davidylan:

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?

I'm almost certain that the words and terms I'm going to use aren't technical nor the best, bu they'll have to do. They know because on most skeletal remains, one can still see the parts where limbs would have been attached and how they would have been attached. Further, the shape of the joint or limb space on the skeleton tends to give an indication of how the limb functioned. Finally, if there's an indication of a part associated with a certain limb or function, then it's more than likely said limb was attached there.

m_nwankwo:

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

Lest, I forget, I wanted to thank you for posting this one. It's one of those ones I've wanted to read before, but put off till I forgot. Now it's back to the fore again.

davidylan:

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.

i don't have to call you are fool because you have just displayed your foolishness, i asked for those of you that are strong advocates of creationism to provide peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism and all you did was to attack those that support evolution . david yehh no be small thing. did i hear you call me a person with low intellect? ohh am sorry but you just displayed that you intellect is lower than mine, i asked a simple question and instead of answering it by providing peer reviewed scientific papers in support of creationism you went on attacking those that believe in evolution. . . . .

@mwankwo

I can't read all those articles. You're saying God created man (and everything else) by evolution. Could you furnish an exoteric glimpse into the process? If you were rewriting the part where God made man Genesis in plain English, what would it say?

The physical universe and nature itself teaches that creation begins from the minute, which increases in complexity over a timespan until the final product is finished. We all began as a single cell in a womb. The cell divides into a seething mass of millions of cells, each specialising, over a period of months. And then the human baby is completed. It's possible the first humans were created this way, and given the facility to do the same. Afterall, the Bible says God made man but says nothing about how long it took him to become MAN. I don't think he created a full grown male all at once. He probably made him the way all things are made; from the minutest ingredients into a complex,finished product. Perhaps He then equipped his creations with the ability to reproduce their own kind, to 'create' exactly the same way.

However, I don't think in terms of millions of years,but the normal,ordinary period it takes for human beings to be born and to grow. So I guess I'm not convinced by 'human evolution' and 'transitional fish'. Like other species we might have evolved all sorts of biological mechanisms and responses to better adapt to our environment over extended periods of time, but I don't think man just happened to happen. Not 'think'. I'm certain we didn't just happen.

So God created man by evolution exactly how? Explain, not in metaphysical language, but simply.

I can't read all those articles. You're saying God created man (and everything else) by evolution. Could you furnish an exoteric glimpse into the process? If you were rewriting the part where God made man Genesis in plain English, what would it say

I am simply posting scientific papers on evolution. Let each person draw their own conclusions. Of course I can paint a very comprehensive picture of how biological evolution is the manifestation of the will of God. However I will not do that on the pages of  nairaland. Besides such a picture will run into thousands of pages.  God did not use evolution as a means to create physical bodies, rather evolution is a manifestation of the will of God. If you are seriously seeking for clarification in these matters, you will have the answers even without my explanation.

However, I don't think in terms of millions of years,but the normal,ordinary period it takes for human beings to be born and to grow. So I guess I'm not convinced by 'human evolution' and 'transitional fish'. Like other species we might have evolved all sorts of biological mechanisms and responses to better adapt to our environment over extended periods of time, but I don't think man just happened to happen. Not 'think'. I'm certain we didn't just happen.

What you are convinced or not convinced is your God given right. Nobody can convince another. You are correct, the human body and indeed all creations of God did not just happen. All creations came into existence and develops by the power of God. Evolution in my view is a manifestation of the omniscience of God.

So God created man by evolution exactly how? Explain, not in metaphysical language, but simply

As I said above, I can explain but wish not to do so. Stay blessed!

m_nwankwo:

I am simply posting scientific papers on evolution. Let each person draw their own conclusions. Of course I can paint a very comprehensive picture of how biological evolution is the manifestation of the will of God. However I will not do that on the pages of  nairaland. Besides such a picture will run into thousands of pages.  God did not use evolution as a means to create physical bodies, rather evolution is a manifestation of the will of God. If you are seriously seeking for clarification in these matters, you will have the answers even without my explanation.

What you are convinced or not convinced is your God given right. Nobody can convince another. You are correct, the human body and indeed all creations of God did not just happen. All creations came into existence and develops by the power of God. Evolution in my view is a manifestation of the omniscience of God.


As I said above, I can explain but wish not to do so. Stay blessed!

what an unfortunate rubbish. This is part of the misinformation that has made nairaland legendary.
analyse those facts of urs into short coherent and articulate facts, that is debatable. And stop peddling lies in the name of God`s will.

Funny how Nwankwo simply ignored the article i posted challenging some of the existing theories on tiktaalik.

noetic:

what an unfortunate rubbish. This is part of the misinformation that has made nairaland legendary.
analyse those facts of urs into short coherent and articulate facts, that is debatable. And stop peddling lies in the name of God`s will.

You can label what I post as "rubbish", "lies", "misinformation" and much more. I am indifferent to what label is attached to what I post. I will continue to post scientific articles on evolution and express my views if I consider it necessary to do so. I can also remain silent if I consider it necessary too. Stay blessed.

davidylan:

Funny how Nwankwo simply ignored the article i posted challenging some of the existing theories on tiktaalik.

Hi David. I did not ignore the article you posted. I am aware of those concerns and can address them. The reason I kept quite is that I do not think it will be helpful to you if I address the science behind the reconstruction of missing parts of a fossil. You are convinced that biological evolution is a farce and honestly I respect that. When people are certain of their own position, it is inappropriate and wrong to convince them otherwise. I address questions when people are seeking for clarification, that is, they are looking for evidence to decide one way or the other but not when they are certain of their position. Stay blessed.

Lest, I forget, I wanted to thank you for posting this one. It's one of those ones I've wanted to read before, but put off till I forgot. Now it's back to the fore again.

Hi KAG. Thank you too. Cheers

Reporting in the journal PNAS, scientists suggest that speciation in Drosophila may involve gene duplication . See below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=514461&blobtype=pdf

m_nwankwo:

Hi David. I did not ignore the article you posted. I am aware of those concerns and can address them. The reason I kept quite is that I do not think it will be helpful to you if I address[b] the science behind the reconstruction of missing parts of a fossil[/b]. You are convinced that biological evolution is a farce and honestly I respect that. When people are certain of their own position, it is inappropriate and wrong to convince them otherwise. I address questions when people are seeking for clarification, that is, they are looking for evidence to decide one way or the other but not when they are certain of their position. Stay blessed.

that "science" is mostly flawed and full of holes . . . you shld know that already. Nuff said.
Scientists find a piece of jawbone and then construct an entire animal based on that? What a crock.

m_nwankwo:

Reporting in the journal PNAS, scientists suggest that speciation in Drosophila may involve gene duplication . See below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=514461&blobtype=pdf

The conjectures in the title alone is enough to tell you they dont know! They are not sure! Simply throwing red herrings to folks like you who will run away with just about anything.

m_nwankwo:

I am simply posting scientific papers on evolution. Let each person draw their own conclusions. Of course I can paint a very comprehensive picture of how biological evolution is the manifestation of the will of God. However I will not do that on the pages of  nairaland. Besides such a picture will run into thousands of pages.  God did not use evolution as a means to create physical bodies, rather evolution is a manifestation of the will of God. If you are seriously seeking for clarification in these matters, you will have the answers even without my explanation.What you are convinced or not convinced is your God given right. Nobody can convince another. You are correct, the human body and indeed all creations of God did not just happen. All creations came into existence and develops by the power of God. Evolution in my view is a manifestation of the omniscience of God. As I said above, I can explain but wish not to do so. Stay blessed!

I beg to differ. One person[i] can[/i] convince another. It happens every minute of every day. You've written a lot and said nothing at all. I proferred ONE possibility. I can only speculate; I wasn't there at the beginning. How did God create the world by evolution? Your opinion might have shed more light on the issue for me. I was watching a documentary wherein scientists recreated the conditions of 'pre-life' earth in a lab. Volcanic lava,lightning, no oxygen, other stuff. After a while, amino acids were created. The world apparently wasn't all heat then, and they recreated conditions in frozen, pre-life earth. One of the four components of DNA emerged. Inter-stellar molecules revealed this same chemical, in space. So if I ask how you think God might have created the world by evolution, it's because I really wanted to know. "God did not use evolution as a means to create physical bodies'.(?) 'Evolution is a manifestation of the will of God'.(?) Of course you can paint a picture of how biological evolution is the will of God, but you can't do that on nairaland. Besides merely giving your opinion on the subject would run into thousands of pages. But you apparently have no trouble posting links to article after article on evolution on nairaland, none of which run into thousands of pages. There's a word for everything in that post of yours. I can spell it out for you but wish not to do so. Stay blessed!

noetic:

what an unfortunate rubbish. This is part of the misinformation that has made nairaland legendary.
analyse those facts of urs into short coherent and articulate facts, that is debatable. And stop peddling lies in the name of God`s will.

Mad_Max:

I beg to differ. One person[i] can[/i] convince another. It happens every minute of every day. You've written a lot and said nothing at all.

couldnt have put it any better myself.

In April 2009 issue of the journal Science, scientists test a model for sympatric speciation. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/323/5915/776.pdf

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists demonstrate speciation by hybridization in butterflies and show that a hybrid trait can result in reproductive isolation. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/pdf/nature04738.pdf

Breaking article. In the April 7, 2009 issue of PNAS, scientists report the molecular patterning of gill rays and show developmental similarities between gill rays and vertebrate appendages. See below:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5720.full.pdf+html

Using DNA sequence data as well as simulation data, scientists report that Neanderthals can be divided into at least three groups. The paper is published in the April 15, 2009 issue of the journal PLos One. See below:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005151&representation=PDF


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005151

In a paper published in Nature Genetics, scientists provide evidence that heritability is not limited to DNA sequence differences. Epigenomic differences do account for some heritable traits. See below:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n2/pdf/ng.286.pdf

500-million-year-old fossil fragments shed new light into the origin and evolution of anthropods. The article is published in the journal Science. See below:


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/323/5921/1597.pdf

Using bioinformatics and modelling, scientists report that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of biological life on earth existed 3.8 billion years ago, and LUCA was suprisingly not hyperthermophilic or thermophilic but thrived at temperatures of 50 degree celcius or lower. The article is published in the journal Nature. See below:


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7224/pdf/nature07393.pdf

A scientist answers questions on speciation in a language that should be understandable to non-biologists. The article is published in the journal Nature. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/pdf/458162a.pdf

A 23-million-year-old fossil of a mammalian carnivore, Puijila darwini, is reported to be the morphological intermediate in the land-to-sea transition of pinnipeds (fin-footed mammals like seals, sea lions etc). The article is published in the April 23, 2009 issue of Nature. See below:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/pdf/nature07985.pdf

A scientist reviews the theories of complex brain evolution in mammals and wonders if there is a unifying theory of brain evolution. See below:


http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122278128/PDFSTART

Scientists develop a model to look into  recorded and unrecorded demographic history using genomewide single- nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. The model provides robust evidence that a population bottleneck occured in northwestern Europe about 40,000 years ago. The article is published in May 2009 issue of the journal Genetics. See below:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/182/1/217

In the largest genetic study sampling african populations, a team of international scientists led by Sarah Tishkoff provide compelling evience that all africans are decended from 14 ancestral populations. The study also confirms earlier work that modern humans originated from Africa and  that east Africa is the source population for the out-of-africa migration of modern humans to other parts of the world. The study also shows that about 71% of african-americans can trace their ancestry to west Africa. This study is published in the May 1, 2009 issue of the journal Science. I will post the full length paper later on. In the meantime, find below a popular summary(understandable to biologists as well as non-biologists) of the findings as published in the journal Science. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/575.pdf

m_nwankwo:

In the largest genetic study sampling african populations, a team of international scientists led by Sarah Tishkoff provide compelling evience that all africans are decended from 14 ancestral populations. The study also confirms earlier work that modern humans originated from Africa and that east Africa is the source population for the out-of-africa migration of modern humans to other parts of the world. The study also shows that about 71% of african-americans can trace their ancestry to west Africa. This study is published in the May 1, 2009 issue of the journal Science. I will post the full length paper later on. In the meantime, find below a popular summary(understandable to biologists as well as non-biologists) of the findings as published in the journal Science. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/575.pdf

Great stuff and thanks for posting lost of link on this post. I have followed up most of them.

Many thankx.

huxley:

Great stuff and thanks for posting lost of link on this post. I have followed up most of them.

Many thankx.

Thank you too for finding the time to follow up the links. Stay blessed.

Good link , m nwankwo,



But then most people would end up reading the just the abstract since U require a subscription to Science to get the real gist.

Uche2nna:


Good link , m nwankwo,



But then most people would end up reading the just the abstract since U require a subscription to Science to get the real gist.

Sure, subscription to science is required to read the full paper. But I will post the pdf version of the full length article later on. Hopefully, people can open the pdf without a subscription to science. I have an institutional subscription. Stay blessed.

Well done m_nwankwo, don't mind the religious fanatics giving you grief. I am yet to see a peer reviewed article on creationism, all we have is a 7 day creation story from a book of fantasy.

The above statement is just being a tad too narrow.

U expect the proponents of creationism to start publishing in Science and Nature , abi

I am sure U have not even read the text, I have not too, but I will but by the abstract that I just glanced over, the gist is that a population originated from one source in East Africa. Is that a concept foreign to Creationism?

And like I said, I know it is a Science publication (so) but I will read it and honestly, like all publications I will have my own questions and criticisms on how those studies were carried out.

duduspace:

Well done m_nwankwo, don't mind the religious fanatics giving you grief. I am yet to see a peer reviewed article on creationism, all we have is a 7 day creation story from a book of fantasy.

Hi duduspace. Honestly, I do not regard opponents of biological evolution as religious fanatics. I also do not think that they gave me "grief". They do express their views and I respect their views even though I do not agree with it. Some honest ones among them genuinely believe in creationism as narrated in Genesis. It is their experience and they are entitled to it. It is not helpful in the long term to persuade people to change their convictions. Change of conviction that is lasting should come from deep within an individual based on his personal experiences. Stay blessed.