Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[bambu]

Evolution is a fact and it's very impossible to disprove it.

It's like some disproving that the Earth isn't Spheroid.

It's ridiculous and stupid.

Science does going out their way to disprove creationism

They don't even acknowledge you creationists.

Yall "monkey ass" niggas sure have a lot of faith in your science....

Get with the new nigga.....

Fossils been played the fuck out........

Take a stab at the DNA evidence rather than pseudo scientific terminology surrounding the duck-billed platypus.....

"the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism"

What branch of "science" does not acknowledge creationists???

Certainly not biology or genetics.... "monkey ass nigga".....

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds

Abstract

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything

but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This

potential problem—the sampling problem—was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on

guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful

reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that

the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the

level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches

of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches

exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively

simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the

necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and

with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking

well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1/BIO-C.2010.1

Furthermore....

LOL....

Would any one of you "monkey ass" evolutionary niggas care to "prove" your theory where this is not the outcome.....

 

[whar]

On the evolution of protein folds: are similar motifs in different protein folds the result of convergence, insertion, or relics of an ancient peptide world?

Lupas AN, Ponting CP, Russell RB.

Source

Bioinformatics, GlaxoSmithKline, UP1345, 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, Pennsylvania 19426-0989, USA.

Abstract

This paper presents and discusses evidence suggesting how the diversity of domain folds in existence today might have evolved from peptide ancestors. We apply a structure similarity detection method to detect instances where localized regions of different protein folds contain highly similar sequences and structures. Results of performing an all-on-all comparison of known structures are described and compared with other recently published findings. The numerous instances of local sequence and structure similarities within different protein folds, together with evidence from proteins containing sequence and structure repeats, argues in favor of the evolution of modern single polypeptide domains from ancient short peptide ancestors (antecedent domain segments (ADSs)). In this model, ancient protein structures were formed by self-assembling aggregates of short polypeptides. Subsequently, and perhaps concomitantly with the evolution of higher fidelity DNA replication and repair systems, single polypeptide domains arose from the fusion of ADSs genes. Thus modern protein domains may have a polyphyletic origin.

Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Evolution of protein fold in the presence of functional constraints.

Andreeva A, Murzin AG.

Source

MRC Centre for Protein Engineering, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QH, UK.

Abstract

The functional requirement to form and maintain the active site structure probably exerts a strong selective pressure on a protein to adopt just one stable and evolutionarily conserved fold. Nonetheless, new evidence suggests the likelihood of protein fold being neither physically nor biologically invariant. Alternative folds discovered in several proteins are composed of constant and variable parts. The latter display context-dependent conformations and a tendency to form new oligomeric interfaces. In turn, oligomerisation mediates fold evolution without loss of protein function. Gene duplication breaks down homo-oligomeric symmetry and relieves the pressure to maintain the local architecture of redundant active sites; this can lead to further structural changes.

PMID:

16650981

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=protein+fold+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=f60JUIPhN4r82gWR2-DaBw&ved=0CGoQgQMwAA

Above link is a list of papers discussing the evolution of protein folding.

Protein folding is primarily driven by thermo-dynamics rather than evolution.

 

[bambu]

^^^^GlaxoSmithKline, circa 2001......

"the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking

well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins."

You may want a second opinion....

 

[bambu]

@D-Jack.....

Call it what you want playboy.......

I will not entertain semantics with you herbs..........

 

[whar]

The source you cite belong to an organization design to produce positive papers for Intelligent Design and against evolution. GlaxoSmithKline spends a few billion dollars each year on scientific research. They exist to make money so their shit needs to work or why spend the money?

Perhaps you could take a moment to find a source that supports your position that does not explicitly take a positive attitude to ID?

 

[bambu]

@Whar...

Why release information that contradicts your money maker????

 

[whar]

Pfizer, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline all compete against each other. If Glaxo produces bullshit then Pfizer and Merck can call them on it. Destroy the company and carve up the money between them.

 

[whar]

Early Hominid development was thought to move from a large brain and then an omnivore diet. This is what Piltdown showed. It was not universally accept at the time even in 1915 scientist were pointing out issues with the find. As time went on and more and more fossils were discovered Piltdown was regulated to an aberration until it was finally shown to be a forgery.

Looking for a missing link is a loaded phrase as we need to agree on what a 'missing link' is. I would argue that a missing link is a transitional form blending traits from earlier ape-like ancestors with modern human traits. In particular I would look for changes in dentition, movement from robust skeleton structure to more gracile, shifts from knuckle-walking to bipedalism, expansion of the brain size, and positioning of the connection between the skull and the spine.

Due to molecular clocking we know humans broke off from there ape like ancestors about 6mya (million years ago). To date we have found the following species

Sahelanthropus tchadensis - 6mya - 7mya

This was found in Chad, central Africa. This makes it a bit unique as most hominids fossil are found further east basically from Ethopia down through South Africa. It had ~350cc brai. Note the heavy brow ridges and the presense of an extended canine.

Ardipithecus kadabba - 5.8mya to 5.2mya

Very little is currently known about this species given the limited specimens, however fossil foot remains do suggest the creature was bipedal.

Ardipithecus ramidus - 4.4mya

This is a major find on par with the famous Lucy find. The brain is 300-350cc. The pelvis and limbs show the creature was a "facultative biped". This is an organism that can convert to biped movement for speed on occasion. In the skull note the canines (the two sharp teeth that extend beyond the teeth line). If you check your own mouth you will find canines there but they do not extend much if at all beyond the teeth line. Meaning you do not have fangs like a vampire.

This is a very probable ancestor to modern humans and definitely a transitional form (missing link).

 

[whar]

Australopithecus anamensis - 4mya

Relatively few fossils make up this species. There have been 3 significant finds though tibia remains suggest bipedalism.

Australopithecus afarensis - 3.2mya

Everyone has heard of this species as the famous Lucy find is an example of it. A afarensis is almost completely bipedal. Brian size is around 375cc to 500cc. The foramen magnum is about halfway between where it appears on modern Apes and modern humans. (This is where the spine attaches to the skull). The humerofemoral ratio of Lucy is 84.6. This is the ratio between arm length and leg length. Humans are 71.6 while chimps are 101.6. This fossil is absolutely a transitional form and very probable ancestor to modern man. It yet another missing link in the chain of life that joins us with our ape cousins.

Australopithecus africanus

This is the first fossil that is on Bambu's picture. It is represent by B and C. The picture above is the first skull found called the Taung Child found in 1924 while B is called 'Mrs. Ples' which was found in 1947. A africanus have only been found in South Africa and date to about 2.5mya. The 'Mrs. Ples' skull is measured at 485cc brain size which remains consistent with other Australopithecus.

What is so interesting about this genus is not the brain size which remains fairly constant but the jaw changes and locomotion changes.

Looking at this image it is easy to see the similarity between Australopithecus and Humans but to show the transitional nature of the hip and femur of the Australopithecus lets look at this image.

Please note the shift in angle between modern chimps on the left which is designed to walk on all fours and modern humans on the right. In the middle is Lucy from the afarensis specie but the point is the angle is not as pronounced and the afarensis fossil is showing signs of being in transition between the 2 states.

The jaw of Australopithecus is also interesting.

The teeth of Australopithecus are very human like. Gone is the pronounced canine that we see in a modern Gorilla. But in particular is the shape of the jaw. In humans our jaw is a parabole. That is each tooth is slightly inset from those further back forming an arch when looked on from above. The gorilla's in contrast has 2 straight rows with a slight arc among the teeth between the two canines. The Australopithecus back 2 molar and perhaps even the third follow a very straight line before we see the arching that occurs in the human jaw. Again we are looking at a 'missing link' in that the Australopithecus jaw blends traits from both species.

 

[whar]

We now move into the Homos (no homo!). The dividing line amongst hominids is generally human-like apes called Australopithecus and ape-like humans defined as the genus Homo (no homo! since I may use the term Homo quite alot here I just what to be on record I am not into cock no homo. Anyway moving on)

Homo habilis - 2.4mya to 1.5mya

Skulls D and E from Bambu's picture represent this species. In fact the above picture is the original skull that makes up E. Nickname Twiggy it was found in 1968 in the Olduvia Gorge by Peter Nzube. The brain is 650cc larger than any Australopithecus. Primitive tools were found with this find. The expansion of the fore brain area of the skull is what really marks this a Homo skull. This is the first species that could have communicated using complex speech due to the expansion of the Broca region of the brain.

This find KNM-ER 1470 is also of a habilis specimen but with a brian size of 750cc. It is currently being argued that habilis is too broad a species with the early smaller brained version being habilis while the latter version being called h. rudolfensis. This has not been finalized but given the diversity we see in habilis skulls and remains it is possible.

Homo georgicus - 1.8mya

This is considered transitional between H habilis and H erectus. This fossil was found in Georgia (the nation along the Black Sea not the southern state in the US). It is the first fossil of a human ancestor that has been found outside of Africa.

Homo eructus - 1.8mya to about 300,000 years ago

The above picture is the famous Turkana Boy remains found by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984. Eructus is very human like but the skull still shows differences. Eructus used tools and was the first creature to master fire. Brian size is ~1100cc which is too low to call the fully human.

Homo sapiens archaic - 500,000 to 250,000 years ago

This is a variation of the H sapien species. (We are H. sapiens sapiens btw). The brain is a little small at 1220cc and the features would make the person appear a bit brutish however this skull would belong to someone in our own specie.

There still Cro-Magnon man which lived about 30,000 years ago but he is part of H sapien sapien so no need for any fossils from it.

So just for keeping score missing links;

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus afarensis

Homo habilis

Homo eructus

Homo sapiens archaic

Then us

 

[whar]

tl;dr - a fuckton of missing links exist.

 

[bambu]

@Whar....

No doubt...

And if either puts out something outside of the "rank and file"....

It would likely destroy the company and carve up the money between the others.......

I am just saying that I do not have a lot of trust in any of the companies that you mentioned.....

 

[bambu]

Looking for a missing link is a loaded phrase as we need to agree on what a 'missing link' is. I would argue that a missing link is a transitional form blending traits from earlier ape-like ancestors with modern human traits. In particular I would look for changes in dentition, movement from robust skeleton structure to more gracile, shifts from knuckle-walking to bipedalism, expansion of the brain size, and positioning of the connection between the skull and the spine.

As I stated from the jump, I'm not going to argue semantics.....

With a flawed and speculative fossil record, that has yet to provide a true "missing link"......

It would appear that anti-creationists would be focusing on the DNA evidence.....

As I stated earlier....

Fossils are so 19th century...... Get with the new shit......

....

 

[bambu]

@Bambu

Do you even know what "faith" is??

You and your strawman arguments.

@D-Jack.....

Call it what you want playboy.......

I will not entertain semantics with you herbs..........

The answer is no and I expected that. So, cool.

@D-Jack.....

Faith = trust in something.....

trust, belief, confidence, acceptance, conviction, stock, sureness, truthfulness, allegiance, hope, loyalty, credence....

Again, call it what you want playboy......

Furthermore....

LOL....

Would any one of you "monkey ass" evolutionary niggas care to "prove" your theory where this is not the outcome.....

 

[whar]

Looking for a missing link is a loaded phrase as we need to agree on what a 'missing link' is. I would argue that a missing link is a transitional form blending traits from earlier ape-like ancestors with modern human traits. In particular I would look for changes in dentition, movement from robust skeleton structure to more gracile, shifts from knuckle-walking to bipedalism, expansion of the brain size, and positioning of the connection between the skull and the spine.

As I stated from the jump, I'm not going to argue semantics.....

With a flawed and speculative fossil record, that has yet to provide a true "missing link"......

It would appear that anti-creationists would be focusing on the DNA evidence.....

As I stated earlier....

Fossils are so 19th century...... Get with the new shit......

....

How is Australopithecus afarensis not a missing link according to you?

 

[bambu]

@Whar, @Vibe....

The discovery of this hominin was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution, though other findings have been interpreted as suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis was not directly ancestral to humans.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Abstract

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

"Missing link" is a rather strong term for such evidence that is "missing links".... Big Pun...

 

[whar]

Mandibular ramus is how the jaw attaches to the skull. In A afarensis it is more robust than in humans. That does not preclude it from being an ancestor to human. However even if A afarensis is not an direct ancestor of man the finds are indicative of a transition from more ape like features towards human like features.

How about A ramidus or H erectus? How do you explain those away?

 

[bambu]

Mandibular ramus is how the jaw attaches to the skull. In A afarensis it is more robust than in humans. That does not preclude it from being an ancestor to human. However even if A afarensis is not an direct ancestor of man the finds are indicative of a transition from more ape like features towards human like features.

How about A ramidus or H erectus? How do you explain those away?

@Whar.....

It does...However provide "evidence" that Australopithecus afarensis is NOT a human ancestor.....

They would get the same treatment.......

But as I said previously, "fossils played-out".....

I will address A ramidus or H erectus if you provide their evidence as "proof" of evolution or a "missing link"...

However, it should be known that the "missing link" is believed to appear in the australopithecines....

Hence Eoanthropus dawsoni

Accepting Evolution isn't a democracy.

It isn't the same as having confidence in yourself, either.

Evolution is a fact like gravity is.

Who cares what you think?

YOU'RE WRONG, PERIOD.

They have evidence on top of evidences to back it up.

With DNA and genetics to back them up, as well.

LOL@ saying fossils is played out

And your holy books is the truth and blah blah.

@D-Jack.....

Your faith in European science is misguided.....

You would be better served by placing your "trust" in "white Jesus"....

 

[whar]

Bambu I have already shown evidence the A ramidus and H eructus are transitional. In fact the paper you cite against A afarensis is based on A ramidus.

"Additional support for the phylogenetic hypothesis proposed here comes from another early hominin, Ardipithecus ramidus, whose ramus was recently unearthed at an Ethiopian site dated at 4.51–4.32 million years ago (ref. 24 and figure 3 therein). In our analysis, the specimen's posterior probability is highest with chimpanzees, at 98% (Fig. 3 and SI Tables 2 and 3). In other words, the Ar. ramidus ramal morphology is almost identical to that of a chimpanzee and thus constitutes further evidence that this morphology is primitive for the chimpanzee and human clade."

The paper argues that since A ramidus has a more gracile attachment of jaw to skull,and is an ancestor of man, it would not evolve to the more robust attachment as seen in A afarensis then back to more gracile as seen in humans. This is not a slam dunk that A afarensis is not ancestral to humans though it does raise an issue that needs to be explored.

It is intellectually disingenuous to cite a paper that relies on evolution as a truth to reach its conclusions as evidence against evolution. The paper relies on A ramidus being a missing link to humans to show that A afarensis is not. How does this help you?

Its almost like you don't think I am going to actually read what you cite. Hell I read that damn book on 'Our face from Fish to Man'. Thanks for posting that piece of shit!

 

[bambu]

Bambu I have already shown evidence the A ramidus and H eructus are transitional. In fact the paper you cite against A afarensis is based on A ramidus.

"Additional support for the phylogenetic hypothesis proposed here comes from another early hominin, Ardipithecus ramidus, whose ramus was recently unearthed at an Ethiopian site dated at 4.51–4.32 million years ago (ref. 24 and figure 3 therein). In our analysis, the specimen's posterior probability is highest with chimpanzees, at 98% (Fig. 3 and SI Tables 2 and 3). In other words, the Ar. ramidus ramal morphology is almost identical to that of a chimpanzee and thus constitutes further evidence that this morphology is primitive for the chimpanzee and human clade."

The paper argues that since A ramidus has a more gracile attachment of jaw to skull,and is an ancestor of man, it would not evolve to the more robust attachment as seen in A afarensis then back to more gracile as seen in humans. This is not a slam dunk that A afarensis is not ancestral to humans though it does raise an issue that needs to be explored.

It is intellectually disingenuous to cite a paper that relies on evolution as a truth to reach its conclusions as evidence against evolution. The paper relies on A ramidus being a missing link to humans to show that A afarensis is not. How does this help you?

Its almost like you don't think I am going to actually read what you cite. Hell I read that damn book on 'Our face from Fish to Man'. Thanks for posting that piece of shit!

@Whar.....

LOL....

See here goes the semantics and ad homemim attacks.......

Your "transitional" evidence continues to lack a "grail" or "true" "missing link" that would silence my side......

Excuse me for using your own science to disprove your science.....

However, If I used my own you would challenge its credibility?..?..?

Speaking on 'Our face from Fish to Man' where do you stand on the evolution of the "races"????

A quote....

"The deeply pigmented iris of the

chimpanzee shows the most striking resemblance

to that of the negro, while its basic similarity to

that of the white man is masked by the loss of

pigment in the latter." page 199.