Originally Posted by GCSTroop
It seems we're getting to the root of your philosophy and it stinks to high hell of the same nonsense the Intelligent Design community puts forth. You cannot simply dismiss the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA examination and an enormous amount of other supporting evidence to cradle the understanding of precisely how accurate the theory of evolution is while highlighting my post and saying that it resembles a psychologically damaged individual on another forum. We do have a fossil record (and as nice as it is, we don't need it for evolution to be true) that matches almost precisely what Darwin stated it would. The Creationists have the fossil record too. However, every time a new specimen is dug up, all they have to do is simply say "That's not a transitional!!!!!!! Show me a transitional!!!!" So what's the other alternative, genius? But the most damning piece of evidence is precisely what I explained before. The fact that we can do a comparative analysis of any living organism on the planet Earth to any other living organism on the planet Earth not only tells us how close the two species are but also what we would expect to find in the interim as these two took separate evolutionary pathways. In fact, by examining the mitochondrial DNA of present-day species, we've even been able to accurately predict where and when in the fossil record certain transitional creatures should arrive (see Tiktaalik).
See the bottom of my post for a list of some of the overlapping evidences in support of the theory of evolution. These in no way are the full embodiment of the science but are tangible papers put in such an order so as to see just how widely varied and completely concise the Theory of Evolution's support structure is!
Again, you're witless attempt to insert dogma into what you feel are accurate portrayals of science are simply flawed. Your approach is annoying because it borders on the line of either utter ignorance or complete cognitive disassociation (Creationist Syndrome). See the bolded part of the previous quote. Isn't that precisely what science is?! You speak of the failure a scientist had by interpreting what he personally thought and believed happened via natural selection and, guess what, he failed!! That's precisely how science works. You act as though whatever the scientist interpreted as being the truth should have been tested and guaranteed in the laboratory which is absolutely not the case; although it's easy to see how you're under the mindset that science should stop at nothing to validate personal opinions and feelings. I'm sorry to report but science does not work in the fashion such as that personal feelings and interpretations must always be correct. Such is the world of religious nonsense and ideology. I do wish you people would figure that out and stop trying to inject such blatant faulty thinking into your scientific projects.
Again refer to the bolded part. I'm beginning to see you don't have the faintest clue as to how evolution works. This whole time I've operated under the premise that you thought the theory of evolution was scientifically accurate but it's apparent to me now that I should not have judged so prematurely and that you are nothing more than a Creationist espousing the same awful turdlings in a slightly different format. The nylon eating bacteria of which I have some excellent papers to read about right here:
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
[b]
These explain in extraordinarily wonderful detail not only the emergence of such characteristics as nylonase consumption but also how it did so via evolutionary means. You're simply acting the part of the ostrich by sticking your head in the sand if you want to deny the operations of said functions. To simply imply that the information was already there is a blatant lie and one that presupposes a direct misinformation crusade on precisely how DNA and/or genetics works. The information you so heartily want and claim to be evidence of something is nothing more than a four letter alphabet which comprises the instruction set of any given genome. That is, as I explained earlier, no more intelligent than the 26-letter English alphabet as a stand alone object. Despite only having 26 letters, we can still fill a multi-thousand page volume of the Oxford English Dictionary using different variations and arrangements of said letters. In that same capacity, DNA has the same ability to produce a volume of works as large and as varied as the selection of books in the New York Public Library (and far, far more). But, by itself, it is no more intelligent than any letter in the English alphabet.
You continually try to ascribe "the informational programming was already there" as though it's a scientifically accurate portrayal. It's absolutely ridiculous and no more effective than saying "The Grapes of Wrath was already intelligently written into the alphabet." It's another one of your non sequitur's that I sincerely wish you'd have the gumption to try and understand.
It's not bigotry when the whole concept of science is to understand the natural world!!!! I don't see what your point is in all of this? It's almost as though you are saying we should build on building blocks of what we know and don't know but we shouldn't if it excludes the supernatural.
I have a thing or two to say about the supernatural. Since when did it get any sort of credence to be injected into anything scientific? Why must we fill the gaps of our knowledge with what we do and don't know by pre-supposing supernatural means? I don't understand how you could be so fundamentally ignorant and stupid to see how this absolutely would not work in any scientific setting. If we kept the same mentality, we could just as easily still be sitting in caves, scratching our hairy asses, and saying "Fire starts by a supernatural intervention rather than friction and heat." Your candid disinterest in trying to make a separation between what science should investigate and what we should leave to the realm of "supernaturalism" is clearly an effort to protect your faith system for whatever reason. I suppose it's scary for people to realize their God is consistently being explained away through more and more varied means.
But, what is supernaturalism anyway? It obviously has no means of recourse for investigation the natural world because it is indeed supernatural. But, let's wait a second and think about this for a minute. If supernatural is outside the realm of any sort of human intuition, understanding or even parallel investigation than when we examine what Magic Man did, we must be able to come to some conclusion using natural means.
Even if Magic Man placed a strand of DNA on the planet Earth in the first place, he would have had to have done so via natural means. In other words, there would still be a point in which his actions affected the natural world because once we begin to examine the natural world, our affectations must be tangible for us to interact with. Thus, even if we are investigation the remnants of supernatural causes, we must do so via the only method we have available in that of "natural" investigation. You can continue to pander to your simple-minded God by drawing various 'God of the Gaps' arguments but the fact remains that for any supernatural and natural interaction to occur such as for us to investigate it - it must be through natural means (we interact entirely with the natural world).
That's because there is no such thing as micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution. The terms were independently coined by Creationist's to excuse themselves from having to explain why there were changes within 'kinds' (another ridiculous Creationist term) to their pulpit following brainless zombies. Unfortunately, this was a meme that stuck to such an extent that people fighting the debate of evolution and creationism that didn't know any better, used this terminology as though it was coined fact. Now, scientists in America are constantly barraged by this haranguing of trying to explain the difference between micro and macro evolution to insolent and ignorant crowds of people. As they continue to do so, it seems they've made a special brand of concession to allow the term to be used so as not to create any more confusion. In my opinion, it's not the most responsible thing to do and I cringe when I hear the term. There is no micro or macro evolution - only evolution. There is no dividing line I have yet found which states that a creature is only allowed to change "this much."
In Europe, they don't have nearly the same problem of Creationists that we in the States do so I suppose they haven't yet been put through the ringer by such ignorance.
Right here is what annoys me about you. You go on and make a few intelligent points and then you completely negate anything positive with such stupid comments I simply cannot give any credence to your position at all. I must admit, you are the most cherry-picking individual I have ever had this conversation with. Your logic jumps from logical to illogical to completely baffling from one minute to the next. There is absolutely no consistency to what you say and the disambiguations of your opinion are more opaque than ever before.
I simply don't know what to say to this response. I guess I could point out the obvious speciation differences of the last century in the African Cychlid Fishes. I guess I could point out new species of drosophylia (fruit fly) but then you would simply move the goal posts wouldn't you? You'd still say "But, it's a fruit fly not something else." Or perhaps you might say, "It's still a fish."
Unfortunately, it seems as though you've fallen ill to the same third-grade zoo field trip cladistics that the Intelligent Design/Creationism community has. Every time a new species does come about, you change the phyla, family, order, etc... of whatever it belongs and then you say "Well, it's still an insect! It's still a fish!"
But, the premise of evolution is the variation and origin at a species level. Absolutely, evolution by way of natural selection has been proven in the laboratory over and over again with bacteria and as well with fruit flies. I don't know what the insistence is with changing the goalposts every time there is evidence that interferes with your presupposed world view of the Magic Man.
I suspect you know full well what a species is and when something such as drosophilia melangaster changes to the point we can longer call it drosophilia melangaster due to perhaps fundamental differences in physical appearance, certain abilities it may have, etc... we entitle it a different species.
That is absolutely essential to understanding the precise point of speciatic change. It's not change on a family, order, kingdom, etc... level - it's change on the species level. Once again, using mitochondrial DNA, it makes us easier to put all of our species in the proper clades. Unfortunately, your third-grade cladistics just say "Fish, Fruit Fly, Lizard, Monkey" as though you're sitting around waiting for a Lizard or a Monkey to turn into something of a completely different phylum, family, or kingdom. It's a disingenuous strawman.
Yes, mutations can be deemed random but the whole point of what I was trying to get at earlier was that those "mistakes" are selected by way of natural selection as existing further or undergoing annihilation (extinction). You can try to put my frame of reference into a completely reductionist manner by saying that randomness is what immutably governs the theory of evolution. However, this is patently false once the term selection is thrown into the mix.
As I said before, the whole notion upon which we perceive the world is through existence. Things exist (no matter what we are talking about) because they have undergone a formidable process of selection. This selection process does not have to be, nor should it be, undermined to the point of saying that selection must be inherited as only something done by conscious effort. The dinosaurs don't exist any more because they failed to adapt to extreme natural selection efforts forced upon them (the giant meteor - presumably). We must always keep in mind that what we presently see is here because it best suits the natural selection model of the ecological niche it resides in.
You continue to border on the "Monkeys Hammering Away At A Keyboard" theory which states that a monkey could not write an entire work of Shakespeare if it sat in front of a keyboard and randomly hit keys. I would absolutely agree. But, allow me to explain this position a little better.
If we were to expect a monkey to randomly type the word 'banana,' the odds of it doing so would be extraordinary. In fact, if we set the monkey down on a 26-letter keyboard (excluding spaces, commas, etc... for convenience of the argument) the chances of it randomly hitting each successive stroke of the keyboard so as to produce the word 'banana' would be statistically represented as such:
(1:26)(1:26)(1:26)(1:26)(1:26)(1:26) = 1:308,915,776
Those odds seem so out of touch with reality that while there is a statistical chance of it happening, it would be so unlikely that we simply could not put any sort of credence to believability behind it. However, if we selected the errant typings of the most accurate form of the word 'banana' and kept them because it best fit the word 'banana' then things begin to change.
In other words, for the first letter 'b' to be typed there is only a 1:26 chance the monkey will do so. This may take several tries or it may take only one or two. If we kept the random input of 'b' as the first letter once that key were hit, we could move on to the next part of the word in that of 'a'. In any case, there is only a 1:26 chance the monkey would hit the correct letter for any given sequence of the word 'banana.' Thus, for each successive mutation, there stands only a 1:26 chance of the most suitable letter to make the word 'banana' as being typed. You can try this with a blindfold and your own keyboard seeing as you're just as much an ape as I am and you possess a keyboard.
I believe I just did so. If you do not have the wit or wherewithal to see how selection can produce varying degrees of complexity to such a finite degree than I simply cannot help you. It will forever remain in your pool of collective ignorance to simply insert your dogmatic Magic Man into the argument whenever it suits you.
I'm not sure why you put the explanation of proteins in here for me in order to harangue the Creationists. I fully understand their presuppositions of lies and misinformation to a vast degree. It's just a pity you've fallen into some of the bait-laden traps they've set for you.
Refer to the bold section: Backed by what evidence?
The List:
[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!
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
