Posted on 03/11/2009 11:40:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
No more love for Lucy?
Ryan Jaroncyk
For over the last 30 years, the supposedly 3 . 2 Ma old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as ‘Lucy’ has been boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television shows, books, newspapers and museums. However, Tel Aviv University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor.1 Based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’ In other words, Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. Lucy’s demise falsifies 33 years of evolutionary hyperbole and propaganda...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
What amidase? Amidase is a class of enzymes. All members of that class have the property of catalyzing the cleavage of amide bonds. The only differences are in catalyic power.
"The “information” to digest nylon was not present, it was, in its original form, incapable of digesting nylon.
The important considerations do not include "information". The important consideration is catalytic power, which is dependent on the spacial arrangement of the functional groups responsible for lowering the activation energy of an amide bond transition state. All a mutation could effect in a positive way are elements of those considerations.
DNA is mutable, in fact impossible to maintain with perfect fidelity. When DNA of a gene is changed the amino acid composition of the resulting protein is sometimes changed. In this case an enzyme that previously could not break down nylon was mutated into one that could.
Other examples include coding for a protein with a more heat resistant structure in response to heat stress.
The power of random variation and selection to accomplish new “information” is so powerful that people use the technique of “directed evolution” to make proteins of novel useful applications for industry.
“The exhibit has been a huge financial disaster.”
And that’s a shame. It speaks to the ignorance in our society.
So still no proof this is “transitional” other than pure conjecture.
Even average humans from the 19th century differed from more modern humans, we’re taller, heavier (and live longer), on average.
“Kinda like standing next to a unicorn eh?”
I wouldn’t know. But then again, I’m not the one with an invisible friend in the sky.
Most likely a nutritional issue and not one of genetics. Quite common in nature.
Thanks for the ping!
Cedric has publicly declared himself to be a troll in other threads. One should expect a troll's usual regard for consistency and honesty.
Yes nutritional, but also viral, bacteriological, steroidal, technological advances, physiology, immunology, pharmacological...there are several variables here at play, but the point is, all these fossils may look transitional or very different, more for these reasons than anything else.
I’m still waiting the creationist “scientists” to come up with a supernaturally created species. If they want to play scientist they should be held to the same standard.
Ummmm same standard????
Contrasted here:
*********************************************************
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
LOL!!! Should have bought a monkey!
No; it speaks top the fact that Lucy is old news and no one really cares about about pure speculation about ‘her’. Like most liberal ideas, the decision to bring the exhibit, while having good intentions, was destined to be a failure.
>>>Evolution is garbage science and as garbage science goes a spectacularly evil and dangerous variety, with two world wars and something like 200M - 300M dead bodies lying around to its credit. It’s way past time evolutionism was gotten rid of.
Evolution may or may not be accurate science, but blaming it for the World Wars is hysteria. I can just picture Serbian assassins worrying about this as they were shooting Franz Josef’s relatives.
>>>Keeping in mind these “posts” of “facts” are simply meant to incite and cause flame wars, nothing more. FR’s version of Art Bell and George Noory
Except these Flat Earth threads routinely are allowed as NEWS, while legitimate science threads routinely get pushed into CHAT. The management seems to be taking sides.
Suppose you that you have always believed that you know where your great-great-great-grandmother was buried.
Evidence now comes to light showing that the grave is of your great-great-great-aunt (on your great-great-great-grandmother's side). She is not your direct ancestor.
But is still related to you, and has as much genetic similarity to you as your actual great-great-great-grandmother. And if they had to dig her up up to do DNA analysis to establish whether you belonged in her family, she's just as good as your real great-great-great-grandmother would be.
Really how "wrong" were you?
Yeah, seems so... Kind of like all the fairtax horsehockey....
That is a lie.
The only question is whether you (steeped in dishonesty) know it it to be a lie or you are merely simple minded, reckless and desperate.
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.