View Full Version : From their own words : Living fossils contradicts Evolutiontheory once again


Afghanistan2010
10-23-2011, 06:42 AM
Asalam alykum warahmatullahi wabaraktuh,

All praise due to Allah and his alone to be worshipped there is no God beside him and peace and blessing of Allah upon our master and the slave of Allah Muhammad,may Allahs mercy be upon his companions and his family.May Allah guide us and strenghten us in our believe and weaken the ranks of our enemies.

"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful"

Allah says in Surah Fath :

(1) Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest.

(2) That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.

(3)And [that] Allah may aid you with a mighty victory.

(4)It is He who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their [present] faith. And to Allah belong the soldiers of the heavens and the earth, and ever is Allah Knowing and Wise.



After that (ama ba'ad),

it is a new article by the Discover Magazine regarding socalled Living fossils that survived "Evolution" unchanged.

Read for yourself,and lets discuss !:hmm:







“Living fossil” cycad plants are actually evolution’s comeback kings (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/20/%e2%80%9cliving-fossil%e2%80%9d-cycad-plants-are-actually-evolution%e2%80%99s-comeback-kings/)




“Living fossil” cycad plants are actually evolution’s comeback kings (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/20/%e2%80%9cliving-fossil%e2%80%9d-cycad-plants-are-actually-evolution%e2%80%99s-comeback-kings/)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2011/10/Cycad.gif (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2011/10/Cycad.gif)“Living fossils (http://www.lucasbrouwers.nl/blog/2010/06/living-fossils-dont-exist/)” abound in popular science writing. The phrase refers to modern species that are uncannily similar to extinct ones. Their bodies seem to have gone unchanged over millions of years, as if evolution took its foot off the pedal and allowed them to coast. These species are painted as either relics desperately clinging onto existence, or great survivors triumphing against the odds. They range from the famous coelacanth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth), to the horseshoe crab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe%20crab), to a new eel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14547942) discovered just months ago.
But one classic example – a group of plants called the cycads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad) – shows just how slippery the concept of the “living fossil” can be.
Cycads (http://www.kew.org/plants/cycads/index.html) look superficially like palm trees, but they belong to a very different group. They first appeared on the planet around 280 million years ago, but they really hit their stride in the Jurassic and Cretaceous period, between 200 and 65 million years ago. But their time would soon be over. Out-competed by flowering plants, and suffering from the decline of their dinosaur polliantors, the cycads started to disappear.
Today, the cycads are a mere shadow of their former glory. There are just 300 species, commonly thought to have endured since their heyday in the dinosaur era. But Nathalie Nagalingum (http://www.huh.harvard.edu/research/mathews-lab/nsn/) from the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University has found evidence that this narrative is a fiction. The cycads are indeed an ancient group, but the living species aren’t much older than 12 million years. They would never have been nibbled by dinosaur teeth. Living? Yes. Fossils? Hardly.
Naganlingum sequenced a gene called PHYP from 199 living cycads and used it to build a family tree for the group. The tree showed that the modern cycad lineages have “long fuses” – most of them arose during the Cretaceous period. But these major groups only diversified into today’s species during a recent five million year window. The family tree looks like a set of rakes, with long poles representing the deep ancestry of the groups, and several tiny prongs at the end, representing the youth of the individual species. And Naganlingum found the same pattern when she looked at different genes.
Other scientists have used genetic analyses to suggest that modern cycads are evolutionarily young, but they sampled far fewer species than Naganlingum has now done. There were other clues too. Several cycad species have very low genetic diversity, as do the insects that pollinate them, like weevils. As the cycads started branching out into new species, so did the weevils and their genes bear the legacy of these recent radiations.
This perfectly illustrates why the term “living fossil” is so tricky. The term has a rich history: it was coined by Darwin himself, referring to the platypus and the South American lungfish; Richard Dawkins uses it in his books; and working scientists use it in their papers (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22living%20fossil%22). But the term is misleading (http://www.lucasbrouwers.nl/blog/2010/06/living-fossils-dont-exist/). Modern cycads have the appearance of being ancient, but they’re recent arrivals. They retain the basic shape and form of their long-extinct ancestors, but they weren’t around at the same time.
In fact, the cycads aren’t so much living fossils as comeback kings. Greatly diminished from their Cretaceous prime, they enjoyed a second bout of expansion around 12 million years ago. They did so simultaneously across four continents – Australia, Africa, Asia and central America – as if they were racing to a common starting pistol. Naganlingum thinks that they were responding to a changing climate.
Whatever the cause, the cycad comeback was short-lived. No new species have emerged in the last two million years and two thirds of the group are now endangered. It would be wrong to call them living fossils because the “fossils” bit is wrong. Soon, the “living” part may be inaccurate too.
Reference: Nagalingum, Marshall, Quental, Rai, Little & Mathews. 2011. Recent Synchronous Radiation of a Living Fossil. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1209926 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1209926)
More on cycads: Ancient plants manipulate insects for hot, smelly sex (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/20/2009/09/24/ancient-plants-manipulate-insects-for-hot-smelly-sex/)

ScimitarXEdge
10-23-2011, 01:22 PM
how exactly does this defeat evolution?

ScimitarXEdge
10-23-2011, 01:25 PM
ah I see .......you failed to understand that the current theory of evolution is based on Natural Selection.


alright guys ...this is just Pakistan2010's hot air ......much ado about nothing.


Pakistan2010 ..... I thought you're a student of chemistry? You don't know about equilibriums and homeostasis?

Afghanistan2010
10-23-2011, 04:47 PM
Today i saw one of Episode of Bear Grylls he was eating one of these big giant insects and he said this guy survived the dinosaurs and others.I dont remember the name of the insect.

ScimitarXEdge
10-23-2011, 07:14 PM
Many species of cock roaches have existed for billions of years ....evolution is not some strictly compartmentalized process.....Natural selection determines fitness, the more fit a species is the more it can last even billions of years.

This doesn't refute evolution, it confirms it :)

ozymandias
10-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Many species of cock roaches have existed for billions of years ....evolution is not some strictly compartmentalized process.....Natural selection determines fitness, the more fit a species is the more it can last even billions of years.

This doesn't refute evolution, it confirms it :)

There is that -- and the fact that even if a species *did* become extinct, or evolved, there is nothing to stop something else from evolving to be similar later on. I have a hard time seeing how this disproves evolution -- but rather than start a *NEW* thread regarding the misunderstanding of evidence about evolution, why not just join the existing thread?

http://www.pashtunforums.com/religion-15/why-evolutiontheory-just-theory-not-evidence-21436/index37.html

We can discuss your misunderstandings about this article there.