Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Con Men in Lab Coats [how science corrects itself]
Scientific American ^ | March 2006 | By the editors

Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 841-842 next last
To: gomaaa

What exhaustive set of links?


621 posted on 03/06/2006 3:36:29 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
You realize that the chromosomal number designations are a man made artificial construct?

Of course. Synteny, though, is not contiguous and jumps from chromosome to chromosome.

622 posted on 03/06/2006 3:36:51 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla; Dimensio; tallhappy; Virginia-American
tallhappy posted a link to an abstract on Medline that I think was on this thread, but I can't find it to save my life. It was regarding an ERV found in chimps and gorillas but not humans though, so I thought I'd ping you you all. I thought I would post the upshot of that article here because it is quite interesting.

The precise details of the nature of the phylogenetic separation of humans from the African great apes has remained uncertain. Genetic studies indicated that humans and chimpanzees are the most closely related pair for much of the genome [1–4]. However, for some fraction of the genome, they are not [1, 3, 4]. Such data are consistent with a model in which alleles segregated differently among the three eventual lineages [1, 4, 19–21]. Some alleles that were polymorphic in the common ancestor of gorilla, chimpanzees, and humans became fixed within the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees before the latter two lineages separated. This, along with new mutations in the human-chimpanzee common ancestor, accounts for the higher genetic relatedness of chimpanzees and humans that appears to encompass the majority of the genome [1, 3, 4]. However, at positions in the genome where allelism was maintained throughout the period of existence of the human-chimpanzee common ancestor, some of the same alleles that became fixed in the gorilla lineage may also have been fixed in only one of the human or chimpanzee lineages. The HERV-K-GC1 provirus provides a compelling piece of evidence for such a model, as it is the clearest example to date of a specific locus within the genome where chimpanzees and gorillas are more closely related to each other than either is to humans. Moreover, since neutral alleles are maintained in a population for only a limited time that depends on the size of the population [4, 19–24], the data presented here imply that the separation of the Homo, Pan, and Gorilla lineages occurred within a period of time that was sufficiently short for such allelism to be maintained. The significance of the work presented here is the demonstration of the utility of HERV-K as a marker for studying human evolution, the conclusion that HERV-K was active at about the time that the three lineages were evolutionarily separating, and the very strong experimental evidence that, in some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than any of them is to humans. HERV-K and other retrotransposable elements should contribute to determining what that fraction is.

Barbulescu, M.; Turner, G.; Su, M.; Kim, R.; Jensen-Seaman, M.; Deinard, A.; Kidd, K.; Lenz, J. "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans." Current Biology, 2001, 11:779-783.

623 posted on 03/06/2006 3:42:16 PM PST by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
We're discussing it start around 178
624 posted on 03/06/2006 3:50:35 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Actually an example of a comment taken 100% out of context.

You so funny! One clicks on the link and there it is in its entirety and in its context.

625 posted on 03/06/2006 3:52:38 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

You are not dealing with an honest person here. Anyone who says a link to the original source is "out of context" is incapable of being truthful.


626 posted on 03/06/2006 3:56:31 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Lame excuse for a laughably hissy snit of a post.
627 posted on 03/06/2006 4:03:13 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Excellent post sir.


628 posted on 03/06/2006 4:07:23 PM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
I guarantee you and you know it too, if I engage you with only 50% of what you put out I will be gone pretty quickly.

Why is that?

629 posted on 03/06/2006 4:13:15 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

Very interesting...


630 posted on 03/06/2006 4:13:44 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
I was being silly of course. Thought about, "The last organism to evolve was my roomate in the Air Force for a time."
631 posted on 03/06/2006 4:14:31 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Mamzelle
laughably hissy snit of a post.

And I swear, I thought you were you know who

632 posted on 03/06/2006 4:15:17 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; Ichneumon
I think there is a point that is missing from this conversation and that is the adversarial nature of science in general.

From conversations with a number of scientists I have an understanding that when it comes to their's and other's work, they are not afraid to tear apart the work of even their friends if it looks susceptible to criticism. In fact it seems a rite of passage to present a paper at a conference and successfully deflate the rather pointed questions from the assembled crowd of fellow scientists. This is far from a conspiracy and seem to work well in filtering out poorly produced research.

633 posted on 03/06/2006 4:21:53 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: js1138

634 posted on 03/06/2006 4:26:06 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"Just WHO is in possession of the 'fossils' after all!?

Generally the organization that funded the dig. However, casts, photographs and inventory of not just the fossils but the dig are always available to others for inspection and if I understand the scientists I've spoken to correctly it is quite possible to get permission to examine the originals as long as you have valid credentials/associations.

There is no conspiracy to 'hide' the fossils.

635 posted on 03/06/2006 4:34:01 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
"I don't want them to grow - I want them to DIE

"I have these wild muscadene(?) grapevines in my backyard, against which I have been fighting what amounts to a holding action.

"I want to know how to kill them off entirely, as they are wasting space I'd rather have something nice and purty and useful growing in... like bamboo.

If you lived in a nice Canuck location like, say... Saskatchewan, you wouldn't have that problem.

636 posted on 03/06/2006 4:37:38 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Not quite. AIG posts citations to magazine articles (usually the ones they are commenting upon), not the research papers themselves.

AIG is on my "must check" list...

637 posted on 03/06/2006 4:39:17 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
"*whine*
but roundup is so expensive..."

Then try kerosene.

638 posted on 03/06/2006 4:40:33 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
If true, and I am not arguing against the suggestion, it is indicative, as I said, that such commonalities are in fact more common than made out to be in arguments for their being evidence of common descent.

I'm sorry, but one cannot draw such conclusions; it would be akin to saying that, if telephones exist, it disproves email.

639 posted on 03/06/2006 4:42:35 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
However, casts, photographs and inventory of not just the fossils but the dig are always available to others for inspection and if I understand the scientists I've spoken to correctly it is quite possible to get permission to examine the originals as long as you have valid credentials/associations.

Where this has not been done, especially for what would otherwise be a landmark find, alarm bells have gone off. Example: Sanjay Chatterjee and a find called "Eoavis," which creationists tend to accept uncritically because it supposedly undermines Archaeopteryx. It is apparently what creationists otherwise call even the best fossils, a seriously crushed pile of disarticulated bones which may be from more than one individual and perhaps more than one species. Whatever it really is, Chatterjee last I heard was still keeping it to himself.

640 posted on 03/06/2006 4:42:35 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 841-842 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson