Evidence for God from Science

Abstract
Background
The evolution of land plants is characterized by whole genome duplications (WGD), which drove species diversification and evolutionary novelties. Detecting these events is especially difficult if they date back to the origin of the plant kingdom. Established methods for reconstructing WGDs include intra- and inter-genome comparisons, KS age distribution analyses, and phylogenetic tree constructions.

Results
By analysing 67 completely sequenced plant genomes 775 myosins were identified and manually assembled. Phylogenetic trees of the myosin motor domains revealed orthologous and paralogous relationships and were consistent with recent species trees. Based on the myosin inventories and the phylogenetic trees, we have identified duplications of the entire myosin motor protein family at timings consistent with 23 WGDs, that had been reported before. We also predict 6 WGDs based on further protein family duplications. Notably, the myosin data support the two recently reported WGDs in the common ancestor of all extant angiosperms. We predict single WGDs in the Manihot esculenta and Nicotiana benthamiana lineages, two WGDs for Linum usitatissimum and Phoenix dactylifera, and a triplication or two WGDs for Gossypium raimondii. Our data show another myosin duplication in the ancestor of the angiosperms that could be either the result of a single gene duplication or a remnant of a WGD.

Conclusions
We have shown that the myosin inventories in angiosperms retain evidence of numerous WGDs that happened throughout plant evolution. In contrast to other protein families, many myosins are still present in extant species. They are closely related and have similar domain architectures, and their phylogenetic grouping follows the genome duplications. Because of its broad taxonomic sampling the dataset provides the basis for reliable future identification of further whole genome duplications.

Abstract
Background
Interlocus conflict predicts (a) evolution of traits, beneficial to males but detrimental to females and (b) evolution of aging and life-span under the influence of the cost of bearing these traits. However, there are very few empirical investigations shedding light on these predictions. Those that do address these issues, mostly reported response of male reproductive traits or the lack of it and do not address the life-history consequence of such evolution. Here, we test both the above mentioned predictions using experimental evolution on replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster. We present responses observed after >45 generations of altered levels of interlocus conflict (generated by varying the operational sex ratio).

Results
Males from the male biased (high conflict, M-regime) regime evolved higher spontaneous locomotor activity and courtship frequency. Females exposed to these males were found to have higher mortality rate. Males from the female biased regime (low conflict, F-regime) did not evolve altered courtship frequency and activity. However, progeny production of females continuously exposed to F-males was significantly higher than the progeny production of females exposed to M-males indicating that the F-males are relatively benign towards their mates. We found that males from male biased regime lived shorter compared to males from the female biased regime.

Conclusion
F-males (evolving under lower levels of sexual conflict) evolved decreased mate harming ability indicating the cost of maintenance of the suit of traits that cause mate-harm. The M-males (evolving under higher levels sexual conflict) caused higher female mortality indicating that they had evolved increased mate harming ability, possibly as a by product of increased reproduction related activity. There was a correlated evolution of life-history of the M and F-males. M-regime males lived shorter compared to the males from F-regime, possibly due to the cost of investing more in reproductive traits. In combination, these results suggest that male reproductive traits and life-history traits can evolve in response to the altered levels of interlocus sexual conflict.

Abstract:
Background
The granivorous house sparrow Passer domesticus is thought to have developed its commensal relationship with humans with the rise of agriculture in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago, and to have expanded with the spread of agriculture in Eurasia during the last few thousand years. One subspecies, P. d. bactrianus, residing in Central Asia, has apparently maintained the ancestral ecology, however. This subspecies is not associated with human settlements; it is migratory and lives in natural grass- and wetland habitats feeding on wild grass seeds. It is well documented that the agricultural revolution was associated with an increase in grain size and changes in seed structure in cultivated cereals, the preferred food source of commensal house sparrow. Accordingly, we hypothesize that correlated changes may have occurred in beak and skull morphology as adaptive responses to the change in diet. Here, we test this hypothesis by comparing the skull shapes of 101 house sparrows from Iran, belonging to five different subspecies, including the non-commensal P. d. bactrianus, using geometric morphometrics.

Results
The various commensal house sparrow subspecies share subtle but consistent skeletal features that differ significantly from those of the non-commensal P. d. bactrianus. Although there is a marked overall size allometry in the data set, the shape difference between the ecologically differentiated sparrows cannot be explained by differences in size alone. Relative to the size allometry commensal house sparrows exhibit a skull shape consistent with accelerated development (heterochrony), resulting in a more robust facial cranium and a larger, more pointed beak.

Conclusion
The difference in skull shape and robustness of the beak between commensal and non-commensal house sparrows is consistent with adaptations to process the larger and rachis encapsulated seeds of domesticated cereals among human associated populations.

hughfarey wrote:You could try reading the sources so usefully provided by neo-x right here!

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
Evolution is a fact, if you bother to read what I have posted.

Again Neo, some of what you're posting are facts. There is no proof for macro-evolution. You are just assuming macro from micro.

And, you wanted this thread to just be a reference thread for you to post links to educate others of what evolution is. Ive briefly looked at a couple of your links, and they have statements disparaging creationism and creationists. You can't even stick to your own rules you wanted for this thread. So, until I have time to go through each link you posted, to be sure they're just informational links explaining evolution, this thread is locked.
Neo, it's starting to look more like you have an agenda here, other than just trying to help people understand evolution better. I will not allow you as a very well respected member of this board, to take advantage and use that to promote an anti-creationist agenda. Don't test my patience and leniency please.

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
Evolution is a fact, if you bother to read what I have posted.

Again Neo, some of what you're posting are facts. There is no proof for macro-evolution. You are just assuming macro from micro.

And, you wanted this thread to just be a reference thread for you to post links to educate others of what evolution is. Ive briefly looked at a couple of your links, and they have statements disparaging creationism and creationists. You can't even stick to your own rules you wanted for this thread. So, until I have time to go through each link you posted, to be sure they're just informational links explaining evolution, this thread is locked.
Neo, it's starting to look more like you have an agenda here, other than just trying to help people understand evolution better. I will not allow you as a very well respected member of this board, to take advantage and use that to promote an anti-creationist agenda. Don't test my patience and leniency please.

Macroevolution is most certainly not a fact... Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups. Consideration is not necessarily factual. Many people get confused on this it seems.

neo-x wrote:
Sure g, whatever you believe, carry on. I really don't mind. Please this is not a debate thread.

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Sure g, whatever you believe, carry on. I really don't mind. Please this is not a debate thread.

You need to be clearer on what you mean by fact. Part's of evolution are not completely factual. That's all I wanted to say.

neo-x wrote:
We disagree, i am pretty clear on what I meant as fact. Evolution is a fact as far as I consider it, if you disagree then disagree and I understand that. But this is not a rebuttal thread. If you like to challenge some reported paper or fact here please start a new thread and if I could add something to it i will.

I think you should let the reader decide that because that is why I haven't posted my opinions in this thread but resources for Christian people who do find themselves at odds with Christians and don't want to go to atheist boards to look up stuff.