Oldest primate fossil yet found. It is a tiny Chinese Archicebus fossil

[Awesome]

Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[68][69] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[71][72] Dembski's critique of this position is that phylogenetically, the TTSS makes an unlikely precursor to the flagellum given that TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, which implies it was an early innovation.[73][74]

Again don't give me scientists have disproven claim - you all started this behss that whatever it is, will be argued here on this thread. Anybody's opinion will not be taken as proof.

While you're at it - you should also define who you consider actual scientist. Phir tumhari uspe alagse class hogi.

Ok now for the rest of your argument.

BF = TTSS? No similar.

Salmonella has 40 parts missing and 10 parts same as BF.

It was pointed out that in BF removal of one part ceases its functionality. If you disagree with me, point to me which part you say can be removed precisely and the cell's rotary motor and tail would maintain a function and won't be considered vestigial.

 

[Thirdfront]

Natural selection works on anything not being useful. Like the human vestigial tail if you believe we evolved from ape like beings. Bacteria Flagellum should have lose its vestigial tail without a rotor.

No, sorry. It will not act unless there is some harmful side effect. For humans and some apes, tail does have side effect (like obstruction while running etc). Also, bacterial flagellum (non-rotating) was actually a needle used to inject poison into host, so it was not vestigial...

Again don't give me scientists have disproven claim - you all started this behss that whatever it is, will be argued here on this thread. Anybody's opinion will not be taken as proof.

While you're at it - you should also define who you consider actual scientist. Phir tumhari uspe alagse class hogi.

Ok now for the rest of your argument.

BF = TTSS? No similar.

Salmonella has 40 parts missing and 10 parts same as BF.

It was pointed out that in BF removal of one part ceases its functionality. If you disagree with me, point to me which part you say can be removed precisely and the cell's rotary motor and tail would maintain a function and won't be considered vestigial.

Lol, and we are supposed to take your word for it?? It is clear that the initial statement you made that even 1 part is take out whole thing becomes redundant etc were in fact wrong. That should put your argument to rest.

I do not have a separate created by me definition of a scientist. I am curious to know about yours though.

 

[Awesome]

No, sorry. It will not act unless there is some harmful side effect. For humans and some apes, tail does have side effect (like obstruction while running etc). Also, bacterial flagellum (non-rotating) was actually a needle used to inject poison into host, so it was not vestigial...

How will it inject if it does not have its supporting mechanism

Lol, and we are supposed to take your word for it?? It is clear that the initial statement you made that even 1 part is take out whole thing becomes redundant etc were in fact wrong. That should put your argument to rest.

Not very hard, BF, Salmonella. Two different things right? Do I need to give you sources that two different things are indeed two different things?

I do not have a separate created by me definition of a scientist. I am curious to know about yours though.

You clearly are declaring Talon as not a scientist - so please tell me why she is not a scientist.

 

[Thirdfront]

How will it inject if it does not have its supporting mechanism



Not very hard, BF, Salmonella. Two different things right? Do I need to give you sources that two different things are indeed two different things?



You clearly are declaring Talon as not a scientist - so please tell me why she is not a scientist.

1. Why don't you google and see how it works. It is not like imaginary thing, it is observed and present in present day bacteria.
2. Well, BF is a part of bacteria but salmonella is a bacteria itself. I never said TFSS and BF are "same" what I said was they are "similar" and TFSS could very well be evolutionary "base" for BF.
3. Read my full original statement. second part says something else.

Now, please stop making childish statements about irreducible complexity. Neither you nor anybody else in this forum have the full expertise to go into complete details. But by those who have, it is very clear that there is not a single valid example for any mechanism that can't be traced through evolution.

 

[Azazel]

I do not think, I analyze evidence and let itdo the talking...
CLAIM? It is basic Biology! Evolutionarist or even a BSc Biology student knows this! Dont tell me you never learnt the basics in BSc

]

Oh sorry.I ignore that part.That was not meant to be here.Large replies create confusion.

even plants have these...

Of course they have it.That's why many scientists believe Eukaryotic cells evolved from Prokaryotes.

The word designer was introduced by you lot...I didnt bring it up...ALL I DID SAY was bring me proof which I still am waiting for...

Does that mean you don't believe in a creator/designer??

1st let me tell you It was based on believe that this chromosome and that chromosome MAY HAVE fused to form this new chromosome...Anything to make the theory as realistic as posssible...

Its not just a belief.Its scientifically proven.

So if we have 23 chromosomes, and say Crab-eating rat (semiaquatic rodent) has 2x the number of chromosome should we find which of our chromosomes fused...who knows maybe the Crab-eating rat (semiaquatic rodent) is our ancestor!!

Lets see crab eating rat is a mammalian species belonging to Cricetidae family.According to the phylogenic tree, its very much possible we might have a long extinct common ancestor.

You present me an article from a science magazine from 2006 when I presented you an article from 2009 stating the 98% has decreased to 95% and is still decreasing as we learn more and have much power tools to estimate the similarity complexes!

Fine.But No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate.

You did not answer a number of my own posts..and you are crying about 1 of your post based on speculations??

Sorry,Which posts??

Here you go a paper in 2007 Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution showing that human have more mutations since 50k years back (since they became Homo sapiens) then before....If you mutate this rapidly since say the "split" in the lineage...then we would have been some ultra human beings...or other apes would have formed different humans by now, a different race maybe?!

Sounds like the story of a science fiction story.But I agree since we survived a population bottleneck around 100,000 years ago and ever since the population is constantly increasing for last many thousands of years.It is very much possible that our genetic diversity is constantly increasing.More genetic diversity means more mutations.But compared to many other mammalian species we have very low genetic diversity.And I also want to remind you that if some of our ancestors form say 10,000 years ago were to travel to this day they would definitely considered us as superhumans.You will be surprised to know the way we are still evolving.Some recent studies suggest that over the last 30,000 years.The average volume of the human brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cubic centimeters.Some scientists believe that this is a sign that our brain is becoming more efficient.

Another paper from 2007 Heredity - Looking for Darwin in all the wrong places: the misguided quest for positive selection at the nucleotide sequence level Cant solve Darin problems....Not 1 scientist is as clear cut in this theory as the Indians on PDF!

What are you trying to prove here,Its a paper about Success of Statistical Methods in genomic sequencing.It does not question any fundamental aspects of Darwins theory.Its about the method for detecting positive Darwinian selection affecting protein evolution.

BMC Genetics | Full text | Genotyping human ancient mtDNA control and coding region polymorphisms with a multiplexed Single-Base-Extension assay: the singular maternal history of the Tyrolean Iceman In 2009 still nothing concluded...

No what is this all about.They say the Progress in the field of human ancient DNA studies has been severely restricted due to the myriad sources of potential contamination, and because of the pronounced difficulty in identifying authentic results.And I hardly find that surprisng.

maybe if you gave a little bit of time to what @Developereo and I discussed on page 7, you would realize we alre

What we are agreeing with each other??

same is true for Arabidopsis and fragaria, or Arabidopsis and wheat...

Not surprising at all.But I don't see the point.

Yes and no...If it was only a matter of tuning...it wouldnt be soo much of a problem...
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Why humans are brainier than chimps
This is clear indication of the importance of so called junk DNA.

maybe you need to join us in 2013 instead of being in 2000s...[/QUOTE]

I was saying the same thing.Again you make no point.

You cant teach a theory as the only thing available...Because it is a theory which can be refuted any day...then how are the children of tomorrow going to react if the the theory is refuted and they were thought of it as fact...they will react like you ..

Then they will learn a new theory along with the old one.And they wll also learn why the old one was refuted and what's new with the new one.That's how science education goes.But that doesn't mean we should let our children learn untestable pseudo sciences.If there is any valid scientific theory that could be taught along side evolution then I'd welcome it.But currently there are none.

I did not ...go read my post again....

And stop it with this creationist ...I only heard that word here on PDF...seriously no one is soo obsessed with things like you lot!

Either bring forward proof or just accept it you have mistook a theory for fact ...

Here we go again.I've posted all about it in my previous post.In science its theory that matters not facts.Half the time facts are wrong.

 

[Thirdfront]

]
Its not just a belief.Its scientifically proven.

So presence of 2 centromeres and an central fused telomere along with 2 regular telomeres at each end is not proof for some people? what other proof they want? a slo-mo video of it happening or it to be written in some 1000 year old book, I wonder...

 

[Azazel]

Citing the dover trial victory of evolutionists is the same as saying how Darwin was rejected 150 years ago when he came up with his theory.

If Darwin's theory was that why it is widely accepted now.

Intelligent Design poses questions that evolutionists have no answer other than scream ooh and aah about how fundamental science it is. A lot of fundamental sciences have been disproven over the past and ID finds more and more takers.

As far as I can say ID neither poses question nor any answers.In fact, its no theory at all.Its an untestable hypothesis(unfalsifiable theory).If lets say as per the ID there is a designer.Then the proponents of this theory must also answer the following questions with tangible evidence

1.Why did it designed us??
2.How did it designed us??,
3.Or lets say what sort of technology they used??
4.Can it be synthesized in the lab??
5.When did they do it??

If they answer all these questions then I will say ID is posing a challenge to Evolution.If not the the scientific community around the world will continue to reject it will consider it as a Pseudo Science.

 

[Thirdfront]

If Darwin's theory was that why it is widely accepted now.



As far as I can say ID neither poses question nor any answers.In fact, its no theory at all.Its an untestable hypothesis(unfalsifiable theory).If lets say as per the ID there is a designer.Then the proponents of this theory must also answer the following questions with tangible evidence

1.Why did it designed us??
2.How did it designed us??,
3.Or lets say what sort of technology it.
4.Can it be synthesized in the lab??
5.When did they do it??

If they answer all these questions then I will say ID is posing a challenge to Evolution.If not the the scientific community around the world will continue to reject it will consider it as a Pseudo Science.

Oh, you are asking too many questions. You are not supposed ask any. How things work in their view is only they get to ask for question and high standard of proofs that even a mathematics theory will not be able to provide. For their "theory", all the proof that is required is to be written in old (not so old by scientific standard) book.......
Funny how in Dover trial they showed the ID concept "evolved" from creationism and "creator" turned "designer" once US courts ruled the term "creator" can not be used in science curriculum..

 

[Dubious]

Does that mean you don't believe in a creator/designer??

I have a religion and believe and it doesnt get in the way of my work...It compliments my work...

Its not just a belief.Its scientifically proven.

Nope, not proven...You cant prove such a thing unless you have seen the process happening or it can be replicated or initiated in the lab....Mind you such things cant....

Lets see crab eating rat is a mammalian species belonging to Cricetidae family.According to the phylogenic tree, its very much possible we might have a long extinct common ancestor.

That is insulting science!

Fine.But No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate.

the only point that is true is that we share a large chunk of DNA....95% is not small....HOWEVER, the question still stays, we have been stable for 50k years, so when do we start evolving?!

Sorry,Which posts??

sorry that was to sandy...I just assumed you guys are the same....

Sounds like the story of a science fiction story.But I agree since we survived a population bottleneck around 100,000 years ago and ever since the population is constantly increasing for last many thousands of years.It is very much possible that our genetic diversity is constantly increasing.More genetic diversity means more mutations.But compared to many other mammalian species we have very low genetic diversity.And I also want to remind you that if some of our ancestors form say 10,000 years ago were to travel to this day they would definitely considered us as superhumans.You will be surprised to know the way we are still evolving.

Well, keep reading coz there is alot of research..

Some recent studies suggest that over the last 30,000 years.The average volume of the human brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cubic centimeters.Some scientists believe that this is a sign that our brain is becoming more efficient.

would be an interesting study to read...

I never denied evolution....ALL I DENY is species jumping I made it clear at least twice in this thread maybe not directly to you but 1 of the other posters PROBABLY...I do not remember

What are you trying to prove here,Its a paper about Success of Statistical Methods in genomic sequencing.It does not question any fundamental aspects of Darwins theory.Its about the method for detecting positive Darwinian selection affecting protein evolution.

shows how little you know about genes and gene discovery it starts with stats.....The fundamentals of GENES and how to find, calculate and do similarities between genomes ALL RELY on statistical programs and the power of the stats!

No what is this all about.They say the Progress in the field of human ancient DNA studies has been severely restricted due to the myriad sources of potential contamination, and because of the pronounced difficulty in identifying authentic results.And I hardly find that surprisng.

JUST SHOWS that NO evidence has been produced or is available as you keep saying so!

What we are agreeing with each other??

Sigh...I am sorry I do not have the time to browse the whole thread to show you and then repeat myself...

Not surprising at all.But I don't see the point.

Shows how little you know Arabidopsis is the basic model used to study plants in genetics...if you do not know Arabidopsis scientists dont even give you a 2nd look...it shows everything!

maybe you need to join us in 2013 instead of being in 2000s...

I was saying the same thing.Again you make no point. [/quote] neither do you by quoting 2005- 2006 discoveries, most of which dont hold much weight no more...

Then they will learn a new theory along with the old one.And they wll also learn why the old one was refuted and what's new with the new one.That's how science education goes.But that doesn't mean we should let our children learn untestable pseudo sciences.

I think you described evolution there!

If there is any valid scientific theory that could be taught along side evolution then I'd welcome it.But currently there are none.

if evolution was valid, there wouldnt be soo much race in refuting it!

Here we go again.I've posted all about it in my previous post.In science its theory that matters not facts.Half the time facts are wrong.

half the time facts are wrong? Seriously? so we should stick to theories? wow...cant produce proof degrade facts to your level bravo!

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... I DENY is species jumping


JUST SHOWS that NO evidence has been produced or is available as you keep saying so!

.......

I found a twin of our resident biologist. Her name is Wendy Wright. Both of you are using very similar arguments like a tape recorded message.

Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, ........................................................


Even when one of the greatest biologist is trying to help her show the "evidence".

Here is one of the major biologist Richard Dawkins trying but failing to convince Creationist Wendy Wright.

Enjoy!


---- youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8




Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete) - YouTube

 

[Dubious]

I found a twin of our resident biologist. Her name is Wendy Wright. Both of you are using very similar arguments like a tape recorded message.

Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, ........................................................


Even when one of the greatest biologist is trying to help her show the "evidence".

Here is one of the major biologist Richard Dawkins trying but failing to convince Creationist Wendy Wright.

Enjoy!


---- youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8




Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete) - YouTube

Richard Dawkins and great Biologist?

Ever read his biography? Where and WHAT he studied? I dont know why evolutionary Biologist really love him...But he is more of a philosopher than a Biologist...

He attended Oundle School, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour, from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year. Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.

From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field", and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkin

I am yet to hear about his research in GENETICS...he didnt do any...he can read up and throw stuff at you like you lot are doing...

We were thought his idea about altruism and self fish gene...and mind you we studied it well and I think I scored 1 of the highest in my class...and the questions I asked made sure the lecturers kept giving me good marks

Makes loads of sense as a theory not very sure how it can be passed genetically coz with time behaviour DOES change no one is constant! So yea, thanks for bringing him in for a good laugh!

Yup the same guy also dismissed Newton whom I do respect for his horrible laws (didnt understand them well but made me pass exams) and what not!

 

[FaujHistorian]

Richard Dawkins and great Biologist? :rofl

Ever read his biography? Where and WHAT he studied? I dont know why evolutionary Biologist really love him...But he is more of a philosopher than a Biologist...!

Hummmmmm!

You know you make a "compelling" argument.

On one side I have a respected author the stature of Dawkins.

on the other, I have my dear friend Talon.

Which way I should go, when discussing biology.

--- Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon,

Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon??????????????????



So tough. so so tough.


Tell you what, I figured it out.

got to trust Dawkins over a no-name internet "religious snake oil seller charlatan" who is just a self-declared biologist with no paper or even a book in her name.


Now if you had brought up 2 or 3 heavy weights of the same class as dawkins, who happen to present a better explanation than dawkins. Sure.

Because without such learned authors to supersede dawkins,

you my dear will continue sounding like than Mullahni Wendy Wright. When both of you are using very similar arguments like a tape recorded message.

Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............



peace

p.s. no disrespect intended. I am sure you are a top level biologist. sure sure. sure sure.

 

[Thirdfront]

Hummmmmm!

You know you make a "compelling" argument.

On one side I have a respected author the stature of Dawkins.

on the other, I have my dear friend Talon.

Which way I should go, when discussing biology.

--- Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon,

Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon, Dawkins or Talon??????????????????



So tough. so so tough.


Tell you what, I figured it out.

got to trust Dawkins over a no-name internet "religious snake oil seller charlatan" who is just a self-declared biologist with no paper or even a book in her name.


Now if you had brought up 2 or 3 heavy weights of the same class as dawkins, who happen to present a better explanation than dawkins. Sure.

Because without such learned authors to supersede dawkins,

you my dear will continue sounding like than Mullahni Wendy Wright. When both of you are using very similar arguments like a tape recorded message.

Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............
Bring me the evidence............



peace

p.s. no disrespect intended. I am sure you are a top level biologist. sure sure. sure sure.

Spilled my coffee.... (sorry I do not have evidence for this, I can't prove it either)..... Sad how people ask "proof" for a theory. Theory is not hypothesis, theory explains present things and then makes some predictions. If those predictions come true, then the theory becomes more and more robust, else needs correction. Examples being atomic theory. It made predictions about bosons and other particles. Now slowly things are being discovered in line with that theory. Another in Theory of Gravity, which failed to explain bending of light rays hence it had to be expanded/complemented by quantum theory. Similarly, Theory of evolution predicted some mechanism of trait transmission, though Darwin did not know anything about it. His predictions were right and we now have genetics a one of new branches of science. ToE also predicts rise of super bugs, which we see todday ... and people do not understand these at all and call themselves scientists....

 

[sanddy]

No wonder Pakistan didn't have a single Anthropologists in their country .

 

[FaujHistorian]

No wonder Pakistan didn't have a single Anthropologists in their country .

Based on what my dear sir?

That's a HUGE accusation against a country of 200 million people.

Are we not teaching the subject?

Just curious.