U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2008, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,865,481 times
Reputation: 3627

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I would actually like to know what an "evolved" life form would look like to a person who adheres to ID/Creationism?

All I ever hear is:

"Every time I look at all of the wonderful things in nature and the complexity of certain parts of the body, I see the mark of a designer."

Well, OK, fine. If we're taking personal perception as a matter of evidence, what would an "evolved" creature look like to you? I mean, you're so good at picking out what was designed, and based on extensive and thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory that none of them seem to possess, what would an evolved creature look like?

If there were an "evolved" creature sitting on your front door step, would it not be complex as well? How would you differentiate between an "evolved" creature as opposed to a "spontaneously generated out of thin air" creature? Isn't examining the intricacies of a living creature and awing at all of the wondrous intricacies of its body as it "just so happens" to survive on this planet in its environment kind of like remarking at just how precisely deep, wide, and wet any random hole is that thereby constitutes a puddle?

In other words, could I not call a puddle a manufactured "design" merely because I'm struck by the beauty of the precise depth and width of it? If the puddle were any deeper or any wider than the puddle I was examining, it wouldn't necessarily be a puddle - and it wouldn't be the one that I am examining. The dimensions of the hole are just too fantastically intricate to have come from anything but a designer!
Wowowowowowow! Your mind is VERY well designed, young man!
(Sorry... gender & age assumed)

Just when I am getting tired of trying to convince (as IF!) Creationists to pry open their mental processes, along comes a fresh new "animal" such as this very "creative" perspective. Which is, I suppose, the true value of these debates. We learn to think through all the possibilities, to examine, consider and re-evaluate our own.

Thanks a ton, Troop!

 
Old 11-03-2008, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,865,481 times
Reputation: 3627
Default Wal-Mart thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackyfrost01 View Post
My heart is soft enough. I don't have to follow Christian beliefs to be a soft hearted person. Have a you ever met a Buddhist? Soft hearted as it comes. A MAJOR religion, with no god, just Buddha and believing in a simple well lived life. Thats something I can believe in.
Buddhism isn't a successfully marketable "product". Just how would it's owners benefit to the extent that the Christian™ religion has? The whole organized Christian package, you've got to admit, is downright fascinating. All bases covered, complete with fear-based consequences. The only thing that has come close, marketing-wise, to capturing the perennially bored public's short attention span has been Scientology™. Clever guy, ol' L. Ron Hubbard! And predictably, rich because of it!

Believable evidence that might convince Christian thinkers of the truth of evolution would pretty much put a stake through the organized corporate Christian "profit center" . Can't have that, hence the amazing creativity of the defensive comebacks.

Sorry; I'm usually not this skeptical about my fellow man. Just a few cohorts therein.

Last edited by rifleman; 11-03-2008 at 03:55 PM.. Reason: clarity
 
Old 11-04-2008, 09:13 AM
 
7,768 posts, read 9,601,978 times
Reputation: 3394
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I would actually like to know what an "evolved" life form would look like to a person who adheres to ID/Creationism?

All I ever hear is:

"Every time I look at all of the wonderful things in nature and the complexity of certain parts of the body, I see the mark of a designer."

Well, OK, fine. If we're taking personal perception as a matter of evidence, what would an "evolved" creature look like to you? I mean, you're so good at picking out what was designed, and based on extensive and thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory that none of them seem to possess, what would an evolved creature look like?

If there were an "evolved" creature sitting on your front door step, would it not be complex as well? How would you differentiate between an "evolved" creature as opposed to a "spontaneously generated out of thin air" creature? Isn't examining the intricacies of a living creature and awing at all of the wondrous intricacies of its body as it "just so happens" to survive on this planet in its environment kind of like remarking at just how precisely deep, wide, and wet any random hole is that thereby constitutes a puddle?

In other words, could I not call a puddle a manufactured "design" merely because I'm struck by the beauty of the precise depth and width of it? If the puddle were any deeper or any wider than the puddle I was examining, it wouldn't necessarily be a puddle - and it wouldn't be the one that I am examining. The dimensions of the hole are just too fantastically intricate to have come from anything but a designer!
But couldn't the flip side be "Tell me what you think a creature created by the Architect of the Universe, God Almighty look like."

At the end of the day the 'result' we all look at is the same. It's the origin that differs. So, a highly evolved creature would look like a human, just like the created creature looks like.

What the entire argument is built on is faith in the beginning.

Creationists have faith God created all we see and that the complexity and adaptations and speciation is all part of the process created.

Evolutionists have faith that time and birth abnormalities give us the beautiful varieties of life we see.

You think that 'GODDIDIT' is ridiculous, based on speculation and a vivid imagination, and that we try and fit what we see into our comfortable world view.

We think the idea that a tree, a daisy, a human, and a horse all crawled from the same pot of primordial soup is ridiculous, based on speculation and a vivid imagination, and that you try and fit what you see into your comfortable world view.


The real arguments occur when one of us tries to deny those facts.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,591 posts, read 8,650,327 times
Reputation: 3970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207 View Post
But couldn't the flip side be "Tell me what you think a creature created by the Architect of the Universe, God Almighty look like."

At the end of the day the 'result' we all look at is the same. It's the origin that differs. So, a highly evolved creature would look like a human, just like the created creature looks like.

What the entire argument is built on is faith in the beginning.

Creationists have faith God created all we see and that the complexity and adaptations and speciation is all part of the process created.

Evolutionists have faith that time and birth abnormalities give us the beautiful varieties of life we see.

You think that 'GODDIDIT' is ridiculous, based on speculation and a vivid imagination, and that we try and fit what we see into our comfortable world view.

We think the idea that a tree, a daisy, a human, and a horse all crawled from the same pot of primordial soup is ridiculous, based on speculation and a vivid imagination, and that you try and fit what you see into your comfortable world view.


The real arguments occur when one of us tries to deny those facts.
You're missing the point, Alpha. My point is in reference to people using arguments of incredulity as proof of evidence. They proclaim that they see evidence for a designer in the intricate ways in which different organisms live in their environment. But, that's not really evidence. It may be a matter of perception, a matter of 'faith', as you call it, but it's not really evidence. My stance on evolution is not evidence. Just because I see something differently than someone else is not a case for evidence for or against my opinion. Evidence is that which supports an idea after testing and empiricism.

Essentially, the reason I asked is that people always say they see the work of some sort of "Designer". Well, that's fantastic. I want to know at what point they'd see the mark of evolution.

Furthering that argument, I would like to know how we would test for the "Designedness" of something to further assert our perceptions. Thus far, I have not been presented with one single actual scientifically credible test to assert that Intelligent Design is anything more than a matter of personal perception. Therein lies the problem with trying to call it scientific.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 01:08 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,684,705 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I would actually like to know what an "evolved" life form would look like to a person who adheres to ID/Creationism?

All I ever hear is:

"Every time I look at all of the wonderful things in nature and the complexity of certain parts of the body, I see the mark of a designer."

Well, OK, fine. If we're taking personal perception as a matter of evidence, what would an "evolved" creature look like to you? I mean, you're so good at picking out what was designed, and based on extensive and thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory that none of them seem to possess, what would an evolved creature look like?

If there were an "evolved" creature sitting on your front door step, would it not be complex as well? How would you differentiate between an "evolved" creature as opposed to a "spontaneously generated out of thin air" creature? Isn't examining the intricacies of a living creature and awing at all of the wondrous intricacies of its body as it "just so happens" to survive on this planet in its environment kind of like remarking at just how precisely deep, wide, and wet any random hole is that thereby constitutes a puddle?

In other words, could I not call a puddle a manufactured "design" merely because I'm struck by the beauty of the precise depth and width of it? If the puddle were any deeper or any wider than the puddle I was examining, it wouldn't necessarily be a puddle - and it wouldn't be the one that I am examining. The dimensions of the hole are just too fantastically intricate to have come from anything but a designer!
We don't think it would look like anything because nothing living can or has evolved from anything non-living.

A puddle is non-living, so it is not a good example for you to use. If you look to the most simple cell, It is so complex that it defies the posiblility of happening by chance. So, a puddle would have to be infinitly complex and have interconecting moving parts and functions. It would be comparable to looking at GM in detroit and say that this whole plant and all subsidiary plants that feed it parts just happened by chance with no design involved by man or God or anything else. And even using the GM plant as an example would still not aspire to the complexity of the most simple of cells in the living world.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 01:13 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,684,705 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
You're missing the point, Alpha. My point is in reference to people using arguments of incredulity as proof of evidence. They proclaim that they see evidence for a designer in the intricate ways in which different organisms live in their environment. But, that's not really evidence. It may be a matter of perception, a matter of 'faith', as you call it, but it's not really evidence. My stance on evolution is not evidence. Just because I see something differently than someone else is not a case for evidence for or against my opinion. Evidence is that which supports an idea after testing and empiricism.

Essentially, the reason I asked is that people always say they see the work of some sort of "Designer". Well, that's fantastic. I want to know at what point they'd see the mark of evolution.

Furthering that argument, I would like to know how we would test for the "Designedness" of something to further assert our perceptions. Thus far, I have not been presented with one single actual scientifically credible test to assert that Intelligent Design is anything more than a matter of personal perception. Therein lies the problem with trying to call it scientific.
This is what ID is working on right now. They are determining what is required for something to be designed.

They look at it not as a matter of personal perception, that you say, but rather from irriducible complexity. Which can be determined and deduced.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,591 posts, read 8,650,327 times
Reputation: 3970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
We don't think it would look like anything because nothing living can or has evolved from anything non-living.

A puddle is non-living, so it is not a good example for you to use. If you look to the most simple cell, It is so complex that it defies the posiblility of happening by chance. So, a puddle would have to be infinitly complex and have interconecting moving parts and functions. It would be comparable to looking at GM in detroit and say that this whole plant and all subsidiary plants that feed it parts just happened by chance with no design involved by man or God or anything else. And even using the GM plant as an example would still not aspire to the complexity of the most simple of cells in the living world.
Well, the very problem is that you assert it as a "chance" happening as if all of the molecules just collectively got together one day and formed life. Yes, that would be improbable.

Chance is walking upon a lock, turning the dial successively, and correctly hitting all of the correct numbers in sequence. Probable? Not really. In fact, almost highly unlikely would better fit the ticket.

Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution is like walking up to the lock, trying each number and every time the correct number is hit, the lock gives just a little further until you've gotten the correct sequence of numbers.

And yet, you're STILL trying to bring this back to abiogenesis rather than the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, in the broadest of senses, can be applied to more than just living things. We call stellar evolution by that name for a reason. While the term "evolution" was coined for the explanation of life, we can also use it for a variety of different things as well.


But, it's quite clear at this point in time that you don't understand even the slightest thing about evolution or the theory behind it and your ignorance is often genuflected in your posts. I don't know if it's because you just like to argue or if you're really that incapable of understanding the theory. Either way, I have never seen such tenacity fall so short of any and everything in all of my life.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 01:24 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,684,705 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Buddhism isn't a successfully marketable "product". Just how would it's owners benefit to the extent that the Christian™ religion has? The whole organized Christian package, you've got to admit, is downright fascinating. All bases covered, complete with fear-based consequences. The only thing that has come close, marketing-wise, to capturing the perennially bored public's short attention span has been Scientology™. Clever guy, ol' L. Ron Hubbard! And predictably, rich because of it!

Believable evidence that might convince Christian thinkers of the truth of evolution would pretty much put a stake through the organized corporate Christian "profit center" . Can't have that, hence the amazing creativity of the defensive comebacks.

Sorry; I'm usually not this skeptical about my fellow man. Just a few cohorts therein.
Maybe Christianity has its bases covered not because it is a well designed religion, but rather it just professes the truth that came from the Father through his word the Bible.

Yes, there is a hell and it is a thing to be feared to end up there. But, the message of the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is that all can be saved from this end and simply by accepting what Jesus Christ did on the Cross as sufficient to atone (make us in right standing with God) for our sin before God the Father.

In the beginning man sinned. This sin has fallen on us. Jesus lived a sinless life and died a death on the cross to become a sin bearer for us. It is written "cursed is anyone that is hung upon a tree". So Christ became a curse by how he was killed, being crucified. We are born in sin, but we also commit sin (see the Ten Commandments). We have all commited one offense against God. It is written that if you are gilty of one you are guilty of all. So, there is no sin worse than another, because all are commited against God. In the past they atoned for their sin with the sacrifice of lambs and goats, but Jesus became the final sacrifice, he is all that is required for us to come to the Father. It is written "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me (Jesus)."
 
Old 11-04-2008, 01:37 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,684,705 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Well, the very problem is that you assert it as a "chance" happening as if all of the molecules just collectively got together one day and formed life. Yes, that would be improbable.

Chance is walking upon a lock, turning the dial successively, and correctly hitting all of the correct numbers in sequence. Probable? Not really. In fact, almost highly unlikely would better fit the ticket.

Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution is like walking up to the lock, trying each number and every time the correct number is hit, the lock gives just a little further until you've gotten the correct sequence of numbers.

And yet, you're STILL trying to bring this back to abiogenesis rather than the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, in the broadest of senses, can be applied to more than just living things. We call stellar evolution by that name for a reason. While the term "evolution" was coined for the explanation of life, we can also use it for a variety of different things as well.


But, it's quite clear at this point in time that you don't understand even the slightest thing about evolution or the theory behind it and your ignorance is often genuflected in your posts. I don't know if it's because you just like to argue or if you're really that incapable of understanding the theory. Either way, I have never seen such tenacity fall so short of any and everything in all of my life.
If evolution as a concept just explains change in the world, then it is useless. The word "Change" is sufficient a word. But rather it has been called evolution to imply a change from one species to another occuring from some non-living origin in the past.

If Mendels work was know at the time of Darwins "Origins", "Origins" would have been rejected. If evolution means just change within a species or "Natural Selection", then the work of Edward Blyth a Christian scientist a quarter century before Darwin would have been sufficient. But no, evolution is the explanation of how one species becomes another from some non-living source hence the name "ORIGIN of the species". If Darwin did not intend this then the book would have been called "The Changes in Species" or something of the like. Since this non-living formation of life and even the interspecies fossils from Amoeba to Man or Shew to Elephant do not exist, it is time we retire this poorly supported hypothesis full of conjecture than continue this charade.

Sweep abiogenesis under the rug like Darwin that is fine, but discontinue saying that Evolution is some great theory, it fails completely other than decieving people into thinking it has scientific merit.
 
Old 11-04-2008, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,591 posts, read 8,650,327 times
Reputation: 3970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
If evolution as a concept just explains change in the world, then it is useless. The word "Change" is sufficient a word. But rather it has been called evolution to imply a change from one species to another occuring from some non-living origin in the past.

If Mendels work was know at the time of Darwins "Origins", "Origins" would have been rejected. If evolution means just change within a species or "Natural Selection", then the work of Edward Blyth a Christian scientist a quarter century before Darwin would have been sufficient. But no, evolution is the explanation of how one species becomes another from some non-living source hence the name "ORIGIN of the species". If Darwin did not intend this then the book would have been called "The Changes in Species" or something of the like. Since this non-living formation of life and even the interspecies fossils from Amoeba to Man or Shew to Elephant do not exist, it is time we retire this poorly supported hypothesis full of conjecture than continue this charade.

Sweep abiogenesis under the rug like Darwin that is fine, but discontinue saying that Evolution is some great theory, it fails completely other than decieving people into thinking it has scientific merit.
Nikk,

If there is any poor supported theory out there it would be the idea that a magic man in the sky got lonely and bored one day and decided to "SNAP, CRACKLE, POP" some humans and some animals together. Thus far, there has not been one single shred of evidence to support the idea that magic man intervened in anything. On the other hand, there are endless tomes of evidence supporting Darwin's Origins of Species as well as other discoveries (including genetics) that were discovered after his writing of said book.

In fact, it's often been a thought of great wonder as to how delighted he would be if he were able to come alive once again and see just how much his theory has not only progressed but also been proven accurate.

And yet, despite all of the evidence contrary to your belief in magic man you still cling to the fanciful religious theme that magic man created you and all the animals just as they are.

Nikk, I've been debating this issue with you for a long time and it's quite clear to me that you've never taken the time, NOT EVEN ONCE, to genuinely refute something with actual supporting evidence. You have never provided a study, a scientific test, or a basis of even empiricism to base your ideas off of. All you have provided is loose conjecture that sounds like something a four year old could better come up with.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I swear, if I had a nickel for every time I heard you assert that Blythe was the guy who came up with Natural Selection I'd have more money than the Obama campaign at this point. And yet, you've never even linked one single article to support that idea. Not like it'd matter. Because whether or not Blythe or Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection as we know it, it's still an accurate explanation for how evolution occurs.

Until you can come up with some new material or until you can prove magic man exists, I'm through talking with you. I've spent more time and effort doing the research to answer your claims in the past to give you a precisely accurate answer that it's no longer even worth my time to argue with you.

Time for the big Iggy. Nice talking with you.

And as my parting gift to you, I present you with only some scientific (meaning empirical and researched) evidence for evolution is this list. Look at it, or don't. I don't really expect you to - it's quite apparent you've never actually read anything I've ever spent the time writing anyway.

[1] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Nylonase enzymes in Japanese Flavobacterium species:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. By Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, PP. 2421-2425, April 1984

Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, Feb 1994, PP 1197-1200

[2] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid fishes:


Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3817-3822, 1997

Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, vol 401, PP 443-444, 1999

Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3811-3816, 1997

Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 20, no 11, PP 1897-1908, 2003

Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 103, PP 10491-10496, 2006

[3] Speciation events observed in the laboratory:

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, PP 1214-1220, 1992

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971)

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 (Speciation event in Drosophila melanogaster)

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity byM.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966

The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa by Tom Cavalier-Smith, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology vol 52, pp 297-354, 2002

[4] Speciation events in nature and supporting phylogenetic evidence:

Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)

Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005

Drosophila paulistorum: A Cluster of Species in Statu Nascendi by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Boris Spassky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 45(3): 419-428 (1959)

Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, vol 13, pp 2471-2479, 21 April 2004

Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O'hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)

Mitochondrial Phylogeny of the Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Tanganyika in Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 751-768, 1993

Multilocus Phylogeny of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison of Microsatellite and Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 15, No 7, pp 798-808, 1998

Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003

Phylogeny of African Cichlid Fishes as Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, vol 80, pp 702-714, 1998

The Species Flocks of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances in Molecular Phylogenetics and Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, vol 91, pp 277-290, 20 April 2004

[5] Evolution of specific features in humans:

Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion by Natalay Kouprina, Adam Pavlicek, Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, Gregory Solomon, William Gersch, Young-Ho Yoon, Randall Collura, Maryellen Ruvolo, J. Carl Barrett, C. Geoffrey Woods, Christopher A. Walsh, Jerzy Jurka and Vladimir Larionov, Public Library of Science Biology, vol 2, No 5, e126 (23rd March 2004)

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, A Major Determinant of Brain Size by Jianzhi Ziang, Genetics, vol 165, pp 2063-2070 (December 2003)

Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes in the Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 100(21) 12235-12240 (14 October 2003)

Evolution of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).

Human Brain Evolution: Insights from Microarrays by Todd M. Preuss, Mario Cáceres, Michael C. Oldham and Daniel H. Geschwind, Nature Reviews of Genetics, vol 5, no 11, pp 850-860 (November 2004)

Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a Gene Involved in Speech and Language by Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano Anthony P. Monaco and Svante Pääbo, Nature, Vol 418, pp 869-872, 22 August 2002

Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain size by Yin-Qiu Wang and Bing Su, Human Molecular Genetics, Vol 13, No 11, pp 1131-1137 (1st June 2004)

Organisation and Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes on Human Chromosome 11 by J.A. Buettner, G. Glusman, N. Ben-Arie, P. Ramos, D. Lancet and G.A. Evans, Genomics 53(1): 56-58 (1 Oct 1998)

Primate evolution of an olfactory receptor cluster: diversification by gene conversion and recent emergence of pseudogenes by D Sharon, G Glusman,Y Pilpel, M Khen, F Gruetzner, T Haaf, D Lancet, Genomics, 61(1) 24-36 (1 Oct 1999)

Sequence, Structure and Evolution of a Complete Human Olfactory Receptor Gene Cluster by Gustavo Glusman, Alona Sosinsky, Edna Ben-Asher, Nili Avidan, Dina Sonkin, Anita Bahar, André Rosenthal, Sandra Clifton, Bruce Roe, Concepción Ferraz, Jacques Demaille and Doron Lancet, Genomics, 63(2) 227-245 (15 Jan 2000).

The Evolution of Mammalian Olfactory Genes by L. Issel-Tarver & J. Rine, Genetics, 145(1): 185-195 (January 1997)

The Human Olfactory Subgenome: From Sequence To Structure To Evolution by Tania Fuchs, Gustavo Glasman, Shirley Horn-Saban, Doron Lancet and Yitzhak Pilpel, Human Genetics, 108: 1-13 (3 January 2001)

[6] Bird evolution and feathers:

Avian Skin Development and the Evolutionary Origin of Feathers by R.H. Sawyer & L.W. Knapp, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Devlopmental Evolution, 298(1): 57-72 (15 Aug 2003)

Bird Evolution by Julia Clarke and Kevin Middleton, Current Biology, 16(10): R350-354 (23 May 2006)

Description of the earliest fossil penguin from South America and first Paleogene vertebrate locality of Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina by Julia A. Clarke, Eduard B. Olivero and Pablo Puerta, American Museum of Natural History Novitates, No 3423, pp 1-19 (9 December 2003)

Evolution of the Morphological Innovations of Feathers by Richard O. Prum, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 304(6): 570-579 (15 Nov 2005)

The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers by Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Brush, Quarterly Review of Biology, 77(3):, 261-295 (September 2002)

When Did Theropods Become Feathered? Evidence For Pre-Archaeopteryx Feathery Appendages by Martin Kundrát, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 302(4): 355-64 (15 July 2004)

[7] General vertebrate evolution and important associated features:

Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb by Paula M. Mabee, Journal of American Zoology, 40: 789-800 (2000)

Tetrapod Phylogeny Inferred from 18S and 28S Ribosomal RNA Sequences, and a Review of the Evidence for Amniote Relationships
by S. Blair Hedges, Kirk D. Moberg and Linda R. Maxson, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 7(6): 607-633 (1990) [NOTE: MINOR CORRECTION POSTED IN 1991]

Theropod Forelimb Design And Evolution by Kevin M. Middleton and Stephe M. Gatesby. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 128: 149-187 (2000)

[8] Phylogenetics and Molecular Phylogeny not covered in papers above, plus genetic and other insights into deep evolutionary time, including the reconstruction of ancient genes and proteins:

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007)

Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003

Inferring The Historical Patterns Of Biological Evolution by Mark Pagel, Nature, 401: 877-884 (28 October 1999)

Estimating Metazoan Divergence Times With A Molecular Clock by Kevin J. Peterson, Jessica B. Lyons, Kristin S. Nowak, Carter M. Takacs, Matthew J. Wargo & Mark A. McPeek, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, April 2004, 101, 17, 6536-6541

Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk, and Mona Singh, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645-1655 (2002)

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004)

Taxonomic Congruence Versus Total Evidence, and Amniote Phylogeny Inferred from Fossils, Molecules and Morphology by Douglas J. Eernisse and Arnold G. Kluge, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 10(6): 1170-1195 (1993)

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002)

The Timing Of Eukaryotic Evolution: Does A Relaxed Molecular Clock Reconcile Proteins And fossils?
by Emmanuel J.P. Douzery, Elizabeth A. Snell, Eric Bapteste, Frédéric Delsuc & Hervé Philiipe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, October 2004, 101, 43, 15386-15391

[9] Blind Cave Fishes and their relevance to the evolution of the eye, plus a special paper on eye evolution:

Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish by W. R. Jeffrey, journal of Heredity, 96(3): 185-196 (Jan 2005)

Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Devlopmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001)

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004)

The Master Control Gene For Morphgenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes To Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996.

Why cavefish are blind by N.M. Tian & D.J. Price, Bioessays, 27: 235-238 (Mar 2005)

[10] Evolution of photosynthesis:

Early evolution of Photosynthesis: Clues from Nitrogenase and Chlorophyll Iron Proteins by Donald H. Burke, John E. Hearst and Arend Sidow, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 90, No. 15, pp 7134-7138 (1st August 1993)

Evolution: When Did Photosynthesis Emerge on Earth? by David J. Des Marais, Science, Vol 289, pp 1703-1705 (8th September 2000)

Molecular evidence for the early evolution of photosynthesis by Jin Xiong, William M. Fischer, Kazuhito Inoue, Masaaki Nakahara and Carl E. Bauer, Science, Vol 289, pp 1724-1730 (8 September 2000)

Origin and early evolution of photosynthesis
by Robert E. Blankenship, Photosynthesis Research, Vol 33, No 2, pp 91-111 (August 1992)

Tracking major evolution of photosynthesis by characterisation of a major photosynthesis gene cluster from Heliobacillus mobilis by Jin Xiong, Kazuhto Inoue and Carl E. Bauer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 95, Issue 25, pp 14581-14586 (8th December 1998)

[11] General evolutionary theory and supporting evidence:

Empirical Fitness Landscapes Reveal Accessible Evolutionary Paths by Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet, Daniel M. Weinreich and Sander J. Tans, Nature, 445: 383-386 (25 January 2007)

Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000)

Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918)

The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited by Leonard Nunney, Ann. Zool. Fennici, Vol 40, 185-194, 30 April 2003

[12] Hominid Ancestry

A New Primate from the early Eocene of Myanmar and the Asian Early Origin of Anthropoids by J.-J. Jaeger, Tin Thein, M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, Aung Naing Soe, Thit Lwin, Than Tun, San Wai and S. Ducrocq, Science, 286: 528-520 (15 October 1999)

Initial Sequenceing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium
, Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005

The oldest known anthropoid postcranial fossils and the early evolution of higher primates by D.L. Gebo, M, D'Agosto, K.C. Beard, T, Qi and J Wang, Nature, vol 404 (6775), pp 276-78, 16 March 2002

Have fun reading!

Last edited by GCSTroop; 11-04-2008 at 02:18 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top