how does the dikika baby affect the old theory of man's evolution?

Question

PLEASE!!!!! i really need this to be answered i am very confused thanks...

what and how does this recent discovery explain the development of the origin of man?

Answer 1

This is monumental. Not only does this discovery strengthen our "theory", it provides us with a wealth of new information which I'm sure everyone appreciates as a means to understanding our origins. This in itself is an evolutionary leap; increasing our knowledge base and level of self awareness, that is to say, in "theory".

Answer 2

The heart is effectively a syncytium, a meshwork of cardiac muscle cells interconnected by contiguous cytoplasmic bridges.

The gymnarchus (Nile Knifefish) is a nocturnal fish and
has poor vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnarchus_niloticus

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/451

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/17/5/1761

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16339036

It uses an organ, which is similar to a radar, to
locate the prey it is chasing. For the radar system of
fishes to function properly, the receptors in the skin
that perceive electrical signals should be extremely
sensitive. Indeed, the gymnarchus can 'notice' a change
in the current intensity as small as 0.000 000 000 000
003 ampere. Such sensitivity enables the fish to
distinguish an ordinary gudgeon from bait in whose body
a man has hidden a tiny steel hook angler. It can steer
through very muddy water even at night using its radar.

Do you think that such an engineering marvels could
have come into being through evolution alone?



The fossil record also shows a sudden,
inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of
both simple and complex life-forms. However,
if evolution were true, there would only be a
very gradual increase in both the numbers and
complexity of such organisms.

Regression of species: Since evolution is
supposed to be continual and random, we
should expect the same process that caused
the emergence of humans from apes to also
produce apes from humans. The law of natural
selection would not prevent this from
happening, because apes remain a stable life
form, able to survive current environmental
conditions.

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable
difference of all. Primates have 48
chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly
superior to them in a wide array of areas,
yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This
begs the question of how we could lose two
full chromosomes--which represents a lot of
DNA--in the first place, and in the process
become so much better.

The leading mathematicians in the century met
with some evolutionary biologists and
confronted them with the fact that according
to mathematical statistics, the probabilities
of a cell or a protein molecule coming into
existence were nil. They even constructed a
model of a large computer and tried to figure
out the possibilities of a cell ever
happening. The result was zero possibility! -
Wistar Institute, 1966.

Under normal circumstances, creatures give
birth to the same kind of creatures. It is
established scientific fact that like begets
like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo
is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that
differs in some respect from its parent.
Although a few mutations have been
scientifically observed that are beneficial,
most mutations produce inferior offspring.
For the theory of evolution to be true, there
must be a fantastic number of creative
mutations that produce new kinds of offspring
which are better suited for survival, and
therefore are favored by natural selection.
Mutations are harmful and deadly, not useful
as "evolution" requires. Cancer is an example
of a mutation.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

One of the most basic, fundamental laws of
science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
states that things in nature always tend to
dissolve and breakdown with the passage of
time, not grow more complex which would be
the case if evolution were true.

http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html

Answer 3

At that time would it be incorrect to think that perhaps hominid, mammals and all forms of Eomaía were experimental and not the final order of placental mammals. We are very likely the best and most finite placement of this evolutionary process. That mammals came and went in the large process of perfection is no surprise. What comes after us? The absolute scientific development in laboratories assigned to the further evolution for the survival of the species and the control of factors that make this stage possible are in the approximate order of being of which you and I probably understand even less of than the Dikika Baby found to be a million years of age.

Answer 4

It only strengthens it. What's to be confused about? Perhaps its the ramblings of the Christian extremists who claim it doesn't exist using half baked science?
Even Pope John Paul II admitted evloution existed.

Answer 5

Erm, a theory is an explanation of a fact, it is NOT set in stone!
Theories CAN change.
So what is your question?
and why the confusion?
If new light is shed on a theory, then the old one is mistaken!