A New Evolution Theory.....

well, seems to me there is theory on one side and philosophy on the other.

 

Ayup....and right back to dealing with the massive amount of evidence backing Evolution and the Hypothesis of Transsermia.

It is certainly possible that something alive came down in a meteor during the great bombardment and extremely likely that if it did it did as all forms of life do and changed as it adapted to it's home.

 

Yeah Evolution is now a proven fact and it has obtained a Mathematical Proof upon a Molecular/Atomic Level so it's OVER as far as anyone trying to cast doubt upon it.

AA

 

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Earth was much smaller than it is now as it collided with a Mars sized planetary body and the collision shot up so much material away from the Earth it formed the moon.

Also this superheated the Earth's core and this is why the Earth still has an active protective Elecromagnetic Field which protects the planet from being bombarded my Solar and Cosmic Radiation and Mars which has a core which has cooled to the point it is no longer spinning has lost it's EM Field and that is way Mars has lost it's oceans as if the Earth no longer had an EM Field the radiation would split the water molecules into hydrogen and Oxygen gases via Chemical Reaction and the Earth also would lose it's oceans.

AA

 

As far as I can tell from both the quoted research and other sources, it seems that we now have a variety of compositions on earth (when it comes to humans): full-blood archaic African hominins (aah), aah-Neanderthal hybrids and aah-Denisovan hybrids (where both the percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan influence is under 10%). All three ancestral species (aah, Neanderthan and Denisovan) seem to be direct descendants from Homo Heidelbergensis.

I'm curious to read more about the absence of "animal" dna in aah AND the precense of it in the other two ancestors.

As stated above, all seem to be direct descendants from Homo Heidelbergensis.

How did you deduce this from the quoted (or other) research? And could you define what exactly primate DNA is (compared to human DNA)? Preferrably with sources.

Again, I could find nothing about the absensce and prescence of primate dna in our ancestry. Could you be so kind as to point me in the general direction?

 

That's the magic comet theory.

 

As far as they go Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics seem to be good road maps to explaining evolution. However I'm still unclear as to how some periods of evolution could have been so rapid, for instance how did dinosaur scales evolve into bird feathers with almost no record of this transition. This leads me to be open to a third leg to evolution that has yet to be discovered. Some influence from space? Maybe.

 

How well do scales and feathers fossilize?

Investigate punctuated equilibrium.

Suggestion: Study it via direct sources from Stephen J, Gould and related peer reviewed or academic level sources. Avoid creationist sources - they lie about this topic quite severely.

 

What would that in any way have to do with Evolution?

Abiogenesis perhaps...but NOT Evolution.

I wish these folks could understand how ignorant they come off when confusing these terms....it totally undermines anything they say afterward.

 

You know Evolution is as proven a fact as something can get and a person with a microscope and I know I have said this before and you T know I have.....a person can VISUALLY WATCH IN REAL TIME the evolutionary process occur with a cheap microscope, some prepared glass slides, some sugar water, some bleach, a sample harvester tool and a single afternoon.

A person can VISUALLY SEE THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS OCCUR RIGHT BEFORE THEIR OWN EYES!!!

But do you think any of these BEYOND CRAZY Evolution Deniers actually TRY this experiment??

Oh...NOOOooooOOOOOooooooO!

LOL!!

AA

 

Actually, if a primitive carbon based life form travelled to Earth from another planet embedded in a rock, survived and reproduced, it would have to do both with evolution and abiogenesis. The questions, though, would be focused on that originating planet and not Earth (unless you were investigating evolution subsequent to the panspermian event on Earth).

 

This has its own designation in hypothesis...Panspermia.
pan·sper·mi·a


/panˈspərmēə/


noun

noun: panspermia




the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment.

 

Maybe they're just wrong. Being wrong is not lying. You believe Gould because you choose to.
The links are missing.

 

Perhaps they are wrong. I prefer Gould and others over lying creationist websites when it comes to understanding what the actual scientists (i.e., the ones who do the hard work) have to say about punctuated equilibrium (which is a scientific hypothesis).