Evolution

-Intelligent Design - Religious explanation stating that a higher power made life.

-Abiogenesis (a-, not + bios, life + -genesis, creation) - Not to be confused with evolution. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life by finding a way that inanimate matter could lead to the first simple life. Abiogenesis and evolution typically go hand-in-hand but do not require each other. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis has not yet been demonstrated.

Panspermia is a hypothesis suggested by a couple of astronomers. It is not widely accepted by either biologists or astronomers, or for that matter even exobiologists. But it suggests life originated somewhere out in space, perhaps on the surface of another planet, and somehow crossed the interstellar depths and just happened to fall to earth without incinerating in our atmosphere or being destroyed by the shock of impact.

A fourth hypothesis, since we need four, is the RNA world. It suggests a self replicating RNA molecule coated the world before DNA evolved and dominated. There are many variations of this hypothesis.

The greatest biodiversity is found in tropical rainforests of the humid tropics, and in coral reefs in the ocean. These ecosystems each occupy a small proportion of the terrestrial and marine realms but each contains over half the species of those realms.

On a broader scale biodiversity globally is high in the Tropical World

of the humid tropics and in the extremely infertile Unenriched World

of the ancient arid landmasses of Australia and Southern Africa. Biodiversity is much lower in the geologically young and cool Enriched World

which basically corresponds to the extratropical northern and western hemispheres, plus New Zealand (which can very easily be thought of as part of the western hemisphere though it is on the other side of the International Date Line).

Although it is popularly though that high biodiversity relates to the more “benign” and less demanding environment in hot climates, recent research by Michael Huston of the University of Texas in “Biological diversity, soils, and economics” and “Precipitation, soils, NPP, and biodiversity: resurrection of Albrecht's curve”, Australian ecologist Tim Flannery in The Future Eaters

plus Jason Weir and Dolph Schluter in “The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals” show that these are misconceptions.

Flannery and Huston both demonstrate that owing to the roughly four orders of magnitude greater age of their soils (except in the volcanic regions of the Pacific Rim), the productivity of the Tropical and Unenriched Worlds is very much less than those of the Enriched World of the extratropical northern and western hemispheres. Weir and Schluter show that speciation rates are much lower in the Tropical World than in the depauperate fauna of the Enriched. One would presume that with their extreme geological stability the Unenriched World of Australia and Southern Africa would have still lower speciation rates than the humid tropics

. This is especially true when one considers that many birds and mammals in Australia and Southern Africa require so much labour for reproduction that most adults must serve as “helpers at the nest” rather than reproduce on their own, which acts as an extremely severe limiter on potential dispersal.

All these indicators point to the higher diversity of the Tropical and Unenriched Worlds as being due to reduced interspecific competition

compared to the young and highly productive Enriched World. Soils of an infertility universal in all of the Unenriched and most of the Tropical World are exceedingly rare in the Enriched World - occurring only in a few areas of exceptionally nutrient-poor parent materials

like ultrabasic rocks (serpentines, peridotites) - and then only outside of glaciation limits within which intrazonal parent materials are converted to highly fertile zonal soils. (In this context, it’s notable that the most northerly major biodiversity hotspot in the Klamath Basin is one of the major occurrences of serpentines in the world, as is the very rich tropical hotspot of New Caledonia).

In the Tropical and Unenriched World resources are so scarce in unfertilised environments that co-operation rather than competition tends to be the rule to allow plants to obtain the minimal nutrition possible on these soils. The absence of competition reduces extinction rates to a fraction of the level observed throughout the Enriched World: in essence, the creation of biodiversity occurs in the Enriched World, but it is rapidly pooled into reservoirs in the Tropical World, and the Unenriched retains older species (marsupials, mousebirds) dating from periods when its ecological conditions were globally general.

The Wedge Document was a secret internal document of the Discovery Institute. When it was leaked and subsequently published on the internet, the Institute at first denied its existence, but has since confirmed its existence and the reliability of the published copies.

The document states "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." There is a five-year strategic plan (1999-2003), the Summary of which begins, "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."

The five-year goals, to be achieved by the year 2003 were:

• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

There are also twenty-year goals:

• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

The Institute had objectives that by 2003 there would be far-reaching changes to much of the educational, scientific, cultural and religious life of the United States. This includes having significant and regular coverage in national media, ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities and two universities where "design theory" had become the dominant view, as well as "Intelligent Design" becoming a key concept in the social sciences.

Contrary to popular belief, evolution does not follow a single path. It is more like a tree branching off in different directions. For example, the pterodactyl and modern birds both have a common ancestor in the archaeopteryx. Whereas each came from a pteranodon, they both evolved into different niches in the environment and thus developed differently.

The Evolution Viewpoint:

Basically, that argument was settled somewhere between 150 and 100 years ago. From that time on, we had enough understanding of the processes of life, of reproductive variation and inheritance, to state with reasonable confidence that modern lifeforms emerged from earlier forms, that they share common ancestors in a pattern of nested hierarchies, that one of the primary mechanisms driving this change is natural selection, and that the biblical creation myth is just that: a myth.

Of course not all humans are equipped with this understanding; many, through their own choice or through chance, are never sufficiently acquainted with the principles and facts involved to see for themselves why evolutionary theory is now as much proven as any scientific theory ever will be. But mankind as a whole now knows where it came from, and that's the thing.

And never will these two view points be the same. One is science and one is religion. Galileo was imprisoned for his view point that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. All his writings were taken from him and he was not permitted to communicate again. That is how religion wants to handle what doesn't fit their beliefs. They will not see any other view point.

Science does know now and will not need to wait until the "end of times" called the Big Rip by science.

Biblical Viewpoint :

The controversy will be settled when Jesus Christ returns to earth to establish His Kingdom here. When the surviving remnants of the nations of the earth's nations that come out of the prophesied Great Tribulation [Matt.24:21-22] SEE HIM standing on the earth [verses 30-31 & Zech.14:4]... then:

"IN THAT DAY the LORD will make Himself known to the Egyptians... For the Egyptians will turn to the LORD, and He will listen to their pleas and heal them... The Egyptians and Assyrians will move freely between their lands, and they will worship the same God. And Israel will be their ally. The three will be together, and Israel will be a blessing to them. For the LORD Almighty will say, 'Blessed be Egypt, My people. Blessed be Assyria, the land I have made. Blessed be Israel, My special possession!'" (Isa.19:21-25 NLT New Living Translation)

When all men SEE Christ in person approaching earth with His angelic army, all of their foolish arguments [the evolution/creation controversy, included] will dissolve into "belief," "understanding"... and DREAD... when the god of this world, Satan, the god of deception and lies, is removed from influencing the nations and from blinding the spirits of men.

"...there will be deep mourning among ALL THE NATIONS of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with Power and Great Glory." (Matt. 24:30 NLT)

And it won't happen a moment before.

Additional Comments:

Ironically, it seems the more science discovers, especially in genetics/DNA the more it becomes apparent that a 'grand design' from a Creator or Lawmaker is at work. The conclusions from mitochondrial DNA (female part) or mtDNA limits the descent of mankind to between 135,000 and less than 100,000 years. Our best dating method used for organic material is Carbon-14 dating which is limited to maximum accuracies of up to 25,000 - 30,000 years with older dating more guesswork than science. Quite a damper to millions of years for us to evolve - slowly changing via the 'fittest' within species (note: the human infant is the most vulnerable and least fit to survive). Indeed, astronomy, geology, archaeology and many more disciplines are supporting the words of the Scripture. Time will tell, however, and the thing to remember is that it is the interpretations of Scripture by various people - bettern known as religion - that has been misleading and even wrong in the past. The biblical teachings, letting the Scripture interpret itself as revealed to mankind, has not.

Aquatic humans never existed, therefore, they never left the water.

Aquatic Humans and Humans are the same thing. There are a wide range of physiological traits in human beings that can be explained by an evolutionary period in human existence that involved a partial, complete and then semi-aquatic phase in human prehistory.

These features include:

Hairlessness

Streamlined body

Reduced sense of smell

Subcutaneous body fat

Bipedalism

Diving reflex

Exostoses

The Nose

Downward facing nostrils

Philtrum

Breath control

Speech

Salt Tears

Eccrine sweat skin glands

Large Sebaceous glands

Hymen

New-born swim ability

Webbed fingers and toes

Lunar Menstruation cycle

Lowest blood cell count of the apes

Highest haemoglobin per cell of the apes

Seafood diet bias

Humans are the only terrestrial animals that can voluntarily hold their breath at will.

The ability to hold and control breath is necessary for complex speech. This ability would, of course, also be needed for diving. It is likely that the ability of humans and aquatic mammals to hold their breath was an adaptation meant for diving, and that the development of complex speech was a side effect.

Also, humans have a descended larynx, which other apes do not. This allows us to gulp large amounts of air. Most animals only breathe through the nose, but the descended larynx allows humans to breather through our mouths, which allowed us to take deep breaths "prior to diving" (Watson). The larynx thus allowed early humans to spend longer periods of time underwater than they could have if they were taking shallow breaths through their noses. Complex speech is also dependent on the descended larynx. Other aquatic mammals, such as sea lions, walruses, and manatees have descended larynxes.

There is another similarity between humans and aquatic mammals: the diving reflex, also known as bradycardia, a decrease in heart rate and redistribution of blood to the brain and the organs. This is a natural reaction of humans to being submerged. Other apes do not share this ability, as they obviously have no use for it. "Humans can dive to depths of one hundred meters at the extreme but most humans can certainly dive to ten meters," which no ape would do (Watson). The diving reflex makes swimming and diving practical, and humans have no living ancestors that possess this trait. It must have been acquired at some point after humans split from apes, and this supports the idea that man evolved in an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment.

• The pattern of hair on our backs. Like all mammals, humans are covered with short hair. The hair on our backs lays down and towards the center in a streamlined way that would theoretically facilitate swimming.
• Noses. Compared to all other primates our noses are very long and rigid. Our nostrils point down as opposed to gorillas and chimps whose nostrils are almost flush with the face. This is quite useful when swimming for preventing water from getting into the respiratory system.
• Geological evidence. At around the time that Homo sapiens became a species in their own right, sea levels appear to have been higher than they are now in the areas where human fossil evidence is being found.
• Swimming primates. Most primates cannot swim and do not like water. (If I remember correctly, chimps sink like rocks.) One exception is the Probosis monkey which has been seen wading bipedally in waist-deep water. Probosis monkeys have developed longer legs than many primates, and their proportions appear closer to humans than most other monkeys. Humans, however, love water. Look at the modern world and how cities and vacation spots are arranged. Few seem interested in touring savannahs, but we flock to beaches.

• Voluntary breath control. Primates are physiologically unable to hold their breath. However, humans have developed the ability to regulate their own breathing, a necessity for diving.
• Vocalization. The wide range of sounds we can make is due to the orientation of our larnyx. We share this feature with only a few other animals: the dugong, sea lion, and walrus.

• The sensitivity and dexterity of our hands is perfect for searching for food underwater. Our fingernails are stiff and fast-growing, and therefore ideal for prising open shellfish.
• Our tool-making ability. Pebbles are perfect for opening shellfish, as otters have similarly discovered.
• When swimming, all signalling becomes useless apart from vocal signals. If we developed language for the purpose of hunting on land, it would be more useful to create a sign language; hunting is usually a very quiet activity. Other creatures with a highly developed vocal 'language' include whales and dolphins, not creatures such as wolves.
• Of all similar creatures, the elephant is the most striking. Its evolution is really quite remarkable - it is descended from a small pig-like animal, but then over the ages, grew to be the largest land animal in its era. It is very easy to compare it to another mammal whose size swelled remarkably over the ages: the whale. In water, large mass is not the problem it is on land. Indeed, it is a benefit, as larger creatures lose heat much more slowly.
• Its anscestors also had peculiar tusks. Some had spade-shaped ones, perfect for digging in soft, waterlogged soil, but not much good in the plains.
• The early ancestors of the elephants showed a movement of the nose towards the top of the head. This would have been uncalled for on land, but excellent in the water. Nowadays, of course, they have a trunk. And what use is a trunk? It's inefficient for grass eating (a long neck would be better), and unnecessary for tree browsing. But it makes a pretty good snorkel. Not to mention its use for picking water plants.

Suggestion that Pachyderms all shared a more intense evolutionary period with us and the sea. The Seal, Dugong and Walrus quite obviously going the way of the Dolphin, although there is no reason why time and the environment should not leave them where they are or move them in the direction of the land once more.

The Hippopotamus still living a semi-aquatic existence, whilst a distant relative went all the way and became the Blue Whale, fully aquatic and the largest animal to have ever lived as far as we know.

The Elephant, Tapir (both of whom have trunks [read:Snorkel] which have been shown in prehistoric times to have been moving towards the top of the skull, clearly an advantage in the water) and Rhino also share with the other Pachyderms the hairlessness seen in humans and share numerous other similarities not seen in non-aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals.

Elephants by way of interest also have webbed feet although this has atrophied as in humans. They can also swim for six hours straight and their large size is in anycase probably attributable to a long period of permanent water habitation. Elephants also show the crying response when emotional. Hardly any land creatures cry and hardly any sea creatures don't. They are also highly intelligent and have a complex language which includes Infrasound comunnication.

• subcutaneous body fat, similar to aquatic mammals'
• ability of new-born babies to swim
• diving reflex: our breathing slows down underwater
• hairlessness, except on head, that hair floating for infants to hang on to
• long-chain fatty acids composing the brain easily derived from marine food, not easily from Savannah food
• crying salt tears
• resonant voice
• upright posture, bipedalism
• people with their hips together resemble dugongs in streamlining effect
• webbing between fingers

The Aquatic Ape Theory is at least a reasonable hypothesis, if not a fully acceptable scientific theory. It provides a sensible explanation for why human beings, while genetically similar to apes, possess so many different physical features, and how these physical adaptations could have come into being. Without the Aquatic Ape Theory, it is hard to explain the parallels between humans and aquatic mammals. Science, especially evolutionary biology, is a constantly changing field. Nothing is set in stone. The AAT may someday replace the "Savannah theory of human evolution" which most evolutionary biologists now deny they ever supported which is telling, especially since this coincided with the discovery that the whole basis for the so-called "Savannah theory" was incorrect and the environment which produced upright man was wet and wooded.

Perhaps a third theory will arise. At the very least, Elaine Morgan's books have made some scientists rethink what they have been taught about evolution.