davien:
Assumptions of what?
So you are claiming the same method used to determine paternity suddenly becomes invalid when used for common ancestry?
I am referring to the migration of native africans to euroasia that would later become europeans that geological distribution have proven...the hardy weinberg equation coupled with differential equations cross-confirm the findings...
okay...this new journal still confirms this split..
It will be stupid of me not to agree that variations and mutations occur. But it becomes a different issue when you use that as a prove that macro-evolution occur.
[b]
[b] "They studied segments of genetic code
that have a mutation and are located closely on the same
chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation
in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European
ancestry.
A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian
subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. Researchers found
that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and
South India who carry the A111T mutation share a common
“fingerprint” -- traces of the ancestral genetic code -- in the
corresponding chromosomal region, indicating that all existing
instances of this mutation originate from the same person.
These findings were reported in the journal G3.
The pattern of proportions of people with this lighter skin color
mutation indicates that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere
between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.
“This means that Middle Easterners and South Asians, which includes
most inhabitants of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, share significant
ancestry,” Cheng said.
This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination
of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians --
traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
“The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared
ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal
region, is exciting,” Cheng said. “The combining of segments occurred
after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically
more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward.”
[/b]
http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/2014/01/02/research/studies-skin-color-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared[/b]
Often people read a paper and make their own interpretations without really paying attentions to what the researchers found. From that same link you showed the scientist where very honest about key facts and I will copy those honesty which you have clearly ignored:
While the genetics of skin color is largely unclear, past research using zebrafish by the College of Medicine’s Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and differs from West Africans. In 2005, Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. I have a substantial rudimentary understanding of them.. (This article started with saying the genetics of skin colour is largely unknown, so how did you make a final conclusion even after. The article said it is a key contributor but never said that is the only variable)
2. Cheng plans to next look at more genetic samples to better understand what genes play the most important role in East Asian skin color. He will then use zebrafish to test those suspected genes. (The authors still accepted they need more experiment, so how are you making any conclusion)
Remember my argument is no prove exist that explains the evolution from Ape to human. Not variations within kinds.

can you answer if you consider transitional forms plausible and why?
No I do not believe there is anything like transitional forms because that is based on the assumption that macro-evolution occurs. That clearly is the wrong question to ask. Before you talk about translational forms you need to prove change from one kind to another, therefore what ever physical things you observe remains open for interpretation. Just say it this you assume that translational forms occur but can not prove the change from one kind to another, what if it was because a creator made all of them and as the creation process goes organs move in particular directions. Now both of them are possible explanations but no prove exists that either one of the is truth, hence both remains assumptions and a belief.

Paleontology identifies creatures by anatomical structures so indeed children of fossils can be known by studying the fossils dentition,anatomical framework and even the genetics..
In order for a fossil to form, the body must not be eaten or destroyed. Preservation would most likely occur if the organism were buried quickly and deeply. In most environments, soft body parts, such as skin, muscle, fat, and internal organs, deteriorate rapidly and leave no trace.
Fossils remains or traces of ancient organisms including footprints, burrows, or casts of bodies with nothing else surviving.
Now this explanation of fossils means only if there is somebody there when the event occurred can you be able to tell the full story. These fossils has not show any organism that is it not whole, or in part half one kind half the another kind. Now to my original argument these fossils can not tell if they had offsprings and if their offsprings had offsprings. Neither would it tell you that their offspring was a different kind. Just put it this way, have you seen dog give birth to a goat? Now if you have not and nobody has how is that when you make assumptions stating that it is how it occurred you fail to recognise it as belief that it most have happened?

Past radiometric dating methods were expressed differently....even dated objects in actual carbon years...lol
Have you seen the standard deviation put on those dating estimates, sometimes you get up to plus or minus 800 million years. Also have you not seen many over estimations using radioactive dating in objects or things with known age? If you have not I will provide you with instances.

150 years of peer review in the scientific community is what I discussed not fairy tales(stories)...
150 years of scientific activities has not proved how a kind can give rise to another kind, and has not proved how consciousness evolved, so to me it is more or less a fairy tell.

You are still employing kent hovind's creationist assertions that "evolution is a religion"..
Tell me how evolution is a religion.
Science is when you can observe, you can record, and you no exactly what happened and can always repeat that event to get same results. Now when you tell somebody that Ape gave rise to humans without observing it or even performing an experiment to observe it, Is that science or a belief?
If it is a belief then what difference those it have with other religions that believe in things that can not prove.

heckhels drawings were a known fraud.....
Evolution were never based on his drawings....but are based on modern embryological depictions that are used to only portray evolutionary development..
I am happy you recognised that, now modern embryological illustrations does not show that fish, chicken and humans have similar embryos, so how do you say it can be used as evolution prove, is that not delusional?

where did you get your "50% of scientists object to" claim from?....
I will find you a link to surveys about scientific opinions in this topic later.

Even still,its funny how you can claim a substantial amount of scientists agree with you and yet be appalled when told the same by people in the case for evolution
The difference between us is that I really do not care who agrees with me or not, what I am saying is that believe of evolution or no evolution can go either way, and should be respected.

And do you know that different objects require different dating methods?
Different dating methods can be applied for different cases, but every radioactive dating depends on the radioactive decay of a particular element and all has flaws due to heavy assumptions about the initial start time of the decay. That is why discrepancies have been reported in all radioactive methods.

I really want to see a non-creationist peer-reviewed journal demonstrating creationism hypothesis or fulfilling a prediction of it...if indeed it is testable.
The truth is I do not need to show you a scientific paper claiming the creationist hypothesis, because they never said it is science nor proven. Just like I made it clear it is only a belief because it is not proven, and that is the reason for saying evolutionist should also be open about their assumptions not been proven.

all4naija:

What is wrong with you? You keep beating about the bush when you have no single idea of what I have been saying. I have just made you to understand that it all comes to the fundamental particles, as you find out in the Amino acid structure so it is for a stone structure.

all4naija:
The genetic information take place within the structure.Maybe the link below might help you to get to how the process operate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/growth_development/genesrev1.shtml

all4naija:
Dude! You can make use of Google to search for what you are asking for. Now let me discuss with people with brains.

all4naija:
Hahaha... You are now talking a stand on erroneous approach. In the first case you asked for observable evolution process and that is the reason why a give you an example with bacteria. Most of my points on evolution have fostered the process of a long time without people really knowing it's happening either by chance or randomly. The fact that microbes are clear replica of the activities in our cells prove that this is happening in a scale you cannot see with you naked eyes as you expect it to be while excluding the time the time factor. In that regard micro evolution lays credence to Macro evolution.

The computational stimulation is for explanation purpose to explore all the possibilities of having those changes coming into effect during the mutation.

all4naija:
Bwahaha... I just gave you the structure of Amino acid you thought was not divisible. Please...! You are going about a process that has other processes. At the end it all boils down to fundamental particles. . Did you get my point clearly?

all4naija:

Oh, sh*t! Oh, sh*! The image below would be helpful to you. A fourth grader in almighty USA reason more than you can.

all4naija:
You can eat it, if you like!
http://www.genetics.org/content/154/3/985.short

all4naija:
It has been observed in bacteria.

all4naija:

You are blabbing without having understanding of what I am talking about. I know more about Genetic Mapping than you are speculating here. What I am talking about is that those genetic codes in digging deep are still in a nutshell parts of a fundamental particle like the quarks(at the moment which I think is still divisible just as scientists used to think atom is indivisible in the old), etc. Are you really paying attention to what I am saying at all?

davien:
Actually it does..to be concise I left it out.
The hardy weinberg equation(the basis for paternity tests) is used with distinct gene markers(plus differential equations) to determine when life-forms diverged...
This was used to determine europeans breaking up from africans 50,000 years ago,the homo genus breaking off 6 million years ago etc...
If the results are correct then the genetics and distribution of fossils in the geological column should refect that and indeed it does...
we never found amphibians in sediments older than the devonian...
we never found primates older than sediments in the cretaceous...
you will find only aquatic life older than the silurian....
and you will never find a fossil bunny in the precambrian...
etc
Peer reviewed papers are used to work on testable models...you asking me to provide a peer reviewed paper on homonid history without evolution would be like me asking you to provide one that is about the motion of planets without newtonian mechanics and relativity...
It is because the prospects are testable that a paper can actually cite evolution...untestable models don't stand peer review.
No conclusions stands without the assumption....same with how a christian theist can't conclude being "saved" without the assumption of "jesus" being involved...
That said....for the hypothesis to be referred to as a theory it's predictions have to be verified...and it also has to have a myriad of evidences..
Even still it has to be peer-reviewed rigorously.
And evolution has withstood peer review for over 150 years.

davien:
Sources are cited so you could follow up any claim...

davien:
And chy22 the theory of evolution is by no means atheistic....infact majority of theists accept the theory....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Note: I am not implying because most theists accept it that you should too...merely to point out it not being atheistic

davien:
I am not referring to specialized proteins that functions the same in each lineage...chromosome two is the result of fusion of two telomere of which each contain a centromere(one of which was deactivated but still present)..
Chromosome two is unique to homonid lineage and not shared with other mammals..
This isn't an "all mammals" structure but one shared by our predicted homonid ancestors thus confirming the phylogenetic tree of life,why is this?
good...now can you answer my above question?

davien:
I said I could give evidences that support the big bang....proofs I cannot give...because proofs are mathematical and I have no consensus to use conjectures about the cosmic microwave background(i.e I'm not an astrophysicist)..
If you are looking for proofs...then consult an astrophysicist for mathematical conjectures(proof)

davien:
I know x-rays causes dna damage....
What I am talking about is your continued use of kent hovind's creationist apologetics...
perhaps I'll create a thread or video series on this.

davien:
What does our genome have to do with houses?...you are merely stating the creationist favorite straw-man "same design....therefore same designer".
Really?...Tell me again what natural factors can make a gene sequence the same in a respective lineage apart from evolution from a common ancestor
It is a molecular vestige of early primates...
I do not require a lecture on the purpose of molecular biology...
And you seem to imply they think everything has a purpose....would you mind to clarify this?
You are equivocating here...nobody claimed "everything is ramdom" then again....you've avoided most of my questions so far.

davien:
What bothers me is your subscription to convicted charlatan kent hovind's apologetics for creationism...why such a person to subscribe to his extremist beliefs.
I mean the man asserts that during the biblical adam and eve story an ice shield surrounded the earth and aging is a result of being bombarded by x-rays

davien:
Never did I state singularity as the theory but rather the initial singularity not being understood....matter on the other hand is derived from energy...energy and matter can be derived from each other... hence we convert mass into energy during atomic chain reactions...
what mathematical constant is required for virtual particles?
Lets say I do believe you have such a degree...now what has a molecular biologist have to do outside his field of study?
And I never claimed "proves".....but evidences that support the big bang theory.

davien:
chy22 why is it that upon examination of the human genome we found chromosome number 2 to be a fused primate chromosome corresponding to what we would expect to find if indeed we shared a common ancestor?

davien:
Never did I state singularity as the theory but rather the initial singularity not being understood....matter on the other hand is derived from energy...energy and matter can be derived from each other... hence we convert mass into energy during atomic chain reactions...
what mathematical constant is required for virtual particles?
Lets say I do believe you have such a degree...now what has a molecular biologist have to do outside his field of study?
And I never claimed "proves".....but evidences that support the big bang theory.

all4naija:
DNA are chemicals and as you break those chemicals down you will find out that they aren't different from what make up the stone or plant. In a nutshell, ape and human are make up of the same thing though they look different because of the way the are formed or lack of the quantity that make up their composition of of those chemicals. I am using those kiddie's terms for clarity sake.

adexsimply:
If you're telling us that creating the whole universe in 7 days is more logical, simple and inclusive, then I think those three words have different meanings from what I know.

davien:
Space is the phenomenon that allows objects to be located on a 3-dimensional plane....with respect to time.
The singularity as I keep pointing out time and time again is existence itself at a 0-dimensional plane..
I doubt you understand eucladian geometry.
Even still its best you explain what you mean here...are you using mundane understanding of the physical world to address a quantum state?
I said classical eucladian mathematics should be abandoned in favour of a new non-eucladian conjecture that would give an understanding of the singularity.. an example is hawkin entropy...but more on the non-eucladian side.
Someone has been reading too many creationists pamphlets....science works by creating testable models that are verified by the evidence to make predictions in nature(theories)
This is not an insult but a honest comment....you have a kindergarten grade level of understanding on what science is and I'll tell you why...
We haven't observed pluto's entire orbital period....nor had any experiment to prove it having the orbital period we gave it....so how did we now know it to be 200 plus years?
By using the model of newtonian mechanics and the theory of relativity we've deduced it and it has fulfilled the predictions of those models.

all4naija:
What is wrong with existing from ape? The same ape evolve from another form. Didn't I explain that we evolves through our ancestors that belong to the classification of the primate or ape the hominid before?

all4naija:

Bleh! Hasn't it occurred to you that those are parts of what a process is? If I take out those variables it will become another process without those variables then as you continue, due to limitation, we will be inching close to the singularity - the point of the origin of the process, like in the quantum mechanics I pointed out before. A point where everything that exist is made up of the same particle no matter what the thing is.

all4naija:

They are inching close. Inorganic bacteria seems to be getting close to explaining that and many other processes. Science is a process of discovery in a simple term.

all4naija:
Isn't all you said a process? Even if humans built the accelerator in this case they came through process to give birth to another process and the accelerator will give birth to another process to find out something in another process .Please, make use of your brain for once.

davien:
The balloon(deflated) represents the singularity that is not understood...mostly due to the fact that space being infinitely curved and time being infinitely dilated from a singularity cannot be understood by classical eucladian mathematics because it represents a 0-dimensional infinite regress..
The same way einstein abandoned classical eucladian co-ordinate system in favour of a non-eucladian one(theory of relativity) is also what we need to do..
A new conjecture of mathematics is required..not a miracle.

all4naija:
You have proven your idiocy with great clarity in this post. I even gave you the a name of a famous particle accelerator or lab that has carried out researches and tests on many of those processes, the LHC and other space programs which I didn't mention because you can easily use Google to do that on your own. Please, go and seat at a corner with your delusion that you called reasoning by imagining a creator as a being or whatever whereas all things happened through a process and still happening as we speak.