Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Quote:
Geneticist =/= Paleontologist

Get with it man. This is the age of interdisciplanary studies. I might introduce you to Neil Shubin, who, as a trained anatomist and paleontologist, is presently the Dean of the Medical School at the U of Chicago ( not a creationist hotbed Im led to believe). Hes been active in evolutionary "clade studies via genetic inferences. It was he, and his team that found Tiktaalik rosacea a"fishapod" of the upper Devonian, by using good scientific detective work:Shubin also uncluttered the genetic complements of many of the Cichlid fishes that have rapidy speciated ,and a collegue, using paleogenetics unraveled how stickelbacks and "Ice Fish" in deep Artctic waters have made huge species changes due to subfreezing water connditions. (They( the fish) turned the haemoglobin into antifreeze which is chemically clear and colorless and so the fish are mostly translucent). Very interesting what motivated scientists can accomplish in furthering our understandings of cladistics and evolutionary mechanisms via interdiciplanary work.(I suspect that the Nobel prize committee may be looking atShubin's work for its universal applications to medical research).
Also I might mention that Daniel Fairbanks was once a watercolor artist who became a geneticist via some minor study in paleontology.In evolutionary genetics and molecular biology of evolution YOU CANT AVOID PALEO. You must really embrace the concept of interdisciplnary study, its the wave of the present.


I get a feeling that, like you and parados, we are now talking past each other. I dearly love to discuss what evidence means and compare notes on worldviews. You seem to be enamored with linguisticsemantics more than I am. Id like to continue but my eyes glaze over when Im being told that we must instead discuss meanings of terms that merely fog the meat of the discussion.



I dont know. There seems to be a significant amount of work today that is an attempt to link the two. Its not my bag of goodies. Sorry. I have a buddy who is a biophysicist at a big research center at a U and they do a lot of research on theapplications of wave/particle lux. My buddy looks at the adaptive nature of the insect eye in various light wavelengths.


When one of my students would include "universal spectrum", fallible epistemology" and"paradigm (sic) shift to quantum mechanics" in a single sentence,my BULLSHIT DETECTOR goes wild . I like to take the student aside and have it explain what it just said on the bluebook. I often get a few "systematic linguistic retrograde vocalizations" SO I gotta admit that I have no idea what you just said but it sounds great. Im sure spendi will glom it for his next barfight.



Yep, lets think continuum of effect. As Miller said,

"evolution is merely taking what youve already got, modifying it through time as a result of some environmental pressure, then doing something different with it" Are sherpas undergoing speciation? maybe not but they are adapting to something external, the processes are all the same when it comes to ones genes.

The fact that, for 99.999% of species follow the biological definition is pretty good betting odds for me. The last 0.0009% could be the focus of study of this " fuzziness". Ive no argument with that. Im sure some wag at a major research org like Planck Institute has looked into the biostatistics of speciation already.(certainly not the Discovery Institute-they surely dont want evidence to get in the way of their worldview).

I had to clip and paste part of my last post because I didnt read it before I hit "Send" and it wound up looking a bit garbled. In my defense,I was at a rest stop on the Turnpike and was taking a break and dawdled too long . I took too long on my reply and then hadda get rolling in a hurry. I hope this one makes more sense to you (sans all those italics)

They will never unravel "evolutionary mechanisms". They are just creating positions for themselves in the seminaries of the Higher Learning using pop-science.

Interdisciplinary Studies are merely knowing a bit about everything and parlezing it all into being influential

Even the Dean of the Medical School at the U of Chicago must sometimes have to stand naked. Dylan used "naked" because "underpants" didn't sing so good.

You're star struck fm. I know girls who could make his eyeballs reverse direction with a flick of the wrist.

got yer bumper sticker generator going at top speed I see.

Was I supposed to pick one?
None of em were top rungish, kind of mediocre attempts at wit. Get some sleep spendi, perhaps youll imporove by suppertime (or pubby time) whichever comes first.

A bloke told a joke in the pub last night about a psychologist testing an inmate in an asylum to see if he was fit to be returned to normal life. He faced him with a bath full of water and gave him a spoon and a bucket and told him to empty the bath. If he used the bucket he was released. An observer from the Ministry of Funny Walks asked what if he pulled the plug out. The psychologist said "I've never thought of that."

I can't make my mind up whether it is funny or not. What do you think?

Why? You enjoy being ignorant??

The Neanderthal is positive proof that there's never been anything on this planet from which modern man could have evolved:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2647442/posts?page=51

What about modern woman gunga?

Women are descended from cats, totally different subject...

Seems the argument that you try to make is constantly being stomped on by genetic data. The genome of Neanderthal has been 97% sequenced by Svaante Paabo's team at Planck Institute and several apes and hominids have been genomically compared to hominims. Gueww what, our genome is actually a chimps genome , except that chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimp chromosomes and Neanderthals clearly show themselves to be " ancestral genetic" cousins , not direct ancestors.

I suggest you read something other than Freep. Might I suggest that you read Charles Pierce's IDIOT AMERICA. If I didnt know better, Id think that Pierce interviewed you for his book.

BTW, there are 2 subspecies of Homo sapiens .

True FM? Can you point me at more info?

I've mentioned this before, the most recent genetic studies indicate that we are nearly as far genetically removed from chimpanzees as we are from chickens:

http://www.icr.org/article/new-chromosome-research-undermines/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

And DNA for the Neanderthal, the closest hominid, is generally described as roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.

Gee, no agendas in all those sources. HAS THE ICR EVER DONE ANY SCIENCE?? CMON, BE HONEST .

The fact that they(ICR,AIG) dont understand anything doesnt mean that you should similarly spout your ignorance.
Theres a guy named "Bewildered" on the boards. You and he.... separated at mirth?

Gunga, I cannot believe you are this defiantly ignorant. Tell me that your bullshit is just you fuckin with us. That at least would be a joke on me. Otherwise,

The basic story as I read it comes from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I simply posted the first couple of Google hits which turn up.

The short version of evolution:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/video/efi.wmv

Take your pick of sources:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Chimpanzee+and+Human+Y+Chromosomes+are+Remarkably+Divergent+in+Structure+and+Gene+Content.%22+&pbx=1&oq=%22Chimpanzee+and+Human+Y+Chromosomes+are+Remarkably+Divergent+in+Structure+and+Gene+Content.%22+&aq=f&aqi=g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2642l2642l0l3244l1l1l0l0l0l0l159l159l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=d9429f9829cfd831&biw=1291&bih=726

What are the words that you are typing into this Google search that comes up with what you shared with us in the past?

Dan Fairbanks was all over the chimp/human genome and what you seem to not understand is whether its 98% or 70% (I actually like a 70% number cause it pushes the chimp diversion back in time)--There are only 10 sites on the chimp or human chromosomal compliment where the genomes differ(based upon thousands of sites.
The genomic "count of differing nucleotide pairs is kinda irrelevant cause some of the coded amino acids have GA/GA/GA/GA repeats that go on for thousands of segments describing an (N/3) amount of amino acids and thence , proteins.

You read without understanding a goddam thing you post.

Also, with the position of the number 2 chromosome in humans, we can see that its structure is actually the FUSED chromosomes 1 and 2 of the chimp. The telomeres and centromeres clearly show this. Its a divergence that occured about the time that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor.

SCIENCE can show us so much if we retain minds that can stay freeof agendas that color our scholarship.

Do you think that it is possible that this is a white baby or is it albino?

Since the article was on the Y chromosome it was a first(not as the Creationists stated, a"mistake"). The y chromosome was an indicator that, mpore probably, the divergence occured just about the time that the fossils are showing (about 6+ MY). SO instead of being a problem that the CReationists would like to exploit, its anExplanation of the fossil record and a "genetic clock" of the divergence of chimps and human ancestors as they diverged from a common ancestor. Heres the Abstract from Nature


The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome1, 2. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis3, 4. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes5, 6, 7, 8, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans. Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor. We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs.