100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A 'new' light on the FACT of evolution | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
How about fish to amphibian ?
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish. Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike. Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins. Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable." GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet. Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did. Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc. More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land. Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible! Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche. In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
Dr David Pilbeam, of the Boston Natural History Museum, has considerable expertise in palaeoanthropology (the study of fossil man). He came to the attention of the scientific community as being an objective scientist when he wrote an article for Human Nature magazine, June 1978, entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’. In that article he reported that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human origins and forced a change in ideas of man’s early ancestors. Dr Pilbeam’s previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth, evidence for which was totally lacking. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man. He repeated a number of times that our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Too often they have reflected only what we expected of them. In an interview with Luther Sunderland, Dr Pilbeam elaborated on the subjects he had discussed in his 1978 article. Currently, he was teaching a course that covered primates and was also doing field research in Africa and Pakistan. He was advising the Kenya Government on the establishment of an international institute for the study of human origins. His office was near those of anthropologists Richard Leakey and his mother, Dr Mary Leakey, in Nairobi, Kenya. He referred to several more recent publications, a review article in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, and several on his work in Pakistan. Why had he changed his position on human origins? He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly. It made him think about the nature of scientific thinking, and this precipitated a very profound change in his approach to analysing data. He said that many of the statements made in the field of human origins had ‘very little to do with the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions’. He thought this was true not only of his field but, ‘Much of what is said in other areas, I think, is also highly speculative’. Dr Pilbeam said there were two ways to look at evolutionary theory: the punctuated way and the gradual way. Before the punctuated equilibria theory came along, scientists said emphatically there was only one way. Dr Pilbeam thought it would be very difficult to tell for most mammal groups which alternative was correct, but he thought that some people who disagreed with punctuated equilibria theory did so on philosophical rather than empirical grounds. He emphasized that this was why he had made such a point in his 1978 article that one’s preconceived notions shape the way one perceives data. Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, agreed about the lack of fossil evidence connecting man with a lower primate. In answer to the question, ‘What do you think of the australopithecines as man’s ancestors?’, Dr Patterson replied, ‘There is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not.’ The above was largely quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. This book takes a refreshingly different line from other creationist books on the fossil problem. Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from the world’s major fossil museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion, they not only confirm, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr Duane Gish have been saying all along. Sunderland relentlessly takes the reader on an excursion with the experts to every single major transition—the net result is devastating. Australian anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer is still insisting that evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the fossils. The ‘best of the best’ in the evolutionary fossil camp claim otherwise, in their own words. Are there any transitional fossils? None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another. Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms. Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post spider:
Everyone is allowed to base their own belief on what they deem valuable and/or necessary... that scientist is vauable... indeed... just as you or I... I am simply offering up PLENTY of substantiated scientific evidence, along with views according to such... Noah's Ark doesn't hold water any better... And without the substantiation of evidence, even less so... If you have thoroughly read my posts... they offered several different perspectives, ALL based on what IS known... Including a few Creationism schools of thought which have, in fact, come to the realization that 'word for word' does not match what IS known. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I just can’t imagine myself being one of the stupid sinful masses."
<----then--------------Now, (us)-----------------tomorrow------> Why do we have this intrinsic requirement, to be back in then, and over there in tomorrow? Why is there this huge topic of debate? Where did I come from, sort of thing? Where am I going sort of thing? How about living, being, doing, giving, sharing, existing in NOW? How on earth does all this tapping of keys, change anything? Those that choose a religion, choose a religion those that don't don't.... but the truth of the matter is we all eat, sleep, defecate, and put our trousers on one leg at a time. I don't require knowing who may be right or wrong... just that the similarities are more prevalent than the differences.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason it matters is if we evolved and were not the result of a creator God, then there is no purpose or plan for life. It is meaningless. Just because there's no god doesn't mean life is meaningless. But then... "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave." -- William Drummond |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is only a matter of "right and wrong" for those whose 'destiny' depend on it to be. I just layed SOME of what is known... without any emotional attachment at all regarding the content of the information... only to the purpose of delivering it. It is as if I simply got tired of reading all of the 'insights' which have been claimed to be the 'Absolute Truth'... when most of it flies in the face of what IS known. I merely wanted the 'other side' of the issue to be given fair time.  Makes no difference to me... either way...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creativesoul i agree with you. I read not too long ago that they discovered another fossil in Kenya i believe that bridges the gap a little more as far as evolution is concered. But it doesn make me laugh to read people making fun of science while they get all their information from an book that's never updated and has talking animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I give up, seems too many evolutionists here are anti creationists and vice versa. Where's the middle ground? Why can't it be both? You don't have to believe in creationism, but it's unfair to knock those who do, and these threads are heart breaking to me as someone who believes in both;^[ There can be, however if i say i believe in evolution i get bashed by judgemental highschoolers who use pointless opinions with "book that's never updated and has talking animals. " And other criticall comments.. So why bother attempt to tell people the big picture. Evolution takes it too far. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creativesoul i agree with you. I read not too long ago that they discovered another fossil in Kenya i believe that bridges the gap a little more as far as evolution is concered. But it doesn make me laugh to read people making fun of science while they get all their information from an book that's never updated and has talking animals. Skot if you wanna be associated with an ape you go right ahead.  lol i think ill stick with God and be called human, hahahah i enjoy people trying to prove to me they came from an animal =). so ironic yet thier filled with knowledge =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 12/11/07 08:43 PM
|
|
There is one thought that sticks in my head like a thorn.
There are those who contend that science, with all its evidence to support an evolutionary theory, is utter non-sence. But the science that is used to research, and validate evidence is the same science that has given us the medical technology that exists today. How many Christians who deny the science of one, deny the sceince of both? How many would have a heart by-pass to continue living? How many would undergo chemotheorapy to continue living, how many would not undergo bone marrow transplant, and how many would deny this technology to thier children, to keep them HERE? Yet, just like the picking and choosing and interpreting that is so easily done with the Bible, these same people pick and choose science based on the offering. One science (medical technology) offers them life HERE on earth and they deliver thier bodies over to it as if they have no faith that God will anwer their prayers and give them what they want. Instead they TRUST science above God. Of course they will argue that there is no defeating the will God, but if that's the case, what is the purpose of giving your live over to a science that can not be trusted, over the a faith that God will provide? The other science (evolution)- gives them nothing in return for their belief in it, and so it is unworthy of thier faith. So it seems to me, that the winner of the faithful is the one who has the most to offer at any given time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution takes it too far? As opposed to what, a magical hand creating the universe? No thank you i'll stick to the discoveries that have been found. As a matter of fact i'll stick with the apes, because i'd rather be an enlightened ape then a ignorant human. Oh and by the way, a human is an animal, a mammel to be more precise. It's funny how you keep throwing around the term knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yzrabbit1
on
Tue 12/11/07 09:35 PM
|
|
ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2007) — A team of scientists led by young Croatian evolutionary geneticist Tomislav Domazet-Lošo from Ruder Boškovic Institute (RBI) in Zagreb, Croatia, developed a novel methodological approach in evolutionary studies. Using the method they named 'genomic phylostratigraphy', its authors shed new and unexpected light on some of the long standing macroevolutionary issues, which have been puzzling evolutionary biologists since Darwin.
The only direct method of research in evolutionary history involves analyzing the fossil remains of once living organisms, excavated in various localities throughout of the world. However, that approach often cannot provide the full evolutionary pathway of some species, as it requires uncovering of many fossils from various stages of its evolutionary history. As the fossil record is imperfect, the evolution research fundamentally hinges on luck factor in discovering the adequate paleontological sites. However, the RBI team proposed a novel and interesting approach to bypass this obstacle. Namely, they suggested that the genome of every extant species carries the ‘snapshots’ of evolutionary epochs that species went trough. What's even more important, they also developed the method which enables evolution researchers to readily convert those individual 'snapshots’ into the full-length 'evolutionary movie' of a species. Applying their new methodology on the fruit fly genomic data they tackled some of the most intriguing evolutionary puzzles - some of which distressed even Darwin himself. First, they demonstrated that parts of the living organism exposed to the environment – so called ‘ectoderm’ - are more prone to evolutionary changes. Further, they explained the evolutionary origin of the ‘germ layers’, the primary tissue forms that form during the first days after the conception of a new animal, and from which subsequently all other tissues are developed. Finally, they discovered the potential genetic trigger for the 'Cambrian explosion', a major global evolutionary event on the planet, when some 540 million years ago almost all animal forms known today suddenly 'appeared'. The first public lecture on these findings will be given by dr. Domazet-Lošo on September 4th at 5. ISABS Conference in Forensic Genetics and Molecular Anthropology, held in Split, Croatia. The groundbreaking paper fully presenting the theory of genomic phylostratigraphy will appear in the November issue of 'Trends in genetics', the most established monthly journal in Genetics. Reference: Domazet-Lošo, T. et al. (2007) 'A phylostratigraphy approach to uncover the genomic history of major adaptations in metazoan lineages'. Trends in Genetics (to appear in the November 2007 issue of the journal) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution takes it too far? As opposed to what, a magical hand creating the universe? No thank you i'll stick to the discoveries that have been found. As a matter of fact i'll stick with the apes, because i'd rather be an enlightened ape then a ignorant human. Oh and by the way, a human is an animal, a mammel to be more precise. It's funny how you keep throwing around the term knowledge. More power to you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 12/12/07 02:59 AM
|
|
Kalamazoo wrote:
yes, he should laugh.. LOL i laugh as well, Fossil records prove that we were apes? How about evolved humans? What abouot evolved apes? Creativesoul, you can call yourself a athiest and relate your self to an ape, ill stick with God and call my self a human. <<<<<<< Fossil records are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution Kalamazoo... fossil records show the most likely sequence(s) of human evolution... based on what IS known... I would not call myself an 'athiest', but evidently you would, I hope you find humour in the fact that it IS the first time I have been called such, because I did! I have never deliberately called God a 'strawman' or any other label of negative connotation... you evidently did not read the OP very thoroughly... open your mind to the idea that I am not attacking you, because I am not... re-read the OP for the definition of 'strawman', it has NOTHING to do with God...>>>>>> spider wrote: sob...whimper...the guy I make fun of in every post didn't take my fossils seriously! How dare he insinuate that fossils don't prove evolution! Just because we don't know if any of the fossils had children or that the children were different from the parents doesn't mean we aren't right. We can assume! Dude, without the assumption that evolution exists, all fossils are is proof that something died. <<<<<<< Sob???... wimper???...  spider...grow up! I am not looking for your approval, nor do I require it. I gave you what you asked for. And you, my good man, would be easy enough to dissect completely.... I choose to overlook your intentionally offensive nature, in lieu of the fact that I 'know better'... You are clear enough to see through, be glad I do not throw rocks without great provocation. Your opinion of me has no value. You are NOTHING to me. >>>>>>> Turtle wrote: I give up, seems too many evolutionists here are anti creationists and vice versa. Where's the middle ground? Why can't it be both? You don't have to believe in creationism, but it's unfair to knock those who do, and these threads are heart breaking to me as someone who believes in both;^[ <<<<<<< Turtle, I am a lot closer to what you claim your beliefs are than you may realize... I am not knocking Creationism, it is nearly impossible, however, to state anything that is known, when it comes to evolution, without knocking Fundamentalism by default... >>>>>>> Jess and Artsy: <<<<<<< You two do realize that you do not have wings right? Want some popcorn? >>>>>>> Art: <<<<<<< Thank you for your pleasant approach. I am not at all disagreeing with the notion of a Creator... nor can I just push aside all of the evidence that supports evolution, which is more complex in the genetic sense that I truly can understand completely... however, there is so much evidence of speciation right before our eyes... Should one think that it just stops there... suddenly, it no longer evolves? It takes a much longer time frame for all of the genetics of a newly evolving species to be in place... What of all of the creatures with vestigal limbs... or useless parts? Most DNA is 'junk' DNA, serving little if any purpose...storing ancestral 'belongings'...>>>>>>> wouldee: <<<<<<< I simply stated an opinon concerning the matter that I found myself in agreement with...mostly. Who can truly 'prove' anything, my friend? The evidence is staggering that evolution is a fact... it has yet to be determined how much so, and in what regards... None-the-less it is more truthful than many theories prior to it... and there is NO credible evidence to dispute it... >>>>>>> yzrabbit: <<<<<<< Good post young man... and an interesting bit of news, I wonder if they will 'win' $250,000...  >>>>>>> skot: <<<<<<< Welcome to jsh... unless you are a 'thick-skinned' evolution of man, you may want to avoid the religion threads... >>>>>> Redy: <<<<<<< You bring up a curious point, indeed... as always. I have wondered of that aspect in past, myself... >>>>>>> s1ow: <<<<<<< You should be hanging out in the trees huh... or playin' music with James and Greg... >>>>>>> adj4u: <<<<<<< How are you, my friend? >>>>>>> Voile and Harry: <<<<<<< Have some popcorn >>>>>>> And last but not least Dragoness and James... <<<<<<< I think you are both wonderful people also... like so many others... Thank you for your 'kind'ness... pardon the pun... >>>>>>> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art: <<<<<<< Thank you for your pleasant approach. I am not at all disagreeing with the notion of a Creator... nor can I just push aside all of the evidence that supports evolution, which is more complex in the genetic sense that I truly can understand completely... however, there is so much evidence of speciation right before our eyes... Should one think that it just stops there... suddenly, it no longer evolves? It takes a much longer time frame for all of the genetics of a newly evolving species to be in place... What of all of the creatures with vestigal limbs... or useless parts? Most DNA is 'junk' DNA, serving little if any purpose...storing ancestral 'belongings'...>>>>>>> Scientists are incredible egotists. "We don't know what it does, so it must do nothing." Now it's becoming clear that "Junk" DNA is shared by many species and that obviously can't be by accident. It appears that "Junk" DNA actually regulates how other genes function. "Junk" DNA has been used as "proof" that against Creation, because if there is so much "Junk" DNA, that has to be proof of evolution, right? http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392305 Many of these stretches of DNA, called "ultra-conserved" regions, don't appear to code for protein, so they might have been dismissed as junk if they hadn't shown up in so many different species. And if nature has gone to so much trouble to preserve these ultra-conserved regions over all these years, Haussler reasons, then they must be more important than just "junk." "From what we know about the rate at which DNA changes from generation to generation, the chance of finding even one stretch of DNA in the human genome that is unchanged between humans and mice and rats over these hundred million years is less than one divided by ten followed by 22 zeros. It's a tiny, tiny fraction. It's virtually impossible that this would happen by chance." This discovery suggests that the genome must be doing something other than coding for proteins, but the purpose of these ultra-conserved regions remains a mystery. Solving it might unlock the secrets of diseases like autism and epilepsy. "There are many cases that are unexplained by any changes in the genes," says Haussler. "This is a new area to look. Doctors who have patients where they have collected DNA samples can look for something common in all of those DNA samples that might explain what is going wrong with their patients— how does the DNA from their patients differ from the DNA of other people who don't have the disease? You look for the consistent difference. These places are a great place to look for some of the diseases that we are still mystified about." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<<<<<< Sob???... wimper???... spider...grow up! I am not looking for your approval, nor do I require it. I gave you what you asked for. And you, my good man, would be easy enough to dissect completely.... I choose to overlook your intentionally offensive nature, in lieu of the fact that I 'know better'... You are clear enough to see through, be glad I do not throw rocks without great provocation. Your opinion of me has no value. You are NOTHING to me. >>>>>>> Oh no, the guy who belittles my beliefs, thinks nothing of me. If that were true, I would be happy. I would rather that you didn't think or feel anything towards me than to have you run around pretending to have all the answers. Science declares 98% of all DNA "junk" and they still have credibility even after they find out it's not "junk". Science knows a lot less than it thinks it knows. Science knows knows a lot less about what it thinks it knows, than what it actually knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
beefcupcake
on
Wed 12/12/07 10:28 AM
|
|
At least scientists admit and accept when they are proven wrong. Perhaps instead they should stop looking for answers and just accept unused DNA as "God's will"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 12/12/07 10:42 AM
|
|
At least scientists admit and accept when they are proven wrong. Perhaps instead they should stop looking for answers and just accept unused DNA as "God's will" Welcome to JSH. It's not God's will, it's God's design. Evolutionists love the idea that there are "Vestigal" organs, turns out that there is no such thing. Every part of our body provides an important function. "Appendix inflamed? Cut it out". Turns out that the appendix serves a very useful purpose. The same is true with DNA. "Look at all this useless DNA! This is proof of evolution" Sorry doc, but all DNA is useful. So now the theory of Evolution must be amended AGAIN, because they theorized that there would be useless DNA and useless organs and yet we can't find one. The "proof" of evolution evaporates almost as quickly as they can think it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spider:
You have some inner issues to work on buddy... I 'pretend to have all the answers?'... I do no such thing... There are two sides to every story... and then there is the truth... The evidence you present is easily looked at for evolutionary support or Creationist support... I have never said that it must be one or the other... Discussions with you have almost proven to be a waste of time. Abra and Voile pegged you long ago... although harshly... and as an unparticipating bystander you 'seemed' innocent at first glance. I once dealt with someone who had a direct affect on my life, I am reminded... Severe obsessive compulsive disorder mixed with any number of other 'trust' issues can cause one to misunderstand another's intent, which sometimes leads to the afflicted one's believing a false premise. The very nature of the obsession compells he/she to find all available 'evidence' to support this false premise while simultaneously snowballing it, as a result of losing all objectivity. The disorder causes the gross manipulation of all things witnessed for the purpose of justifying a false premise, which then substantiates the means... and it all is 'proven' within the boundaries of misunderstanding. But in the end... It is still a false premise... Look beyond your Archetypical fingerprint... I am not making fun of you. Get over yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I give up, seems too many evolutionists here are anti creationists and vice versa. Where's the middle ground? Why can't it be both? You don't have to believe in creationism, but it's unfair to knock those who do, and these threads are heart breaking to me as someone who believes in both;^[ There is no middle ground....Because if you believe we were created by anything other then God.....that goes against God. Also I think alot of valuable information in the series I did on Creation Vs. Evolution in 3 parts......wow three parts....never noticed that......The Father The Son The Holy Spirit...... |
|
|
|
|
