PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Hominid Evolution
       A step closer to understanding our origins

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A new article appearing in the Oct 2nd special issue of Science details the research findings  of an international team of scientist of the hominid species Ardipithecus ramidus that lived about 4.4 million years ago.

from here:
Ardipithecus ramidus

Pardon me for cutting and pasting such a big chunk of this summary.  Skip it if you're not interested.

Because of its antiquity, Ardipithecus takes us closer to the still-elusive last common ancestor. However, many of its traits do not appear in modern-day African apes. One surprising conclusion, therefore, is that it is likely that the African apes have evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor, which thus makes living chimpanzees and gorillas poor models for the last common ancestor and for understanding our own evolution since that time.

"In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature, that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said Tim White of the University of California Berkeley, who is one of the lead authors of the research.

"With such a complete skeleton, and with so many other individuals of the same species at the same time horizon, we can really understand the biology of this hominid," said Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo, Project paleoanthropologist and also a lead Science author.

"These articles contain an enormous amount of data collected and analyzed through a major international research effort. They throw open a window into a period of human evolution we have known little about, when early hominids were establishing themselves in Africa, soon after diverging from the last ancestor they shared with the African apes," said Brooks Hanson, deputy editor, physical sciences, at Science.

"Science is delighted to be publishing this wealth of new information, which gives us important new insights into the roots of hominid evolution and into what makes humans unique among primates," said Hanson.

The special collection of Science articles begins with an overview paper that summarizes the main findings of this research effort. In this article, White and his coauthors introduce their discovery of over 110 Ardipithecus specimens including a partial skeleton with much of the skull, hands, feet, limbs and pelvis. This individual, "Ardi," was a female who weighed about 50 kilograms and stood about 120 centimeters tall.

Until now, researchers have generally assumed that chimpanzees, gorillas and other modern African apes have retained many of the traits of the last ancestor they shared with humans – in other words, this presumed ancestor was thought to be much more chimpanzee-like than human-like. For example, it would have been adapted for swinging and hanging from tree branches, and perhaps walked on its knuckles while on the ground.

Ardipithecus challenges these assumptions, however. These hominids appear to have lived in a woodland environment, where they climbed on all fours along tree branches – as some of the Miocene primates did -- and walked, upright, on two legs, while on the ground. They do not appear to have been knuckle-walkers, or to have spent much time swinging and hanging from tree-branches, especially as chimps do. Overall, the findings suggest that hominids and African apes have each followed different evolutionary pathways, and we can no longer consider chimps as "proxies" for our last common ancestor.

"Darwin was very wise on this matter," said White.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it. And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared," White said.



I'm going to have to see about getting that issue of Science.  Sounds very interesting.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Population problems – where are all the bodies? There should be countless billions if just 1 million years of human evolution is allowed for
.
Where are all the people? With just one million years and an unheard of minimal population growth rate of 0.01% (just to really be overfair) –there should be more people than the land space of this planet and millions more exactly the same size. Where are the people?

Human evolution is totally open to interpretation as evidenced by the number of frauds and major mistakes that have gone before. Why is this one of the ‘best’ evidences for macroevolution when it has the least number of boney fragments representing it?

Why are there not better examples of transitional forms in the marine invertebrate section of the ‘fossil record’ given that the fossils in that section amount to billions?

Why the large gaps and lack of gradualism generally in the fossil record?

Where is the evidence that one kind of creature can slowly turn into another –macroevolution?

Where’s the genetic evidence for improvement in the human genome. It is degrading so fast and deleterious mutations exceed by far any mutations that could be considered to be beneficial, so why would we believe that the genome is improving and advancing in the light of all the evidence to the contrary?

If we don’t have any convincing evidence for gradualism nor for macroevolution nor for improvement of the genome with time, why waste time discussing hominid evolution? The whole basis for believing that it ever happened does not exist.
The entire field is open to speculation, imagination and abuse.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:09 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No evidence of gradualism.  Yeah, right.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:59 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aaaah, you have some apes and some people and no idea whether they are related in any meaningful way apart from having the same creator.
Much like the story of the placental and the marsupial mouse -they look nearly identical but they are not closely related (according to evolutionists). Then there's the seal and the sea- lion -difficult to tell apart except for the ears but not closely related  according to evilutionary thinking.

If appearances and relatedness are so often not remotely linked -how do you think we should believe that men and apes are conclusively related in any way?


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:01 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:09 AM on October 4, 2009 :
Population problems – where are all the bodies? There should be countless billions if just 1 million years of human evolution is allowed for
.
Where are all the people?


Where are all the Flood victims?

When hundreds of thousands or millions of humans were slaughtered by Yahweh the vengeful thug in prime fossilization conditions, surely there should be many hundreds of thousands of intact modern human fossils all in one stratum somewhere.

Where are they?


Shouldn't someone with graduate level education on all science have at least a passing understanding of the fossilization process and geological phenomena?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:36 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are all the Flood victims?


Well there are some but most humans would have been floating and swimming and trying to stay alive. They noticed the rain coming. I expect they were not so easy to fossilize since they weren't swamped by sediment like the marine creatures would have been. I think we can safely say that they were scavenged or rotted away.

millions of humans were slaughtered by Yahweh the vengeful thug


You don't really mind an intelligent designer as much as you do Yahweh specifically, hey Derwood? What have you got against him? So often atheists have one pet hatred and that is the hatred for Yahweh and for Christians. Strange, isn't it. Don't worry, the devil hates Yahweh and Christians too, so you're not alone.


Population problems – where are all the bodies? There should be countless billions if just 1 million years of human evolution is allowed for
.
Where are all the people?


My question was somewhat different to yours. I want to know where all the safely buried bodies are from this vast population of humans over the last million years or so? That's quite different to looking for the drowned flood victims. Yours should be easy. Where are they?

Shouldn't someone with graduate level education on all science have at least a passing understanding of the fossilization process and geological phenomena?


Oh I do, fear not. I'm just not as incredibly supremely intelligent as you think you are, Derwood.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:23 AM on October 6, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:23 AM on October 6, 2009 :
Where are all the Flood victims?


Well there are some but most humans would have been floating and swimming and trying to stay alive. They noticed the rain coming. I expect they were not so easy to fossilize since they weren't swamped by sediment like the marine creatures would have been. I think we can safely say that they were scavenged or rotted away.


So, are you saying that pteradactyls, archaeopteryx, T. Rex, etc. were all Marine creatures?
What about the infirm?  The elderly?  What about the tales of waters bursting forth and violent storms that creationists sometimes like to proffer?


millions of humans were slaughtered by Yahweh the vengeful thug


You don't really mind an intelligent designer as much as you do Yahweh specifically, hey Derwood? What have you got against him? So often atheists have one pet hatred and that is the hatred for Yahweh and for Christians.

I am not like you and your brethren, Doc - I do not hate you.  And I do not hate your made-up deity.  Rather, I like to point out the hypocrisy and double standards and selective referencing that goes on in the YECism camp and among right-wing 'christians' in general.

I want to know where all the safely buried bodies are from this vast population of humans over the last million years or so?

Strawman - nobody says that humans existed a million years ago.


That's quite different to looking for the drowned flood victims. Yours should be easy. Where are they?
They are in your mind, you are simply tossing out a strawman misrepresentation.

Shouldn't someone with graduate level education on all science have at least a passing understanding of the fossilization process and geological phenomena?


Oh I do, fear not. I'm just not as incredibly supremely intelligent as you think you are, Derwood.


I have nothgin to fear, for it is quite clear that you've been embellishing your educational level, and you presnet even more evidence that you never understood evolution and still do not, for if you did, you would know that askihng us where buried humans from 1 million years ago is an idiotic, ignorant question.



One of those non-substantive posts of mine that, Darn it, Doc Lester jsut decided to ignore..
Quote from derwood at 4:02 PM on September 2, 2009 :
Someone must have missed this...
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?


Is there any non-biblical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Lifespans have been INCREASING overall in recorded history, not decreasing.


You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.


So, "meaning" is dependant upon belief systems?

"Meaning" is not an inherent characterstic?


Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.


Talk about loaded words...

Did you know that beneficial mutations are also considered part of the mutational load?


You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.


Unfortunately, you've swallowed the historical revisionism of creatinist propaganda ministers.

Even as Ohno coined the term "junk DNA", he did not claim that this DNA has no function, and before and after the phrase was coined, evolutionists were speculating about AND discovering functions in junk DNA - decades beforwe the creationist/IDists "predicted" it.

You people are not only decades behind the times, you are also actively engaging in historical revisionism to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is, there ARE portions of the genome that have no direct physiological function.  Just saying this because we don't know what it does yet?  No, saying this because you can remove it and suffer no consequences, the very definition of no function, I should think.


Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .


I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!


Blind obedience and an overestimation of your intellectual powers is what makes for a good creationist.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.




Easier for the good doctor to stick to churning out pre-fab gibberish than to actually discuss substantive points, I guess.







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:58 AM on October 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ABC news came out with a terrible article about the Ardipithecus ramidus announcement in the Science paper.  

Creationists Say Science and Bible Disprove 'Ardi' Fossil is Evidence of Evolution

In the case of "Ardi," the ape-like fossil recently discovered in Ethiopia and already being celebrated as the oldest found relative of modern human beings, the final determination depends on who is doing the talking.

In one camp are evolutionary scientists who last week published and hailed the discovery of an upright walking ape named Ardipithecus ramidus, or "Ardi" for short, who made Ethiopia her home nearly 5 million years ago.

But despite the excitement from the paleontology community,
another group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science, are unimpressed by Ardi, who they believe is just another ape -- an ape of indeterminate age, they add, and an ape who cannot be an ancestor of modern man for a range of reasons, including one of singular importance: God created man in one day, and evolution is a fallacy.

"What creationists believe about human origins we get from the Bible," said David Menton an acclaimed anatomist and also a creationist. "The creation of the world takes place on page one of the Bible. If you throw out the first page of the Bible you might as well throw out the whole thing. If you can't live with the first page then pitch out the remaining thousand pages."


Derwood - did you see that - David Menton an acclaimed anatomist

Funny, the article never gives any so-called Creationist scientist arguments why Ardi is not strong evidence for human evolution.  All they can do is say "because it says so in the Bible!"

But how many people reading that news article will come away feeling like Ardi has been soundly rebutted?  A lot.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:52 PM on October 12, 2009 :
Funny, the article never gives any so-called Creationist scientist arguments why Ardi is not strong evidence for human evolution.  All they can do is say "because it says so in the Bible!"

But how many people reading that news article will come away feeling like Ardi has been soundly rebutted?  A lot.


Welcome to the ignorant land of the U.S. All they will see is two credible scientists who disagree with the evidence and one of them is a real Christian while the other isn't. Since most of these ignorant people are Christian themselves, guess which side they go to?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:06 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:52 PM on October 12, 2009 :

"What creationists believe about human origins we get from the Bible," said David Menton an acclaimed anatomist and also a creationist. "The creation of the world takes place on page one of the Bible. If you throw out the first page of the Bible you might as well throw out the whole thing. If you can't live with the first page then pitch out the remaining thousand pages."
[/i]

Derwood - did you see that - David Menton an acclaimed anatomist



Yeah, acclaimed.  ABC news should read his essay on Tiiktaalik, or his "technical and in-depth" paper on how embryology that shows that it does not support evolution - a 'technical and in-depth' paper that was all of 3 paragraphs long and had no data or bibliography...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:12 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting new genetic analysis, this should get interesting as more samples are discovered, a bone fragment from Russia yields DNA distinct from modern humans and Neanderthals.

Finger points to new human species

Since the late nineteenth century, researchers have known that two species of Homo  — Neanderthals and modern humans — coexisted during the later part of the last ice age. In 2003, a third species, Homo floresiensis, was discovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia, but there has been no sign of this tiny 'hobbit' elsewhere. The relative identified in Siberia, however, raises the possibility that several Homo  species ranged across Europe and Asia, overlapping with the direct ancestors of modern people.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:25 PM on March 24, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, very interesting!  A skull would be a nice find next.  One thing for sure, there are a lot of surprises out there waiting to be discovered.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:11 AM on March 25, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fragment was found a couple of years ago, I'm sure there will be some detailed excavation of this site now.  


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:37 AM on March 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis, i took the liberty to find the information on your image and compile it into this:



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:20 AM on March 25, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now it hits the popular press, "X-woman".



DNA identifies new ancient human dubbed 'X-woman'


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:02 AM on March 27, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Biggest find since "Little Foot"

Scientists to Unveil new Fossil



New Fossil Hominid





(Edited by Apoapsis 4/6/2010 at 7:28 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:09 PM on April 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first article was very poorly written.
The missing link between humans and their ape-like predecessors could be filled in this week with the unveiling of a 2 million-year-old skeleton believed to be that of a new species of evolutionary primate, (...)
What "missing link"???? There will always be gaps.

"Evolutionary primate"?? WTF??

Scientists believe the new species is a hominid, a group of evolutionary primates including humans, that existed during the intermediary phase when apelike species evolved into humans.
OMG...

Hominids obviously still exist.

Apelike specieS evolved into humans???

We ARE apes.

And how many species is she talking about? No separate species could evolve into the same thing.

As AronRa says:

"
It is fair to say that none of the people who deny Evolution exhibit any understanding of what it is. But it's not always their fault, because many of the people promoting Evolution don't know what it is either."

Other articles by the same apelike contributor, Michelle Ruiz:

  • Mother, Daughter Arrested for Bringing Body to Airport

  • Mysterious 'Oriental Yeti' Trapped in China

  • Teens Find Body Near Iowa Easter Egg Hunt


(Edited by wisp 4/7/2010 at 06:41 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:40 AM on April 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, GREAT NEWS!.
The second article was much better.

Thanks, Apoapsis. ^_^



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:14 AM on April 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:09 AM on October 4, 2009 :
Population problems – where are all the bodies? There should be countless billions if just 1 million years of human evolution is allowed for


Please show your math.

Population problems - how did 4 inbreeding pairs produce 6 billion extant humans in 4,500 years?


Where are all the people? With just one million years and an unheard of minimal population growth rate of 0.01% (just to really be overfair) –there should be more people than the land space of this planet and millions more exactly the same size. Where are the people?


Ummmm...

Dead?



Human evolution is totally open to interpretation as evidenced by the number of frauds and major mistakes that have gone before.

Such as?

Let me guess - Piltdown and Nebraska man? Looks like you've swallowed the YEC line on that those, too.  


Why is this one of the ‘best’ evidences for macroevolution when it has the least number of boney fragments representing it?


How many bony fragments would be enough?
Say - you claim a background in anatomy - tell us what you can tell about the animal that possessed a bone you find.  

Why are there not better examples of transitional forms in the marine invertebrate section of the ‘fossil record’ given that the fossils in that section amount to billions?


Because not every single living thing fossilizes when it dies?
If Jesus was so important a figure - son of God and all - why was there no record of his life at all until he was in his 30s?

Why the large gaps and lack of gradualism generally in the fossil record?


What gaps are you speaking of?
Why are you still trotting out 'gradualism' when I have already explained to you your folly on that issue?

Where is the evidence that one kind of creature can slowly turn into another –macroevolution?


Cichlids.
Genomes.
Fossil progression.

Where’s the genetic evidence for improvement in the human genome.

Strawman.

Where is the genetic evidence that Yahweh created it?

It is degrading so fast and deleterious mutations exceed by far any mutations that could be considered to be beneficial, so why would we believe that the genome is improving and advancing in the light of all the evidence to the contrary?


Why would a person so obviously ignroant of genetics and evolutionary biology feel qualified to pontificate on it so?

I've presented this paper to you before (pearls and swine and all that):

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection

Abstract:
Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present.



They found that recombination and selection increased the rate at which detrimental mutations were extinguished and the rate at which beneficial mutations accumulated.

Nature does what you declare impossible.

If we don’t have any convincing evidence for gradualism nor for macroevolution nor for improvement of the genome with time, why waste time discussing hominid evolution?

Hundreds of thousands of actually educated scientists and millions of people worldwide find the evidence compelling.  Religious fanatics with embellished credentials and active Dunning-Kruger effect issues will never find any evidence convincing, yet will simply believe the silly fairy tales laid down by ancient superstitious nomads to justify their prejudices.


The whole basis for believing that it ever happened does not exist.


Wrong.


The entire field is open to speculation, imagination and abuse.


Yes - and reading the YEC literature, you will see plenty of that.
You people cannot help but engage in such antics.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:50 AM on April 8, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:01 AM on October 5, 2009 :
Much like the story of the placental and the marsupial mouse -they look nearly identical but they are not closely related (according to evolutionists). Then there's the seal and the sea- lion -difficult to tell apart except for the ears but not closely related  according to evilutionary thinking.

Superficial examination of such things by lay folk - like you - often result in suich folkscience 'conclusions.'

But that is just ignorance.  Why do whales have lungs?  Why did Yahweh make them that way?  Why did Yahweh make marsupial and placental mice so similar?

See?  Your 'inquiries' can be turned around nicely.

Genetics tells the real story.


If appearances and relatedness are so often not remotely linked -how do you think we should believe that men and apes are conclusively related in any way?


Reexamination of the African hominoid trichotomy with additional sequences from the primate â-globin gene cluster [/url


[url=http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/248]Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

A couple of my papers are cited in that one...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:58 AM on April 8, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.