anyone know the genetic development of the cow?  Any prehistoric cow bones found?
119466
Cattle (called cows in vernacular usage, or kine [archaic]) are domesticated ungulates, a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae. They are raised as livestock for meat (called beef and veal), dairy products (milk), leather and as draught animals (pulling carts, plows and the like). In some countries, such as India, they are subject to religious ceremonies and respect. It is estimated that there are 1.3 billion head of cattle in the world today [1].\n\nCattle were originally identified by Carolus Linnaeus as three separate species. These were Bos taurus, the European cattle, including similar types from Africa and Asia; Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and European cattle. More recently these three have increasingly been grouped as one species, sometimes using the names Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius. Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between European cattle and zebu but also with yaks, banteng, gaur, and bison, a cross-genera hybrid. For example, genetic testing of the Dwarf Lulu breed, the only humpless "Bos taurus-type" cattle in Nepal, found them to be a mix of European cattle, zebu and yak. Cattle cannot successfully be bred with water buffalo or African buffalo. (See aurochs for the history of domestication, and zebu for peculiarities of that group.)
381848
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
253360
sure they were, this is clear because of the evidence we've got from geology. the bones we've found don't lie. but something you should notice, and that is dinosaurs were not all huge wild animals, they were just a kind of animals, including all sizes and all behaviours. also it is believed that some of the animals living nowadays are the children of ancient dinasaurs.
375913
It's good that they're finally coming out into the open about human-cow hybrids, but they've been doing that for years. Look at Margaret Thatcher for example.\n\nBut seriously, an embryo is not a human or a cow, and I doubt they would allow this to grow past a small number of cells. They are created in fertility clinics and discarded all the time. I don't have a problem with this.
663141
Yet another interesting question, man_id.\n\nAll a theory of abiogenesis can do is give an answer for how life-from-non-life is *possible*.  ... I.e. what ingredients and conditions might result in a replication system that is sufficient for natural selection to take over?  And which ones *may* have been present in the early days of the earth (knowing what we do know about those days)?  There may, in fact, be multiple answers ... many different recipes, all equally possible.  If so, then we may never know which one actually occurred on our planet.\n\nBut it is also possible that we may never find a recipe that works that we know might have been available in the earth's infancy.  We've only started looking.
5911
go to the website for the Natural History Museum in Washington DC.  I took my kids there last year and they have skeletal structures for just about any animal you can think of.  Check it out.
399499
This is a really great site that I have used to help teach hominid evolution.  It goes through the various hominid "phases" -- not all are evolved from the previous, but it definately supports evolution as fact.\n\nI added a few others that I've used also -- but definately go to becominghuman.org\n\nAlso -- if you're searching for other information, do a google search on Plaeoanthropology. (The official name for the study of human origins via fossil evidence.)
194361
MISSING LINKS: \n\nAll of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.\n\n• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.\n\n• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.\n\n• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole\nimaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.\n\n• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.\n\n• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.\n\n• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.\nLucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.\n\n• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.\n\n• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.\n\n• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.\n\nChinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found anoth
124797
Go to www.ask.com and type in genetics. A bunch of links come up but the really cool thing is that on the right hand side of the page are a lot of similar topics so that you can narrow or broaden your search to find what you are looking for.
462687
.  Animals which have a simple evolutionary history are usually soft bodied, and soft bodies animal do not leave good fossils.  It is easy to find analogs for evolutionary steps toward certain animals, the whale for example,  but finding an clear-cut sequence of fossils is difficult.\n.  But, looking at analogs, consider the weasel, the otter, the seal, the manatee and the whale.  The difference between any two steps in this sequence is fairly small, but the difference from one end to the other seems quite large.\n.  There are enough fossils whose ages may be determined that, studied as a group, studied as a group, they demonstrate an increase in complexity of organisms over time and indicate familial relationships.  Bony headed fishes, known only from fossils, were the ancestors of fish like the coelacanth.  Fishes like the collegian were ancestral to both modern fishes and the fish which pulled themselves up from the water on strong, bony fins.\n.  The horse has some obvious ancestors, but the the fossil record of those ancestor becomes weaker as you go back in time.  The fossil record  between shrew like mammals and those creatures which had some horse like characteristics has big gaps in it..
323259
The phylogeny of snakes is poorly known due to the fact that snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization unlikely. It has however been generally agreed, on the basis of morphology, that snakes descended from lizard-like ancestors. Recent research based on genetics and biochemistry confirms this; snakes form a venom clade with several extant lizard families.\n\nRecent fossil evidence suggests that snakes directly evolved from burrowing lizards, either varanids or some other group. An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, fully terrestrial. One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo, although it also is semi-aquatic. As these ancestors became more subterranean, they lost their limbs and became more streamlined for burrowing. Features such as the transparent, fused eyelids and loss of external ears, according to this hypothesis, evolved to combat subterranean conditions (scratched corneas, dirt in the ears). According to this hypothesis, snakes re-emerged onto the surface of the land much as they are today. Other primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs but lacked a direct connection of the pelvic bones to the vertebrae, including Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis) which are slightly older than Najash.\n\nThe alternative hypothesis, based on morphology, suggests that ancestors were related to mosasaurs — extinct aquatic reptiles from the Cretaceous — which in turn are thought to have derived from varanid lizards. Under this hypothesis, the fused, transparent eyelids of snakes are thought to have evolved to combat marine conditions (corneal water loss through osmosis), while the external ears were lost through disuse in an aquatic environment, ultimately leading to an animal similar in appearance to sea snakes of today. In the Late Cretaceous, snakes re-colonized the land much like they are today. Fossil snake remains are known from early Late Cretateous marine sediments, which is consistent with this hypothesis, particularly as they are older than the terrestrial Najash rionegrina. Similar skull structure; reduced/absent limbs; and other anatomical features found in both mosasaurs and snakes lead to a positive cladistical correlation, though some features are also shared with varanids. Supposedly similar locomotion for both groups is also used as support for this hypothesis. Genetic studies have indicated that snakes are not especially related to monitor lizards, and (it has been claimed) therefore not to mosasaurs, the proposed ancestor in the aquatic scenario of their evolution. However, there is more evidence linking mosasaurs to snakes than to varanids. Fragmentary remains that have been found from the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous indicate deeper fossil records for these groups, which may eventually refute either hypothesis.\n\nThe great diversity of modern snakes appeared in the Paleocene, probably correlated with the adaptive radiation of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs.
227955
I believe the (scientific) jury is still out on this one.  From what I have read, many (most) later Neanderthal skulls have been found broken by blunt objects.  Many researchers think they were killed by modern humans.  On the other hand, there was a overlap of time by at least a few thousand years where the did co-exist, apparently peacefully.  Some think that their genes simply were absorbed into the larger gene pool of modern humans, but from what I understand there is little evidence for this.\n\nLet me know if you come up with other info.
122409
There is a tailbone in humans which is redundant, just like an appendix. Appendix has use for animals in digesting raw food. People stopped eating raw food, making it redundant. \nIf you check the ancient drawings, ancient humans had a lot of body hair, but as humans evovled, the hair became less.\n\nTo the person above - Neanderthal, Cro-magnan, Homo-erectus fossils are what you can call a "Transitional" fossil to prove evolution.\n\nTo the person who asked the question - Mutation, adaptation and evolution are inter-linked. Monkeys did not evolve into humans overnight. Or it wasnt a case that monkeys gave birth to humans suddenly. Adaptations and mutation over generations results into evolution. In fact you can say that Mutation and adaptations are preliminary steps of evolution.\n\nTo hutsong - Evolution is how life evolved from primitive life form into the current species. It, in no way speaks how life was created in the first way.\nAlso you talk about experiments in labs have proved that one life-form can not evolve into a different life-form. Heres a  question for you - How many years are these laboratories set up for? If the answer is less than 500 years, then its not enough time frame for any evolution to be seen.\nAlso you are giving links to a website which can is run by christains who are staunch opponnents of evolution not scientifically but religiously. So that has no weight at all. Maybe links to magazines like Science or Nature would have been more convincing.\n\nThumbs up to emilyrose!!
503192
There are the theories about the flagellum motor and documenting bones in sedimentary rock could be misleading because the world isn't flat and what they used to base time on hardened rock can be duplicated within minutes instead of thousands of years.\n\n But, we do obviously have traces of vestigial organs and share genetic similarities with chimps. It is ridiculous to believe we simply sprouted from nothing. I do believe in evolution. Anyone whose been to a museum to see the slowly progressing posture of the caveman to human sees the sense it makes.\n\n Look at nature if things didn't slowly adapt we'd all die. There is no perfect medium because things are always adjusting to circumstance. And circumstance will never be the same. Evolution is in family genetics. It's in everywhere and everything. Survival of the fittest.
47806
This is a difficult question to answer. There are fossil gaps, and gaps in our understanding of human evolution. But no one "missing link", especially one that we have a picture of. This is the fantasy of the media.
638886
Start by reading the texts.  We did not descend from chimps.  We evolved from a common ancestor.\n\nWe share more DNA with Bonobo Chimps than we do with Neanderthal.\n\nLooking for predictions is interesting but not likely to be helpful.  First the rate of genetic mutation in DNA is known. \n\nSecond, there is no telling what evolutionary pressures will cause an expression of a gene to reflect a mutation ahead of the event.\n\nThird, given all of the mutagenic chemicals used in so many facets of production and general living, it is hard to make the prediction you ask for.\n\nConsider these: \n\nIn fewer than 70 years our ability to use penicillin and many of the early antibiotics is severely diminished.  in fact there are strains of bacteria that are completely resistant to some antibiotics (i.e: vancomycin resistant enterococus = VRE). As people improperly use antibiotics, new and hardier strains of bacteria emerge.\n\nThe thre most devistating epidemics in human history were variation of the inlfuenza.  The first is the Spanish Flu of 1918 which killed more people in 18 months than WWI, or (24 years of AIDS).  Here is what the WHO says about all three (Spanish Flu, Asian Flu, and Hong Kong Flu).\n\nPandemic influenza\n\nThree times in the last century, the influenza A viruses have undergone major genetic changes mainly in their H-component, resulting in global pandemics and large tolls in terms of both disease and deaths. The most infamous pandemic was “Spanish Flu” which affected large parts of the world population and is thought to have killed at least 40 million people in 1918-1919. More recently, two other influenza A pandemics occurred in 1957 (“Asian influenza”) and 1968 (“Hong Kong influenza”) and caused significant morbidity and mortality globally. In contrast to current influenza epidemics, these pandemics were associated with severe outcomes also among healthy younger persons, albeit not on such a dramatic scale as the “Spanish flu” where the death rate was highest among healthy young adults.\n\nMost recently, limited outbreaks of a new influenza subtype A(H5N1) directly transmitted from birds to humans have occurred in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China in 1997 and 2003.
491103
just an fyi, in genetics one cannot OBTAIN new information, it must be handed down. therefore you can only lose information(de-evolution?). meaning reptiles that dont have genetics for wings cannot randomly grow wings someway down the line.\n\nmy favorite argument is, they dated the earth to be what some odd billion years old? 65? what happened 20 billion years before? if they found this by carbon dating, then how did the carbon have a start? how did it start? how come it just randomly started aging 65 billion years ago if its been around forever? does this rock GAIN more "life" ?