Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever

quote:

---

they are ALWAYS a CHIMP off the old block.

---

Oh really?...would that be Pan troglodytes or Pan paniscus....you do know that there are (at least) two species of chimpanzee (3 if you count humans).
..and a chimp is always just a chimp? I am sure you are not arguing from ignorance and are well versed in chimp diverstiy?...for exampleMol Ecol. 2000 Mar;9(3):315-28. Related Articles, LinksPatterns of microsatellite polymorphism in the range-restricted bonobo (Pan paniscus): considerations for interspecific comparison with chimpanzees (P. troglodytes).Reinartz GE, Karron JD, Phillips RB, Weber JL.Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA. gayr@uwm.eduThe endangered great ape, Pan paniscus (bonobo) has the smallest range of the African apes. Virtually nothing is known about the genetic diversity or genetic structure of this species, while substantial amounts of polymorphism have been reported for the bonobo's widespread congener, the chimpanzee (P. troglodytes). Given its restricted range, what is the extent of genetic variation in the bonobo relative to the chimpanzee, and is the bonobo genetically depauperate? To investigate patterns of genetic polymorphism, bonobos of wild origin were genotyped for 28 microsatellite loci. The mean number of alleles per locus (5.2) and the mean observed heterozygosity (0.52) in bonobos were similar to variation observed in a wild chimpanzee community (P. t. schweinfurthii). The rarer bonobo is not genetically depauperate and may have genetic diversity comparable to the eastern chimpanzee subspecies. Bonobos have approximately 55% of the allelic diversity and 66% of the observed heterozygosity exhibited by all three chimpanzee subspecies sampled across equatorial Africa. Resampling techniques were used to quantify the effects of sample size differences and number and choice of loci between bonobos and chimpanzees. The examination of these variables underscores their importance in accurately interpreting interspecific comparisons of diversity estimates.or thisNat Genet. 2001 Feb;27(2):155-6. Related Articles, LinksGreat ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans.Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Weiss G, Paabo S.Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.The extent of DNA sequence variation of chimpanzees is several-fold greater than that of humans. It is unclear, however, if humans or chimpanzees are exceptional among primates in having low and high amounts of DNA sequence diversity, respectively. To address this, we have determined approximately 10,000 bp of noncoding DNA sequences at Xq13.3 (which has been extensively studied in both humans and chimpanzees) from 10 western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and 1 mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei; that is, from 2 of the 3 currently recognized gorilla subspecies), as well as 8 Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) and 6 Sumatran (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) orang-utans, representing both currently recognized orang-utan subspecies. We show that humans differ from the great apes in having a low level of genetic variation and a signal of population expansion.You would not be arguing from ignorance and incredulity like A TYPICAL CHRISTIAN creationist now would you?

Mammuthus:While I can appreciate and respect those who have achieved educational
excellence within their field of expertice, that doesn't mean that
they have cornered the market on theoretical ideas nor that they're
any more superior simply because of their training/indoctrination.I wouldn't pretend to understand all the diversity on GOD's green
earth or presume to fully comprehend why. However, that doesn't
make a gorilla human simply because someone was clever enough to
apply subtitles or for that matter enjoy Magilla Gorilla cartoons...

Actually, that's exactly what it means.I mean, I wouldn't presume to tell you how to interpret the bible without having read it myself, would I? That would be foolish and arrogant. So why do you feel it appropriate to overturn primatology based on nothing more than your uninformed opinion?The point is, we can and do judge the validity of your opinion based on your expertise. That's why you see a doctor to take out your gallbladder and not a bus driver.

quote:

---

However, that doesn't
make a gorilla human...

---

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the idiotic strawman and learn what the ToE actually says.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

While I can appreciate and respect those who have achieved educational
excellence within their field of expertice, that doesn't mean that
they have cornered the market on theoretical ideas nor that they're
any more superior simply because of their training/indoctrination.

​

I wouldn't pretend to understand all the diversity on GOD's green
earth or presume to fully comprehend why. However, that doesn't
make a gorilla human simply because someone was clever enough to
apply subtitles or for that matter enjoy Magilla Gorilla cartoons...

---

Superior? Not necessarily, but properly informed. Should I go for surgery to a guy who watches soap operas because he said he watched a brain transplant on Days of Our Lives? Not only should you not pretent to understand all of the diversity, you should not pretend to even know a fraction of what science has discovered as you have continuously demonstrated that you have 1) no idea what evolution is 2) have no interest but rather claim that because of your religious agenda that all of us who have spent our lives working in science are wrong.That you would paraphrase the studies I posted as equating that humans are gorillas shows that you have both a scientific and comprehension deficit. Now tell me why should anyone take your views seriously when you claim that not knowing anything about the field you are debating entitles you to make claims of certitude as to the validity of scientific theories? Since you were basically accusing me of arrogance can't you see your own hypocricy?

crashfrog:I attended public school and college. I assure you that I know what
was being taught by the teachers at that time. Maybe I know more
about evolution then you know about the Bible? Personally, I feel
that evolution has no place in lower education. It is a total waste
of effort, since you yourself and your cohorts have explained how
deficient I am (even though I achieved A's in science).The simple fact is that unless one is going to study ALL the
information (and I mean ALL) and not just what one is fed in an institution of learning by some instructor (who may see things from
one perspective and likely present only personal bias as truth), the
information those individuals have absorbed is of questionable
validity. You understand even less about Creationism then I
understand about Evolution. That is to my credit and not yours, since
evolution was the ONLY option presented in most schools and
Creationism I had to search out.Since I was raised in a Christian environment, I had a interest. Most
have little or no interest. That is to their disadvantage...

A Christian, I have asked for support to your assertion that information has been omitted here.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

Mark24:Are any assertions of Creationism explained in full at most public
schools? The answer is NO!
By assertions I mean environmental, climatic and magnetic changes
that may support acceptance of the global FLOOD.
A study of how fossils must be formed rapidly and only occur under
very limited catastrophic events. The fact that life seems to
have exploded into diversity without fossil support their evolution.
That the "simple" cell has been found to be very complex and without
a real explanation of why or how it could have developed at all.
And that scientist have been unable to either with purpose mutate one
species into anything other than a breed or even create life.

A Christian, Assertions? I thought it was information that was your problem? Why would any untestable unfalsifiable assertion be taught in school? Especially a science class? I assert that the Galactic Goat sneezed the universe out of His bottom. I demand it be taught in school. If you can do it, so can I. Such as? It seems this information isn't available even to you, so how can it have been ignored? There is already an area of science called Taphonomy that deals with fossilisation, & there's no information there that contradicts the ToE.BTW, rapid burial occurs today, you aren't trying to infer a global flood because some fossils show evidence of rapid burial, are you? Many do not, some show evidence of dessication before burial, or slow burial in anoxic, sterile environments, hardly events that would jive with a global flood So what? A lack of information isn't information. This is a classic argument from ignorance. Because Precambrian unambiguous metazoan fossil precursors haven't been found, they therefore don't exist. With the emphasis on "unambiguous", there are potential candidates, & plenty of Precambrian fossils to boot.I have whole books dedicated to the Cambrian explosion, it doesn't seem to me like it's been ignored, in fact it appears to be an area of healthy study.The Cambrian explosion isn't/does-not-contain information that falsifies the ToE. Again, this isn't information that has been ignored, it just isn't information at all. This question provides no positive evidence that falsifies evolution. Speciation has been observed numerous times. Regardless, this statement contains no information that falsifies the ToE. It's that argument from ignorance, again.So where is this information that has been ignored? Essentially we are talking about evidence that would point to a different conclusion, or directly falsify the ToE. Where is it, I ask?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

So I see, it is OK to make up a theory about the Precambrian period,
as long as it fits YOUR model and preach it. And yet Creationists,
are not able to explain unverifiable information YOU don't agree
with.... Just As I said, one sided and bias. You only wish to
investigate and learn that which you promote and accept as RESONABLE
in YOUR eyes.

Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Sounds like a great idea. When are you going to start? I'm sure there's some copies of Nature laying around somewhere... I doubt it. I've made a study of creationism for somce time now. And you forget - or didn't know, perhaps - that I was once a creationist, just like yourself. The funny thing is that while the knowledge of science doubles (or whatever) every few years, creationist arguments haven't changed since I was a teenager, ten years ago.And I've always been interested in science. (I got A's too.) So I understand exactly what creationists are trying to do to science.Look, get into science. For one thing you'll look like less of an idiot. For another, the wonders of the natural world as exposed by science are far more wonderous than anything in that book of yours. It's a rich, rich world that you're closing your eyes to. Open them and see what you've missed!

A Christian, Whoa, hang on a minute? I thought you agreed that a theory has to be consistent with ALL observations? Your claim basically inferred that evolution was ignoring evidence. The ToE is ENTIRELY consistent with the Cambrian explosion. If you have a better hypothesis that is testable, falsiably, AND consistent with all other knowledge, bring it on. Otherwise the ToE is the best explanation for the extant diversity of life today, & at any other time you choose.What "theory of the Precambrian period" are you talking about?For a theory to be "resonable" in my eyes it has to have supporting evidence & be consistent with all other knowledge, as such it automatically selects itself as the best explanation. The ToE does this. Tell me, is something reasonable to you when it is contradicted by other data, & is unverifiable when compared to my idea of a reasonable theory? A strange turn of events if it is, since you were the one who thought MY theory was holding out against evidence (yet you still haven't shown what)! LOL! Yeah, unverifiable. Shouldn't science be VERIFIABLE?Whether I agree with it has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be taught in science classrooms. To be considered science, there must be an observation, predictions (ie supporting evidence), & potential falsifications (must be able to be shown as knowably false. Creationism possesses none of these qualities & is therefore not science, & therefore, pretty obviously shouldn't be allowed within a thousand miles of a school, let alone a science classroom. In fact, creationism is on the evidential same par as unicorns, tooth fairies, the Galactic Goat, leprechauns, Norse creation myth, Hindu creation myth, Roman pantheons creation myth, Ancient Greek creation myth, or any other creation myth you care to note. Or do you think they should get a hearing in a science classroom too?Anyhoo, you are moving the goalposts. YOu are supposed to be providing evidence/information that the ToE has ignored. Where is it?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

I've provided you with as much "FACT" as you provided me----
NO more and NO less... Think about it before you gloat.

Mark's been here for 2 years. You've been here a week. I'd be very careful about what you say he has and hasn't done. Is he supposed to take hours to show every creationist the same information over and over again?the information you want is at this site, and others. You just need to look. He's asked you a direct question, which you have ignored. You say that evidence is being ignored. Well, let's see it! I promise we won't ignore it, as long as it's valid. Of course you should be prepared to defend it's validity.

A Christian, But I don't have to provide you with facts, you have to provide me with them. You are supposed to me piling all the evidence you possess onto the funeral pyre of evolutionary theory. So far, not one scrap.
ie. Support your original assertion that evolution is based on supposition. I'm not supposed to furnish you with anything. Nothing. You support your own argument, it's not my job to refute you.You have have failed, you have provided nothing to refute.You obviously are convinced the ToE is false, yet I am left wondering why?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]