Ancient man's genes reveal surprises

[Kevbo_Jones]

Ancient Greenland gene map has a surprise

 

Rreuters – An artist's impression shows "Inuk" who is believed to have lived among the Saqqaq people, … By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor – Wed Feb 10, 4:44 pm ET

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Scientists have sequenced the DNA from four frozen hairs of a Greenlander who died 4,000 years ago in a study they say takes genetic technology into several new realms.

 

Surprisingly, the long-dead man appears to have originated in Siberia and is unrelated to modern Greenlanders, Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues found.

 

"This provides evidence for a migration from Siberia into the New World some 5,500 years ago, independent of that giving rise to the modern Native Americans and Inuit," the researchers wrote in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

 

Not only can the findings help transform the study of archeology, but they can help answer questions about the origins of modern populations and disease, they said.

 

"Such studies have the potential to reconstruct not only our genetic and geographical origins, but also what our ancestors looked like," David Lambert and Leon Huynen of Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, wrote in a commentary.

 

The DNA gives strong hints about the man, nicknamed Inuk. "Brown eyes, brown skin, he had shovel-form front teeth," Eske Willerslev, who oversaw the study, told a telephone briefing. Such teeth are characteristic of East Asian and Native American populations.

 

 

He had the genes for early hair loss, too. "Because we found quite a lot of hair from this guy, we presume he actually died quite young," Willerslev said.

 

The man lived among the Saqqaq people, the earliest known culture in southern Greenland that lasted from around 2500 BC until about 800 BC.

 

Scientists have disagreed on who these people were -- whether they descended from the peoples who crossed the Bering Strait 30,000 to 40,000 years ago to settle the New World or whether they were more recent immigrants.

 

Willerslev's team pulled DNA from hairs found in a frozen Saqqaq site and sequenced it just as they would a modern person's full genome, looking for characteristic mutations.

 

"Recent advances in DNA sequencing technologies have initiated an era of personal genomics," the researchers wrote.

 

"The sequencing project described here is a direct test of the extent to which ancient genomics can contribute knowledge about now-extinct cultures," they added.

 

The DNA links Inuk to modern-day Arctic residents of Siberia. He had almost none of the mutations seen in Indians living in Central and South America.

 

"We have an increasingly powerful forensic tool with which to 'reconstruct' extinct humans and the demographics of populations," Lambert and Huynen wrote.

 

A year ago scientists sequenced the genome of a Neanderthal -- early humans who went extinct 30,000 years ago -- and other groups have sequenced DNA from dried-out mammoth hair.

 

 

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[McBottery]

Maybe the snake-alien-genetic engineers took him from Siberia to Greenland?!

[UFCCagerattler]

"Willerslev's team pulled DNA from hairs found in a frozen Saqqaq site and sequenced it just as they would a modern person's full genome, looking for characteristic mutations."

 

ATTENTION ALL CREATIONISTS!!!

 

Do the world a favour and read the above every time you feel compelled to talk about missing links.

 

One other thought is that all of these tests are destructive tests.

 

It is interesting that they mention that they found "a lot" of hair. That is probably why they felt compelled to destry evidence that in 200 years might reveal the universe to us.

 

I am gemereally against most destructive testing on antiquities.Especially human antiquitity.

[General_Anesthetic]

Very cool story. One more drop in the giant bucket of human knowledge. I saw it this morning on yahoo but I was too busy composing my response to UFCITOLDUSO in the Sea Slug thread to post it. BTW Kevbo, you need to get over there & catch up!

[Kevbo_Jones]

Very cool story. One more drop in the giant bucket of human knowledge. I saw it this morning on yahoo but I was too busy composing my response to UFCITOLDUSO in the Sea Slug thread to post it. BTW Kevbo' date=' you need to get over there & catch up![/quote']

 

I checked it out... I don't even know if you can respond to that guy in a serious manner. He clearly has a junior high school understanding of Biology, if not worse. My 6 year old can tell the difference between metamorphisis and evolution. I guess thats what happens when you actually educate your children, instead of making ignorant Ad Hominem explainations about the natural world.

[mike58]

Interesting read. Thanks.

[adambomber]

How does this prove anything about missing links

[HeavyWeightStriker]

How does this prove anything about missing links

 

A year ago scientists sequenced the genome of a Neanderthal -- early humans who were thought to go extinct 30' date='000 years ago -- and they found that it was almost an exact match of the genome in almost all French people!!!:eek:[/b']

[adambomber]

A year ago scientists sequenced the genome of a Neanderthal -- early humans who were thought to go extinct 30' date='000 years ago -- and they found that it was almost an exact match of the genome in almost all French people!!!:eek:[/b']

 

so by "neanderthal", you just mean a person who according to scientists lived a very long time ago, so if this person who lived so long ago had like the same exact dna, guess what, that isnt an intermediary lmao

[adambomber]

This just in, an ancient man has the same genes as modern man.

If anything that would suggest that man has always been the same creature.

Now if this man had genes that seemed to be halfway between an ape and a man, that would seem to suggest some Evolution.

 

Man you guys can find contradictory evidence, and actually try to use it as evidence hahaahahahaha

 

Are you that dumb ?

[KRYME]

We have, in a way, always been the same creature.

We evolved from ape like hominids. A species of ape. We still are today, a species of ape.

Monkey's didn't just mutate into humans. Early hominids evolved.

Everything evolves everyday. Animals and humans.

A house cat isn't going to turn into a Tiger. A pigeon won't turn into an Eagle

But that species of cat might get bigger and smarter over time.

Just a couple of hundred of years ago humans were different than they are today.We evolved.

It's adapting.

 

comment/correct if you will. I've been up for 24 hours. :eek:

 

-buy the ticket. take the ride.

[adambomber]

We have' date=' in a way, always been the same creature.

We evolved from ape like hominids. A species of ape. We still are today, a species of ape.

Monkey's didn't just mutate into humans. Early hominids evolved.

Everything evolves everyday. Animals and humans.

A house cat isn't going to turn into a Tiger. A pigeon won't turn into an Eagle

But that species of cat might get bigger and smarter over time.

Just a couple of hundred of years ago humans were different than they are today.We evolved.

It's adapting.

 

comment/correct if you will. I've been up for 24 hours. :eek:

 

-buy the ticket. take the ride.[/quote']

 

but these " apelike hominids" have never been found

 

if all this Evolution occured, there would be millions and millions of skeletons found, there would be thousands if not millions of different intermediaries.

 

the proof isnt there, because it isnt the truth

 

Fact: God made each different animal exactly how it is.

[HeavyWeightStriker]

This just in' date=' an ancient man has the same genes as modern man.

If anything that would suggest that man has always been the same creature.

Now if this man had genes that seemed to be halfway between an ape and a man, that would seem to suggest some Evolution.

 

Man you guys can find contradictory evidence, and actually try to use it as evidence hahaahahahaha

 

Are you that dumb ?[/quote']

 

I was comparing extinct Neanderthals to French people, making a joke that they were not extinct that they just evolved into French people............................you're not French are ya?:eek:

[adambomber]

I was comparing extinct Neanderthals to French people' date=' making a joke that they were not extinct that they just evolved into French people............................you're not French are ya?:eek:[/b']

 

oh i missed the joke thats mean

[Kevbo_Jones]

but these " apelike hominids" have never been found

 

if all this Evolution occured' date=' there would be millions and millions of skeletons found, there would be thousands if not millions of different intermediaries.

 

the proof isnt there, because it isnt the truth

 

Fact: God made each different animal exactly how it is.[/quote']

 

Delusion at it's finest, folks.

 

 

Now on top of a paltry understanding of biology, you show a couple lack of understanding for fossilization and how it occurs. By claiming, "there should be millions of skeletons..."

 

Dense.

[adambomber]

Delusion at it's finest' date=' folks.

 

[img']http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/orig/boftoons/2007/creationist-frog.jpg[/img]

 

Now on top of a paltry understanding of biology, you show a couple lack of understanding for fossilization and how it occurs. By claiming, "there should be millions of skeletons..."

 

Dense.

 

there is no fossill evidence, no matter how you put it

[Kevbo_Jones]

there is no fossill evidence' date=' no matter how you put it[/quote']

 

Really???

 

Claim CC050:

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.

Response:

1.There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

 

Intermediate fossils include

 

 

?Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

?Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

?**** habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

?**** erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

?A Pleistocene **** sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).

?A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

 

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

 

 

2.Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).

 

 

3.There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

?Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).

?The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).

?A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).

?Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Links:

Foley, Jim. 1996-2004. Fossil hominids: The evidence for human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

Drews, Carl, 2002. Transitional fossils of hominid skulls. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

References:

1.Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.

2.Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.

3.Foley, Jim, 1996-2003. (see above)

4.Foley, Jim, 2002. Comparison of all skulls, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

5.IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf

6.Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

7.Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution. http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40posting.google.com

8.White, Tim D. et al., 2003. Pleistocene **** sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742-747.

9.Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

Further Reading:

Johanson, D. C., and B. Edgar, 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

Leakey, M. and A. Walker, 1997. Early hominid fossils from Africa. Scientific American 276(6) (June): 74-79.

 

Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford.

 

 

The link below is another display of fossil hominid skulls, with front and side views. It contains many of the same species shown in the lineup above. This illustration is taken from an article "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" by Douglas Theobald. Click on the link below and look at Figure 1.4.4. The side views are very helpful in determining the full picture of the skull. Theobald's article also provides links to more detailed information about each specimen. The images are from the Smithsonian Institution.

 

 

I think there is, you just choose not to accept it!!!

[adambomber]

in the very chart you posted it says there have been no common ancestors found lmao

[Kevbo_Jones]

in the very chart you posted it says there have been no common ancestors found lmao

 

*sigh* Facepalm... It is a chart explaining the intermediate sub species of man. The link between their lineage and a common ancestor is a wide open discussion. I like how you focused on that part, though. Instead of trying to disprove all of the evidence after that part of the chart.

 

Circular reasoning at it's finest.

[adambomber]

*sigh* Facepalm... It is a chart explaining the intermediate sub species of man. The link between their lineage and a common ancestor is a wide open discussion. I like how you focused on that part' date=' though. Instead of trying to disprove all of the evidence after that part of the chart.

 

Circular reasoning at it's finest.[/quote']

 

So you admit that there is no proof of an intermediary between ape and man, or do you disagree with your little chart

 

What do you mean circular reasoning on my part? if anything it is on your part

 

The whole discussion was about there being no fossill evidence that man evolved from ape.

 

Could you specify how i am using circular reasoning?

 

You like to throw out these insults or accusations and you never specify, it seems like it is just something you do to try to appear smart while trying to discredit me without reason.

[Kevbo_Jones]

So you admit that there is no proof of an intermediary between ape and man' date=' or do you disagree with your little chart[/quote']

 

You truely are a waste of time... Go take some biology classes and come back with a leg to stand on. The intermediary is in the chart. The common ancestor is up for debate. That's why science is the better gauging tool, because it can change with our further discoveries as an intelligent species. Not a finite bronze age story that is the real "truth."

[adambomber]

*sigh* Facepalm... It is a chart explaining the intermediate sub species of man. The link between their lineage and a common ancestor is a wide open discussion. I like how you focused on that part' date=' though. Instead of trying to disprove all of the evidence after that part of the chart.

 

Circular reasoning at it's finest.[/quote']

 

So your saying that this proves Evolution within the human species, but not between Ape and human species

[adambomber]

You truely are a waste of time... Go take some biology classes and come back with a leg to stand on. The intermediary is in the chart. The common ancestor is up for debate. That's why science is the better gauging tool' date=' because it can change with our further discoveries as an intelligent species. Not a finite bronze age story that is the real "truth."[/quote']

 

ah ..Ad Hominem :cool:

[Kevbo_Jones]

So your saying that this proves Evolution within the human species' date=' but not between Ape and human species[/quote']

 

No, thats is the problem with you line of thinking. No single example is "THE PROOF" of evolution. That is why it is so difficult for you to grasp.

[Kevbo_Jones]

ah ..Ad Hominem :cool:

 

Sure, why not? When in Rome...

[adambomber]

No' date=' thats is the problem with you line of thinking. No single example is "THE PROOF" of evolution. That is why it is so difficult for you to grasp.[/quote']

 

it is difficult to grasp because it doesnt make sense, it is ...nonsensical

[adambomber]

No' date=' thats is the problem with you line of thinking. No single example is "THE PROOF" of evolution. That is why it is so difficult for you to grasp.[/quote']

 

no, there is no proof, just what you believe

 

there is no ..evidence for Evolution between man and ape

 

name one evidence

[Kevbo_Jones]

it is difficult to grasp because it doesnt make sense' date=' it is ...nonsensical[/quote']

 

Irony... But a paradise in the clouds with angels, and christ makes total sense...

[Kevbo_Jones]

no' date=' there is no proof, just what you believe

 

there is no ..evidence for Evolution between man and ape

 

name one evidence[/quote']

 

I'm done wasting my time with you... There are thousands of proofs... They just don't have a step by step instruction book at the reading level of a 10th grader for you to understand.

[adambomber]

I'm done wasting my time with you... There are thousands of proofs... They just don't have a step by step instruction book at the reading level of a 10th grader for you to understand.

 

so there is physical evidence that Apes and humans have a common descendent but it is too complicated ? lmao

That sounds like someone is trying to fool me

 

"there is proof, but it is too complicated" try that in court

[adambomber]

I'm done wasting my time with you... There are thousands of proofs... They just don't have a step by step instruction book at the reading level of a 10th grader for you to understand.

 

there is not 1 evidence of Evolution from one species to another admit it, you will feel better

[Kevbo_Jones]

there is not 1 evidence of Evolution from one species to another admit it' date=' you will feel better[/quote']

 

Claim CB910:

No new species have been observed.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260

Response:

1.New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

 

 

?A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

 

 

?Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

 

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

 

 

?Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

 

 

2.Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

 

 

?Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).

?The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).

?Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

 

 

3.Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

 

 

?the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).

?greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).

?the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.

?many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).

?the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).

?the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

 

 

4.Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:

?In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).

?Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).

?A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

 

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

 

 

5.Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

Links:

Kimball, John W., 2003. Speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

 

Stassen, C. et al., 1997. Some more observed speciation events. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

References:

1.Beheregaray, L. B. and P. Sunnucks, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure, estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.

2.Bordenstein, Seth R. and John H. Werren. 1997. Effection of An and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 148: 1833-1844.

3.Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

4.Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

5.de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon 20: 29-35.

6.Fanello, C. et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Molecular Biology 12(3): 241-245.

7.Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.

8.Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.

9.Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.

10.Lehmann, T., M. Licht, N. Elissa, et al., 2003. Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. Journal of Heredity 94(2): 133-147.

11.Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

12.Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

13.Mayr, E., 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

14.Murgia, Claudio et al. 2006. Clonal origin and evolution of a transmissible cancer. Cell 126: 477-487.

15.Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.

16.Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.

17.Nuttall, Nick, 1998. Stand clear of the Tube's 100-year-old super-bug. Times (London), 26 Aug. 1998, 1. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

18.Schilthuizen, M., 2001. (see below)

19.Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

20.Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.

21.Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

22.Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, El Cajon, CA: ICR.

23.Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

Further Reading:

Callaghan, Catherine A., 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher 49: 34-36.

 

Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

[HappyHamer]

there is not 1 evidence of Evolution from one species to another admit it' date=' you will feel better[/quote']

 

Let me pitch a hypothetical story to you. Once upon a time there was this bloke, Jesus let's call him, and he was doing a gig. "Hey Jesus" said a roadie "We've only forgot to order enough food."

"Don't worry," said Jesus, "Watch this!" and using his magic powers he turned one loaf and a fish, into a slap up meal for all his mates.

"Nice," said the roadie, "but I could do with something to wash it down with."

"Pass me that water," said Jesus, "You won't believe what I'm doing for my next trick".

 

Meanwhile, famine is rife in the modern world, but Jesus' mates aren't going hungry.

[adambomber]

Claim CB910:

No new species have been observed.

Source:

Morris' date=' Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260

Response:

1.New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

 

 

?A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

 

 

?Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

 

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

 

 

?Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

 

 

2.Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

 

 

?Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).

?The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).

?Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

 

 

3.Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

 

 

?the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).

?greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).

?the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.

?many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).

?the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).

?the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

 

 

4.Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:

?In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).

?Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).

?A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

 

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

 

 

5.Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

Links:

Kimball, John W., 2003. Speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

 

Stassen, C. et al., 1997. Some more observed speciation events. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

References:

1.Beheregaray, L. B. and P. Sunnucks, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure, estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.

2.Bordenstein, Seth R. and John H. Werren. 1997. Effection of An and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 148: 1833-1844.

3.Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

4.Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

5.de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon 20: 29-35.

6.Fanello, C. et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Molecular Biology 12(3): 241-245.

7.Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.

8.Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.

9.Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.

10.Lehmann, T., M. Licht, N. Elissa, et al., 2003. Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. Journal of Heredity 94(2): 133-147.

11.Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

12.Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

13.Mayr, E., 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

14.Murgia, Claudio et al. 2006. Clonal origin and evolution of a transmissible cancer. Cell 126: 477-487.

15.Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.

16.Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.

17.Nuttall, Nick, 1998. Stand clear of the Tube's 100-year-old super-bug. Times (London), 26 Aug. 1998, 1. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

18.Schilthuizen, M., 2001. (see below)

19.Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

20.Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.

21.Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

22.Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, El Cajon, CA: ICR.

23.Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

Further Reading:

Callaghan, Catherine A., 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher 49: 34-36.

 

Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.[/quote']

 

could you sum this up for me and specify which parts prove that man and ape had commen ancestors?

[adambomber]

Let me pitch a hypothetical story to you. Once upon a time there was this bloke' date=' Jesus let's call him, and he was doing a gig. "Hey Jesus" said a roadie "We've only forgot to order enough food."

"Don't worry," said Jesus, "Watch this!" and using his magic powers he turned one loaf and a fish, into a slap up meal for all his mates.

"Nice," said the roadie, "but I could do with something to wash it down with."

"Pass me that water," said Jesus, "You won't believe what I'm doing for my next trick".

 

Meanwhile, famine is rife in the modern world, but Jesus' mates aren't going hungry.[/quote']

 

whats your point

[HappyHamer]

whats your point

 

I haven't got one, which is something we have in common. You ask for proof of an evolutionary process that takes millions of years to perpetuate, but are prepared to base your entire faith on a book of stories.

[Kevbo_Jones]

could you sum this up for me and specify which parts prove that man and ape had commen ancestors?

 

That was posted already... Seriously... Waste of time.

 

 

By the way, I'll take the fact that you're side stepping the information in the quoted post and throwing the old "Ape to Man" red herring out there that you concede, that there is in fact evidence of evolution resulting in new species.

[adambomber]

That was posted already... Seriously... Waste of time.

 

 

By the way' date=' I'll take the fact that you're side stepping the information in the quoted post and throwing the old "Ape to Man" red herring out there that you concede, that there is in fact evidence of evolution resulting in new species.[/quote']

 

but there isnt

[Kevbo_Jones]

but there isnt

 

 

*sigh*

 

Claim CC050:

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.

Response:

1.There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

 

Intermediate fossils include

 

 

?Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

?Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

?**** habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

?**** erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

?A Pleistocene **** sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).

?A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

 

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

 

 

2.Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).

 

 

3.There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

?Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).

?The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).

?A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).

?Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Links:

Foley, Jim. 1996-2004. Fossil hominids: The evidence for human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

Drews, Carl, 2002. Transitional fossils of hominid skulls. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

References:

1.Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.

2.Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.

3.Foley, Jim, 1996-2003. (see above)

4.Foley, Jim, 2002. Comparison of all skulls, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

5.IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf

6.Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

7.Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution. http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40posting.google.com

8.White, Tim D. et al., 2003. Pleistocene **** sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742-747.

9.Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

Further Reading:

Johanson, D. C., and B. Edgar, 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

Leakey, M. and A. Walker, 1997. Early hominid fossils from Africa. Scientific American 276(6) (June): 74-79.

 

Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford.

[adambomber]

 

*sigh*

 

Claim CC050:

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.

Response:

1.There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

 

Intermediate fossils include

 

 

?Australopithecus afarensis' date=' from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

?Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

?**** habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

?**** erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

?A Pleistocene **** sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).

?A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

 

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

 

 

2.Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).

 

 

3.There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

?Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).

?The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).

?A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).

?Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Links:

Foley, Jim. 1996-2004. Fossil hominids: The evidence for human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

Drews, Carl, 2002. Transitional fossils of hominid skulls. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

References:

1.Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.

2.Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.

3.Foley, Jim, 1996-2003. (see above)

4.Foley, Jim, 2002. Comparison of all skulls, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

5.IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf

6.Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

7.Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution. http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40posting.google.com

8.White, Tim D. et al., 2003. Pleistocene **** sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742-747.

9.Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

Further Reading:

Johanson, D. C., and B. Edgar, 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

Leakey, M. and A. Walker, 1997. Early hominid fossils from Africa. Scientific American 276(6) (June): 74-79.

 

Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford.[/quote']

 

So you agree or disagree with your first little chart

because it said there are no intermediaries

 

contradictory

[Kevbo_Jones]

So you agree or disagree with your first little chart

because it said there are no intermediaries

 

contradictory

 

Do you really want to go down the road of contradiction, New Testament Christian?

 

 

I already tried to explain this to you... The theory is an ongoing process, the determination of an originating species is still being studied. So if what you're asking is, am I foolish enough to put a stamp on where humans came from? My answer would be, no.

 

Now, are you stupid enough to finitely claim to know the origin of man, based on a book written in the bronze age, by nomads and goat herders?

[adambomber]

Do you really want to go down the road of contradiction' date=' New Testament Christian?

 

 

I already tried to explain this to you... The theory is an ongoing process, the determination of an originating species is still being studied. So if what you're asking is, am I foolish enough to put a stamp on where humans came from? My answer would be, no.

 

Now, are you stupid enough to finitely claim to know the origin of man, based on a book written in the bronze age, by nomads and goat herders?[/quote']

 

Your the one claiming to be using "science"

 

You laugh and mock it when people say we do not have common ancestors with moneys, yet you admit it isnt proven where we come from

 

When you figure it out let me know

 

Humans came from God, i will put a stamp on it

[UFCCagerattler]

How does this prove anything about missing links

 

The story illustrates that genetic histories are important for what they tell us about genetic mutations. It is the mutations that produce te markers and it is the mutations that drive evolution.

 

The common creationist line is "yes but where is the MACRO evolution - where one species changes into another?

 

A) MACRO evolution is meaningless - it is a term that exists only so creationists can discuss god, and

 

genetic mutations over the course of thousands and thousands of generations can produce literally ANYTHING in terms of speciation.

[adambomber]

Do you really want to go down the road of contradiction' date=' New Testament Christian?

 

[b']ad hominem [/b]

 

I already tried to explain this to you... The theory is an ongoing process, the determination of an originating species is still being studied. So if what you're asking is, am I foolish enough to put a stamp on where humans came from? My answer would be, no.

 

finally some truth

 

Now, are you stupid enough to finitely claim to know the origin of man, based on a book written in the bronze age, by nomads and goat herders?

 

it isnt stupid, and it isnt just because of the book, but because a God that exists

[Kevbo_Jones]

it isnt stupid' date=' and it isnt just because of the book, but because a God that exists[/quote']

 

Welcome to hypocricy and delusion.

[adambomber]

The story illustrates that genetic histories are important for what they tell us about genetic mutations. It is the mutations that produce te markers and it is the mutations that drive evolution.

 

The common creationist line is "yes but where is the MACRO evolution - where one species changes into another?

 

A) MACRO evolution is meaningless - it is a term that exists only so creationists can discuss god' date=' and

 

genetic mutations over the course of thousands and thousands of generations can produce literally ANYTHING in terms of speciation.[/quote']

 

alot of speculation

 

no proof

 

you need macro evolution to prove your theories that all things came from a common ancestor.

 

i personally do not think the world is gonna be in its current state long enough for evolutionists to make up much more of this nonsense

[Kevbo_Jones]

Your the one claiming to be using "science"

 

You laugh and mock it when people say we do not have common ancestors with moneys' date=' yet you admit it isnt proven where we come from

 

When you figure it out let me know

 

[b']Humans came from God, i will put a stamp on it[/b]

 

Translation...

 

 

 

 

[Kevbo_Jones]

alot of speculation

 

no proof

 

you need macro evolution to prove your theories that all things came from a common ancestor.

 

i personally do not think the world is gonna be in its current state long enough for evolutionists to make up much more of this nonsense

 

Funny that the creationist stands on the opposite of evolution because of "proof."

 

Claim CB901:

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:

1.We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

 

 

2.The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

 

 

3.As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

 

 

4.Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

 

 

5.There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

References:

1.Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. J?nsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.

2.Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[UFCCagerattler]

alot of speculation

 

no proof

 

you need macro evolution to prove your theories that all things came from a common ancestor.

 

i personally do not think the world is gonna be in its current state long enough for evolutionists to make up much more of this nonsense

 

No speculation whatsoever.

 

God is speculation, science is merely the description of what is.

 

There is only evolution - as I said the term macroevolution was invented so creationists could speculate about god.

 

Your opinions on man and his future are very nice. If they were chipmonks I would toss them a peanut.

[KRYME]

 

-buy the ticket. take the ride.