Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor 142 Replies latest jw friends

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Kate:
    I defended your right not to be abused, but I'm afraid I can't defend your ignorance of the scientific method. Quite a number of scientists are theists, as well as agreeing that the theory of evolution makes the most logical sense of the evidence.

    Scientists aren't just a bunch of little boys playing with testtubes and throwing mud at each other. They don't just wake up one day and say, "I wonder what would happen if I irradiate a fruitfly and let it go". They have to use the utmost care and most importantly they have to be able to present the evidence in such a manner that someone else can take their notes and conduct the same experiment and achieve the same results. If they fail in this basic requirement they are laughed out of the laboratory.

    There is a good reason why they have yet to disprove the evolution theory, and its not for lack of trying (as you disingenuously suggest).

    ~picks up popcorn and watches from afar~

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Hey hooberus, is that the same John Sanford as this guy?

    http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?item.181.6

    Yes, however I don't think that he as anything to do with the "Raelians". They appear to name all sorts of people as "guides." Here is where they did the same to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet:

    http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?item.168 His book has nothing to do with aliens (the craft on the cover is used as a part of an illustration contrasting various levels of complexity). see: http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CRSOS
  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate

    I am not going to use my own words anymore since they are so easily misunderstood. We went from genetic DNA mutations to chromasomes. I understand not ALL DNA mutations are detremental to life. My stance is that the though a base sequence can be altered, the base code information had to be there in the first place.

    "For example, some mutations alter a gene’s DNA base sequence " Mutations and Health - Genetics Home Reference

    Now on to chromasomes. I believe it is evolutionists opinions that chromasomes evolve. That is why we have a horse and a donkey. That would make a donkey; a horse with Down's Syndrome.

    Can changes in the number of chromosomes affect health and development?

    Human cells normally contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes in each cell. A change in the number of chromosomes can cause problems with growth, development, and function of the body’s systems. These changes can occur during the formation of reproductive cells (eggs and sperm), in early fetal development, or in any cell after birth. A gain or loss of chromosomes from the normal 46 is called aneuploidy.

    A common form of aneuploidy is trisomy, or the presence of an extra chromosome in cells. “Tri-” is Greek for “three”; people with trisomy have three copies of a particular chromosome in cells instead of the normal two copies. Down syndrome is an example of a condition caused by trisomy. People with Down syndrome typically have three copies of chromosome 21 in each cell, for a total of 47 chromosomes per cell.

    Monosomy, or the loss of one chromosome in cells, is another kind of aneuploidy. “Mono-” is Greek for “one”; people with monosomy have one copy of a particular chromosome in cells instead of the normal two copies. Turner syndrome is a condition caused by monosomy. Women with Turner syndrome usually have only one copy of the X chromosome in every cell, for a total of 45 chromosomes per cell.

    Rarely, some cells end up with complete extra sets of chromosomes. Cells with one additional set of chromosomes, for a total of 69 chromosomes, are called triploid. Cells with two additional sets of chromosomes, for a total of 92 chromosomes, are called tetraploid. A condition in which every cell in the body has an extra set of chromosomes is not compatible with life.

    In some cases, a change in the number of chromosomes occurs only in certain cells. When an individual has two or more cell populations with a different chromosomal makeup, this situation is called chromosomal mosaicism. Chromosomal mosaicism occurs from an error in cell division in cells other than eggs and sperm. Most commonly, some cells end up with one extra or missing chromosome (for a total of 45 or 47 chromosomes per cell), while other cells have the usual 46 chromosomes. Mosaic Turner syndrome is one example of chromosomal mosaicism. In females with this condition, some cells have 45 chromosomes because they are missing one copy of the X chromosome, while other cells have the usual number of chromosomes.

    Many cancer cells also have changes in their number of chromosomes. These changes are not inherited; they occur in somatic cells (cells other than eggs or sperm) during the formation or progression of a cancerous tumor.

    For more information about chromosomal disorders:

    A discussion of how chromosomal abnormalities happenThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference. is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.

    The Centre for Genetics Education offers a fact sheet about changes in chromosome number or sizeThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference..

    Additional information about chromosome abnormalitiesThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference. is available from the Wellcome Trust.

    The National Organization for Rare Disorders offers an overview of triploid syndromeThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference..

    Chromosomal MosaicismThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference., a web site provided by the University of British Columbia, offers detailed information about mosaic chromosomal abnormalities.

    MedlinePlus offers an encyclopedia article about chromosomal mosaicismThis link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference..

    Now lets focus here. Show me any scientific evidence that a chromasome can evolve into a higher more complex life form. I am not interested in opinions or theory's. If there is research proof we will see a legitamate PHd's name on it.

  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate
    There is a good reason why they have yet to disprove the evolution theory

    I thought new theory's were under scientific scrutiny and research to be proved, which evolution has not been as of yet. Until it is, I will not believe it. Some of look at research and say "see this is proof" I and many others look at that research and say "see this is proof".

    There are many scientists who are theists who do not believe in evolution.

    Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

    The Scientific Case Against Evolution - Institute for Creation Research

    Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?

    Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

    Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?

    Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

    Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

    Early

    The Age of Newton

    • Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
    • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
    • John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
    • William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
    • Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
    • John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
    • John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
    • William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
    • John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
    • Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
    • Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
    • Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
    • Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
    • William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
    • James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
    • John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
    • John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
    Just Before Darwin

    • The 19 th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
    • Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
    • William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
    • Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
    • Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
    • John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
    • Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
    • Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
    • John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
    • Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
    • Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
    • Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
    • David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
    • William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
    • William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
    • Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
    • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
    • John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    • William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
    Just After Darwin

    • Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
    • Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
    • Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
    • James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
    • Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
    • Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
    • James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
    • James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    • Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
    • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
    • Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
    • Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
    • George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
    • John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
    • Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
    • Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
    • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
    • Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
    • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
    • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
    • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
    • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
    • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
    • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
    • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
    • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
    • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
    • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
    • Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
    • A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
    • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
    The Modern Period

    • Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
    • George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
    • L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
    • Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
    • Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
    • Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
    • Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
    • Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
    • Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
    • William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
    • William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
    • Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
    • Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
    • Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    • Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
    • Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
    • Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

    Is there a list of those who are against the biblical view of creation?

    Are there other biographies and interviews of interest?

    ::reaching over for a handfull of popcorn wondering if it is organic::

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch
    Now lets focus here. Show me any scientific evidence that a chromasome can evolve into a higher more complex life form. I am not interested in opinions or theory's. If there is research proof we will see a legitamate PHd's name on it.

    Kate

    I think I understand what you mean by the above question. Although be prepared to be called on its wording. I'm sure you know that, literally, chromosomes arethe DNA of the organisms and not the organisms themselves.

    To your question, consider the following evidence. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the great apes like chimps, gorillas and orangutans have 24. Since evolution holds that ape-like creatures were our ancestors, at some point, our speciation and subsequent evolution involed an apparent loss of a chromosome. Actually karyotypes have shown us that only a very little bit of information was lost and that the change in number occured by a fusion of two chromosomes into one.

    Its still a chromosomal change though. Here's a link I think you'll find interesting.

    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Apostate kate

    An example of new genetic material being incorporated into the organism is bacteria acquiring immunity to antibiotics. The immune bacteria will pass that to the nonummine bacteria in the form of small blobs of 'dna (plasmids) or small free fragments of dna (transposons), which bacteria can trade like baseball cards'. http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmedicine/vumc_fall06/feature4_1.htm

    S

    Ps, i'm sort of a newbie at the complexities of evolution, so i'm posting this stuff as i read more about.

  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate

    Satanus it is a fascination study to say the least. I am so poor at explaining things because I am not a science major. I have met 2 creation scientists in person, read their books, and studied both sides, as I said, I was an evolutionist in the past.

    On antibiotoc resistant bugs, the resistance does not cause the type up new genetic material that would count as proof of evolution into a more complex life form. If so it would no longer be a theory. I'll let Dr Spentner explain it, he is just one of the scientists that I respect. Talk Origens refused to post his answer the the resistence issue.

    "The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms. Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell. Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

    The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change. It is an example only of Evolution B. It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium. The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species."A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution

    From the get go I stated that I have no problem believing in adaptation and natural selection, but not so far as it can add more complex genetic material to an organism that could create a more complex life form. The antibiotic resistant bacteria is still.....bacteria and will always be bacteria.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    From the get go I stated that I have no problem believing in adaptation and natural selection, but not so far as it can add more complex genetic material to an organism that could create a more complex life form. The antibiotic resistant bacteria is still.....bacteria and will always be bacteria.

    Kate

    Yeah I can see your point there. I guess you wouldn't be all that impressed either with the discovery of bacteria that can now degrade nylon.

    So how's about this: Syncytin is a protein expressed in the mammalian womb and helps fuse together the cells that eventually will connect to the placenta and provide nourishment to the growing embryo. Here's the interesting part. Syncytin is the envelope protein for an endogenous retrovirus -- in humans its called HERV-W. Consider what this strongly suggests ----> that viral infections shaped the development of the placenta, and so the evolution of mammals. Not just bacteria to bacteria there.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Apostate kate

    adaptive hereditary change

    Which is evolution. He avoids admitting that by redefining evolution. You wanted proof of new dna being added, so i suppled it.

    How do you define a more complex life form? The human genome contains 3 billion base pairs, the newt 15 billion, and the lily 100 billion.

    S

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    For a comprehensive survey of the evolutionary selection of positive mutations in the human genome, see the article "Positive Selection on the Human Genome" (Vallender & Lahn 2004), published in Human Molecular Genetics:

    http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/suppl_2/R245

    It covers such genes as those responsible for increased brain size in humans, decreased facial muscles (which also removes an impediment to brain size increase), dietary adaptations such as the adult consumption of milk, skin pigmentation, improved color vision, increased mitochondrial energy production in colder climates, etc. The details of the evidence however are to be found in the individual papers cited in the survey.

    A detailed examination of the evidence indicating that improved color perception in primates occurred through mutation via gene duplication may be found here:

    http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/9/7/629.pdf

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit