Darwin's Theory | True?

Polymath257 said:

Oh, believe me, I *have* read these things. You don't need a PhD to be able to discuss these things, but it is a good thing to know the basics. And what I described *are* the basics. I have been interested in this subject for the last 40 years and have read all sides of this debate. What I have found is that, consistently, the evolution deniers distort what the science actually says, lie about what has been discovered, and deny basic facts that we have found in the last 200 years.

Click to expand...

Well, according to what you just said a simple guys like me would say.. If we follow Darwin's theory shouldn't all creatures that live right now evolve from a single unicellular organism? But before this unicellular organism does Darwin's theory apply then?

Loaai said:

What Darwin Didn't Know About Evolution

How about this, is it recent enough for you to consider?

Click to expand...

It's behind a paywall for me, but it looks like it is recent enough.

And how does that support what you want to say?

Loaai said:

Well, according to what you just said a simple guys like me would say.. If we follow Darwin's theory shouldn't all creatures that live right now evolve from a single unicellular organism? But before this unicellular organism does Darwin's theory apply then?

Click to expand...

Yes, all living things today had a common ancestor that was single celled.

And the basics of evolution: mutation and selection, applied from the first life.

Again, Darwin's ideas have been extended and modified in the last 170 years. You should update your information.

Loaai said:

What Darwin Didn't Know About Evolution

How about this, is it recent enough for you to consider?

Click to expand...

Darwin, like Newton, Clausius, & others, was a scientist who did seminal
work in a field. Brilliant & productive workers though they were, none
ever knew the full picture of the fields they advanced. They weren't
prophets delivering The Truth. So they have only a place in the
history of scientific thought.

Polymath257 said:

Yes, all living things today had a common ancestor that was single celled.

And the basics of evolution: mutation and selection, applied from the first life.

Again, Darwin's ideas have been extended and modified in the last 170 years. You should update your information.

Click to expand...

Single celled creature, how did it originate from the first place? I think you are the one who should reconsider his information. What is your scientific explanation of this single celled creature and it's origin?

Polymath257 said:

It's behind a paywall for me, but it looks like it is recent enough.

And how does that support what you want to say?

Click to expand...

Cheapskate!
(I'm bragging about my subscription.
Yeah, I'm live'n large, bruderherz.)

Loaai said:

Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.

Click to expand...

You're still demonstrating a lack of understanding of science.

Loaai said:

Single celled creature, how did it originate from the first place? I think you are the one who should reconsider his information. What is your scientific explanation of this single celled creature and it's origin?

Click to expand...

We do not know. But we don't have to know to know that biological species change over geologic time and that humans have evolved from other apes.

That said, and as I said before, we know a lot more about the process that lead to the first life than many people think.

To get you started on what is known or speculated, see these videos:

Mock Turtle said:

True. Might like to put that to @Loaai since he appears not to have vanished entirely. Personally, I find that the biggest obstacle, when some will not even do the work necessary to understand what we do know about life in the basic sense when applied across the field of science and then expect their beliefs to hold up against such. Which is really a form of dishonesty, given that most people these days could educate themselves so as to have sufficient knowledge of what science shows us.

Click to expand...

Yes they are being dishonest, but more so dishonest with themselves than with those they are preaching to. They have to play mental gymnastics to convince themselves. Been there, done that, its a horrible mindset to be in.

Revoltingest said:

Darwin, like Newton, Clausius, & others, was a scientist who did seminal
work in a field. Brilliant & productive workers though they were, none
ever knew the full picture of the fields they advanced. They weren't
prophets delivering The Truth. So they have only a place in the
history of scientific thought.

Click to expand...

And this is one of the big differences in the 'religious prophet' mindset and the 'working scientist' mindset.

A great scientist is NOT considered to have revealed the full and final version of the truth, never to be modified.

Instead, great scientists are those that have made great insights that have inspired others to *build* on what they have pointed out. It is *expected* that the ideas of the originators of a subject will be wrong in many details. it is *expected* that those who follow will modify and clarify the ideas of the great scientist. It is acknowledged that the early ideas in any subject are likely to be wrong in many particulars and that scientists are human with human frailties.

In short, the insights of even great scientists are not taken on faith. They are not considered to be the final word. They are *insights* that lead to further advances and further work, often showing many places where the great scientist was wrong.

Darwin was important because he gave a *mechanism* for how evolution could happen. Many people before Darwin noted that species change over time. Darwin simply pointed out that natural selection can explain those changes.

But, Darwin's insight was not complete. Among other things, the science of genetics had not been discovered when Darwin wrote his books. The merging of Darwin's insights with modern genetics started in the 1950's and continues to today.

There are still many aspects that are being debated and investigated: how much of the observed changes are due to natural selection as opposed to, say genetic drift? Do the changes occur 'gradually' or do they happen by periods of stasis and shorter periods of quick change? How do large scale changes happen on the genetic level?

But Darwin's basic point that natural selection is a major mechanism of species change is still valid.

Loaai said:

Since there is a lot of people out there that believe in scientific theories which is good, but actually barely know anything about some specific theories, yesterday I read in details what exactly Darwinism is talking about, and here's my conclusion:

(Charles Robert Darwin) was born in 1809 AD and died in 1882 AD. As the Facilitated International Encyclopedia says: He is an English naturalist who studied medicine in Edinburgh ... and then specialized in natural history, and Darwin wrote in his book (The Origin of Species) 1859 CE. He established his theory and the evidence for it in a wonderful way, as well as his theory of the origin of the coral reefs, which has been accepted by many. Among his other works are: (The Origin of Man and Election in Relation to Sex) in 1871 AD, and (The Diversity of Plants and Animals under Domestication in 1867 AD) ended.

As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.
Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).

Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine": The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.

Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.

Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial, and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.
The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.

This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.

Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring the point that others have made that Darwin has outdated theories? If you actually want to even start the discussion you shouldn't be stuck in the past, but in the present study of evolution and its theory. Darwin had an idea. Over the decades scientists have adapted that idea to the evidence they found, meaning that they confirmed some of his theory and disproven others.

You trying to disproving evolution by disproving Darwin is the equivalent to trying to disprove modern science by disproving alchemy.

Loaai said:

Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.

Click to expand...

And many tests *have* been conducted for evolutionary biology. And those tests have been passed. We *have* seen new species arise. But, of course, given the short time spans, we don't expect large scale changes. A mere 1000 years is far too short of a period of time to see major changes leading to new families, after all.

Loaai said:

read my previous reply please.

Click to expand...

You were just grasping at straws and had no valid criticism.

Do you know what a Gish Gallop is? That occurs when someone posts a long list.of lies and half truths in a failed attempt to refuge some science that person does not like. It is a dishonest debating technique, one that no real Muslim or Christian would use.

Bring up your questions one at a time. We have answers for them.

Loaai said:

Since there is a lot of people out there that believe in scientific theories which is good, but actually barely know anything about some specific theories, yesterday I read in details what exactly Darwinism is talking about, and here's my conclusion:

(Charles Robert Darwin) was born in 1809 AD and died in 1882 AD. As the Facilitated International Encyclopedia says: He is an English naturalist who studied medicine in Edinburgh ... and then specialized in natural history, and Darwin wrote in his book (The Origin of Species) 1859 CE. He established his theory and the evidence for it in a wonderful way, as well as his theory of the origin of the coral reefs, which has been accepted by many. Among his other works are: (The Origin of Man and Election in Relation to Sex) in 1871 AD, and (The Diversity of Plants and Animals under Domestication in 1867 AD) ended.

As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.
Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).

Click to expand...

First of, I like that you start at the beginning. Many others here recommend more modern books, which is good if one is set to believe the information. But to understand a theory, it helps to see how it was constructed.
Maybe you should have gone even farther into the past, about 100 years to Carl Linné who developed the idea of taxonomy and from whom Darwin knew that humans were apes (a fact recognized by almost every naturalist in Darwin's day).
Linné didn't have an explanation for his taxonomy and it was Darwin who found it.

As you describe "survival of the fittest", it is misleading (and you didn't get it from the "Origin of Species"). "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology expressed to dismiss the notion that the "strong" survive. It is those who best "fit" into their environment. Which also dismisses the notion of ascension. Evolution doesn't work towards a goal except that of survival.

Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine"

Click to expand...

I can't find any book of that name and there are too many Dr. Suriels to identify

: The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.

Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.

Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial, and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.

Click to expand...

Of course Darwin had not such overwhelming evidence as we have today. When you keep on going the historical route, you'll find how the evidence piled up. Beginning with Archaeopteryx, a link between theropods and birds that was predicted by the theory and found in Darwin's lifetime.

The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.

Click to expand...

You're conflating mimicry with adaptation.

This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.

Click to expand...

That was the stand in Darwin's time. Not only has the evidence piled up but also the theory has been modified. There were details Darwin got wrong but the theory survived in it's tenets and it is still developing.

Loaai said:

Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.

Click to expand...

That is not true. Yes, many early scientists believed the creation myths, but that does not make them creationists. Creationism was originally a reaction by some scientists against the theory of evolution.

Those scientists failed. Many changed their minds. Now creationists are mostly the scientific illiterate.

And the main claims.of evolution have been tested and confirmed countless times. It is considered a fact because there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for creationism. It is myth. A fairy tale.

Loaai said:

Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.

Click to expand...

Honestly, speaking for myself, and not for other atheists, I think you are wrong about that. I do not think that creationists are illiterate and can't study or learn.

I do, however, think that for reasons of their own, they either do not wish to pursue real study of evolution and the immense amount of science that supports it. This may either be because it's hard work (it is!), or because it opens a door that is too uncomfortable to walk through. Neither makes anyone illiterate or stupid. And many of us close our minds to topics we find too difficult to contemplate.

Loaai said:

As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.

Click to expand...

No, you've got it backwards. Man, as naturally evolved animal, is a necessary conclusion of the theory of natural selection, not its basis.
There is no path to evolution, and certainly no ascendancy. Evolution has no direction. Species may evolve to become more complex, or less.

Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).

Click to expand...

No. Strength and weakness have little to do with it. Natural selection is about adaptation to existing conditions, it's about environmental "fit," not health or vigor fit.
Evolution causes nothing to "ascend." It has no goal or purpose; no hierarchy; no direction, and there are no "higher beings."

Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine": The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.

Click to expand...

I can't find any references to either Dr Suriel or the book. Links, please?

Suriel's quotation is simply wrong. The theory of evolution (ToE), is one of the best evidenced theories in all of science. The tiny handful of "scholars" who oppose it are almost invariably uninformed, religious fanatics, crackpots or have something to gain from their opposition.

Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.

Click to expand...

I can't find Dalas, Migert or Farkho, either. Link, please?

Again, only crackpots and fanatics. There are not "many" naturalists questioning this. There are probably more flat-Earth believers than informed evolution deniers.

Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial,

Click to expand...

In science, a "theory" is the highest degree of certainty. It does not mean conjecture or guess.
A theory can also be a fact. Examples: Earth is round -- theory and fact. Earth orbits the sun -- theory and fact. Germs cause disease -- theory and fact.

In science all knowledge is provisional and subject to change when new facts are found.

...and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.

Click to expand...

But it is supported by observed reality. If it weren't it wouldn't be a scientific theory. It is accepted by hundreds of millions of scientists and scholars everywhere in the world. It's predictive, it's been tested, and it has been observed. Without it all the biological sciences would be baseless.

There is more evidence from more different sources supporting the ToE than there is supporting a Sun-cenrtred solar system or round Earth.

The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.

Click to expand...

In all creatures adaptations are abundant. Everything about an organism is an adaptation. I challenge you to name any multicellular organism with few adaptations.
Limits? I don't understand. How are organisms limited? Where did you get that idea?

This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.

Click to expand...

No. This is patently wrong. Natural selection is easily observed everywhere in the world. We use it as an industrial tool. What is indicated is that you have a very poor understanding of science -- what it is and how it works. Your understanding of evolution and the Theory of evolution seems even more limited.

Did you study any of this in school? You have very strong opinions about a subject you seem to know nothing about.

Loaai said:

Need your sources Mr.50+ Geologist if you really know what you're talking about, also I wrote this based on Darwin's book (The Origin of Species) it self which is the main source of this whole theory.

Click to expand...

No it is not the source for the whole theory. It is over 160 years + old, and decidedly outdated. The only calue of Darwin's writtings is historical on the beginnings of the science of evolution. There are literally tens of thousands of more recent peer reviewed research articles and publication, and general education materials on evolution just in recent years.

National Geographic has many articles and films on the contemporary science of evolution.

This one open resource journal on evolution: BMC Evolutionary Biology

The following is a good website that provide contemporary work on the science of evolution.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.phpUnderstanding Evolution evolution.berkeley.edu

The following is a list of 'some' of the contemporary texts on evolution. Take your pick.

II. Accessible General Books
Bonner, J. T. 1988. The Evolution of Complexity. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.

Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.
III. History and Philosophy
Hall, B. J. (ed.). 1994. Homology, the Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press (a collection of essays by many authors).

Keller, E. F. and E. A. Lloyd. 1992. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.


Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Rieppel, O. 1988. Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. Basel: Birkhäuser
IV. Units of Evolution
Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press (destined to be classic).


Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
V. Population and Quantitative Genetics

Crow, J. F. 1991. Basic Concepts in Population, Quantitative, and Evolutionary Genetics. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, second ed. London: Longman.

Hartl, D. L. And A. G. Clark. 1989. Principles of Population Genetics, second, ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Real, L. A. (ed.). 1994. Ecological Genetics. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press (a collection of essays by many authors).
VI. Selection
Bell, G. 1996. The Basics of Selection. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection, Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
VII. Molecular Evolution
Gillespie, J. H. 1992. The Causes of Molecular Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Li, W-H. and D. Grauer. 1991. Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Ohno, S. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer Verlag (a minor classic, now out of date).
VIII. Adaptation and Life Histories
Roff, D. A. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Rose, M. R. and G. V. Lauder (eds.). 1996. Adaptation. San Diego: Academic press (a collection of essays by many authors).
IX. Species Concepts and Species Formation
Otte, D. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (a collection of essays by many authors).
X. Phylogenetics and Systematics
Hillis, D., C. Moritz, and B. Mable. 1996. Molecular Systematics, second edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Maddison, W. P. and D. R. Maddison. 1992. Macclade, Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, version 3. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (Part 2, chapters 3 6, deal with modern phylogenetic theory).

Sanderson, M. J., and L. Hufford. 1996. Homoplasy, the Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution. San Diego: Academic Press (a collection of essays by many authors).
XI. Adaptive Radiation and Major Features of Evolution.
Grant, P. R. 1986. Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Nitecki, M. H. (ed.). 1990. Evolutionary Innovations (a collection of essays). Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.
XII. Development and Evolution
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press

Hall, B. J. 1992. Evolutionary Developmental Biology. New York: Chapman and Hall.

McKinney, M. L. and K. McNamara. 1991. Heterochrony: the Evolution of Ontogeny. New York: Plenum.

Raff, R. A. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.

Loaai said:

If you say humans are apes that would be entirely incorrect even if you take Darwinism in consideration, If we talk according to this theory then Humans are a special type of Apes. Not Apes, express what you say accurately according to your "science"

Click to expand...

How do you define "ape," Loaai?