Massive Project Will Reveal How Humans Continue To Evolve

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Believer
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
Christian: No
Location: Oregon

Massive Project Will Reveal How Humans Continue To Evolve

Post by Believer »

More atheist evolution stuff. Can we PLEASE start discussing things that are against it? I could post atheist evolution articles forever, but I don't have that much time on my hands :lol:.
Image

Image

Massive Project Will Reveal How Humans Continue to Evolve
A global hunt for genetic variations reveals secrets to disease and survival

The ability to spoon down ice cream or chug a milkshake might not seem like an evolutionary advantage in our weight-conscious society. But scientists say that 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, around the time dairy farming began in Northern Europe, natural selection encouraged the spread of a genetic mutation that enabled adults to digest the sugars in milk. Those with the new gene—lactase—had a nutritional advantage over those who lacked it, so they proliferated, along with the mutation. This theory was first proposed in 1970, but scientists at Harvard Medical School demonstrated the genetic proof just last year.

Now geneticists are about to get a powerful new tool that should make it much easier to find such direct evidence of evolution in modern humans. This month, a three-year, $100-million venture called the Haplotype Mapping Project, or HapMap, will complete a massive public database of genetic variation in our species. The first HapMap-derived papers are due out soon, and scientists are abuzz about the prospects. “It's going to be very exciting,” says Christopher Wills, a biologist at the University of California at San Diego. “It will allow us to understand ourselves at a far greater depth than we ever have before.”

In recent years researchers have begun to uncover genetic evidence of mutations that conferred survival benefits in certain populations. In 2004, for instance, University of Utah geneticist Stephen Wooding and his colleagues showed that a mutation in the bitter-taste receptor, which popped up several hundred thousand years ago, helped humans migrating out of Africa avoid unfamiliar toxic plants. Wooding's work and other discoveries like it stem from the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, which has provided a map that enables scientists to pinpoint key genes. But, Wooding notes, research like his focuses on single genes. Until now, geneticists hoping to study multiple genes in many different populations have been out of luck.

This is where HapMap comes in. If the sequenced genome is a massive single-volume encyclopedia, HapMap breaks it up into hundreds of easy-to-read books. A strand of DNA comprises roughly three billion chemical units, known as A, T, C and G. Generally speaking, we all have the same letters in the same slots along that strand, which is why we resemble one another. Variations called single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, however, pop up every 1,200 slots or so. Though tiny, these genetic disparities confer traits like hair, eye color and susceptibility to disease. HapMap has examined SNPs from the genomes of 270 individuals descended from four groups—Western Europeans, Japanese, the Yoruba of Africa, and the Han Chinese.

By comparing differences among those groups' DNA, HapMap gives scientists a better shot at distinguishing the genetic factors involved in disease from the environmental ones. Ultimately, it will help them explain why, for instance, some people have a higher or lower risk of certain illnesses. And once scientists understand how deleterious genes affect various populations, they'll be better equipped to develop more-effective, targeted drugs to combat them.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

lol
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Post by Jbuza »

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:lol
Ya. Me too. That's a good one. Clearly everything prooves evolution as an origin. We change over time therefore God must not exist.
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

You should recognise that many scientists carrying out research in fields involving evolution (i.e. most of biology), don't see what the fuss is about. The entire "debate" over evolution originates squarely from the religious realm where it is viewed as some sort of attack their beliefs. Very few scientists get drawn into the fray.
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

You should recognise that many scientists carrying out research in fields involving evolution (i.e. most of biology), don't see what the fuss is about. The entire "debate" over evolution originates squarely from the religious realm where it is viewed as some sort of attack their beliefs. Very few scientists get drawn into the fray.
No, genetic fallacy, don't use it.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

.................
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
anti_fundie
Newbie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:29 am

Post by anti_fundie »

ignorance must be bliss :lol:

why is it people claim to know more about topics than educated/trained professionals with years of credibility behind them.

Honestly, you guys are the modern worlds laughing stock.
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

...........................
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

jettlogic wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers (I like that nick), it would only be genetic fallacy if tried to claim the an anti-evolution arguments were _false_ because of a religious origin.

What I'm actually claiming is that the debate doesn't matter to most scientists that are actually involved in evolution research.

And _that_ is because most opposition to TOE (even from somone supposedly objecting on a "scientific basis") has a religious origin rather than a scientific one.
As I think one of the mods has said, your argument is invalid-there are many Christians and Catholics who in fact embrace evolution. And, the genetic fallacy is saying that someone is wrong for saying or believing or doing something because they have a motive to do so.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

.................
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

(A) Virtually no scientists reject common ancestry (though a fair number debate details of mechanisms of TOE, etc.)
On the authority of someone else. Many scientists don't believe in evolution based on what they have found-it's based on someone else's authority in many cases. Michael Behe is a prime example. He believed evolution could explain many of the irreducibly complex biological machines he had found for a time, and assumed that someone had explained them away, and Stephen Meyer had believed in evolution until he read Darwin on Trial and saw to evolutionists in debates abandon evolution.
Therefore (C): Most scientists overlook the debate (maybe by genetic fallacy themselves, because on scientific subjects they'd only take scientifically reputable sources seriously),
Really...if that's so, then why are evolutionists debating with these guys and throwing up so many strawmen you could walk across the Atlantic without getting wet?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

...........
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

........................
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Dude, Behe and Meyer are hardly shining examples of scientific reasoning
.

They seem to be doing well in the Dover Trial...while the evolutionists are stumbling over themselves.
For one, AFAIK Behe doesn't reject common ancestry per se in his criticisms of TOE (http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3Behe.htm, for a Catholic view).
\

Yes, I know this-but his evidence he points to is only micro evolution...and, as I've said, scientists don't rely on their own authority in many cases when they believe in evolution. What Behe says it that evolution may be able to explain some things...but it cannot explain IR
For two, his irreducible complexity (IC) argument for ID is based on the false premise that IC things can't evolve and IC itself suffers since most things can be made to fit the defintion (i.e. remove a bone from a leg and it won't work).
Irreducibly complex biological machines, are, in principle, unevolvable. So his premise is not wrong. And your bone removal story doesn't fit-Michale Behe argues on the cellular level-as you'd expect of a biochemist.
The IC=>ID idea specifically doesn't deserve a refereed paper for refutation, wikipedia will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity. Information refuting Meyer's CSI is more complex in a specified manner, but I have to go now.
LOL. Wikipedia, lol. You're using a user filled dictionary to refute a scientist.
You have a point that scientists do accept things on authority and a physicist might provisionally accept evolution without personally investigating it, but OTOH researchers in molecular biology and other evolution-related fields have plenty opportunity to evaluate the evidence for themselves. And apparently 2/3 of the "project steve" folk are biologists http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/


Then why is there, after half a century, no explanation for Irreducibly complex machines.
Examples?
Kenneth Miller. He makes up his own definitions of irreducible complexity, and he goes and refutes that. He doesn't define irreducible complexity correctly...ever. Then there's John McDonald, who's story of how a mousetrap could "evolve" and still work...is inundated with design and intelligence. :-p And then there's Doolittle, who misread, on accident or on purpose, a study with mice and the blood clotting cascade, and wrongly stated that the research refuted Behe.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
jettlogic

Post by jettlogic »

Behe's mousetrap is not biochemical - there is nothing about IC the way Behe defines it that restricts it to the molecular level. Here's a an essay (by academics) refuting Behe's claim that IC systems are in principle unevolvable http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm:
We have shown, first, that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. Second, we have argued further that evolved biochemical and molecular systems exhibit redundant complexity -- this kind of complexity simultaneously accounts for the stability of evolved biochemical systems and processes in the face of even quite radical perturbations, for biochemical and metabolic plasticity, and, mainly as a result of gene duplication, for extant structures and processes to get co-opted in the course of evolutionary time, to serve novel functional ends.
Last edited by jettlogic on Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply