutionary vigour.


Read more at: http://www.sify.com/news/holy-cows-and-loose-cannons-news-columns-sccmi3gjffbhb.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks