Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164474 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105981 Nov 16, 2013
Dude needing another ironymeter is normal.

So this post is not the start:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

However i found the reference on pg 5018:
(The problem is that she keeps changing the heading)

Where is the data that supports the paradigm of the talking snake?

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.
Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.
The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.
This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutationselection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

--
Oh and another of jewel of sharp deduction: all evo's work in the pharmaceutical industry.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105982 Nov 16, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if there are no limits, research shows there are.
You researched the ruler, not the tape measure.
Of course there is a limitation on small scale mutations, though catastrophic changes can force a new set of rules. This has been observed in the fossil record. Mutation, genetic drift, environmental pressure, radiation, natural selection is composed of many variables. It's restraints are viable to a single generation.
But it is realized that humans are evolving and we are in fact more genetically different from the humans that lived over 10,000 years ago, than they were from the Neandertal species.

This discovery shows your premise to be not only short sighted but completely wrong with all research. It os your personal beliefs driving your and Maz's thinking processes, and blinding you to the reality that evolutionary change is the driving force of life on Earth through the above mentioned avenues. It is of zero impact of reality that you protest the cold hard truth. Blinding yourself is all you achieve, so go ahead bury your head in the sand, and protest all you desire, but don't expect to have a thrall audience
that actually believes your nonsense.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.shor...

Selection directly causing evolution , by human hands.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variat...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105983 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
How about I hit you in the head with modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and more than halfway back to the Devonian, being created after sea life.
How about I demonstrate evo scientists with some 'poofing' ability themselves?
These scientists have invented out of thin air, theropods with a reversed hallux instead of admitting they have no clue what they are talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
How about a variety of tetrapods that suddenly appear on the heel of the Devonian, 395mya, throwing Tiktaalic out to that great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and falsified?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...
I reckon it will be me hitting you over the head with your stupid fossils.
Not this old dead horse again.

Please note that the actual article on the footprints says "bird-like". Even the best print does not quite have a reversed halux. It is close but not quite there. And without a skeleton there is not reason that it could not be a land based dinosaur that has developed a walk very close to that of birds, perhaps because the prints come from an arboreal dinosaur.

It is simply a question that is not quite answered yet, it is not evidence against evolution.

Maz, why don't you drop the articles that really don't support you? Oh yeah, because you have nothing except for grasping at straw.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105984 Nov 16, 2013
Simple as in biologists did not claim this, at least not without some failsafe mechanism at play that would occur in a natural environment.

MH:
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.

Mazhere also gave a site of nature that did not show the article nor did she gave the first article that the one in nature was to be a continuance of. So she was essentially reasoning out of the blue, without any back-up.
And what might have it been about, since her claims about Darwin had no back-up one has to start doubting even the intellectual integrity.

Well one could show allsorts of mechanisms and Darwin and many others indeed allready having found the solution in natural selection and be done with it by ignoring ever dafter posts. That would have been the other option.

So what is the twit actually on about, why so inconsistent all the time. Almost like comparing apes and humans with inbred crea-horses and talking snakes?

Aha, the crazy women was all the time talking about apes and humans!

Why the hell can't she present her arguement accordingly?
Because it would sound very daft to state that inbred apes can't have caused inbred humans?
Well it does.
Ask Bohart for more advise.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105985 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not this old dead horse again.
Please note that the actual article on the footprints says "bird-like". Even the best print does not quite have a reversed halux. It is close but not quite there. And without a skeleton there is not reason that it could not be a land based dinosaur that has developed a walk very close to that of birds, perhaps because the prints come from an arboreal dinosaur.
It is simply a question that is not quite answered yet, it is not evidence against evolution.
Maz, why don't you drop the articles that really don't support you? Oh yeah, because you have nothing except for grasping at straw.
if it does not have an ape or man in it it's waffle.
She actually thinks any proof was put together by us in our pharmaceutical headquarters.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105986 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
How about I hit you in the head with modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and more than halfway back to the Devonian, being created after sea life.
How about I demonstrate evo scientists with some 'poofing' ability themselves?
These scientists have invented out of thin air, theropods with a reversed hallux instead of admitting they have no clue what they are talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
How about a variety of tetrapods that suddenly appear on the heel of the Devonian, 395mya, throwing Tiktaalic out to that great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and falsified?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...
I reckon it will be me hitting you over the head with your stupid fossils.
As always you fail, you fail to comprehebd what things like this really mean, discarding reality for what YOU WANT it to be. From your link.

((((Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.

Other bird specialists are intrigued but cautious, warning its hard to match footprints to their makers.

"I think it is pretty interesting but you can't necessarily assume that those are bird footprints," Luis Chiappe, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, told New Scientist.
Hard to convince

"They are neat tracks, and look avian, which would be remarkable given their age," says Emma Rainforth, curator of the Mesalands Dinosaur Museum in Tucumcari, New Mexico. But, she asks, "where are the tracks and skeletons of birds" for the next 55 million years?

The footprints might revive interest in a controversial fossil of the same age. They are the right size to match "Protoavis," says Sankar Chatterjee of Texas Tech University, who for a decade has had little success convincing other paleontologists that his discovery in the late 1980s was an ancestral bird.))))

"Protoavis"

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/b...

The truth is...
There isn't enough known yet to jump to conclusion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105987 Nov 16, 2013
That link by Mazhere, the first she posted ever apparently, worked for none.

pg 5021

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

recent human evolution. Thanks Aura.

Education by Subduction Zone:

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't see my reply to you so I'll do a quick repost.
This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...
These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
I am taking the point, because like Aura all you will do is chase your tail instead of presenting this golden research you lot reckon you have so much of to support your dogma.
None of your research supports the genomes ability to adapt without limits. Indeed all your research demonstrates the opposite of this claim.

Subduction Zone:
It is hand holding time where we have to guide Maz through the articles that she misunderstands.

Okay, the first article is not a critique of human evolution. It points out the difference between hominid evolution and evolution of mice and rats. The population of mice and rats is very large. Just go out in nature and try to count the number in an area and you will find a natural population of hundreds if not thousands or more per square mile where the population of humans before modern agriculture was less than one per square mile even in the densest populations. There are two results of these population differences. Humans evolved much quicker, and they kept more bad mutations. Large populations eliminate bad mutations before they can become "fixed" in the genome. That is all that first article was about.

Okay, on to the next article.

Okay, Maz, your second article was about how the feedback between different genes, or epistasis, slows the rate of evolution. In other words one new gene can make a large change, but the interaction of several genes changing does not make a huge change. There is some observed stability in a species. Which is probably a good thing. Too rapid of a rate of evolution would mean that species would keep breaking up and competing with each other. There is a beneficial outcome of stability.

(Once again Maz picks articles that try to clear up how evolution works and tries to think that somehow they are evidence against evolution.

I do like how Maz brings new articles to read and ponder here. The funny thing is that they never support her beliefs.

We will probably have to explain this several times more to her before she understands what she has linked.)

MAAT: I let the comment stand because I wholeheartedly agree on the estimat of the abilities of this prejudiced badmouthed mutt.

Never seen the poster before!!!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105988 Nov 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know, same branch of the hominin line
Yes, an aspect of HFYs subject, thats what I need
It seems i missed some valuable input, along with others.
I once stated i wanted to know more about H. Erectus.
I seem to have missed it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105989 Nov 16, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Now i have to ask DFS what he knows. lol

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105990 Nov 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I do like how Maz brings new articles to read and ponder here. The funny thing is that they never support her beliefs.
We will probably have to explain this several times more to her before she understands what she has linked.)
I found this about those polish tetra-pod tracks.
Pretty interesting, what it does is push back tetra-pod evolution by 20 million years(possibly), but does not falsify anything about evolutionary morphology.

http://www.tetrapod.net.pl/

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105991 Nov 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
When we find intermediates, you simply deny that they are intermediates. Perhaps you just don't know what an intermediate is.
If I took a typical chimp skull and a typical human skull, and averaged every measurable difference to create a perfect intermediate form, it would look startlingly similar to a Georgicus, Erectus, or Ergaster skull.
But you seem to think that intermediates should be something different.
What then?
Ok, I get your point. I used to trap and skin animals, I trapped the entire weasel series. With the skin off there was almost no difference except size, weasel to wolverine. Skin on and habitually - major differences. God made them. Jump out of the weasel series to bears. Big split, no scent glands for one, nothing in between. Skin off, little difference in general, just much much larger. So we have commonality in the maker, not evolution. Where and when did evolution start or stop? This concept must be going on today and observable in nature but it is not. We have gaps everywhere and utter opposition in the DNA and cell mechanisms. They watched ecoli for 20 years and 40,000 generations and in the end, got the same e.coli. Same with fruit flys. If evo worked it should have shown up in either study but it didn't. Now that we have bigger microscopes we know why, cell design and operation clearly controverts the theory. So if we can't observe it in scientific study, don't see it happening in the field and cell operation and complexity stand against it, the only answer left is some level of ID, just like Crick asserted once he completed his work 50 years ago. So now we take that framework to the fossil beds to the chip-human issue, that is only reasonable.

I posted this question to D.Collin Patterson 20 years ago before he passed away, one of the worlds greatest Zoologists. This is a guy that spent his entire life dedicated to the study of bone structure and anatomy. His head was a catalog of parts, encyclopedic. He said of my observations above; "my colleges from the tropic's tell me the same thing". When you read his stuff he was questioning the whole matter in his last years.

This goes for the primate series. You have a constellation of unique tree climbers and a small group of upright walkers; one with with a U-jaw and walking anatomy, and the other with curved appendages and a V jaw. Watch their behavior with the skin on and you have a big gap is my point. An assembly relating to this summary -

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

I think this is the best new video series out, one short clip, with Dean Kenyon's journey I think is pretty good -

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105992 Nov 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Dude needing another ironymeter is normal.
So this post is not the start:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
However i found the reference on pg 5018:
(The problem is that she keeps changing the heading)
Where is the data that supports the paradigm of the talking snake?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.
Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.
The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.
This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
--
Oh and another of jewel of sharp deduction: all evo's work in the pharmaceutical industry.
One of the evo's own, Ayala, tried to warn them 40 years ago about "genetic load" timelines, that this would catch up to them. The US science institutions swept it under the carpet hoping for controverting evidence to save them. All they got was this mouse under the carpet and the MO-1 from the Japanese. Guess they don't "Expel" researchers over there. Their new secret weapon; "SHHHHH", keep quiet and add an evo stmt in peer review, quick..
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105993 Nov 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And a bridge will collapse without the center stone. Yet it was still formed bit by bit. No problem with genetic scaffolding.
<quoted text>
Um, bub, what do you think the creationist movement IS?
Duh.
<quoted text>
You're tired of *anything* socialist. Education doesn't matter to you, so since you are only interested in flunking out or learning how to be stupid via fundie homeschooling or private schools then yes, I can see why you would find that very frustrating.
Perhaps you'd prefer Iran.
<quoted text>
Funny.
<quoted text>
There is no morals with God. That's merely following orders.
From someone who happened to be an extreme psychopath.
That's why you fundies are such aholes.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Which is irrelevant to morality, and irrelevant to the validity of science.
<quoted text>
Funny though, I'm not really aware of any public schools violating the Constitution and teaching atheism as a fact. Plenty of fundies seem to be getting away with it though. So much for morality, eh?
<quoted text>
Yep, you're obsessed with sex. Not just your own, but everyone else's. And you like to call *others* perverted.
<quoted text>
Yes, man is a cancer. By following God's orders - take Earth, rape it. It's yours.
<quoted text>
Wow. All that irrelevant ranting and you finish with "explain the valve"? What's the problem? Did you manage to demonstrate that it was made with invisble Jewmagic? Thought not.
So is this your way of telling us you can't explain the Foraman Ovale either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foramen_ovale_%2...
Expanded;
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105994 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the evo's own, Ayala, tried to warn them 40 years ago about "genetic load" timelines, that this would catch up to them. The US science institutions swept it under the carpet hoping for controverting evidence to save them. All they got was this mouse under the carpet and the MO-1 from the Japanese. Guess they don't "Expel" researchers over there. Their new secret weapon; "SHHHHH", keep quiet and add an evo stmt in peer review, quick..
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
Can you now explain to me in your hypothesis why your god would design sophisticated micro-machine organisms that have the intent to do harm to living creatures? Bacterial flagella and bacterium MO-1 E. coli and Salmonella flagella have the intent to kill you. How do you reconcile this small detail in your creation hypothesis?
Hmmm?

Perhaps your designer is a machine that wishes to destroy the living?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105995 Nov 16, 2013
Rounding up to get to the only interesting article.

pg 5020 100,591
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
About chimpz.

humans and chimps...where"? Behe commented on Lenski.(Did not explain. l.o.l. very important difference.)

Even withot reading Lenski the most common mistake made is:

He evolved several thousand generations and only saw degradation. Evolution needs to be able to generate new information, not degrade what is already there.

Why should it? The proper definition:

Evolution is natural selection driven by environmental change.

This is something you keep misrepresenting. The strongest design may be the most simple, as long as the ahem "degradation" improves the lifeforms suitability for the environment whether new information is created or not is incidental. In fact it is fairly obvious that to begin with any existing mechanisms within the genetic code are going to be favoured by natural selection over new ones since they have already been fully developed by past generations.

----
Part of the post by Mazhere. And again two links that are not showing or giving admission to the full text in case people do not want to login.

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

|(*This has resulted in the accumulation of a |large number of deleterious mutations in |sequences containing gene control elements and |hence a widespread degradation of the genome |during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.)

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...

The above Science abstracts ar without more ado extrapolated upon the Plos article, that now get's a new meaning.(*

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE STATED
What did Plos actually state? quote:
Functionally important sequences are expected to evolve MORE SLOWLY than neutrally evolving sequences. This is because long periods of selection for functional efficiency lead to sequences in which most advantageous mutations have already become fixed. The majority of new mutations in a sequence are then deleterious, because they perturb the highly adapted state. Studies of protein-coding DNA evolution have supported this expectation by showing that rates of amino acid substitution are substantially lower than rates of synonymous substitution in the majority of genes (e.g.,[1]).

So shared ancestry has left us allready with ROBUST protein- coding genes, up to their task.
And we can't deal with too many changes or a sweep at the same time. One at a time is fine. NOTE none of the articles state that gradual evolution is impossible. Read the definition of epistatis again that Subduction Zone kindly provided.

'HOWEVER, the extent to which constraint in NONCODING regions varies among species is unclear. In this paper, we investigate sequence conservation in introns and intergenic DNA in interspecific comparisons of mouse and rat (murids) and human and chimpanzee (hominids). To estimate the levels of constraint in segments of non-protein-coding DNA, we compare the observed numbers of substitutions to the number expected from substitution rates at linked sequences assumed to be neutrally evolving.'

!!!'Unexpectedly, we find that SELECTIVE CONSTRAINTS ARE ESSENTIALLY ABSENT IN HOMINIDS in regions upstream of genes and in first introns, in contrast to murids, in which these regions are subject to moderate levels of constraint.'
IN NONCODING REGIONS

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105996 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the evo's own, Ayala, tried to warn them 40 years ago about "genetic load" timelines, that this would catch up to them. The US science institutions swept it under the carpet hoping for controverting evidence to save them. All they got was this mouse under the carpet and the MO-1 from the Japanese. Guess they don't "Expel" researchers over there. Their new secret weapon; "SHHHHH", keep quiet and add an evo stmt in peer review, quick..
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
Nonsense, even if one is just interested in proper reading skills, one would climb in the ropes.
Even more complicated by some strict scientific language.
Normally people have a university education and their own papers peer-reviewed before they wantonly (if ever)amass them to proof or support a point.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105997 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So is this your way of telling us you can't explain the Foraman Ovale either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foramen_ovale_%2...
Expanded;
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...
wiki explains it perfectly.
Keep reading any click on any term that is blue and that you do not understand.

Think of why we have seperated fingers.
It's not the foramen ovale being but the absense that created it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105998 Nov 16, 2013
MZ paraphrased: Nature and the lab only show changes at inner-species level.

Maat: Face it your closest relative in the tree is a homonin and then homonids and then apes etc.

So we end up with the only relevant article, which also got a wrong interpretation.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/ ...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105999 Nov 16, 2013
No Peak in Sight for Evolving Bacteria
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...

Nov. 14, 2013
Still going strong, fittness peak not yet reached, Lenski's bacteria show adaptation to the stressing environment.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106000 Nov 16, 2013
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_anima...
Deletion of any single gene provokes mutation elsewhere in the system.

More on the differences chimpz and humans
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/...
See also further articles on Bonobos etc.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 13 min honeymylove 140,487
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min the rest is silence 163,091
News 'John Wayne Day' in Texas Honors Actor's 108th ... 33 min Ex Senator Santpo... 23
News Muslim cleric says masturbating makes your hand... 44 min Ex Senator Santpo... 26
News Dying Dog Goes on Epic Bucket List Journey 1 hr Parden Pard 7
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 40,772
News Customer leaves $2,000 tip on a $93 tab 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 2
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 2 hr beatlesinafog 666
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 31,999
News New and Totally Bizarre Baby Names 8 hr Spotted Girl 9
More from around the web