This paper will be interesting to naija people because the yoruba ethnic group was among the populations sampled in this research


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1100

Those interested in comparison of Neanderthal and human genomics can read the paper below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18304371

Paper claims human adaptive evolution is accerlerating. See below

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18087044

Paper reports that early Hominins had evolved modern human foot function and style of bipedal locomotion some 1.5 million years ago. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5918/1197

m_nwankwo:

Those interested in comparison of Neanderthal and human genomics can read the paper below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18304371

Many thankz for these posts. I shall certainly follow some of these out.

I thought I share this video with you guys. Shanedk produces extremely good videos about alomost any subjects. Enjoy

Those interested in understanding the contribution of human endogenous retoviruses to retroviral and host evolution as well as their roles in host cell gene regulation can look at the articles below:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/44912l37506217j2/fulltext.pdf


http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091501

Those interested on the probable reasons why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chips and other great apes have 24 pairs can read the articles below. The papers may also be interesting to those who are interested in the mapping of human chromosome 2 and 4. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html


http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full.pdf+html


http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf+html

In two articles in the journal Nature, scientists propose and dispute a model for the speciation of humans and chimps. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/pdf/nature04789.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7184/pdf/nature06805.pdf

@m nwankwo
Great posts. Thank you for all that information about evolution. I knew it wasnt all based on one mans (charles darwin's) mad fantasy as many pastors have tried to convince me over the years. It will take me a while to read through some of them though.
There is a programme on tv tonight called "did darwin kill god" (u.k bbc2 7pm). the presenter Conor Cunningham is a christian and a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. He attempts to overturn the view that Darwin's ideas have weakened religion.

Are you a christian Nwankwo? and if so, how do you merge your knowledge of science and evolution with your belief in the literal truth of the creation stories as told in the 'Holy' Bible? The amount of information the bible writers had was nothing compared to the amount we have now to form a more accurate picture of how we got here. But surely God knows everything right? so if you believe in god and evolution you must believe that he created evolution and left if to follow its own path of natural selection over millions of years. That would make you a Deist, right? I can see that knowledge and understanding based on facts and evidence are very important to you and the things you believe to be true.

respects

mantraa:

@m nwankwo
Great posts. Thank you for all that information about evolution. I knew it wasnt all based on one mans (charles darwin's) mad fantasy as many pastors have tried to convince me over the years. It will take me a while to read through some of them though.
There is a programme on tv tonight called "did darwin kill god" (u.k bbc2 7pm). the presenter Conor Cunningham is a christian and a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. He attempts to overturn the view that Darwin's ideas have weakened religion.

Are you a christian Nwankwo? and if so, how do you merge your knowledge of science and evolution with your belief in the literal truth of the creation stories as told in the 'Holy' Bible? The amount of information the bible writers had was nothing compared to the amount we have now to form a more accurate picture of how we got here. But surely God knows everything right? so if you believe in god and evolution you must believe that he created evolution and left if to follow its own path of natural selection over millions of years. That would make you a Deist, right? I can see that knowledge and understanding based on facts and evidence are very important to you and the things you believe to be true.

respects

Hi Mantraa. Thanks for your kind words. I am posting these articles so that anybody can look at the scientific evidence available and come to their own conclusions. I am a christian but not in the generally accepted sense. I am a christian because I have personally recognised that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or God the Son and my life is to live in the sense of the supreme commandment that Jesus gave to humankind "Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbour as yourself". But I do not belong to any religion, sect or movement. I do not believe that everything in the bible is the word of God. Some are the word of God while others are the personal opinions of men or legends created by men. I do not believe in the literal interpretation account of the creation story in Genesis. All natural and supernatural laws are simply the manifestation of the laws of God, that means that God is the author or origin of these laws. Yes I believe that biological evolution is a manifestation of the will of God, just like reproduction, gravity, relativity, genuine miracles, etc are manifestation of the will of God. I am not a deist. I believe that the language of God can be found in the creations of God as well as in revelations by messengers of God. Indeed revelations are simply an explanation of the mechanisms of the laws of God in creation.

Yes, I do not accept anything as true except I personally experience incontrovertible evidence. By evidence, I mean both natural and supernatural evidence. But for me to accept the things about God as true, I must personally experience it with my spirit. Stay blessed.

Scientists report that Neanderthals share FOXP2 gene variant with humans. Other scientists suggest that additional experiments should be caried out to rule out human contamination of Neandethals DNA samples. FOXP2 gene is implicated in language and speech development. See below:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4PXN9TN-5&_user=596705&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000030698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=596705&md5=05a7b393c85e5852732c48e15a55d2b1



http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2429961&blobtype=pdf

Going through my old links and stuff, I found these:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Regional Patterns of Gene Expression in Human and Chimpanzee Brains
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1462.full#TBL1

Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11161738?dopt=Abstract

Abiogenes:

The Triplet Code From First Principles
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7450/phys7450_sp05/downloads/tripletcode.pdf (pdf file)

Using bi-allelic markers on the Y-chromosome, scientists trace the origin of anatomical modern humans back to Africa. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/292/5519/1151.pdf


http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v26/n3/pdf/ng1100_358.pdf

Scientists report that the entire genome of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal has been sequenced. The scientists involved in this work expect to publish the first draft of the entire genome later this year. See below:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090204/full/457645a.html

The paper reviews the contribution of molecular biology and functional genomics to our understanding of human evolution. See below:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119391846/PDFSTART

The paper reviews the contribution of molecular biology and functional genomics to our understanding of human evolution. See below:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119391846/PDFSTART

Archaeopteryx is considered the transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it has both bird and dinosaur features. In the journal Nature, scientists report the avian nature of Archaeopteryx brain and inner ear. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7000/full/nature02706.html

is this thread still alive?


i tot it was intended to help cover huxley`s insecurities with regards to evolution.

In a ground breaking paper published in the Journal Nature, scientists report that Tiktaalik roseae is a transition fossil between fish and tetrapods (limped verterbrates). See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/pdf/nature07189.pdf

Where is davidylan? has he given up and admitted defeat? or is he still searching for his peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism?
He seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

I hope that maybe he has started to realise that the power of denial is not as powerful as the blatant truth.

mantraa:

Where is davidylan? has he given up and admitted defeat? or is he still searching for his peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism?
He seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

I hope that maybe he has started to realise that the power of denial is not as powerful as the blatant truth.

If the "truth" was so "blatant" you wont need to be defending evolution today with "peer reviewed papers". Do we defend the law of gravity? No because we have SOLID PROOF.

Where are YOUR OWN papers? Why do you fools simply wait for another deluded idiot to post papers and then start yapping? I havent admitted defeat, just bored of repeating myself to those whose heads are firmly buried in the sands of denial.

We have had tons of "papers" here, i see no attempt to explain how they connect proving evolution at all. Those who work in the field of science know that 99% of the time paper titles do not correlate with the actual evidence contained within them.

mantraa:

Where is davidylan? has he given up and admitted defeat? or is he still searching for his peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism?
He seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

I hope that maybe he has started to realise that the power of denial is not as powerful as the blatant truth.

there was no contest or debate here.

evolutionists have refused to answer pertinent questions, so y debate with one who has limited knowledge of the issues at stake?

m_nwankwo:

In a ground breaking paper published in the Journal Nature, scientists report that Tiktaalik roseae is a transition fossil between fish and tetrapods (limped verterbrates). See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/pdf/nature07189.pdf

the "ground breaking paper" was based on a badly preserved "skeletal" specimen of the head and parts of the vertebra . . . however scientists have reconstructed the fish to include everything including LEGS!

Read the paper, notice how so many of the figures are ALL basically speculative reconstruction. This site explains IN DETAIL several mis assumptions and sometimes outright forgery that has long plagued those who are too desperate to cover the fact that evolution is basically meaningless without the transitional fossils

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

Mantraa, take your time to read stuff before bleating about like you know anything.

This is the fossil that an entire paper is based on . . . but scientists have drawn its legs, fins, even the tail . . . how did they know?

Pls where are the peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism? pls can any body provide any? the last time i checked no two christian really agree on the creation accounts in genesis every body has his own interpretation, some believe it was an allegorical tale while others believe it wasn't some are even trying to reconcile it with evolution. . . . . pls can any body provide any peer review papers in support of creationsm?

the ones they are posting in "support" of evolution are simply smoke and mirrors. Of course with your very low intellect you wont understand that would you maz?

I know you'll call me a fool now so i wont be surprised.

Where are YOUR OWN papers? Why do you fools simply wait for another[b] deluded idiot [/b] to post papers and then start yapping? I havent admitted defeat, just bored of repeating myself to those whose heads are firmly buried in the sands of denial.

Hi David. I hope you are not refering to me as a deluded idiot. But if you do, then it is unfortunate as their is nothing in the scientific articles posted on this thread to warant such. You are a scientist in training and your critisism of works by established scientists is healthy. I am an established scientist myself and I am happy when upcoming scientists question the status quo. That is progress and a healthy thing for science. Stay blessed.

noetic:

is this thread still alive?


i tot it was intended to help cover huxley`s insecurities with regards to evolution.

No, it wasn't. I personally think it's a good and telling thread.

mantraa:

Where is davidylan? has he given up and admitted defeat? or is he still searching for his peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism?
He seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

I hope that maybe he has started to realise that the power of denial is not as powerful as the blatant truth.

One of the problems is that there are no scientific peer-reviewed Creationist papers for obvious reasons. Less obvious is the fact that leading Creationist figures are more interested in book deals, documentaries and "wedge-projects" than getting their hands dirty with lab. experiments and research.

In the Febuary 2009 issue of the journal Nature, scientists review the evidence on whether anatomical structures arise de novo or they evolve from pre-existing structures. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/pdf/nature07891.pdf

davidylan:

If the "truth" was so "blatant" you wont need to be defending evolution today with "peer reviewed papers". Do we defend the law of gravity? No because we have SOLID PROOF.

Actually, you kinda would have to defend it with peer-reviewed papers. Also, no we defend the law of gravity, but not because we have solid proof, but because it was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. And guess what, in the ongoing debates and discussions on the theory of relativity, peer-reviewed papers are constantly used. In fact, when the theory of relativity was challenged -what, a few months ago?. The most suitable response to the challenge of revising the theory of relativity was that, based on journals detailing experiments, etc, it works. Remarkably well, in fact. The most that can be issued by way of challenge is that Einstein could have derived the theory of relativity in a simpler way than he did.

Long story short: peer-review works. The "Law of Gravity" doesn't have "SOLID PROOF". Newton and Einstein were geniuses, though.

Where are YOUR OWN papers? Why do you fools simply wait for another deluded idiot to post papers and then start yapping? I havent admitted defeat, just bored of repeating myself to those whose heads are firmly buried in the sands of denial.

That's an interesting approach to things. I wonder what debate would look like if decided that no one is allowed to post on an issue unless they themselves have written a peer-reviewed paper that pertains to the subject. I like it. I say we do it.

We have had tons of "papers" here, i see no attempt to explain how they connect proving evolution at all. Those who work in the field of science know that 99% of the time paper titles do not correlate with the actual evidence contained within them.

Those who work in the field of science know that 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot. No, reading most of them, their contents are in line with their titles. Sorry.

noetic:

there was no contest or debate here.

evolutionists have refused to answer pertinent questions, so y debate with one who has limited knowledge of the issues at stake?

What are those pertinent questions? I say, start a new thread with those questions, and time-willing, I'll participate. Two conditions, though. Don't duck out of questions when I ask them in return, and don't try to simply handwave away any of my responses - basically, engage actively with the contents of any potential responses. I'll also promise to do the same. Deal?