God Bless America placemarker
Posted on 10/31/2002 6:51:38 AM PST by forsnax5
Los Angeles, Oct. 30, 2002 - Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California have, for the first time, shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology. Their findings will have implications for the study of the morphogenesis of various epithelial organs-from hairs to lung tissue to mammary glands-and is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
We got the DNA buddy, all you guys have is your imagiation. And I am sure all those links are from after DNA proved Neanderthals not the ancestors of humans. Evolutionists always trying to talk away facts with rhetoric. Oh, and no, that skull looks human.
| . . , , | ____)/ \(____ | _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ | ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. | ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. | |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| | ` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an ....
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
God Bless America and batmen too placemarker.
Hey, you found some phony evo site which denies the DNA evidence! What a surprise! Sorry, this guy is nobody. I'll take the word of the guys who did the work and just about every scientist out there. I'll take DNA over paleontology every time also. Oh, and yes, I will also take a fact which is seen millions of times every day over the nonsense said by your worm eaten leader - humans breed humans, cats breed cats, elephants breed elephants.
Love that one! I also have no problem with science. However, when there are more trees than evolutionists with crayons, methinks those trees are not scientific.
No what it does show is that:
1. The original theory on feathers was just an assumption not based on any scientific facts but just on what evolution needed to prove itself true. So this is another nail in the wall against evolution any way you call it.
2. This theory shows that the evolutionists are continuing to make claims not based on any scientific evidence at all. This study was made on grown chickens so it has nothing to say about how feathers develop on chickens today let alone a hundred or two hundred million years ago. In other words, it is just more evolutionist pseudo-science - and the worst part about it is that our taxes paid for this garbage.
From the site:
"Check out these accolades and awards for Neanderthals and Modern Humans -- A Regional Guide ..." [list]He isn't "nobody," he's simply inconvenient to your gross mischaracterizations of the state of the evidence. The site is a detailed, footnoted summary of the Neanderthal-human picture including all your mtDNA studies.
Vote! Bash the dems!
God Bless America!
Well what hard proof does he have against my statements? Let's remember that even before the DNA tests Neanderthal was thought by paleontologists not to be an ancestor of man for the simple reason that while numerous sites had been found where Neanderthals and humans lived close by, no mixed fossils were found. The reason is simple, they could not produce progeny with each other because they were too different genetically - which is what the DNA research proved beyond a doubt.
Have you read the material? Your questions amount to asking me to read to you from what I have already linked. Didn't you just say you have no problem with science? That's pretty hard to justify if you have a problem with reading.
Once more for the slow learners:
1) Fossils with mixed features exist.2) The only genetic studies so far done use mtDNA, not nuclear DNA. That in turn means:
a. You can have nuclear genes from ancestors who did not contribute to your mtDNA. (Everyone on your father's side unless you're from one of those places where your father's side and your mother's side tend to be the same side.)
b. "Also, mtDNA differences between certain present-day individuals are actually greater than some of those between the Feldhofer Neanderthal and living people (Wolpoff, 1999: 759)."
c. Mungo Man's mtDNA was almost as different from modern humans as Neanderthal mtDNA, but Mungo Man (whether 60K or 35K years old) was anatomically modern.
Gee Vade, I thought that when you posted something as proof for your side it was because you had read it, analyzed it and determined that what was posted there was true and correct to the best of your knowledge! Silly me!
1) Fossils with mixed features exist.
One example and that is a child which makes it dubious because children change when they grow up. Anyways, this is paleontological evidence which is subject to much 'fidling' and many 'assumptions'. It is not solid evidence.
2) The only genetic studies so far done use mtDNA, not nuclear DNA. That in turn means:
a. You can have nuclear genes from ancestors who did not contribute to your mtDNA. (Everyone on your father's side unless you're from one of those places where your father's side and your mother's side tend to be the same side.) b. "Also, mtDNA differences between certain present-day individuals are actually greater than some of those between the Feldhofer Neanderthal and living people (Wolpoff, 1999: 759)."
The contribution of the father to mtDNA is really small and in the short space of time involved here it is irrelevant. Now I must repeat that three different studies, by three different groups on three different sets of DNA showed that Neanderthal DNA was too different for them to be ancestors of man.
Mungo Man's mtDNA was almost as different from modern humans as Neanderthal mtDNA,
"The Willandra Lakes, where Mungo Man was unearthed, are hot, with a fluctuating climate, making it unlikely, Brown thinks, that genetic material could be preserved there for any length of time. From Mongo Man
There is hot debate about everything regarding Mungo Man, so this guys assumptions are not evidence. DNA decays with time and environment the differences are very likely due to such decay. So you really have nothing as I said.
BTW - kindly excuse me for having forced you to do something you never do - read the links you post as evidence for your statements.
Two examples (can't read or can't count?), Skhul V and Lagar Velho. One adult, one child. Neanderthal children looked different from Cro-Magnon children.
The contribution of the father to mtDNA is really small and in the short space of time involved here it is irrelevant.
So it's very close to totally matrilineal. Thus, your mtDNA heritage is pretty different from your nuclear DNA heritage, isn't it? Can't read or can't understand?
I found it very distracting in college, once I realized, that fully half of the students on campus, had fully developed mammary glands.
a.) "Here, we use a developmental approach to analyse molecular mechanisms in feather-branching morphogenesis": We are watching, at the molecular level, how different parts of a feather form as it grows.
b.) "We have used the replication competent avian sarcoma retrovirus" : We took a virus from birds -- a virus that was altered, but could still replicate: "...to deliver exogenous genes" : We used that virus to deliver genes created outside of the bird -- exo=outside, genous=created): "to regeneerating flight feather follicles of chickens."
So, we used a bird virus, put our controlled gene in the virus, used the virus to deliver the new genes to the replicating feather, and watched, at the molecular level, what happened when the controlled genes were expressed. Does that help :)
Is FR no longer an open forum? Did you pose your question in a private e-mail? Did you say, "Patrick Henry, and Patrick Henry Only, can you explain this?"
I didn't think so.
I see nothing Neanderthal about the Skhul V picture in your link in post#198 and of course there is no picture of the child in the link on your post there. So sorry, you have not proven anything as I said. There are millions of experts out there and the proof is in the pudding - the bones in this case - and you have no such proof, just blather. The scientists who did the research on the Neanderthal though have the scientific proof on their hands, not blather.
So it's very close to totally matrilineal. Thus, your mtDNA heritage is pretty different from your nuclear DNA heritage, isn't it?
IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE (big if) then the answer would be no. All genes would change at the same rate. So either way you lose Vade. In addition, as I said since the contribution of males to mtDNA is so small )less than 1/10 of 1%), it could not affect the validity of the results. I must also remind you that it is evolutionists who constantly have used mtDNA as 'proof' of their assumptions, so it seems to me that evolutionists cannot attack it when one of the results does not jibe with their theory without discrediting a lot of the other things they have said based on it.
Is science about what things look like to gore3000?
IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE (big if) then the answer would be no. All genes would change at the same rate.
Your Nobel Prize awaits you when you get that published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Same can be said about your 'proof' is science what some nobody on the internet has to say who has not even looked at the evidence because he has been out of the loop for years? Don't think so when numerous scientists have confirmed with better evidence than bones that humans did not descend from Neanderthals - and regardless of what you say, that skull does not look in any way like a Neanderthal. Heck, even your buddy PH does not think so!
IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE (big if) then the answer would be no. All genes would change at the same rate. -me-
Your Nobel Prize awaits you when you get that published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Your sarcasm does not refute my statement, it just shows that my statement is correct.
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.