Bill Nye slams creationism

[mouse]

Mouse, that does seem a bit tacky...

Tacky? You do realize I am talking to Blake right?


Well its now Tuesday and still no proof?
I think the (intelligent) readers of this topic know who lost this debate.

[RandomGuy]

How an industrial accident has helped evolutionary theory


SOMETIMES, scientific results come from the most unlikely places. The aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, for example, might reasonably be expected to have revealed the effects of radiation on health. That it casts light on the theory of sexual selection as well is a bit of a surprise.

That, nevertheless, is the inference of a paper by Anders Moller of Pierre & Marie Curie University in Paris, and Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina. Dr Moller and Dr Mousseau have been looking at bird life around the wrecked reactor. One of their conclusions, just published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, is that colourful species have done less well than dull ones. Since colourful plumage is almost always a sexual signal, understanding why is instructive.

The data come from a census of 57 bird species that the researchers carried out in the area affected by the radioactive plume from the accident. When due allowance was made for habitat differences, they found that species which relied on a class of chemicals called carotenoids to tint their feathers fared worse when there was more radioactivity around. Intriguingly, that did not apply to birds that used melanin, another pigment, in their plumage, nor to those that employed iridescence—which is a result of the structure of feathers, rather than their chemistry.

Besides acting as pigments, carotenoids are antioxidants that have an important role in protecting DNA from harm. One of the ways that radiation causes harm is by generating molecules that promote oxidation, so a good supply of carotenoids protects against such damage. Using them to make feathers pretty instead of mopping up oxidative molecules thus has a significant cost—as this result shows.

The reason this is interesting is that there is a debate in biology between those who think signals such as flashy feathers are essentially arbitrary and those who think they are signs of underlying health and good genes. Dr Moller's and Dr Mousseau's result shows that the bright reds and yellows of carotenoid-based plumage really do come at a price, and thus indicate underlying health. The unusual cir stances of Chernobyl have exposed that price to human observers, but it will have to be paid all the time, even in places that have not fallen foul of radioactive plumes.

The costs of melanin-based plumage and iridescence are clearly different from this. No doubt they exist, but it would be nice to think that the experiment needed to expose them is not quite so drastic as an exploding reactor.

from the print edition | Science and technology

http://www.economist.com/node/9468786

[RandomGuy]

The nature of man
Large-scale genetic studies are throwing light on what makes humans human

HUMANS are peculiar as a species, so what makes them so must be hidden in their genome. To an almost disconcerting extent, though, the human genome looks similar to the genomes of other primates, especially when it comes to the particular proteins it allows cells to make. The powerful new ways of looking at the genome being pioneered by the ENCODE consortium (see article), though, provide ways to seek out the subtle species-specific signals. Lucas Ward and Manolis Kellis of the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology report on the results of such sleuthing in a paper just published in Science.

The two researchers used data from ENCODE to identify the bits of the genome that actually do things and data from the 1,000 Genomes Project, which has studied human-genome variation across hundreds of people, to discover how much these functional elements vary from person to person. In particular, they looked for telltales that an element is being maintained by natural selection. If something is evolutionarily important then random variations in its DNA sequence will be slowly eliminated from the population, keeping it on the functional straight and narrow in a process known as purifying selection.

Dr Ward and Dr Kellis found that, in addition to the 5% of human DNA that is conserved between mammals, an additional 4% of human DNA appears to be uniquely human in the sense that it is prone to purifying selection in humans but not in other mammals. Much of this proprietary DNA is involved in regulating gene activity—for example, controlling how much of a protein is produced, rather than changing the nature of the protein itself. This finding is in line with modern thinking that a lot of evolutionary change is connected with regulatory elements rather than actual protein structure. The researchers also found that long non-coding segments that are not conserved in other mammals are in fact highly constrained in humans, suggesting they have human-specific functions.

Some areas identified as particularly human are the regulation of the cone cells of the retina (which are involved in colour vision) and the regulation of nerve-cell growth. These processes evolved rapidly in man’s primate ancestors but are now under strong purifying selection to maintain their beneficial functions. The implications of that, given humanity’s main distinguishing feature—its huge brain—are obvious. Dr Ward and Dr Kellis have thus created a powerful tool for investigating in detail just what it is that makes a human being human.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562185

[RandomGuy]

WOMEN have to get their reproducing done early. The menopause curtails it, and even before that a woman’s fertility falls significantly over the years. Men—those who can find willing partners, at least—do not suffer in quite the same way, as many stories of celebrity elder fathers testify. But perhaps such ageing Lotharios should think twice, for evidence is ac ulating that their offspring are at greater-than-average risk of genetic disease.

The latest study to this effect has just been published in Nature by Kari Stefansson and his colleagues at deCODE Genetics, a genetic-analysis company based in Reykjavik that was founded to take advantage of Iceland’s excellent medical records and its unique genealogical history. Recent immigrants apart, the relationship of almost everybody on the island to everybody else is known back as far as the first census, in 1703. In many cases it is known back to the first human settlement of the island, in 874.

Dr Stefansson’s study does not reach as far back as that. He and his colleagues examined 78 trios of father, mother and child who are all still alive. In some cases they looked at grandchildren as well. Their goal was to examine the number of new mutations—traits not found in the normal body cells of either parent—in children.

The average answer is about 63. That number, however, varies widely—and the main factor involved in this variation is the age of the father. Mothers transmitted an average of 14 mutations to their children, regardless of age. Fathers showed a much wider range: 20-year-olds passed on an average of 29 mutations; 30-year-olds (the average age of fatherhood in Dr Stefansson’s sample) passed on 49; and 40-year-olds passed 69.

That it is the father, rather than the mother, who causes this effect is probably because a woman’s eggs are created early on, when she is still in her mother’s womb, and are then put into what is, in effect, physiological deep-freeze until they are required for ovulation. Sperm, by contrast, are made continuously throughout life, and each division of their precursor cells brings risk of a misinterpretation of the DNA, and thus a mutation.

Dr Stefansson’s work adds to an existing body of research on the effect of paternal age. Previous studies have linked older fathers with higher rates of schizophrenia and autism in their offspring. In April three teams of researchers identified specific mutations that increase the chance of autism; all three observed that the risk of such mutations in a child rose with his father’s age at conception. But Dr Stefansson and his team are the first to measure the impact of older fathers so precisely.

Modern genomics made their task easier. After sequencing the genomes of each of the people involved, tallying the new mutations in the children was simply a matter of comparing the sequences of the parents with those of their offspring. Though both mother and father contribute to a child’s DNA, their contributions come in large, identifiable blocks. If a mutation is seen, its parentage is thus obvious.

There is, of course, the question of how much this matters, for most mutations have little effect—and a rare few, the stuff of evolution, are actually beneficial. According to Alexey Kondrashov of the University of Michigan, an expert on the matter who wrote an article in Nature to accompany Dr Stefansson’s study, about 10% of mutations are damaging. This means that for the average baby, six of Dr Stefansson’s 63 mutations are probably up to no good.

In Iceland, the average age of fathers at conception has risen from 28 in 1980 to 33 in 2011. Over the same period Dr Stefansson estimates that the number of new mutations in Iceland’s newborns jumped by more than 17%.

Whether that has implications for the country’s overall health remains to be seen. In the grand scheme of things, the negative effect of extra mutations is likely to be countervailed by the positive effects of modern life: better nutrition, hygiene and sanitation, as well as better medical care. But Dr Stefansson’s results do give pause for thought. Some women—those undergoing cancer-related hysterectomy, for example—have eggs frozen before their operations. In the fullness of time, perhaps men will think likewise and have some of the sperm of their carefree, mutation-free youths frozen in case they fancy a little procreation in their old age.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/node/21560836


(this one offers some rather particularly good evidence, as the theory of evolution predicts a lot of the things that were found, evolutionary theory not only explains, but it PREDICTS new things, that is one of its strengths)

[RandomGuy]

The human microbiome
Me, myself, us
Looking at human beings as ecosystems that contain many collaborating and competing species could change the practice of medicine
--------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT’S a man? Or, indeed, a woman? Biologically, the answer might seem obvious. A human being is an individual who has grown from a fertilised egg which contained genes from both father and mother. A growing band of biologists, however, think this definition incomplete. They see people not just as individuals, but also as ecosystems. In their view, the descendant of the fertilised egg is merely one component of the system. The others are trillions of bacteria, each equally an individual, which are found in a person’s gut, his mouth, his scalp, his skin and all of the crevices and orifices that subtend from his body’s surface.

A healthy adult human harbours some 100 trillion bacteria in his gut alone. That is ten times as many bacterial cells as he has cells descended from the sperm and egg of his parents. These bugs, moreover, are diverse. Egg and sperm provide about 23,000 different genes. The microbiome, as the body’s commensal bacteria are collectively known, is reckoned to have around 3m. Admittedly, many of those millions are variations on common themes, but equally many are not, and even the number of those that are adds something to the body’s genetic mix.

And it really is a system, for evolution has aligned the interests of host and bugs. In exchange for raw materials and shelter the microbes that live in and on people feed and protect their hosts, and are thus integral to that host’s well-being. Neither wishes the other harm. In bad times, though, this alignment of interest can break down. Then, the microbiome may misbehave in ways which cause disease.

That bacteria can cause disease is no revelation. But the diseases in question are. Often, they are not acute infections of the sort 20th-century medicine has been so good at dealing with (and which have coloured doctors’ views of bacteria in ways that have made medical science slow to appreciate the richness and relevance of people’s microbial ecosystems). They are, rather, the chronic illnesses that are now, at least in the rich world, the main focus of medical attention. For, from obesity and diabetes, via heart disease, asthma and multiple sclerosis, to neurological conditions such as autism, the microbiome seems to play a crucial role.

bug’s life

One way to think of the microbiome is as an additional human organ, albeit a rather peculiar one. It weighs as much as many organs (about a kilogram, or a bit more than two pounds). And although it is not a distinct structure in the way that a heart or a liver is distinct, an organ does not have to have form and shape to be real. The immune system, for example, consists of cells scattered all around the body but it has the salient feature of an organ, namely that it is an organised system of cells.

The microbiome, too, is organised. Biology recognises about 100 large groups of bacteria, known as phyla, that each have a different repertoire of biochemical capabilities. Human microbiomes are dominated by just four of these phyla: the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. Clearly, living inside a human being is a specialised existence that is appropriate only to certain types of bug.

Specialised; but not monotonous. Just as ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and coral reefs differ from place to place, so it is with microbiomes. Those of children in Malawi and rural Venezuela, for instance, contain more riboflavin-producing bugs than do those of North Americans. They are also better at extracting nutrition from mother’s milk because they turn out lots of an enzyme known as glycoside hydrolase. This converts carbohydrates called glycans, of which milk has many, into usable sugars.

That detail is significant. Glycans are indigestible by any enzyme encoded in the 23,000 human genes. Only bacterial enzymes can do the job. Yet natural selection has stuffed milk full of them—a nice example of co-evolution at work.

This early nutritional role, moreover, is magnified throughout life. Like the glycans in milk, a lot of carbohydrates would be indigestible if all the digestive system had to work with were the enzymes that it makes for itself. The far larger genome of the microbiome has correspondingly greater capabilities, and complex carbohydrates are no match for it. They are relentlessly chewed up and their remains spat out as small fatty-acid molecules, particularly formic acid, acetic acid and butyric acid, that can pass through the gut wall into the bloodstream—whence they are fed into biochemical pathways that either liberate energy from them (10-15% of the energy used by an average adult is generated this way) or lay them down as fat.

--------------------

I will end it there, but the full article is worth reading.
http://www.economist.com/node/21560523


More science that uses evolutionary theory to predict things, and where findings support the theory of evolution.

[RandomGuy]

Health indicators
On the face of it
More evidence that symmetrical features indicate good health
BEAUTY may be in the eye of the beholder, but a symmetrical face is usually a big help. In contrast, asymmetry is often associated with malignance. Biologists have long speculated why this is. In theory, evolution provides a logical answer: unfit individuals are less likely than fitter folk to be able to maintain the symmetrical development of their bodies when exposed to stress and disease. In other words, many parts of the body are supposed to be symmetrical, so any deviation from perfect symmetry indicates that an animal has not been able to grow as intended. As an animal is unlikely to want to mix its genes with an unfit or diseased partner, evolution selects symmetry as an attractive trait.

Whether asymmetry and poor health or fitness really go hand in hand has not been easy to prove. Research on this in humans causes ethical problems and can raise hackles. Now a new study conducted with macaque monkeys hints that there is indeed a connection.

Previous studies with macaques have demonstrated that the animals will gaze longer at symmetrical faces than they do at asymmetric ones, which could be interpreted as the monkeys finding such faces more attractive. The results of these studies have led researchers to believe that the monkeys have a preference for symmetry just as humans do. However, a clear connection between health and symmetry had not been made.

Fascinated by this question, Anthony Little of the University of Stirling in Scotland and Annika Paukner of the National Ins utes of Health in America established a new study with 93 female macaque monkeys. The monkeys came from three different groups (it was difficult to find one large group) and had been raised in some degree of captivity. All of the monkeys, between the ages of five and 20, were photographed, face forward.

Dr Little and his colleagues analysed facial symmetry using a computer to measure the distance of various features, like the edges of the nostrils, lips and eyes, from a line drawn down the centre of the monkey’s face. These distances were then compared and any differences between them (say, from one nostril and another) were added to an overall asymmetry score. Thus a perfectly symmetrical face, with eyes, lips and nostrils exactly the same distance from the central line, would earn a score of zero. A highly asymmetric one would score the sum of all the distance differences between features on the face.

The team then considered the overall health of the monkeys during their first four years of life. This comparison was made from veterinary records and evidence of health problems. The researchers looked out for minor wounds that had been noted by staff but left to heal on their own; major wounds such as bites that required s ches; levels of subcutaneous fat and muscle; the quality of their coat; and their weight gain. These health factors were compiled into two scores, one reflecting wounds and one reflecting the monkey’s general condition, and they were compared with the asymmetry scores.

Dr Little and his colleagues report in Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology that whereas wounds showed no relationship to asymmetry, as the monkeys’ condition scores declined so too did their facial-symmetry results. The researchers argue that this health connection is what makes macaque monkeys look longer at symmetrical faces than they do at uneven ones. Thus facial symmetry really does appear to be an indicator of health, at least among macaques. And what is true for them is likely to be true for people too.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562896


------------------


Note, this particular bit is quite similar to the one on Chernobyl, thematically, in that it details the mechanisms and results of sexual selection and how that affects evolution.

[RandomGuy]

Bacterial flagellum.

"nuff said.

[RandomGuy]

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine
Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an α-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in α-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general.

[RandomGuy]

Mouse's response to this will be blandly predictable.

He will simply copy and paste articles from creationist websites, without addressing any of the evidence I have just presented.

Mouse does not understand the theory of evolution. He is too incompetant to understand that he does not understand the theory.

Instead, he will make something up about what evolution is, then "disprove" this non-existant theory using someone elses words, and brag about how much smarter he is than "Darwinists".

The rest of us who understand what the theory of evolution is, will then watch this well-played out spectacle.

[RandomGuy]

Dance monkey, er mouse.

Dance.

I take it all back, if you can state, in your own words what the theory of evolution actually is.

[Blake]

Tacky? You do realize I am talking to Blake right?


Well its now Tuesday and still no proof?
I think the (intelligent) readers of this topic know who lost this debate.

They all know its not a debate

[mouse]

Mouse's response to this will be blandly predictable.

He will simply copy and paste articles.

So all that you posted was your original words?

[mouse]

They all know its not a debate

So over 25 pages is just deep conversation?

Face it your circling the drain your all out of excuses and you had plenty of time to prove to all of us Darwin was right and you failed miserably.


You can move on or keep debating errr... I mean disagreeing with me but the truth is 25 pages don't lie.

[mouse]

Alright to be fair I will voluntary extend the deadline to 11:00 pm tonight for many of you misguided people to post proof man evolved from a primate.

tick tock

[Blake]

So over 25 pages is just deep conversation?

Face it your circling the drain your all out of excuses and you had plenty of time to prove to all of us Darwin was right and you failed miserably.


You can move on or keep debating errr... I mean disagreeing with me but the truth is 25 pages don't lie.

the evidence you are asking for have been posted here many times. It is also readily available by typing it into google.

Face it. You are stupid.

[mouse]

the evidence you are asking for have been posted here many times.

show me

Face it. You are stupid.

very mature



6 hours and 54 minutes left.........tick tock

[Blake]

show me

RG already did. you're too stupid to know it.

very mature



6 hours and 54 minutes left.........tick tock

Very stupid

[mouse]

RG already did. you're too stupid to know it.

And how long would it take to post the link?

Very stupid

If you actually knew the definition of Stupid you would have stopped replying 23 pages ago.

[mouse]

What BLAKE,RandomLie,Deadzero.Wild Conya,and Agloco wont explain is if Darwin was right and Scientist confirm Evolution took place as a result of the big bang that still doesn't explain all the 105 elements we now have when the big bang only produced helium and hydrogen? Elements don't evolve.


This is the they avoid.

[Blake]

You're too stupid to know that you are stupid by definition.

[phyzik]

Not that this is going to convince Mouse, given all the tons of data already provided in many other threads....

Five proofs of evolution

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please Watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (Source), 80% with cows (Source), 75% with mice (Source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.


5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

[phyzik]

Now, after that, MANY people have provided TONS of scientific peer-reviewed data about evolution....

Please provide scientifically hard peer-reviewed "proof" The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Sounds like an awesome plot for some anime Dragon-ball Z-type cartoon....Do you trully believe that?

If you even doubt one part of that, than you admit that "gods" word is in fact fallable. The "book", by definition, is said to be words directly from god... No "anecdotal" or "interpritation"... It is what he says it is according to the faith.

If you do, in fact, believe that nonsense, please provide hard evidence of any of that to have ever happened. Be it walking on water, talking snake, a man having 1 less rib than a woman, the dead rising from the grave or a magical tree.

Please.... The Onus is on you now... We have presented facts as far as we know them, its on you to prove to us that we are wrong...

Show us the evidence.... Not "faith based" but actual, testable, hard evidence.

You wanted to test us and we came up with verifiable scientific peer-reviewed results...

Its your turn.

Remember, I can claim a teapot orbits Jupiter all I want, its on me to prove it.

The ball is in your court now... What hard evidence do you have?

I'll give you a hint: None.

Its your turn Mouse... Time to stop questioning science... Its time for you to prove your side with verifiable science and hard facts.

A few things I would like you to prove...


1. Human conception without a partner.

2. Walking on water.

3. turning water into wine.

4. Raising from the dead.

Dont get me wrong, I believe Jesus was a real person.... but he was just a man... Nothing more than the guy I see on the intersection of 410 and Callaghan claiming to be a prophet.

People just aren't as ignorant as they were 2000 years ago, although you are extremely convincing in making me think otherwise, and thats sad.

[redzero]

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

[phyzik]

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

That could be true, and I wouldnt deny the possibility if thats were he is coming from, but Mouse has always been past the borders of science.

I dont know how long you have been around redzero, but Mouse believes that the moon landing was a hoax, that 9/11 was an inside job, and many other crazy conspiracy theories.

Bottom line, I probably wasted my time giving the evidence to him, he will just dismiss it as more propoganda and will probably think I work for the government and have a black van outside his house surveying him.

He is that delusional.

[DMC]

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

There's no way of knowing what Mouse believes. Everything he says is a lie and an attempt to solict a response. He's so enamored with the trolling concept that he's sold his life to it.