I've no problem agreeing that education benefits man in a number of ways.
But the word 'evolution' refers to a genetic/biological process.
You've not shown how education alters man's biological makeup to cause him to evolve any differently.
If you still maintain that it's so, then please answer: are humans that live in societies with no written language and no universities to be considered 'less evolved' than you and I ?
You can't have it both ways , Setanta. If education is part of evolution, then face the consequences of your view.
Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissen et al. using an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir indicates that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea). All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δO18 values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the racoon-like or small deer-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δC13 values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.
The fossils were discovered among rocks that had been collected more than 30 years ago in Kashmir by the Indian geologist A Ranga Rao who found a few teeth and parts of a jawbone, but when he died many rocks had yet to be broken open. Ranga Rao's widow gave the rocks to Professor Thewissen, who was working on them when his technician accidentally broke one of the skulls they had found and Thewissen recognised the ear structure of the auditory bulla, formed from the ectotympanic bone in a shape which is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales and the earlier land creature Pakicetus.
However, not all paleontologists are particularly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven't been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."
About the size of a racoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.
Do you really think that successive generations of critters with smaller and less functional legs experienced a 'survival advantage'?
real life wrote:Do you really think that successive generations of critters with smaller and less functional legs experienced a 'survival advantage'?
You mean swimming creatures like whales and their ancestors who were using their tails as a primary means of propulsion, and who's legs were not only unnecessary, but a hindrance to streamlining? Yeh, sure I do.
And you avoided the point... why in creationism would modern whales have pelvic bones? Evolution provides a very good answer, what does creationism have to say?
What makes you think they are 'pelvic' bones? They are not even attached to the spinal column
and they have functionality completely unrelated to locomotion.
A degenerating pelvis would make walking quite difficult for the 'transitional form' and interfere with swimming , making the critter unsuited for land or sea.
real life wrote:A degenerating pelvis would make walking quite difficult for the 'transitional form' and interfere with swimming , making the critter unsuited for land or sea.
The Pinnipeds seem to do quite well living between land and sea with limited mobility. Your suppositions don't hold up well in the light of day.
You are going to have to cram MAJOR changes into a fairly short time span to explain the lack of transitionals.