backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Regular Reader.. on Aug 25 at 12:31 PM


University of Illionois graduate student Elijah Roberts led the new study, developing the computer programs for it. He was assisted by his chemistry professor Zaida Luthey-Schulten (standing),  (Source: L. Brian Stauffer, U. of I. News Bureau)

Professor Carl Woese was a pioneer in using ribosome RNA to study evolution. His work predates computer analysis, but he has rode the wave of breakthroughs that computer analysis has yielded.  (Source: Jason Lindsay)
Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing

Evolution in its earliest days was derided by some for what they believed was a lack of observable evidence.  However, a major piece of supporting evidence for evolution has come from computer analysis of cellular compounds.  By examining minute details in organisms’ genomes, we have observed how traits were transferred to descendants and how other traits arose at different points in the evolutionary ladder.

The University of Illinois completed a major study on the ribosome that provides documentary evidence of the path of evolution and to help us better understand the differences between domains, the broadest classification level of living organisms.  The research was an extension of the work of Illinois microbiology professor Carl Woese, who was one of the first to examine the consistent differences in ribosomal RNA and proteins, which offers insight into evolution.

Ribosomes, the body's protein factories, are made up of two subunits partly composed of RNA, similar to DNA, but with one differing molecule.  Ribosomal RNA is called rRNA for short, as there are many types of RNA in the cell.  Ribosomes are also partially composed of proteins, which form a scaffold-like support of the RNA, helping it catalyze the reaction.  Messenger RNA, mRNA, carries the genetic message from DNA to the ribosome.  The floating ribosome then makes a polypeptide, which will become a protein, the basic functional unit in a living organism.

What researchers have found is that a domain of extremely primitive microbes known as archaea actually are closer to eukarya than bacteria in its ribosomal genetics; eukarya being the branch of life that humans and all other vertebrates are part of.  These similarities indicate that archaea are a closer "relative" to us on the evolutionary tree than bacteria.

To offer full insight into the ribosome, the researchers examined both the peptide (protein) sequences and the RNA sequences which composed it.  They also examined the 3D structure of the ribosome and the orientation of proteins with respect to each other.  Graduate student Elijah Roberts led the study and wrote computer programs that combed through thousands of organism's ribosomal sequences.  Whenever a difference between organisms was found, it was cataloged and the program then examined if the difference was exclusive to the organism's domain.

Illinois chemistry professor Zaida Luthey-Schulten, one of the senior professors participating in the study describes, "The evolution of cells and the evolution of translation are really linked to one another.  To be a molecular signature a sequence has to be common to all members of a single domain of life, but not another."

Using 3D models for some bacteria and archaea, researchers were able to take the analysis a step further, examining where on the 3D ribosome the differences occurred.  Mr. Roberts explains, "Until the 2000s, when these structures became available, you weren't able to correlate where these signatures were with what was touching them in 3-D space."

What the team found was that a mere 5 percent of the ribsome's RNA contains 50 percent of the domain-specific differences between bacteria and archaea.  Interestingly, this domain is an area critical to the function of the ribosome as a protein factory.  They also found that the differences in RNA were correlated structurally to differences in proteins, indicating that rRNA and ribosomal proteins coevolved.

Professor Luthey-Schulten describes, "The ramifications of this work are it gives you a much better way to probe how this universal machinery changes from one organism to another."

Professor Woese adds, "In that the ribosome constitutes the core of the cellular translation mechanism, which is the sine qua non of gene expression, which is the essence of life as we know it, these findings constitute a major step in understanding the evolution of life, which is still a journey of a thousand miles."

Professor Luthey-Schulten says that by identifying domain-specific critical rRNA segments, manmade drugs can be developed to attack these regions.  This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.

The new research will be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Evolution
By Storkme on 8/19/2008 10:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
In before Christianity.




RE: Evolution
By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 10:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
It would be refreshing if just once, we could have an article related to evolution where the comments don't turn into a massive religion/evolution debate.


RE: Evolution
By TheDoc9 on 8/19/2008 11:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I think Jason wants the flame wars, re-read the sub title:
quote:
Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing


This for example is a slap in the face to anyone who believes differently, and I promise you that nothing in that article manages to change any religions persons mind.

Remember he could've chosen any wording he wanted, any tone for the article and he choses the one that will stir up a hornets nest of comments. Hopefully people are tired of it on DT.

I believe that the writers here at DT get paid off of the number of comments to their articles, i.e. the popularity - perhaps if nothing else it's indirectly by promotion. If so, a sensationalist article like this is sure to fatten his check.


RE: Evolution
By sgw2n5 on 8/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Evolution
By TheDoc9 on 8/19/2008 12:24:05 PM , Rating: 3
So that's you're argument, make fun of a post. How old are you?


RE: Evolution
By sgw2n5 on 8/19/2008 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Older than you apparently.

Re-read my comment if you are still confused, son. I wasn't deriding your post, but simply pointing out the fact that if anyone for whatever reason is offended by this article (either the subject or the contents), you might just have a persecution complex.


RE: Evolution
By neogrin on 8/19/2008 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think he/she was making fun of you, not the post.


RE: Evolution
By Samus on 8/20/2008 3:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
The real breakthrough:

quote:
Professor Luthey-Schulten says that by identifying domain-specific critical rRNA segments, manmade drugs can be developed to attack these regions. This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.


F%@& fighting religious beliefs. What matters is they can now identify the regions of our evolution where we became exposed to diseases that don't even exist anymore because we're immune to them. That can be a great help to understanding our immune system's capabilities and flexibility.


RE: Evolution
By JohnnyCNote on 8/19/2008 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, I think Jason wants the flame wars, re-read the sub title


Flame wars = more hits = more click-throughs = more money . . .


RE: Evolution
By rykerabel on 8/20/2008 1:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
In that case:
+ post
+ click
+ money
+ daily tech


RE: Evolution
By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 1:38:17 PM , Rating: 3
No doubt that Jason is guilty of flame-baiting in his evolution articles, although to a much lesser degree in this article than in past articles. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take the bait. My main frustration is with the same general posters making the same fundamental arguments for or against evolution in response to every article remotely related to evolution (most frustrating of all is the people who post pre-written canned responses).

If an article brings up some new research that could affect the evolution/creation debate in some meaningful way, then its fine to argue about how the new research further supports or detracts from an argument. Just don't devolve into arguments about the fundamentals which we've all seen a million times.


RE: Evolution
By wordsworm on 8/20/2008 7:57:15 AM , Rating: 1
If, suddenly, Jesus comes back and God writes 'evolution is wrong, I created all you buggers' in flames which span all around the earth, I am sure the creationists would be all too happy to state that evolution theory is dead with much greater fervor than what Mick has implied in his article. There is no point in arguing with creationists aside from entertainment value. But, I suppose it's not morally sound. That would be like making fun of mentally challenged folks. Nonetheless, I have a hard time not laughing at the religiously challenged. Though, I rarely participate since they are all better at goading each other than I'll ever be.

As it is, this article is as patiently as ever pointing out that evolution is clearly more logical and sensible than the silly notion of creationism.


RE: Evolution
By omnicronx on 8/19/2008 4:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This for example is a slap in the face to anyone who believes differently, and I promise you that nothing in that article manages to change any religions persons mind.

You would not be singing the same tune if this article proved that evolution did not exist.(judging by your comments you do not believe in evolution)

Frankly I have no problem with people believing what ever they want, but there is scientific explanation that shows with a very high certainty that evolution does exist. This is not like calling the world flat without sailing around it, as there have been countless scientific studies which would indicate that evolution does exist.

Presenting information should not be a slap in the face to anybody, and I really do not see any problem with the title either, its 100% true. Evolution is being steadily verified and analyzed. Does this mean that scientists can prove this with 100% certainty? No.. but personally, I find it is pretty convincing.



RE: Evolution
By GTVic on 8/19/2008 5:25:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think the biggest problem (besides people getting offended for no reason) is the mindset that it is either evolution or creation with no middle ground.

The central idea of creation is that the universe and life is not an accident. The exact mechanics of how it happened, whether it is evolution or the sneeze of the Great Green Arkelsiezure is not so important as the central idea.


RE: Evolution
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/19/2008 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are plenty of people who believe God created evolution. It's really not that big of a deal. And considering there's really no way to prove God doesn't exist, all athiests should be agnostic.


RE: Evolution
By v3rt1g0 on 8/19/2008 9:53:01 PM , Rating: 4
..and by the same tenet, there's no way to prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist, either. Are you on the fence on the existence of invisible pink unicorns? ..No?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


RE: Evolution
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 7:42:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

i.e.:
God
Evolution
Pink Unicorns

Once again (here comes a canned response), trying to use science to prove/disprove the supernatural is a waste of time and energy. Just stop. This goes for both believers in God and nonbelievers.


RE: Evolution
By wordsworm on 8/20/2008 7:59:31 AM , Rating: 1
Are you a thought cop or something? Is there a law against this debate? If you don't like the debate, why'd you waste your time reading and replying to the thread?


RE: Evolution
By Gondorff on 8/21/2008 1:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he was trying to shut down the discussion; he was merely pointing out that the line of thinking that tries to prove/disprove God using science is ultimately fruitless. While God is by definition supernatural, science by definition deals with only the natural, so there is no intersection of the two that can be used for debate. It is like trying to prove/disprove something about complex or imaginary numbers while limiting your means of proof to the real number system.


RE: Evolution
By wordsworm on 8/22/2008 11:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Science has been breaking down the walls that support religion for centuries. Why do you think that religious people fight it so fervently? Of course, the other course of action is to create a new explanation to try to meld the facts that science uncovers to a new fiction to substantiate the concept of a deity based creation.


RE: Evolution
By Regular Reader on 8/23/2008 11:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
Science never assumed the mantle of trying to disprove a god or gods. In point of fact it was religion that assumed that intent of science centuries ago. We see this with the flat vs. round earth debate, universal geocentrism, electricity, etc. Newton could've been skinned alive for his alchemy, which he did in secret. But Newton's alchemy work did provide some theoretical insight for the field of chemistry to flourish, despite his being a staunch Christian. Again, science continues in spite of religion, not because of it.

So many things we have come to understand because of science. Fire, Electricity, sub-microbial organisms, disease, anything and everything we currently rely on has everything to do with science and real discovery of the natural world.


RE: Evolution
By v3rt1g0 on 8/20/2008 6:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

God[s]
Evolution
Pink Unicorns


Evolution has ample, copious amounts of evidence that validate the claims made.
There is zero evidence for the other two.
Did you have a point?


RE: Evolution
By elessar1 on 8/21/2008 4:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:


quote:

Pink Unicorns


Evolution has ample, copious amounts of evidence that validate the claims made.
There is zero evidence for the other two.



There is an explanation about why there are any pink unicorns... The FSM kill them all...

http://www.venganza.org/?s=unicorn

All Praise the FSM!!!

Cheers...


RE: Evolution
By mindless1 on 8/20/2008 3:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
and by the same, years ago there was no way to prove other planets existed in our solar system either, or to most that the world wasn't flat. Are you on the fence on the existence of planets? No? What about subatomic particles?


probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 3:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
I read that if the entire universe was converted to the amino acids found in life and allowed to stew together for 15 billion years, it would STILL be statistically impossible for the simplest life form capable of evolution to form by chance alone.




By Regular Reader on 8/20/2008 10:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, obviously you are incorrect, because it happened. Are you sure you didn't mean statistically IMPROBABLE?


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 10:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Anything beyond 1 in 10^50 is considered statistically impossible. The mathematicians and the biologists broke up over this in 1964 from what I have read.


By Regular Reader on 8/20/2008 11:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Link?


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 11:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Because of the hit-and-miss nature ascribed to the mode of evolution, it is more reasonable to assume an enzyme system started with the fortuitous synthesis of just one enzyme. What are the chances of getting just one simple enzyme only 100 amino acid residues long? There are 20 different amino acids which could be arranged in any combination of ways (some ways would not be favored and less likely to happen). The amino acids in this simple enzyme could be arranged 10130different ways—that is 10 with 130 zeros. Most of these arrangements would not make good enzymes. Most of them would work very poorly or not at all. Sir Arthur Eddington, a British astronomer, calculated there are no more than 1080 particles in the universe. Astronomers believe 90 to 99% of the universe is made of invisible particles called Dark Matter. This might increase the total number to 1082. This includes all the electrons, protons, and neutrons, and many other less familiar subatomic particles. That should give you some idea of how large 10130is.

It would take an very long time to find by chance the right combination of amino acids to make some-thing as efficient as the enzymes in our bodies. If we let everything in the universe combine and recombine to make these protein chains of 100 amino acid residues at the rate of one trillion times per second, it would take more than 30 trillion years before all the combinations would have been tried. After these trials we would have just one protein one hundred amino acids long with limited function and no ability to reproduce, for protein does not code for itself, nor is it able to effect its own replication.

Statistics, however, do not really impress evolutionists, because their faith in evolution runs much deeper than their respect for math. So deep, in fact, that Carl Sagan says things got very lucky and life formed any-way. The odds against the chance formation of life have been calculated by another famous astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, to be 1 out of 1040,000, which he says is equivalent to a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and constructing a 747! "

from:

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Che...


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 11:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dang it! The exponential notation did not copy correctly. Anyway follow the link if interested. Sir Fredrick Hoyle estimated the chance formation of life at 1 in 10^40000.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 11:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
The tornado analogy is a strawman argument.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
That is an article from a creationist website, not a scientific body. Show me something from someone who actually does the scientific work outside a religious bias.

You can't go to a religious source expecting them to know what they're talking about on science.


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/21/2008 11:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Sir Fredrick Hoyle is/was an atheist.
Here's another link:

http://tinyurl.com/6dze2y

This book is as deep and wide as I have ever seen with regard to information theory and the origin of life.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
First off, read about Hoyle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

He WAS an atheist, and started believing in panspermia, an idea that says the universe was seeded with life. There is now evidence for this notion.

Further, that book is an Intelligent Design book. ID is just a more sciency-sounding version of creationism. Look up the Wedge Document and you'l find that ID began by taking the Wedge Document, written in the 1970s, replacing all instances of the word creationism, and then pushing it as new science. Also read up on the 2005 Dover case. Intelligent Design is a farce. It has no supporting evidence, and does nothing more than ask questions without producing experiments or results.

You have not read much on this debate. You have read A book and are believing it because it breaks from evolution, and seems to make intelligent arguments.

Google: An Index to Creationist Claims


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 1:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to type that there is NO evidence for panspermia. Hoyle was an atheist, but later moved toward belief and claimed he was agnostic. His positions he started making known as a agnostic, not an atheist.


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/21/2008 1:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Some of my best friends are agnostics. I have a problem with atheists though. How does one disprove a Creator?


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By v3rt1g0 on 8/21/2008 2:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is no need to disprove something that hasn't been proven. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim -- that a "creator" and/or supernatural gods exist.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Religion assumes a creator exists, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. The burden of proof about the existence of a god (and in deed which one truly exists) is on the religious. The arguments for religion fail miserably because they assume a god exists, and then try to prove it. That's not how real discovery works. Real discovery - and real science - occurs by making discoveries and formulating ideas and theories based on what is observed.

It is not incumbent upon atheists to prove anything about a god or gods.


RE: probability theory and the origin of life
By Steve Stip on 8/21/2008 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it isn't just the origin of life that is extremely improbable. Earth itself is extremely improbable. Two non-creationists wrote a book called "Rare Earth" in which they argue that Earth may be the ONLY planet in the universe capable of supporting intelligent life.

Also, if you reject all ID arguments based on the beliefs of the people who make that argument then that is ad hominem.

Still, belief in ID does not mean you have to believe in a particular Designer.

From what I understand, the latest arguments against ID to defeat the overwhelming odds argument is to invoke an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one of the lucky ones. However and ironically, these other universes are UNDETECTABLE in principle.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 5:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, I make that assumption about ID and those who support it because ID *IS BASED* on the beliefs of those who formulated it. Go find and read the Wedge document and get back to me.

ID is creationism by another name, as proven by *THEIR* documents, not mine, and not those of the science community. Believing in ID does not mean a particular designer must be selected, but those that support it don't have much trouble in choosing one off the bat. Is there any wonder why the Discovery Institute has so many Christians in it?

And again, while the universe as we know it is improbable, are we not here talking about it? Perhaps it's less complex than you would be lead to think it was. And keep in mind: Evolution is about how life began and progressed here on Earth; it is not a theory formulated to explain the universe. That's why it's called evolution, and not "the thing that explains the entire universe". If you're going to debate evolution, you have to stay on Earth, and not start getting into cosmological ponderances. Arguments about how improbable everything is are immaterial to evolution, because evolution is about real things that are happening here on Earth, not in the Nth dimension on planet XQU179.


By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 11:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
Observable Proof
By Shuxclams on 8/19/2008 2:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
The fact that there are two sexes is proof of Evolution. Well that and Science, and carbon dating and genetic analysis and ad infinitum. Competition to produce better offspring is fundamental in all animals (Humans included)... irrefutable if you ask me.




RE: Observable Proof
By DKWinsor on 8/19/2008 6:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
How do you go from carbon-dating to proof-of-evolution? Carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years. This is so short that even if the entire earth were composed of C14 there still wouldn't be any left after a million years. Carbon dating cannot prove evolution! Not only that, but carbon dating disproves the old earth theory which disproves evolution!

Allow me to explain. Several diamonds were dug up by the USGS from coal seams supposedly dated several million years old. However, they all showed significant amounts of C14, even though they should supposedly have none. The USGS dug them up, they were stored and *then* studied, so there was no devious swap. They are diamonds so they are uncontaminated. How then do they show C14? Simple, they were made several thousand years ago, not several million.


RE: Observable Proof
By mgambrell on 8/19/2008 10:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
How about another explanation: anomaly. Or how about another: the carbon dating method is problematic, and the earth is still old.


RE: Observable Proof
By randomly on 8/19/2008 10:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon-14 is formed by other processes besides in the atmosphere from cosmic radiation. It's also a decay product of uranium, and there are other mechanisms that generate it continually at low levels so expecting Carbon-14 levels to drop to zero is just bad science.

Carbon-14 levels will decay away to some low level that depends on the rate of production from decay products and other radiation sources. It will depend on the contaminants and the environment the sample is in.

Claiming that low levels of carbon-14 in a diamond, zircon, or coal proves a young earth is just really sloppy science, suitable only for the ignorant and/or gullible.

Unfortunately this is typical of Young Earth and ID 'science'.


RE: Observable Proof
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 8/20/2008 7:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
exactly..carbon-14 is formed by other processes besides organic matter.. diamonds can get carbon from naturally occuring deposits that weren't living (not all carbon came from animals!)

For doubters of evolution, here's some quick 5 min videos of proof of evolution by a biochemistry PhD (my major was also biochem/molecular cell bio at UCBerkeley) -I'll like to call it proof/evidence:

- http://www.youtube.com/v/T9ZUFsLLHSs&hl -How God & Evolution are compatible by scientist Ken Miller

http://www.youtube.com/v/O4GdZOlPrX8&hl -Transitional Fossils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI -gradual changes/walking-airbreathing fish

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 -4 Proofs of Evolution

-http://www.youtube.com/v/9V_2r2n4b5c&hl -Quick 5 Minute Video on Evolution Evidence/Creationism Disproved

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-... Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Propaganda -www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creatio nist</a>

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4311046&... -ABCNews: Florida Finally Allows word 'Evolution' to Be Included in Teaching Standards For The First Time

http://media.pbs.org/asxgen/general/windows/wgbh/n... -NOVA documentary –Dover trial –Fossil evidence ch. 5 & how the courtroom & reporters were amazed & surprised at all the fossil evidence/'missing links' found between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to dinosaurs, dinosaurs to birds, & reptiles to mammals BECAUSE CREATIONISTS HAD FOUGHT to KEEP THE EVIDENCE OUT OF HI SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS

http://media.pbs.org/asxgen/general/windows/wgbh/n... NOVA documentary –Dover trial –Fossil evidence ch. 5

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3416_0... -NOVA documentary -Dover tiral –DNA evidence ch. 6

==
<a href=
http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M target=new4>WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M& lt;/a> --Ken Miller on How Entire Human Chromosome #2 is the Result of the Fusion of Ape Chromosome #13 onto Ape Chromosome #2 --4 minutes of eye-opening evidence

==
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&feature... target=_new3 >-- DNA proof of evolution -9 minutes of eye-opening evidence …fast-forward to 7 min mark if already seen the 1st video </a> -shows human DNA contains ERV(endogenous retroviral DNA) at exact same spots (out of 3 billion spots) as ape DNA -retroviral DNA infected ape DNA at the exact same spots as human DNA (meaning humans inherited the infected DNA from apes) -click Part 2 also:

http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI --evolution + transitional form of fish to amphibian (mudskipper):

You should see Ken Miller's lecture on this(1st link).. Great info & provides some good bits that are impossible to explain in any sensible manner.
.........
1st video is from Brown University bio proffesor Ken Miller who explains DNA EVIDENCE how apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes (number #1 to number #24) while humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (numbered #1 to number #23) .. recently, both the entire human & ape DNA/genome was mapped .. evolutionary theory can be verified/tested in that if humans evolved from apes, humans are missing the 1 ape chromosome pair cause the 1 chromosome pair fused/attached to end of another chromosome (ape chromosome #13 attached/fused to what we call now call ape/human chromosome #2). (Chromosomes come in pairs --one of each pair is just a copy/a mirror image of the other: total number of chromosomes is 46(23 pairs)

Chromosome #2 of humans is shown next to two chimpanzee (and gorilla and orangutan) chromosomes since the human chromosome #2 is twice as long as the chimpanzee (and the other apes as well), yet all the bands match up showing that the one less human chromosome is merely the result of two chimp chromosomes getting connected together!"
….
Further DNA testing showed that human chromosome #2 MATCHES ape chromosome #2 & #13 when both ape chromosomes are lined up end to end! Human chrom#2 is complete match with telomere & centremore at exact location/fusion points, proving that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of ape chromosom #2 & #13
........
Chromosomes have a beginning & an end marked by telomeres. After mapping the entire DNA of both apes & humans, lo & behold, humans have the entire missing ape chromosome fused into chromosome #2 (we know they're fused because there is a telomere in the MIDDLE of the chromosome in addition to the normal telomere at the end/beginning of chromosome #2 --such an anomaly can only be explained by the fusion of the missing chromosome with chromosome #2 --not only that, but the fused portion of the chromosome matches the "missing" chromosome of the apes!).

......... Contray to creationists propaganda, individuals w/differeing numbers of chromosomes can still mate w/the rest of the population (wild horses w/ 66 chromosomes can still mate with domestic horses w/64 chromosomes, humans born with extra or missing chromosomes can still mate w/ normal humans & all produced fertile offspring)

==

here's more info that exposes the ignorance of the creationists(that IDEA site was written by a lawyer w/ no understanding of biology (the following link explains how chromosomes fusing/splitting results in new species --note, the fusing of chromosomes DOES NOT mean the loss of genomic(genetic) information -think of chromosomes as piles of paper or filing cabinets for holding DNA..fusing just means u have 1 big pile instead of 2 smaller piles, that is, 2 filing cabinets fusing into 1 bigger filing cabinet ):

<a href=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_... target=new>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_...

More refutation of IDEA’s ignorant essay by creationist lawyers:
<a href=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins... target=New2>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins...

........
More evolution proof videos:
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 target=new6>WWW.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2</ a> .....
==
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/user/rippedbuff target=_new3>WWW.youtube.com/user/rippedbuff< /a>


RE: Observable Proof
By RandallMoore on 8/21/2008 10:40:20 AM , Rating: 3
All that, yet it still seems kinda funny that yet again no one can explain how everyone seems to date the age of rock layers with index fossils, and the age of fossils by which rock layer they come from.

On another note, I think it’s hilarious to hear scientist fighting for their evolution by using word like “It’s safe to assume...” and “I think we can conclude…” Both of those try to make up for something that can’t be observed directly. Too many assumptions = faith. As many said earlier, faith does not belong in science. Neither does the word FACT!! I can assure you at the end of every day, science is still our BEST GUESS. So stop spreading FUD.


RE: Observable Proof
By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 5:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
You evince a lack of understanding of science. Please educate yourself before commenting on the hard work other people are doing to make your life better.


RE: Observable Proof
By RandallMoore on 8/21/2008 7:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
I really would like to know how you can conclude that I have a lack of understanding when it comes to science. For all you know sir, I could be a university professor, (im not of course) But it really seems that you are just trying to spread some FUD of your own.
So please, next time consider that someone may actually have an opinion about something, and be intelegent on the subject at the same time.

"Don't tase me bro!"


RE: Observable Proof
By Regular Reader on 8/23/2008 10:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
You have a lack of understanding because of what you post. That's how I can surmise your level of understanding. When you start posting stuff about how false evolution is and toss out numerous criticisms, *WITHOUT* posting the refutations/criticisms of *THOSE* criticisms, I at the very least can make the charge that you do not appear to have read much on the subject of evolution.

There are a lot of people that think they understand science, and then start talking nonsense as if it were true, and ultimately say they understand it, when they've done little more than stick their foot in their mouth.

I'm not a scientist either, but I know to check the arguments in either direction against each other. I can also tell when one line of argument is frankly ludicrous compared to what science has uncovered, and the technology it has given us. People are entitled to think otherwise all they want. But if those beliefs start affecting public policy and depriving society of the forward progress it needs and desires, I start getting pissed.


RE: Observable Proof
By RandallMoore on 8/23/2008 4:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
*WITHOUT* posting the refutations/criticisms of *THOSE* criticisms


Your misinterpretation of my intentions is quite obvious so I’ll explain myself. Although I like nothing more than a good debate, I don’t however like to waste my time in a shouting match full of fancy words and complex philosophy. I do, as you condemned me, believe in God. I believe he created this existence, and in so, rightfully owns it. Because of that, I try to follow the rules. I don’t want to go to hell, and I also wouldn’t want my worst enemy to either. Don’t be so quick to think that because I believe in God, that makes me an idiot that knows nothing of science.

quote:
I can also tell when one line of argument is frankly ludicrous compared to what science has uncovered, and the technology it has given us.


It continues to amaze me how much we as a human existence always default to making ourselves all mighty and powerful rulers of our own universe. That is obviously what you believe because you assume that everything considered scientific is 100% indisputable fact.

I don’t claim to be perfect and a know it all, but I have enough logical reasoning to conclude that if someone tells me there is good and evil, and heaven and hell, you best believe that I’m going to pay attention to the rules. What could you possible gain from science other than a better understand of natural physical phenomena?? Did I miss the days in class when science told us that there is life after this one here on this miserable sick planet?? Look around you, things are getting worse for EVERYONE every single day, not better. So what does your knowledge do for you after you die? NOTHING. Same thing that money does for the dead. NOTHING. It’s fun to discover, and it does a lot of wonderful things but it means absolutely nothing on the grand scheme of things! The only thing you take with you is how you lived your life and treated other people. If that’s not good enough for you then I’m not going to waste my time. I’m sorry that you feel so confident that God doesn’t exist.


RE: Observable Proof
By Regular Reader on 8/25/2008 12:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your misinterpretation of my intentions is quite obvious so I’ll explain myself. Although I like nothing more than a good debate, I don’t however like to waste my time in a shouting match full of fancy words and complex philosophy.


Sooo, you decide to only post one side of the story, and then run away saying the issue is too complex to get into on a message board? What is that? That doesn't change what you did.

quote:
I do, as you condemned me, believe in God. I believe he created this existence, and in so, rightfully owns it. Because of that, I try to follow the rules. I don’t want to go to hell, and I also wouldn’t want my worst enemy to either. Don’t be so quick to think that because I believe in God, that makes me an idiot that knows nothing of science.


Religion doesn't prequalify you as an idiot. However, you are saying things that have been proven to be idiotic with regard to a scientific endeavor and the criticisms of it. Foolishness masquerading as enlightened criticism doesn't deserve to go unchallenged. As far as your god goes, how do you know the rules are "his"? You see, the rules you are following are entirely subjective to your religion's world view. Science has no such limitation. religious people think this is a weakness of science; Science has however proven its much more of an asset than anything else.

quote:
It continues to amaze me how much we as a human existence always default to making ourselves all mighty and powerful rulers of our own universe. That is obviously what you believe because you assume that everything considered scientific is 100% indisputable fact.


And you say I'm the one making assumptions. Anyone who has studied science has more respect for the universe than many religious people could even comprehend. You mistake positive endeavors into discovering the universe and the world as hubris and arrogance. Well, it's that assumed hubris and arrogance that's provided you with everythhing you or I have in this age. Religion provided none of this. I do not "believe" what you assume I do. I know what science says, and I know that science is an imperfect endeavor that also happens to be the only thing that moves humanity forward. I do not consider everything 100% indisputable, as you again assume, because science itself always leaves room for discussion. If you knew science as you claim you do, you would know this and not spout foolish sounding rhetoric intended to put yourself and your religiosity above the fray.

quote:
I don’t claim to be perfect and a know it all, but I have enough logical reasoning to conclude that if someone tells me there is good and evil, and heaven and hell, you best believe that I’m going to pay attention to the rules.


I didn't claim you did claim to be perfect. Your second statement about good and evil does not follow, and seems to expose you as an easy sell. You're going to believe in eternal punishment and divine relvelation based on what someone told you, not your own life experience? Not your own search for evidence? You keep revealing that you're simply not interested in actually doing the footwork on anything. BTW, I have a bridge for sale.

quote:
Did I miss the days in class when science told us that there is life after this one here on this miserable sick planet??


You continue to show your rosy-colored world view, and have just shown yourself to be someone waiting for the Second Coming. What you just said is a major reason why I and others reject religion. Religion tears this world down and makes people want a happy place that is likely not to even exist. You really think this world is a sick miserable place? This world that your god supposedly made blessed? I have no ineterest in treating your worldview with any amount of respect, because it deserves none.

quote:
Look around you, things are getting worse for EVERYONE every single day, not better. So what does your knowledge do for you after you die? NOTHING. Same thing that money does for the dead. NOTHING. It’s fun to discover, and it does a lot of wonderful things but it means absolutely nothing on the grand scheme of things!


You need help, and it's a kind of help no religious building can provide. Stop relying on pathetic fairy tales. Live your life instead of pawning it off on some unseen promise that can't be quantified. Get out and breathe some fresh air. Take a hike. Go for a bike ride. The only thing making this world shit is people believing they are shit, and ruining everyone else's enjoyment of their short time alive.

quote:
The only thing you take with you is how you lived your life and treated other people. If that’s not good enough for you then I’m not going to waste my time. I’m sorry that you feel so confident that God doesn’t exist.


The only thing I agree with you on is that you are judged by the rest of society by what you do. But you do not take any of that into death, or an afterlife. You have one opportunity, ever: make this life a good one, or fade into obscurity with ill repute. But the religious version of that has never stopped evil from happening, as it claims it does. It's only an idle threat that nobody can prove or disprove, and ultimately amounts to shaking raised fingers.

In closing, seriously, you are not making a good case for yourself or your worldview at all. You are only confirming I and others made the right decision to leave the fallacy of religion in the trash can.


RE: Observable Proof
By mgambrell on 8/19/2008 10:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you research the particular incident you mentioned, you will find the same set of talking points which you have surely read in a dozen creation science talking point depots on the web. This article rebuts them:

http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/th...

Specifically, it is important to point out that carbon dating is only expected to be reliable in samples that are derived from living matter according to the theory of cosmic ray production and biomatter uptake. For correctly chosen samples, this process predominates. For poorly chosen samples, other radioactive processes must necessarily predominate due to the absolute absence of biomatter, of which there are several plausible candidates but very little hard research since the only people interested in it are people trying to use diamonds as a strawman to punch carbon dating which is itsself used as a strawman to punch evolution.


Science vs Religion
By Flunk on 8/19/2008 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing"

This sentence seems to imply that there is some sort of question about the scientific accuracy of evolution theory when in fact that is not the case. This sentence seems to imply that you believe that there is a serious concern about this in the scientific community, when in fact there is not.

The issues that currently surround the teaching of evolutionary theory in school in the United States of America is a Science vs Religion question and no matter the amount of proof on the scientific side, is not winnable that way.

If people want to believe something for absolutely no logical reason they will. That is the concept of blind faith.

I think I may have gone out on a tangent there, even though I mostly agree with the assertions in this post. Oh well, flame away.




RE: Science vs Religion
By Myg on 8/19/2008 6:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Your welcome to thank the reformation for the current situation.

Properly formed Christian doctrine doesn't dismiss science and infact embraces the study of the devices that God may have used to create or implemented in his creations.

A further problem comes when scientists tout a theory as a singular "reason why we all exist" is when troubles start(aka, calling a theory/"law" a truth). Frankly they are betraying their own field when they do so, so whatever backlash they get should be expected.


RE: Science vs Religion
By Proteusza on 8/20/2008 3:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
Evolution is a fact - it happens. The Theory of Evolution, as it is called, is man's attempt to explain this phenomenon.

Believe it or not, if you dismiss evolution, you dismiss a large part of modern biology.

Most Christians dont even seem to understand evolution. I recently received a flyer from a local Baptist church that confused evolution with abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory. The three are completely unrelated.


RE: Science vs Religion
By Myg on 8/20/2008 5:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Heres part of the problem; you cant use a word like "Fact" to describe a theory. Then you are betraying everything science stands for.

Science is about constant observation; creation of theories and reanalysing theories to develop new ones.

To say someting is a "Fact" implies its a given 100% and therefore no more thought or attention should be paid to reanalysing the theory.

Then we go into this cycle of waiting untill someone else comes along and shocks the scientific world with a new theory that causes all the older people who accepted this "Fact" that they built lives and careers around to get all angry and annoyed and try to do whatever they can to preserve their livelihood. Infact in the past they would of done more horrible things to them, which funnily enough religion would of been blamed for.

To claim a theory is a truth is to betray science at its most fundamental level, it stifles its own development and creates quagmires of ideaology that does not belong in that prestigious occupation of humanity.


RE: Science vs Religion
By Regular Reader on 8/20/2008 10:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
You display your lack of understanding of science with that post. You do not realize that, were we to take your point about theories to its logical extent, everything would remain a theory indefinitely. Your statement that theories must be absolutely proven before being considered fact has several dire implications:

1) Nothing could ever become a fact so why bother researching and experimenting?
2) That any hypothesis and its associated theory would be as relevant as any other, meaning patently untestable theories would demand as much consideration as realistic ones
3) That the notion of a god, gods, or higher beings themselves must be proven as much as any scientific theory, which means they would remain as unproven as they are now (at the very least)
4) Any study conducted would be made unnecessarily complex with far too many variables to consider, ultimately stifling
the entire process.
Please read: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Think about it: everything has a theory behind it. That's how we're taught in school. Just because something has a theory behind it does not mean it isn't a fact. This is shoddy thinking. Would you make the same case regarding gravity? Evolution is a fact because it is observable. Theories form the basis of not just evolution, but all the work that has been conducted since Darwin codified it 150 years ago as change by means of natural selection. Science does indeed hold that nothing is ever 100% proven; it does however not shackle itself from making highly informed and tested conclusions that allow the process to proceed forward. Again, if everything must be 100% proven, then nothing will get done, and intellectual - nay, human - progress will cease. And that is a fool's errand. *That* is what betrays science, not the fact that scientists make informed decisions and move forward.

Further, your contention that religion is responsible for science ignores the fact that religious bodies have consistenly fought even the work of their own avowed brethern, Galileo and Newton being two such notables. Science happens in spite of religion, not because of it. Science happens because good minds choose not to ignore what their eyes see, what their creative minds hit upon. Who is the first to criticize science the moment it makes progress? Religion.

Visiting http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ will further enlighten on what I've posted here.


RE: Science vs Religion
By Gondorff on 8/21/2008 2:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
Stuff and nonsense.

As a scientist myself, I find your characterization of fact vs theory very disconcerting. There is no threshold at which a "good enough" theory becomes fact. If this were the case, then Newton's laws would have been good enough, and many others like it. Science is entirely based on theory, because observation cannot lead to absolute proof. This is why through the centuries new scientific realizations continue to rock the old ones--because nothing is fact. That is the strength of science--it has no doctrine-like facts that hold back new advancements. It is "facts" that stifle new research and experiment as they close the book and do not require more answers.

All this does not mean that all theories are equal, however. How you came to this idea is beyond me. You seem to have fallen into the very un-scientific line of thought that assumes that theories are all nebulous, uncertain ideas. As you yourself point out, gravity is a theory, and it is certainly not one that I would like to test by jumping off a cliff. Scientific theories are ideas that have been put through numerous tests and have a great deal of evidence supporting them, which is why they can be generally accepted until a contradicting piece of evidence is brought up. Or to put it this way: String Theory is not as widely accepted among scientists as gravity--yet there seems to be no inherent problem there. Enlighten me as to the difference in your situation.

To your third point, that is absolutely not the case. Science is the study of the natural world. God (or gods, etc.) is supernatural. Therefore not a part of science. Ta-daa!

For your fourth point, this is clearly not true as is evidenced by the fact that science is continuing, and doing so while scientists unlike you understand how to deal with theories appropriately. It is perhaps complex with too many variables if you are trying to statistically figure out the probability of a new theory being true, but that isn't the point.

You baselessly accuse the previous poster of needing 100% proof of something for it to be accepted. This is exactly what (s)he is against! What is your point there? You seem to have a vendetta against no one in particular here. Keep your rants to yourself, or at least to applicable people.

Your belief in the exclusivity of science and religion is very much misled. Galileo was encouraged in his research by two of his Catholic clergy friends. Many great scientific discoveries have been made by religious persons. The Vatican Observatory is a place of great scientific research. What causes so many problems is the religious who mistakenly interpret their holy books very literally, and the religious who are playing all the same power games as have been witnessed throughout human history.

But if there's one point I'd really like to stress, it's this: you really need to rethink your 1st point if you are a scientist of any sort.


By phxfreddy on 8/21/2008 10:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
So many people militate for evolution but the minute they stop talking about evolution they go on in the next breath to firmly propound global warming.

Its unfortunate our lack of belief is not consistant.




By Regular Reader on 8/21/2008 11:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
So many people confusing evidence in a theory for faith talk high and mightily about how other people have misplaced "faith" in specific scientific endeavors. Because you can criticize, and because certain criticisms exist, does not by corollary make those criticisms automatically valid.

Denialism != Debate

I also enjoy with great cynicism how much people willing to take the faith road (i.e. the road of no evidence and fancy pretty thoughts) are willing to apply it to every aspect of the lives, and use it as the basis of the criticism of anything scientific. Part of me hopes they continue to make fools of themselves by persisting in such a manner, but then, that just means sane people have more ignorant people to deal with.


By RandallMoore on 8/22/2008 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 1
You must be the kind of person that defects to sites like this to spread your arrogant dick-headed personality. I'll say what everyone else is thinking "dude, ure just an asshole” Personally, I think the theory of evolution is dumb and walks a very close line with a religion because it requires faith to believe it. It is no way directly observable and should not be a part of modern science. Just because I believe that doesn’t mean that I go around like a whiny ass baby insulting people for no good reason.

On another note, I can’t imagine how someone can be an atheist. Especially after reading Pascal’s wager. You must be the type of person that is never wrong, and is always going around and trying to make everyone else feel inferior. grow the fuck up.


By Regular Reader on 8/23/2008 10:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm the kind of person that comes 'round to wake arrogant idiots who make statements like "On another note, I can’t imagine how someone can be an atheist", and run with it. But I'm the arrogant one I suppose. Apparently pretty fancy pink unicorn thoughts are good enough for you. So be it. They're not good enough for me, and frankly I prefer real science, not couching my understanding of it in the random questions people ask of it when they don't understand it. I visit Anandtech often and there are a lot of really dumb, ignorant things said about a lot of things around here.

You sound like a creationist because you are parroting all their garbage criticisms like Pascal's wager and "evolution is faith". You really put stock in Pascal's Wager? Seriously? Because it amounts to nothing more than a bet nobody can collect on. Evolution does not require faith, because it has mountains of evidence, evidence you obviously have not studied at all. Rather than reading dumb books written by people idiots like Behe and Hovind, who have no understanding of the concept, why don't you go read the evidence instead of relying on what other people critical of it say? You seem to think you understand the theory, yet are typing inanities on an internet message board that are consistent with creationist ignorance. I suppose you think bananas were designed to fit in our hand too.

You make this comment: "Just because I believe that doesn’t mean that I go around like a whiny ass baby insulting people for no good reason", and then proceed to do exactly the opposite. And your use of the word belief is quite telling. This is real life, not Faithville or Belief City. Get educated and start contributing to society.


By RandallMoore on 8/23/2008 4:26:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Just because I believe that doesn’t mean that I go around like a whiny ass baby insulting people for no good reason "


That should answer your question. I try to have polite debates and disagreements but you insult and piss in peoples face without provocation. That surely makes you an asshole, and I think it’s within reason for someone to point that out to you.

Also, if someone were to give you a choice between a 5 course meal and a pile of feces, which would you choose?? <-- (heaven and hell reference) Do you need evidence and proof of something to make a choice? Seriously … Pascal’s wager points out this fact. “either there is a God, or there isn’t” if there is not, then all this is pointless anyway. If there is, then you need to realize that he makes the laws.


By Regular Reader on 8/24/2008 6:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Pascal's Wager operates on a fallacious assumption, that being that you should believe because there's no good reason not to. But this is incompatible with the Christian doctrine Pascal himself claimed to follow, because as the doctrine goes, God wants you to choose him, not to simply bet against someone else for your own self preservation. Pascal's Wager implores you to believe in a god because if there is one and you've rejected him, then you're screwed. But the problem for his wager is that the Christian god (and that of Judaism and Islam) asks for your obedience (nay, demands it in many cases), not your economically driven motives for self preservation. Which means the Wager is a false choice that reaches an illogical conclusion, because the doctrine doesn't support it.

I ridicule you because you couch your perspective in ignorant statements, and appear to be buying intellectual tripe as refutation of evolution. I've posted several links in this thread that point people to refutations of the creationist/ID perspective, and how completely ignorant and ill-founded the criticisms of evolution have been. The fact is there are few things as proven and as solidly backed up in the world of science as evolution. Evolution is responsible for discoveries in all sorts of areas, not the least of which being medicine. But people continue to deny reality because the truth isn't pretty. That we might actually simply be biological functions of the planet is apparently to the majority of the religious people out there too much to handle. Why that's so fear-inducing and so repugnant a thought, I have no idea. It's quite logical when you know the evidence, and when you see with your eyes, rather than some dogma passed down over millenia.

I reject your heaven/hell reference, because I simply do not believe in it. I don't even know what you're trying to draw a distinction on anyhow. Why did you randomly pull out a heaven/hell reference (that's pretty shoddy in its own right)? Do I need evidence to make a choice? Um, yeah. Don't you? And if a choice provides too little information to make as safe a choice as you'd want, don't you have to make one anyhow? You might call that going on faith; I call that making as best a decision you can, and dealing with the consequences. Religion need not enter the equation at all. But every time you post I detect a distinct religious tone to what you are saying. You just ended with a retort about a god making laws. Which god is it, if it even exists? Why would you go with whatever god you choose as being the right one? What makes that god better than another? You can't answer these questions, and your ultimate personal conclusion comes down to a group-based identity. It's one I used to share. I reject it now because it serves me in no measurable way that I should feel impelled to pursue it further, nor apply it to my life.

Science, however flawed it and the people conducting it are, is the only thing that pushes us forward.


Some issues with calling Archaea "Primitive"
By shecknoscopy on 8/19/2008 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
This study is certainly compelling, and a beautiful confluence of genomic and structural information. However, that the Archaea are now classified as being closer to the Eukarya (Protists - like Amoeba, and the Fungi, Plants and Animals) than they are to Eubacteria (E. coli, etc...) is hardly a new idea. The name Archaea is, ironically enough, somewhat archaic: they physically resemble your average bacterium in size, shape, and certain genetic attributes, but were originally isolated living in all sorts of ridiculous environments - supposed to be so harsh and violent as to represent remnants of the early earth. To wit: some were happily cultured growing in boiling hot springs, acid flows, or off of nuclear piles. But this aside, the details of archaeal molecular biology have, over the course of the last two decades, firmly asserted that they're far closer to us than they are to bacteria. This, despite the fact they some of them can eat solid rock, and all we can handle is the occasional dose of university cafeteria food.

Actually, given that parallel, maybe we're more similar to our distant cousins than one might initially think.




By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 11:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. It's sort of backward thinking to assume that Archea are more primitive because they are able to survive in harsh environments. Instead, these impressive abilities show how advanced they are.


By Cygni on 8/19/2008 12:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed as well.

The entire idea that ANY currently living organism is 'archaic', and even the idea that complexity = better, are both concepts that no longer have any place in biology.


By odessit740 on 8/19/2008 1:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Your right on the money when you say that Archaea being closer to Eukarya than Bacteria is hardly new information, but the key point here is, I think, that they used computational biology to provide evidence for this via domain analysis.

They looked at ribosomal domains of Eukareya, Archaea, and Bacteria and compared sequences. You can commonly use BLAST for this, as much of this information is readily available thru NCBI and other online databases. They compare the differences, and use statistics to support their claims of evolution.

Not new news, but a supported example of both evolution and ribosomal structure and function nontheless.


Interesting
By MrHanson on 8/19/2008 10:01:29 AM , Rating: 1
You know what they say. I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it.




RE: Interesting
By m1ldslide1 on 8/19/2008 1:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
"I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it"

Is this the stock answer for dismissing scientific analysis now? Apparently I didn't get the memo.


Promising
By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 10:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Professor Luthey-Schulten says that by identifying domain-specific critical rRNA segments, manmade drugs can be developed to attack these regions. This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.


This seems to be the most promising result of the research, and it's buried at the end of the article.




Banana
By DKWinsor on 8/19/2008 6:40:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What researchers have found is that a domain of extremely primitive microbes known as archaea actually are closer to eukarya than bacteria in its ribosomal genetics


The article doesn't give the percent similarity in DNA, so let me make some numbers up. According to the study, archaea share 60% DNA with eukarya and archaea share 40% DNA with bacteria. Clearly humans and archaea share an ancient ancestor.

Humans share 95% DNA with chimps. Humans share 50% DNA with bananas. Clearly bananas share an ancient ancestor with humans.

Since this study "provides documentary evidence of the path of evolution" then I infer that the study is making the claim that our tree looks something like bacteria -> banana -> archaea -> chimp -> human

In case you missed the sarcasm, my point is it is silly to assume organisms are related because they share DNA.

PS:
Before you go hogwild saying it's really 98.77% instead of 95%, the study that claimed 98.77% didn't include insertions or deletions. A subsequent study by evolutionist Roy Britten published in the same journal as this one found it was actually 95% That's 150,000,000 DNA base pairs.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki