Evolution? How?

RexRed wrote:

... Actually real life has an eye witness account... Noah... Noah's story of this flood is also corroborated by at least three other entirely independent sources. One of them being the Gilgamesh story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm
Also historical records of Turkey and scientific discoveries of the black sea show a flood of continental proportions. Is that big enough?

Nonsense. That humankind's shared memories include flood myths is a natural, logical consequence of the simple fact civilization arose in river vallies and along shorelines, which is where floods are wont to occur. When one's worldview is limited to experiential reference derived from one's own valley or bit of shoreline, one may be expected to perceive a major regional flood as a global occurrence. That such legends abound proves only that floods were common and frequent enough to play a part in mythology. Apart from that, the purported Black Sea innundation, if indeed it ocuured - a matter subject to considerable dispute and counter evidence - would have occurred a millenium or so before the date of creation as determined by biblical literalists.

Quote:

Y chromosome DNA records indicate there was a bottle-neck in human evolution... Scientists say that we all evolved from only one father...

http://www.dallaway.org/dna1.htm

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm

http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews16.htm

More nonsense; DNA research indicates a common female ancestor for contemporary humans ... the "Mitochondrial Eve" of 200 millenia ago, which means nothing more nor less than that one female merely shared all the mytochondrial DNA common to all humans alive today. Mitochondrial DNA is passed exclusively through female, or X, chromosomes; that "Eve" had ancestors as well, all the way back to and preceeding the common mamallian ancestor. When that "Eve" was alive, she herself was the product of a long chain of ancestors, necessarilly male and female ancestors, whose genes she inherited. No stretch of logic permits consideration that this individual was other than a member of a species which has survived to this point in time. Mathematically, it is impossible for there not to have been such a critter. Now, while there existed something of a male, or Y Chromosome Adam, identified through sequencing of a small, distinct section of the Y chromosome peculiar to males, whose genes all male humans alive today share, however, that individual dates millenia more recently than does the female counterpart. That there be a "Chromosomal Adam" is as much a mathematic necessity as that there be a "Chromosomal Eve", and by nature of the distribution of genetic markers, via X chromosomes for females and males, but via only Y chromosomes for males, the set of chromosomes exclusoive to males is necessarily smaller than that of chromosomes common to both males and fenales, and locically would, as is the case, represent a younger individual. Also in the mitochondrial record are genes common to humans and canids, for instance - by your reasoning, dogs too are descendents of Eve, as by extension would be any other mammal, including Adam.

What you prove, Rex, is that you rely, for source material in support of your proposition, on folks who haven't a clue what they're talking about.

The figures quoted, if correct and you seem to concede that they may be, would seem to indicate not just a decay of the dipole, but an overall loss when measuring the total energy of the magnetic field, would it not?

real life says

Quote:

The figures quoted, if correct and you seem to concede that they may be, would seem to indicate not just a decay of the dipole, but an overall loss when measuring the total energy of the magnetic field, would it not?

.
As usual you get things sort of half right before you go and try to underpinn russ Humphreys. If we even lose 50% of our dipole strength we would still be about 25% greater Magnetic field strength than in the previous Gauss and Gilbert normal and reverse periods. your quoting some data that shows a decline of field strength comprised mostly of dipole field that was already at an extreme high before the Brunhes normal (last 700000years0 so that makes the last 100 years data less than 0.015 % of the entire data period from the start of the Brunhes till today.

The point that youre seemingly impresseed with is that........

Actually I am more impressed with the fact that the more direct evidence, is that of the decline of the total strength of the magnetic field over the recent decades, when that could actually be measured.

Key brain gene shows evolution in humans

Duke University researchers say they've discovered the first brain regulatory gene that shows clear evidence of evolution from lower primates to humans.

They said the evolution of humans might well have depended in part on hyperactivation of the gene, called prodynorphin, or PDYN, that plays critical roles in regulating perception, behavior and memory.

They reported that, compared with lower primates, humans possess a distinctive variant in a regulatory segment of the prodynorphin gene, which is a precursor molecule for a range of regulatory proteins called "neuropeptides." This variant increases the amount of prodynorphin produced in the brain.

While the researchers do not understand the physiological implications of the activated PDYN gene in humans, they said their finding offers an important and intriguing piece of a puzzle of the mechanism by which humans evolved from lower primates. They also said the discovery of the first evolutionarily selected gene is likely only the beginning of a new pathway of exploring how the pressure of natural selection influenced evolution of other genes.

The study appears in the December issue of the Public Library of Science.

"Science" is in agreement; it pursues the truth about observable phenomenon. Scientific findings must stand the test of time through systemized observation and study.

Yeah, I guess they gotta say stuff like that or their research grant money might get cut next year during the annual budget tussle. Better that they still have a job than to be held to any standard of ............(sigh) Well, if their funding does get cut, it sounds like they are at least qualified to sell used cars.

All IDers and Creationists can ever do is attack scientific research. They cannot provide any empricial proof. That is why their views in science is irrelevant and that is why I am opposed to them teaching their views in science, because their views can never contribute anything.

The poverty of the Creationist position is revealed in that technique. The basic technique is not directed at those who are or attempt to be conversant with the current state of scientific investigation. Once again, tediously, it is necessary to point out that "real life" is not addressing us. Rather, he is reeling off the latest Creationist talking points in the hope that he will delude someone who comes here to read. The delusion he wishes to create and perpetuate is that if science cannot answer all questions, he "wins" by default, and claims to have demonstrated the intervention of his imaginary friend. It is a method which has appeal for the uniformed and the uncritical. The uninformed will have no basis upon which to suspect "real life's" ignorance of the bases of scientific research. The uncritical will accept without quibble the absurd contention that failing to answer his questions means he is correct to assert the supremacy of his imaginary friend thesis.

No, the goal of ID'ers is to point out the conclusions that are guesses based on ambiguous evidence, i.e assumptions based on the fossil record.

Point to the unambiguous evidence for creation.