A skull that rewrites the history of man

The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.

The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia – before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.  Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village
of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.

Have we stopped evolving ?

How a man changed from its inception until today, and how much is able to change the future? Scientists agree that continues to evolve, but as an opportunity to, at least in aesthetic terms, regressing.

150 years ago when Charles Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection, conceived the question is - how the natural tendency to change relates to human.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that man is a creature unique in the living world. While white bears need warm fur that endured arctic cold, man, it takes a little imagination and skill to sew warm clothes or make a boat and go where it is warmer.

Precisely because of this, animals typical for the ability to adapt, scientists have long feared that human adaptation of nature in accordance with their needs over time cease to evolve.

​​It turns out that he, like many other scientists wrong.

Denies him the ability to map the human genome breakthrough in understanding human evolution. So scientists can compare the DNA of thousands of people around the world see how genetically different, and whether and how we evolved.

Some changes dependent on them, such as changing color, are quite obvious. However, our metabolism is also changed so that we can digest that previously did not bring in, change the capacity of thermo regulation, inhabitants of high mountains are accustomed to a lack of oxygen, and evolve in terms of building immunity to some diseases.

Technologies and innovations previously could not stop us in evolution. However, the world of today is so different than a century ago, let alone thousands of years ago. Almost everyone today has a roof over their head and enough food to survive and it is rare that someone kill the tumor before it suffers the reputation of their children. What then can affect natural selection?

Many people today experience to transfer genes, but many choose not to do so. So in the end it turns out that natural selection is the same as before when people in the transmission characteristics of the offspring did not stop the will, but death.

Framing case

So far, it was discovered the changes occurring in an unexpected direction. Height decreases, while the mass increases. In doing so, it is not just that people eat more, but in their genome clearly see the transformation.

Does not exclude the possibility that the direction of evolution varies, so that future weight and height are very different.

It turns out then that will never stop evolving. It is impossible to predict where we will be in future lead. All we can do is to observe changes in the world around us and make projections.

Developing technology, however, we can directly influence the genetics. Already in IVF clinics performing genetic diagnosis of embryos, so that parents make sure their child will have one of the hereditary diseases or disorders.

In the United States can be selected and sex of the child and the plan was that parents can choose eye color and hair offspring, but because of the outcry of religious groups, scientists have abandoned the idea.

It seems that culture and technology such as genetic engineering is changing our world so that our natural selection is not necessary. Evolution will lead to a man.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION

This theory of evolution of life can be classified from different points of view:

• Philosophical and scientific theory
  Every scientific theory has a philosophical substrate. In this case, the philosophical part is the teleological argument and the scientific side is the proposal of certain models to validate the theory using the scientific method.
   
  
• Orthogenetic and teleological theory
  Teleological theory because assigns a finality to evolution, which is to widen the sphere of freedom and as an orthogenetic theory for admitting internal factors. I am aware of this philosophical postulate while formulating the theory, but those characteristics are important, nice and they could be very certain. Nevertheless, from a scientific point of view is irrelevant the teleological argument, if the aim of evolution is to amplify freedom or not.
  
  
• General theory
  This scientific theory of evolution of life, at no time does it disagree with the established theories; quite the contrary, those theories form part of this global theory by way of point 3, as particular cases, as a consequence of different evolutionary conditions.
  In most superior evolutionary processes, genetic modifications are certain to appear due to environmental influences, random elements, trial and error processes, changes already verified and natural and sexual selection will be present, as well as a genetic interchange from progenitors.
  
  
• Simultaneously, continuous theory and scientific revolution
  The GTCEL has a continuous character because its proposals include the ideas of the previous scientific theories of evolution, especially the theories of Lamarck and Mendel's law.
  The new scientific theory implies a scientific revolution because it supposes a qualitative change in the concept of evolution of life and of any vital impulse system.
  
  
• Intuitive and of complex systems theory
  The scientific method propose to validate these proposals is the hypothetic-deductive method or the method of validation of hypotheses. This method is typically use by scientific theories that modify previous theories related to complex systems and the intuition is a big source of their suggestions.
  
  
• Methodological
  For the development of this theory has been used a methodology that may be it is not new, but very consistent with the idea of evolution, especially of those complex systems having a vital impulse.
  
  
• Scientific theory of evolution The purpose of the statistical research on elegant intelligence is to validate the model about the hereditary nature of relational intelligence. The idea is to prove the GTCEL (General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life) through the detection of the existence of the Genetic Information Verification method (GIV).
  The results of the EDI Study - Evolution and Design of Intelligence have been totally satisfactory; not only does it show the hereditary nature of the scores obtained in the human intelligence quotient measurements (IQ) but also that the genetic information with less intellectual potential is the significant one, as the GTCEL states regarding the concept of conditional intelligence.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Multidisciplinary theory
  As any theory of evolution, this one affects a wide range of other disciplines. Furthermore, to validate the theory will be necessary to use the knowledge of various disciplines.
  
  
  • Provisional theory
    Despite the results of the EDI Study, the scientific theory of evolution is provisional until more empirical researches confirm it. An important thing is to remark that Darwin's theory of natural selection was never proven and it has been updated along the time to avoid inconsistencies.

Science is a methodology

Science is defined by the methods used, not by what is being studied. It is the method that differentiates science from other human endeavours and gives it authority. This method involves making observations and asking scientific questions. A scientific question is one that can be answered by experiment. 

The 'scientist' comes up with an answer, called a hypothesis. This hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be considered scientific. This means that there has to be a way to disprove it via repeatable experiment, if it isn't true. If such experiments continually fail to disprove the hypothesis, it will eventually become accepted as a scientific theory. When people stop arguing about it, it becomes a scientific law. All hypotheses, theories and laws could still be disproved and most probably will be, especially in physics. 

Some fields of study lend themselves to the scientific method more than others. I can think of two reasons for this. One is that the scientific method applies very high standards which some fields of study could not meet. The other is that by it's nature, science only deals with the nature of things as they are now. It does not deal with questions of history because questions of history do not lend themselves to repeatable experiment. 

If an experiment can only be carried out once, or a thousand times, or a million times, then it is not scientific. For it to be scientific it must be possible for any future researcher to repeat the experiment and obtain the same result (provided the nature of the universe hasn't changed of course). This does not diminish the value of history (or art, or law) as a field of study, as they each have and continue to yield valuable insights into us and our environment. 

If someone makes an observation, comes up with an hypothesis, then makes more observations to check whether it agrees with the hypothesis, and continues making such observations indefinitely, that is not science. Historians can get away with that method.

That is how most knowledge and understanding of the world arose prior to the emergence and institutionalisation of the modern scientific method. But it isn't scientific. The power of science, it's authority, it's contribution to and influence over modern society is derived from the power of the scientific method. The scientific method is actually the slowest in acquiring new information or understanding, at least in the short term. That is why science is boring in practice. But it is also the surest method, which is why the combined efforts of so many scientists can combine into so much academic progress. 

Nearly all fields of study employ the scientific method at least some of the time. Auto mechanics use it to solve difficult problems with multiple potential explanations. No fields of study employ the scientific method exclusively. For example, there was a lot of progress made in chemistry before the modern scientific method arose. People figured out how to make explosives by making observations, stumbling across discoveries and tinkering – this was an evolutionary process, not a scientific one. 

An experiment must have a single controlled variable – the one changed by the experimenter, and a measured variable. This is why so much biology has difficulty with science – because of the ethical and logistical difficulties in carrying out such an experiment. 

Much of biology (especially the parts relevant to natural resource management) relies on 'natural experiments,' however their scientific value is diminished because of all the uncontrolled confounding variables. Psychologists and doctors also have to be careful with controlling all variables, as the observer can influence the outcome. That is why they use double blind experiments.

Evolution has no predictive value

The theory of evolution has never successfully predicted anything. Its success as a theory is attributable to its adaptability and its appeal to the wider public. That is why it has survived despite its failure as a predictive tool. Evolutionists will often argue that the theory has predictive value. 

They will come up with some predictions and 'hey presto!' our observations match those predictions. What they don't tell you is that the observations actually came first, then they thought up a way to explain those observations in evolutionary terms. Those explanations turned into predictions, but they can only predict the observations they were invented to explain. 

There was of course one prediction made using the theory of evolution. It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species. The fossil record contradicted this prediction. The fossil record actually shows that species tend to remain the same for very long periods of geological time, then undergo a burst of rapid change (none of which is caught in the fossil record) then emerge as a completely different species. 

Being so adaptable, the theory of evolution was simply changed to match this observation. Thus, the current version of the theory of evolution can be successfully used to 'predict' trends in the fossil record. The theory of evolution does not predict how well species should be adapted to their environment. 

Depending on how fast evolution occurs, how fast the environment changes, and how old the earth and life on it is, the theory could predict that all species will be perfectly adapted to their environment, or that our current lot of species are barely adapted at all and would go through tremendous, mind boggling transformations if only we could keep everything constant long enough for them to adapt. Or anything in between. Thus, no matter what we discover, the theory of evolution can be adapted to explain it.

Evolution is not a scientific theory

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific. The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws.

The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true. Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. 

The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory. 

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.

Scientists rule out metabolism first theory

A new study has rejected the long-held theory that the origin of life stems from a system of self-catalytic molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without the need of RNA, DNA and their replication.

The research, led by Mauro Santos of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, has demonstrated through the analysis of what some researchers name "compound genomes", these chemical networks cannot be considered evolutionary units as they lose properties which are essential for evolution when they reach a critical size and greater level of complexity.

The scientific theories on the origin of life revolve around two main ideas: one focuses on genetics -- with RNA or DNA replication as an essential condition for Darwinian evolution to take place -- and the other on metabolism.

It is clear that both situations must have begun with simple organic molecules formed by prebiotic processes.

The point in which these two theories differ is that the replication of RNA or DNA molecules is a far too complex process which requires a correct combination of monomers within the polymers to produce a molecular chain resulting from the replication, say scientists.

Until now no plausible chemical explanation exists for how these processes occurred. In addition, defenders of the second theory argue that the processes needed for evolution to take place depend on primordial metabolism.

The researchers in this study nevertheless reveal that these systems are incapable of undergoing a Darwinian evolution. For the first time a rigorous analysis was carried out to study the supposed evolution of these molecular networks using a combination of numerical and analytical simulations and network analysis approximations.

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.

 

 

The researchers concluded this fundamental limitation of "compound genomes" should lead to caution towards theories that set metabolism first as the origin as life, even though former metabolic systems could have offered a stable habitat in which primitive polymers such as RNA could have evolved.

They say that different prebiotic Earth scenarios can be considered. However, the basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).