Evolution: the Facts.

[The Atheist]

I would appreciate comment from non-biologists....

Well, speaking as a strictly non-biologist, I find them all eminently readable and understandable.

Seriously, I doubt I've ever read anything as well-presented as your articles - have you ever considered collating them into a book?

 

[kyleain]

More "facts" from atheists. Rolls eyes. Are u 1 of those types that keeps thinking ur the first to discover the world is round and that no one else but u and ur friends no n that u shud be worshiped for revealing ur discovery to everyone else lol? You know, the "facts" are already posted on amazon and answersingenesis and libraries all over, magazines, the Bible. Just get over yourself already.

 

[Hawk one]

More "facts" from atheists. Rolls eyes. Are u 1 of those types that keeps thinking ur the first to discover the world is round and that no one else but u and ur friends no n that u shud be worshiped for revealing ur discovery to everyone else lol? You know, the "facts" are already posted on amazon and answersingenesis and libraries all over, magazines, the Bible. Just get over yourself already.

What does atheism have to do with biology again?

 

[Wildy]

More "facts" from atheists. Rolls eyes. Are u 1 of those types that keeps thinking ur the first to discover the world is round and that no one else but u and ur friends no n that u shud be worshiped for revealing ur discovery to everyone else lol? You know, the "facts" are already posted on amazon and answersingenesis and libraries all over, magazines, the Bible. Just get over yourself already.

Since when was the Bible a reliable source for Biology? Same goes with Amazon. At least you read AIG, which means that you won't make the stupid arguments that they say you shouldn't make.

 

[jimbob]

[swiki]Convergent Evolution[/swiki]

Nice article Dr A.

I was just thinking about this because of a throway comment on another thread, and I wonder if the mantioning the various different types of "fruit" could be useful in such an article:

Botanists tend to only refer to fruit as "fruit" when it develops from the ovum, but there are many examples of "false fruits", where the fleshy, edible structure developed from some other part of the flower. For example, apples, bananas etc...

All these different structures are eaten by animals, and the plants' seeds are dispersed futrther than they would otherwise be, so sopeaking carelessly, one could say they all perform the same "function". As do nuts.


As you can see from the above post, these musings aren't polished enough to include in the article, but I thought it might be worth mentioning...

 

[Shalamar]

More "facts" from atheists. Rolls eyes. Are u 1 of those types that keeps thinking ur the first to discover the world is round and that no one else but u and ur friends no n that u shud be worshiped for revealing ur discovery to everyone else lol? You know, the "facts" are already posted on amazon and answersingenesis and libraries all over, magazines, the Bible. Just get over yourself already.

This post confuses me. Despite being difficult to read, many of those 'sites' you list do not have any facts on the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you might want to look in http://talkorigins.org/. Besides, this is a thread for the facts supporting the evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution. We have a number of other threads where Creationist talk lies about creationism.

 

[The Atheist]

This post confuses me. Despite being difficult to read, many of those 'sites' you list do not have any facts on the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you might want to look in http://talkorigins.org/. Besides, this is a thread for the facts supporting the evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution. We have a number of other threads where Creationist talk lies about creationism.

Well put, and I'll just double up on the wrong thread idea.

kyleain, you're welcome to discuss other options, but please do it in another thread or the posts will get moved anyway.

Thanks

 

[Dr Adequate]

All these different structures are eaten by animals, and the plants' seeds are dispersed futrther than they would otherwise be, so sopeaking carelessly, one could say they all perform the same "function". As do nuts.

As you can see from the above post, these musings aren't polished enough to include in the article, but I thought it might be worth mentioning...

[swiki]Means of Dispersal[/swiki]

 

[Dr Adequate]

A nit - the meiosis of diploid cells drawing - the telophase I drawing depicts the chromosomes as identical on each side, whereas they should be as depicted in the next drawing below that one.

Oh sod, how did I do that?

Thanks.

 

[Kotatsu]

Dr. Adequate: I have recently, in another thread, had a quite extensive discussion on the various concepts of phylogeny. That discussion has drifted away by now, but when I searched for "phylogeny" on SW, there seemed to be no article on this. Would it be of any interest at all if I attempted to collate the posts I made in that thread, clarify it, add to it, and generally structure it more into a coherent text for SW?

Also: I have access to The Atlas of Creation, which is a marvellous book filled with very pretty pictures of rabbits. I see there is an article on Harun Yahya, but nothing specific --- at least, not that I could see on a casual glimpse --- on this masterpiece. Would something on this subject be of interest? My colleagues and I have already started the compilation of a small list of errors in this work, the most embarrassing being that he compares a fossil of a crab spider with a picture of a spider crab, and draw the conclusion that, due to the fact of them being morphologically identical despite being separated by millions of years, evolution has not occurred. There are several other similar mistakes, as well as a long section with the usual creationist idiocy towards the back.

Lastly: I have quite a lot of material on polyploidy, as my work has touched upon this subject before, and I'd be most delighted if I could help you with that in any way.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. Adequate: I have recently, in another thread, had a quite extensive discussion on the various concepts of phylogeny. That discussion has drifted away by now, but when I searched for "phylogeny" on SW, there seemed to be no article on this. Would it be of any interest at all if I attempted to collate the posts I made in that thread, clarify it, add to it, and generally structure it more into a coherent text for SW?

Yippideedoodah.

BTW, you don't have to ask my permission. (You do, technically, have to ask Ducky's permission, since you have to register to post articles. He will say yes.)

Also: I have access to The Atlas of Creation, which is a marvellous book filled with very pretty pictures of rabbits. I see there is an article on Harun Yahya, but nothing specific --- at least, not that I could see on a casual glimpse --- on this masterpiece. Would something on this subject be of interest? My colleagues and I have already started the compilation of a small list of errors in this work, the most embarrassing being that he compares a fossil of a crab spider with a picture of a spider crab, and draw the conclusion that, due to the fact of them being morphologically identical despite being separated by millions of years, evolution has not occurred. There are several other similar mistakes, as well as a long section with the usual creationist idiocy towards the back.

Well, we tend to file the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki] by argument, rather than by creationist. Hopefully it makes them easier to locate.

There is, BTW, an article on [swiki]Living Fossils[/swiki] that deals with gneral creationist misconceptions on this point. I am inclined to think that pointing out that some of their examples of stasis are nothing of the kind is slightly beside the point. Yes, they're often wrong with respect to the facts, but they are invariably wrong with respect to the theory.

Lastly: I have quite a lot of material on polyploidy, as my work has touched upon this subject before, and I'd be most delighted if I could help you with that in any way.

That would be great, thanks.

 

[arthwollipot]

(OT)

There's a thread on this on one of my other forums. There's this OEC who keeps harping on about how evolution can't explain this, or evolution can't explain that - basically claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - and the angiosperms is one of his favourite topics. So if you're able to come up with anything, I'd like to know too.

jimbob and arthwollipot - the link that Dr Adequate really does cover it off nicely

Yes, and I've posted it in the relevant thread on my other forum. Let's see what Asyncritus has to say in reply. It will probably be something like "Ho Ho Ho".

Well, he finally responded, and I was wrong in my prediction. It wasn't "Ho Ho Ho", it was "Har de har". Dr Adequate, I thought you might like to know that this fellow said that it was "tripe", and "a disgrace to the fair name of the science of Biology".

Unfortunately, that was his entire argument.
(/OT)

 

[Kotatsu]

Yippideedoodah.

BTW, you don't have to ask my permission. (You do, technically, have to ask Ducky's permission, since you have to register to post articles. He will say yes.)

Well, we tend to file the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki] by argument, rather than by creationist. Hopefully it makes them easier to locate.

There is, BTW, an article on [swiki]Living Fossils[/swiki] that deals with gneral creationist misconceptions on this point. I am inclined to think that pointing out that some of their examples of stasis are nothing of the kind is slightly beside the point. Yes, they're often wrong with respect to the facts, but they are invariably wrong with respect to the theory.

Well, then, I'll start doing it as soon as possible. I can't promise any speed, though, but I do believe I can promise thoroughness.

That would be great, thanks.

I have quite a few good review articles which lead to a multitude of other primary sources. I will have a look on them after work today.

 

[jimbob]

Not exactly vestigal organs, but this seems interesting:

Review of a book "your Inner fish" on the Nature website today, (good for a little while then tends to go behind a paywall)...

Your Inner Fish combines Shubin's and others' discoveries to present a twenty-first-century anatomy lesson. The simple, passionate writing may turn more than a few high-school students into aspiring biologists. And it covers a lot of ground. Shubin inspects our eyeballs, noses and hands to demonstrate how much we have in common with other animals. He notes how networks of genes for simple traits can expand and diversify until they build new complex structures such as heads. Also, that hangovers explain how our ears evolved from sensory cells on the surface of fish. He investigates the hiccup, the result of a tortuous nervous system.

Some of the case studies will be familiar to those who have read a lot about evolution, but most readers will find some surprises. I learned that in sharks, the testes sit near the head. As male human embryos develop in the womb, their testes gradually descend from that ancestral position to wind up in the scrotum. As they migrate, they push down on the body wall, creating a weak spot. It is here that the intestines can slip through during a hernia.

Also from Purdue University

By studying the three-dimensional version of the fungus protein bound to an RNA molecule, scientists from Purdue University and the University of Texas at Austin have been able to visualize how life progressed from an early self-replicating molecule that also performed chemical reactions to one in which proteins assumed some of the work.

"Now we can see how RNA progressed to share functions with proteins," said Alan Lambowitz, director of the University of Texas Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology. "This was a critical missing step."

 

[arthwollipot]

Shubin was on The Colbert Report the other night. The book went on my list of things-to-buy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]DNA[/swiki] for beginners.

Thanks to PodBlack for starting it, and to Wikipedia for a couple of the pictures.

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Population Genetics[/swiki]

[swiki]Heterozygote Advantage[/swiki]

I'm only human, so there's bound to be a mistake in there somewhere.

Comments, criticism, as always, to the usual address.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The [swiki]Genetic Code[/swiki]

I'm sleepy, so I hope that's in English.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Can someone tell me what happens when a ribosome translates a bit of mRNA that doesn't have a stop codon?

Thanks.

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Mutation[/swiki]