huxley:

Sorry, I saw this but missed addressing it.   Nowhere I have I seen anyone assert that Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthal.  In fact I posted a thread to this effect about 7 months ago.  Modern humans and Neanderthals are thought to be cousins on the evolutionary tree, but not on a  direct lineage line.   DNA studies have confirm that.

At some point it was thought that the two groups might have interbred, but that too has been discounted with genetic studies results.

which makes things even more absurd . . . look at this tree and see how close we are to neanderthals (allegedly):



How come, we are only one spot removed from neanderthals and YET do not share ANYTHING related in terms of mtDNAr genomic DNA? This is almost similar to saying a child doesnt share a single genetic similarity with his cousin.

Show me scientific papers mr.

Sure. Knock yourself out.

http://www.mitochondrial.net/showcitationlist.php?keyword=mitochondrial%20DNA

ah we've seen that kind of dishonest attempt at dodging your own falsehood. Sorry, wont work.
I dont give you blank references that bear no meaning to the issue (besides just having "mitochondria" in the title) when you ask me questions.

You asked for scientific papers.

I've given them.
In the time between my last post and your post above, there is no way you could have read even a small fraction of them yet you instantly dismiss them.

David. Sometimes you're just a jerk.

Bastage:

You asked for scientific papers.
I've given them.

you could have as well just given me the pubmed website, that is way more complete than the nonsense you sent earlier. I didnt just blankly ask for "papers" . . . i asked for congent scientific publications THAT SUPPORT THE THRASH YOU WERE SPEWING EARLIER. What did your link have to do with cockroach mtDNA? 

Bastage:

In the time between my last post and your post above, there is no way you could have read even a small fraction of them yet you instantly dismiss them.

which is EXACTLY your tack, keep us busy with a boatload of irrelevant material that you havent even read . . . giving u enough time to distract from the real questions you fumbled and failed to answer.

Bastage:

David. Sometimes you're just a jerk.

Bastage sometimes you're just a dishonest fraud.

Dont worry, i'm off to the other thread to answer you in like manner.

i asked for congent scientific publications THAT SUPPORT THE THRASH YOU WERE SPEWING EARLIER. What did your link have to do with cockroach mtDNA?

Firstly, you're the idiot who started burbling on about cockroaches and human beings.
Secondly, my point was regarding mtDNA mutation and it's speed. There is plenty there to show that mtDNA has had time to mutate over the time period in discussion here.

which is EXACTLY your tack, keep us busy with a boatload of irrelevant material that you havent even read . . . giving u enough time to distract from the real questions you fumbled and failed to answer.

It won't keep you busy. A quick scan will suffice.

Bastage:

Firstly, you're the idiot who started burbling on about cockroaches and human beings.

precisely because you ignorant fools tell us (again without proof) that you and the cockroach share a common ancestor. Shouldnt you then share certain charateristics in your DNA you slowpoke?

Bastage:

Secondly, my point was regarding mtDNA mutation and it's speed. There is plenty there to show that mtDNA has had time to mutate over the time period in discussion here.

You say "there is plenty to show that mtDNA has had time to mutate" such that cockroach and human DNA are virtually disimilar. Problems with this lazy, false claim:

1. There is NOT ONE SINGLE PROOF of this "plenty to show".
2. Mutation is too slow and too rare to completely change an entire mtDNA. Even alleged ERVs from failed viral attacks havent changed so drastically in billions of yrs and they only make up 10% of our genome.
3. If mutation changed our mtDNA, how come our mitochondrial proteins, function, shape and size is ALMOST IDENTICAL to that of the cockroach? why didnt mutation change all that?

You're just another blustering idiot with no credibility besides repeating failed mantra.

Bastage:

It won't keep you busy. A quick scan will suffice.

Yeast, avian, human . . . bla bla bla . . . what did that have to do with the discussion at hand? Typical of the way these fools try to worm their way out of their own discomfort. I've always said it - they put up huge tomes to distract us from the real issues.

Did you read a single one of the papers there? I think not. If google didnt exist what would you do?

1. There is NOT ONE SINGLE PROOF of this "plenty to show".

There is plenty to show that it mutates in human beings alone let alone over the time-scale in discussion here. The first couple of papers there show that.

2. Mutation is too slow and too rare to completely change an entire mtDNA. Even alleged ERVs from failed viral attacks havent changed so drastically in billions of yrs and they only make up 10% of our genome.

ERVs have absolutely nothing to do with this subject. Stop smoke-screening.
And it's very, very hypocritical to use them in your argument when (apart from their irrelevency), you don't even believe that ERV markers have anything to do with evolution. Remember - you said they had no relevancy to evolution in this thread?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241487.128.html

But now you dare to try to use them as evidence? Using the word "alleged" doesn't get you off the hook, you slowpoke.

Bastage:

There is plenty to show that it mutates in human beings alone let alone over the time-scale in discussion here. The first couple of papers there show that.

I think you have a brain, pls dont make me change that assumption. Is there any reason you can pick JUST ONE OF THIS FIRST COUPLE OF PAPERS and carefully outline how it supports your bogus claim?

Bastage:

ERVs have absolutely nothing to do with this subject. Stop smoke-screening.
And it's very, very hypocritical to use them in your argument when (apart from their irrelevency), you don't even believe that ERV markers have anything to do with evolution. Remember - you said they had no relevancy to evolution in this thread?

again slowpoke, the ERV example was used to buttress a FACT that bows your argument out of the water. If mutation could not completely change alleged ERV insertions into the human genome that makes up a mere 10% of the total genome, how could mutations have completely changed the mtDNA of humans such that there is no similarity between it and the cockroach version . . . a 100% change?

Thou fool . . . only a blockhead like you cant get the allusions here.

What ERV markers are shared between humans and insects!!!

It's totally and utterly irrelevant!!!

Bastage:

What ERV markers are shared between humans and insects!!!

It's totally and utterly irrelevant!!!

thou fool, we are not talking about who shares what now. We are asking whether mutation is truly so powerful as to completely change an entire mitocondrial DNA if it cant completely change a mere 10% of genomic DNA.

Dude you want me to get you a 5 yr old to explain this to you? Its why i never take you google-reliant pseudo-scientists seriously.

thou fool, we are not talking about who shares what now. We are asking whether mutation is truly so powerful as to completely change an entire mitocondrial DNA if it cant completely change a mere 10% of genomic DNA.

thou dickhead, we certainly are talking about who shares what. You're the tool who keeps harping on about a lack of similarity between human and cockroach mtDNA.

It's why I never take hypocritical psuedoscience Bible bashers seriously.

davidylan:

again slowpoke, the ERV example was used to buttress a FACT that bows your argument out of the water. If mutation could not completely change alleged ERV insertions into the human genome that makes up a mere 10% of the total genome, how could mutations have completely changed the mtDNA of humans such that there is no similarity between it and the cockroach version . . . a 100% change?

Thou fool . . . only a blockhead like you cant get the allusions here.

I read this, laughed, and decided it's not worth it. I'm not gonna stop laughing. You jackass, you don't work with proteins or genes. You just made that up.

Yes, my entire response is one big ad hominem. No, it doesn't mean I don't know anything about the subject, or that I can't point out why the entire post shows you aren't significantly knowledgable on biology to work with genes. Yes, I'm going to keep laughing irrespective of any other nonsense you spew.

I'm out, you other guys can keep going at it with Davidylan, the resident troll, but I won't.

[size=18pt]New Proteins Without God's Help[/size]

*
* Creation/Evolution Journal
* Printer-friendly version

Creation Evolution Journal
Title:
New Proteins Without God's Help
Author(s):
William M. Thwaites
Volume:
5
Number:
2
Year:
1985
Quarter:
Summer
Page(s):
1–3


This version might differ slightly from the print publication.

Creationists seem to be proud of their calculations that supposedly show how thermodynamics and probability prevent the chance formation of biologically useful macromolecules such as enzymes. Their "evidence" usually consists of quotations from such authors as Hubert P. Yockey, who agrees that catalytically active proteins cannot occur by chance. Yockey (1977a and b), looking at fully evolved proteins, says that their information content is too high for their chance formation.

Creationists do their own calculations to show that the chance formation of biologically useful proteins is impossible. These calculations almost always involve the erroneous assumption that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position. Since there are twenty different amino acids available for each position, the chance of randomly getting a string of 200 amino acids all in the right order is (1/20)200. If you plug this expression into a calculator, it will tell you that it equals essentially zero. Thus, the creationists say, you can't get such a protein by a chance ordering of amino acids. As Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) put it (1976), "The time required for a single catalytically active protein molecule to arise by pure chance would be billions of times the assumed age of the earth."

But proteins, even modern highly evolved specialized proteins, are not built with that degree of specificity. What's more, many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids (Doolittle, 1981) or they have a simple metalo-organic core that could have functioned alone as a primitive precursor of today's complex enzyme. So the creationist calculations give an answer of zero probability because the creationists make at least two major errors in their assumptions: they assume a degree of specificity that has not been shown to exist in real proteins, and they insist that newly formed proteins must be as efficient as their older and highly evolved counterparts.

— page 2 —

We've been trying to explain all this to the protein "experts" at ICR for the last seven years. We have told them that new proteins could indeed form from the random ordering of amino acids. We have warned them that their calculations were based on faulty assumptions and soon someone would document the natural formation of a new protein from the random association of amino acids.

Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.

When the enzymes were first discovered about 1975 (Kinoshita, et al, 1981), it was at first thought the new enzymes arose through the modification of preexisting enzymes that had similar functions. To test this notion, the discoverers looked to see if the other enzymes in the same organism would react to antibodies made against the new enzymes. But by this criterion the new enzymes were unique. Antibodies against them found nothing similar with which to react among the array of other enzymes in the organism.

Again it was reasoned that if the new enzymes were just old enzymes with minor changes to allow digestion of nylon byproducts, they should retain at least a slight amount of activity with their original substrates. But the new enzymes had no activity on biologically derived molecules having similar chemical structures. So, by this attribute as well, the new enzymes were seen to be unique.

It seemed that if the new enzymes were indeed derived from randomly ordered amino acids, they would be very inefficient compared to the usual highly evolved enzyme, since the new enzymes would not have had billions of years of natural selection to reach a pinnacle of biological perfection. It has been shown that one of the new enzymes (the linear oligomer hydrolase) has about 2% of the efficiency demonstrated by three other enzymes that perform similar reactions with biologically derived substrates (Kinoshita, et al). Thus, by this criterion, as well as the others, the enzyme appears to be newly formed.

— page 3 —

More recently, another analysis (Ohno, 1984) added further evidence that at least one of the proteins was formed from an essentially random sequence of amino acids. This evidence is a little bit more difficult to understand since its comprehension involves some understanding of how the genetic code works. I'll just have to refer readers who do not have this background to an explanation such as Suzuki, et. al, 1976. It appears that the DNA that formed the gene was somewhat unusual since it could be "read" without finding a "stop" word in any of the three "reading frames." It can be shown that such DNA sequences could easily occur through the well-known process of duplication. The DNA sequence suggests that a simple "frame-shift" mutation could have brought about the chance formation of at least this one enzyme. "Frame-shift" mutations are known for forming totally new and essentially random arrays of amino acids since the code is "read" in a new reading frame. Usually the proteins that are formed by frame-shift mutations are totally useless sequences of amino acids that have no structural, antigenic, or enzymatic relationship to the original protein. This time, however, the new protein was useful. Being useful, it was retained by natural selection and was finally discovered by biochemists who noticed a bacterium that could live on industrial waste.

All of this demonstrates that Yockey (1977a and b), Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1981), the creationists (Gish, 1976), and others who should know better are dead wrong about the near-zero probability of new enzyme formation. Biologically useful macromolecules are not so information-rich that they could not form spontaneously without God's help. Nor is help from extraterrestrial cultures required for their formation either. With this information in hand, we can wonder how creationists can so dogmatically insist that life could not have started by natural processes right here on earth.
References

Doolittle, R. 1981. "Similar Amino Acid Sequences: Chance or Common Ancestry?" Science 214:149-159.

Gish, D. 1976. "The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order." ICR Impact #37.

Hoyle, F., and N. C. Wickramasinghe. 1981. Evolution from Space. J. M. Dent, London.

Kinoshita, S., T. Terada, T. Taniguchi, Y. Takene, S. Masuda, N. Matsunaga, H. Okada. 1981. "Purification and Characterization of 6-Aminohexanoic-Acid-Oligomer Hydrolase of Flavobacterium sp. K172." European Journal of Biochemistry 116:547-551.

Ohno, S. 1984. "Birth of a Unique Enzyme from an Alternative Reading Frame of the Preexisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence." Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences 81:2421-2425.

Suzuki, D. T., A. J. F. Griffiths, R. C. Lewontin. 1976. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Yockey, H. P. 1977a. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory." Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377-398.

Yockey, H. P. 1977b. "On the Information Content of Cytochrome c." Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:345-376.
About the Author(s):
Dr. Thwaites is a professor of biology at San Diego State University where he conducts a two-model creation-evolution course. He has debated creationists on various occasions.
© Copyright 1985 by William M. Thwaites

Can't creationists and Evolutionists argue without the insults? It's an interesting topic, but when I start to read the insults I lose interest, geez.

Badriyyah:

Can't creationists and Evolutionists argue without the insults? It's an interesting topic, but when I start to read the insults I lose interest, geez.

That would happen the day evolutionists realise they have very limited knowledge of the issues at stake.

@ DavidDylan

10* Gbosa for u. I can only commend ur intellect and tolerance.

noetic:

@ DavidDylan

10* Gbosa for u. I can only commend ur intellect and tolerance.

"Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire" - Boileau

Badriyyah:

Can't creationists and Evolutionists argue without the insults? It's an interesting topic, but when I start to read the insults I lose interest, geez.

Yes they can However, it occurs to me that at least one of the Creationist party (probably both in this thread, in fact) have, through their behaviour in a number of threads, invited others to see and treat them with derision and scorn. I, for one, oblige that invitation.

[size=18pt]Basic Created Kinds and the Fossil Record of Perissodactyls[/size]


Creation Evolution Journal
Title:
Basic Created Kinds and the Fossil Record of Perissodactyls
Author(s):
James S. Monroe
with illustrations by Daniel G. Warren
Volume:
5
Number:
2
Year:
1985
Quarter:
Summer
Page(s):
4–30
This version might differ slightly from the print publication.

"Original kinds have been stable" is a tenet of "scientific" creationism, and scientific evidence can be given to support this tenet. At least, this is the claim of creation "scientists." Evidence usually cited includes probability, thermodynamics, the "impossibility" of beneficial mutations, and the fossil record, all of which are intended to show that evolution from "kind" to "kind" could not have occurred. The intent of this article is to show that the concept of a "basic created kind" is without meaning, especially when applied to fossil animals, and to demonstrate that the fossil record shows all perissodactyls are interrelated, therefore must all be of the same "kind" based on the only logical criterion for assigning fossils to "kinds."

Basic Created Kinds

Creationists conceive of a "basic created kind" as an organism which when created possessed considerable genetic potential for variation. This is commonly cited as "creative forethought" to allow these "kinds" to adapt, within limits, to changing environments (Morris, 1974; Hiebert, 1979). These "basic created kinds" have varied within limits thus accounting for the diversity of modern life forms. Common examples are a basic dog "kind" that gave rise to all varieties of dogs, from jackals to coyotes, a basic finch "kind" to account for Darwin's finches, and a basic horse "kind" that varied to give rise to all modern horses and many, or perhaps all, fossil horses. So variation, or microevolution, is allowed, but creationists emphatically deny that one "kind" could give rise to another "kind" (macroevolution).

- page 5 -
The absolute number of "basic created kinds" would probably be irrelevant to creationists were it not for two things. One is the demonstrated ability to induce variation by artificial selection and controlled experiments. The second, and probably most important, is that the size of Noah's Ark is known, at least approximately, and so the number of kinds must be reduced to something manageable. To accomplish this, aquatic "kinds" are usually not included as passengers on the ark. But this still leaves a space problem, and far too many "kinds" for Noah and his family to care for. Accordingly, "kinds" are further reduced to a dog "kind," a cat "kind," and so on.

The estimates of "basic created kinds" vary enormously. Jones (1973, p. 104) equates "kinds" roughly with the family and concludes (p. 107) that, "The number of animals under Noah's care probably did not exceed 2,000. . . ." These 1000 "kinds" (actually Jones p. 105 argues for 700 kinds) include mostly reptiles, birds and mammals. At the other extreme is Hiebert's (1979, p. 16) conclusion that ". . . species correspond roughly to original created kinds in Genesis chapter one." He does amend this statement by saying biological species ". . . do not always correspond to original kinds."

It is difficult to see how creationists could take either author's concept of a "kind" very seriously, but at least one (Moore, 1983) sees some value in Jones' ideas. Using Jones' concept, it would seem that goats, sheep, musk ox, bison, wildebeests and gazelles all were derived from an ancestral bovid "kind." And of course the okapi and giraffe also must have been derived from a single "kind."

Hiebert simply overloads the ark, even if aquatic kinds are omitted. In addition, Hiebert's formalization of what a "kind" is must surely be too restrictive for most creationists. For example, he insists (p. 114) that new species cannot arise because the chromosome number of each is "rigidly fixed." On p. 113 he argues that more complex animals should show an increasing number of chromosomes if evolution is true, and since there is no such correlation, each organism possessing a different number of chromosomes represents a separately created "kind." The problem is that the basic horse kind of most creationists now has no meaning since the chromosomes vary from 32 in Hartman's zebra, to 46 in Grevy's zebra, to 56 in the onager, to 66 in Przewalski's horse (Gould, 1983, p. 362). Perhaps Hiebert thinks each is a "basic created kind" (he seems to contradict this on p. 60), but it is doubtful that other creationists would agree.

Between Jones' 700 "kinds" and Hiebert's unspecified but undoubtedly large number of "kinds" are somewhat more moderate estimates. Whitcomb and Morris (1961) and LaHaye and Morris (1976) argue for 35,000 and 50,000 animals on the ark respectively. The former estimate seems to be taken from Mayr's list of 17,600 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, although Whitcomb and Morris (p. 69) say: ". . . but undoubtedly the number of original 'kinds' was less than this." Continue here

KAG:

"Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire" - Boileau

Nice one

KAG:

"Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire" - Boileau

meaning?

noetic:

That would happen the day evolutionists realise they have very limited knowledge of the issues at stake.

thank you. Note the complete lack of any attempt to provide substantive analysis of their claims to evolution. Its all ad hominems.

Dont bother about KAG, she's been singing the same tune like a broken record for the last 2-3 yrs so its not new. NEVER addresses the issue, only pops up to "laugh" and deride others. Water off a duck's back IMO.

Note the complete lack of any attempt to provide substantive analysis of their claims to evolution. Its all ad hominems.

Yet again you are caught in one of your own lies.

All I see are Evolution theory advocates discussing evolution. I never see a Creationist explaining creationist theory. Why not?
Because it's so laughable they daren't broach the subject. All they can come out with is "God did it" and that's the total sum of their argument.

Don't believe me? You can see examples of how well Evolution theory is debated when it delves into the realms of genetics and subdivisions of genetics. I've never seen 1% of that intensity exhibited with Creationist theory. Why? Because it totally falls apart at the slightest general scrutiny.

Evolutionists spend a lot of time here answering your questions David. Yet when you are questioned, you won't answer at all. Why? Because even you know, that you can't defend something you don't even believe in yourself.

Your real lie though is that you state others add nothing when they've written dozens of replies to your silly claims. The truth is David, you're the one who dodges and weaves. You're the one who smoke-screens and removes substance. You're the one who derides others and changes the subject when it comes too close to exposing your idiocy. You're the one who leaves with their tail between their legs only to pop up elsewhere and state how you "won". You're the one who will trivialise, use hypocrisy, lies and fabrications to attack others.

I guess the truth is that you're just not a very nice person.

@noetic

10* Gbosa for u. I can only commend ur intellect and tolerance.

There's no intellect involved when discussing a subject using lies and deceit. You're telling a man with no eyes that he can see well.

Bastage:


All I see are Evolution theory advocates discussing evolution. I never see a Creationist explaining creationist theory. Why not?
Because it's so laughable they daren't broach the subject. All they can come out with is "God did it" and that's the total sum of their argument.

Its simply stated in genesis 1 and 2. If u have any questions about this please feel free to ask. u can start from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-250689.64.html

@noetic

There's no intellect involved when discussing a subject using lies and deceit. You're telling a man with no eyes that he can see well.

Just like u, I am also entitled to my opinion.

Bastage:

All I see are Evolution theory advocates discussing evolution.

Where do you see them? KAG has done NOTHING but come to laugh, deride and generally hide her own intellectual myopia, Huxley tried to bluff and bluster . . . ran out of steam and fled, you have done nothing but expose the fact that you have a very limited knowledge of biology.
so just exactly WHO are these people "discussing evolution"?

Bastage:

I never see a Creationist explaining creationist theory. Why not?

You had the chance to perfectly explain WITH SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, the validity of evolution and you failed miserably . . . YET you're crying for creationist explanations? It seems for many of you the only way to "discuss" evolution is NOT to provide evidence that it is true but to bash the bible.

Bastage:

Because it's so laughable they daren't broach the subject. All they can come out with is "God did it" and that's the total sum of their argument.

What have you "discussed" as regards evolution? Anything better than "i guess" [from Huxley], "it is likely" [from KAG] and complete ignorance of the issues from you?

Bastage:

Don't believe me? You can see examples of how well Evolution theory is debated when it delves into the realms of genetics and subdivisions of genetics. I've never seen 1% of that intensity exhibited with Creationist theory. Why? Because it totally falls apart at the slightest general scrutiny.

Based on this thread, i havent seen it . . . i have done more of the talking on genetics and even produced ammended forms of Darwin's tree of evolution . . . what have any of you brought to this thread beyond regurgitating copied talking points?

Bastage:

Evolutionists spend a lot of time here answering your questions David. Yet when you are questioned, you won't answer at all. Why? Because even you know, that you can't defend something you don't even believe in yourself.

The spend a LOT MORE TIME insulting me personally - KAG for example, that is ALL she ever comes here to do.
Huxley tried to "answer" questions and ran out of steam . . . the simple questions i asked you, you failed to answer coherently . . . so just WHO are the evolutionists "answering questions"? you mean "answers" like simply typing mitochondrial DNA into google and pasting the results of your search for me to read?

EVERY SINGLE QUESTION that yourself and Huxley threw at me i have done justice to on this thread . . . where are answers to my own questions?

Bastage:

I guess the truth is that you're just not a very nice person.

No, i've never been one to be nice to complete idiots who decieve themselves that they are intelligent.

Huxley put up JUST ONE SINGLE PAPER . . . when i pressed him to defend its validity here is what he came up with - Well, strictly speaking you are right that this is NOT by itself so much evidence for human evolution but evidence for common ancestory in Africa.

why is it so so difficult to provide evidence for what you trumpet so loudly?

Davidylan,

I have a present for you here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-214643.224.html

Huxley put up JUST ONE SINGLE PAPER . . .

Lies. Lies. Lies.

Apart from the rest of the crap that you have posted, this sentence above exposes you as nothing but an utter liar.

Anyone can go back through the 2 pages of this thread and see where he has posted at least half a dozen links and copy and pastes.

Bastage, its obvious you have a serious disconnect with rational thinking . . . when i count the number of "papers" huxley posts i'm not refering to mere links that he himself NEVER bothered to tell us why he posted them. More like he was putting up just about anything in his desperation to change the subject when he found himself unable to explain the point in his first paper.

His first paper was the ONLY one with which he tried to defend evolution, when that fell flat he resorted to panic posting of just anything. similar to your own dishonest attempt to escape by posting a search page on mitochondrial DNA that didnt explain nothing.

You people seem to think we cant reason.

davidylan:

Bastage, its obvious you have a serious disconnect with rational thinking . . . when i count the number of "papers" huxley posts i'm not refering to mere links that he himself NEVER bothered to tell us why he posted them. More like he was putting up just about anything in his desperation to change the subject when he found himself unable to explain the point in his first paper.

His first paper was the ONLY one with which he tried to defend evolution, when that fell flat he resorted to panic posting of just anything. similar to your own dishonest attempt to escape by posting a search page on mitochondrial DNA that didnt explain nothing.

You people seem to think we cant reason.

You are trully mad. All the papers I posted have links to the source of the material and how many of the papers did you engage? Methink just one, the first one. As I said in my earlier comment, the paper itself is not so much about evolution as about one line of evidence for evolution.

If is an evidence for evolution in the sense that evolution predicts Africa as the origin of humankind and the first paper confirms that. Now, what if the paper had found that humans originated from Australia or Pakistan? Not would have refuted the TTE with respect to human evolution.


Now you guys accuse me of not answering questions but I think the opposite is true. How many questions have I failed to respond to and where are they? If you are honest you would show me right now or re-ask the questions and I would at the very least attempt them. This is your opportunity to ask you questions or ressurect earlier questions that you think was left unanswered.

But I know you will make another excuse and run away and dishonest as you and your ilk are. I challenge you to ask your questions now OR you better stop accusing me of avoiding questions as this is grossly dishonest.

On the other hand, I have asked, repeatedly, questions after questions, like:


1) What is the definition of biological evolution as accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community?

2) Why are mammalian fossils never found in pre-cambrian rocks

3) What conclusion can one draw from the fact that you share more genetic material with your siblings than with Richard Nixon or myself?



And I still await your responses. Now, who is being dishonest here?


If have the floor to ask your questions, either here or on a separate thread and I shall respond in due course (within 24 hours) as am off to bed now as it is 1:10 am and i have got work tomorrow.

huxley:

You are trully mad.

as usual. Do you discredited loons have anything else to say but ad hominems when you run out of gas?

huxley:

All the papers I posted have links to the source of the material

This is a meaningless statement. Links to which source of EXACTLY WHAT material?

huxley:

and how many of the papers did you engage? Methink just one, the first one.

How many did YOU attempt to engage? NONE. You posted one, i called you out on it, you failed to address the issues it raised, refused to answer questions on how the paper itself contradicts your position on evolution and then finally struggled to admit that it wasnt really talking about evolution afterall . . . then why did you post it?

As to the others, they were simply meaningless and irrelevant to anything we were discussing at the moment. I dont just engage irrelevant trolling.

huxley:

As I said in my earlier comment, the paper itself is not so much about evolution as about one line of evidence for evolution.

Rubbish. Here was what you said earlier on that same paper - Well, strictly speaking you are right that this is NOT by itself so much evidence for human evolution but evidence for common ancestory in Africa.

Which is it? A line of evidence for evolution OR evidence for common ancestry in Africa? Both are not the same dude.

huxley:

If is an evidence for evolution in the sense that evolution predicts Africa as the origin of humankind and the first paper confirms that.

1. Enough of exagerations . . . the paper you posted DID NOT confirm the origin of mankind as coming from Africa by sampling mtDNA from 147 people out of 6 billion. The sample size is much too small to base such a monumental event on it. I'm sure you read statistics in school and learnt about power and all.

2. Evolution could not have predicted Africa as the origin of mankind - firstly it is a relatively recent hypothesis that only appeared in the 1980s, long long long after Darwin had died.

3. Darwin merely suggested this in his work because then it was largely thought that man must have evolved from gorillas and chimpanzees . . . since these animals are mostly located in Africa, it made sense to assume man must have evolved from africa.

As is usuall with a lot of these nonsense . . . there is NO HARD EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.

huxley:

Now, what if the paper had found that humans originated from Australia or Pakistan? Not would have refuted the TTE with respect to human evolution.

More hogwash . . . basing an entire theory on mtDNAs from 147 people?

huxley:

Now you guys accuse me of not answering questions but I think the opposite is true. How many questions have I failed to respond to and where are they? If you are honest you would show me right now or re-ask the questions and I would at the very least attempt them. This is your opportunity to ask you questions or ressurect earlier questions that you think was left unanswered.

1. Where are the scientific papers PROVING WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that evolution is true and can be demonstrated in the lab?

2. If neanderthals are only one place removed from homo sapiens, why do we not share a single trace of either genomic or mtDNA?

Thanks for tackling just those 2.

huxley:

But I know you will make another excuse and run away and dishonest as you and your ilk are. I challenge you to ask your questions now OR you better stop accusing me of avoiding questions as this is grossly dishonest.

I've been hanging around here . . . only to meet your absence until a few minutes ago . . . and i'm the one who ran away? Funny troll.

huxley:

On the other hand, I have asked, repeatedly, questions after questions, like:


1) What is the definition of biological evolution as accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community?

2) Why are mammalian fossils never found in pre-cambrian rocks

3) What conclusion can one draw from the fact that you share more genetic material with your siblings than with Richard Nixon or myself?

when you have conclusively answered mine i will definitely tackle urs.

Good day.

I do not wish to join this discussion because in my opinion it has not much to do with the science of the topic. Thus I will post links to some relevant publications in leading journals like Nature and Science so that readers that have subscription to these journals can access the articles and draw their own inference.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v100/n6/full/hdy200814a.html


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05336.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1113

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/information%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030175

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v100/n6/full/hdy200814a.html