In evolutionary theory is not time  a little dilated?
107257
Monkeys?  Humans evolved from this source, however, it wasn't over night, this took place over thousands of years.  There are snow monkeys anyway, living in the Himalayas so that blows your theory.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
630244
No not at all. This concept has been tested on more than one occasion. The faster a body moves the slower time passes relative to that person. This was tested by getting two superbly accurate atomic clocks were taken. One was left on earth and another was taken up in a jet plane. When the plane landed the clock on the plane was observed to be a couple fractions of a second behind the clock on earth. \n\nThe equation for this difference is:\n\ndelta T(stationary)=(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*delta T(moving)\n\nNot to be disrespectful but why are most of your questions concerned with doubting the theories that Einstein has put forth. Almost all of his theories have been tested and confirmed to extremely high degrees of accuracy
209928
i havent heard that example, but its possible. that would possibly fall into the category of microevolution...like when birds beaks get bigger or smaller to crack different nuts. its still a bird, with slightly different attributes. that would be an example of artificial rather than natural selection though, since it would be people choosing what they think is attractive, rather than nature killing off people who were less well equipped to deal with the environment.
584737
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
328529
Oooooh what a cool question... more philosophical than scientific in my opinion.\n\nI think you're right in theory.  If there is only one time line then stopping humans (and everything) from evolving (which would take quite the disaster) would mean that our time traveler (assuming he's human) would have never existed and he could never have stopped evolution... it's an infinate loop really, or impossible.  A lot of people say that if time travel is possible, it's only possible in forward time.  Although there are ideas about multiple universes and looping time, and parallel timelines that can explain things like this and Donnie Darko. Haha, fun question.\n\n\n\n\nVeck.  First of all it's more a question about time travel than evolution.\n\nSecond evolution definately has NOT been abandonded by the scientific community.  It is still our best answer and there is too much indirect evidence to throw such a good theory away.  But you are right... it is "just" a theory, just like gravity... better not rely on it ;)
944027
*sigh* Another debatable query enslaved to the limited senses of us mortals, yet forced in all its calamity by our fascination. Here goes.\n\nEinstein shook the fundaments of the Scientific Community when he introduced his Theory Of Relativity and Special Theory Of Relativity back in 1905. He was considered everything from Nostradamus to Jesus. This pinnacle of his life was not attained in mere pondering. Let me expalin to you this fragment of his theory.\n\n  In theoretical suppositions, the space-time connoction bear themselves in alliance. Any change inflicted on one dimension is prone to affect another.\n\n When we say that we will only age a bit, while the Earth has conquered years and decades, we mean to say, that, time being relative to every individual, along with its flow, may hasten up, if we start to function at a velocity of extremes.\n\n If time IS relative (No humane way to confirm), then a higher velocity achieved could result in a hastened flow in the fluid of the "Fourth Dimension" of time. Such relativity was all that he wished to make us understand.\n\n As far as the aging is concerned, provided that we have armour to protect us from the friction effects of such a speed, we are going to age alright. Since our molecules are being relative to the molecules of the rest of the universe, they are not going to change much. Yet RELATIVELY they will alter a decade or more (backwards)!\n\n*sniff* Einstein, I salute you!
218300
Evolution at this scale takes thousands of years. You won't notice it in your lifetime. The truth is, we are evolving. People now are taller than they were 3,000 years ago. In another 10,000 years, if people are still around, we might have some serious adaptations that would just blow you away.
969538
Disagree.  It solves some problems in evolutionary theory where selective pressures are subtle.  The mathematics are highly refined and led to new insights, but it's application in the real world is limited.
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
431104
because the theory of evolution still has some "glitches" in it
1126539
Photoms really move in that they can change position, but recall that they also function as waves.  Since they have no mass, there isn't a reliable way to tell where they've gone or how fast they're moving so time dilation is less of an issue, just like the increased mass effect.
376973
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
377043
Time is the same for everyone and everything in the same situation, but time is relative (I.e. Time goes faster at the top of a mountain, due to gravity & speed etc.)\n\nI doubt most creatures acknowledge time intervals though, if you mean time as a human concept. More intelligent animals can probably distinguish between a week and a day, (I.e. A large difference in time) but maybe not an hour and three hours.
323990
I can see how it could happen. There are artificial intelligence programs that do get smarter over time. But as for physical evolution... maybe in the future.
341923
And that's only the pick of the Iceberg...There are many more issues that goes in other directions than with the Theory of Evolution.  In Scientific-historical terms, we still think that the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the Universe.  Your question has a great value for the Genius curious minds that doesn't stop in the established Scientific Dogmas. You're getting somewhere...