By Absolute truth
This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
You need to educate yourself on biology...
Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
By Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com
Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains
Neanderthals' keen vision may explain why they couldn't cope with environmental change and died out, despite having the same sized brains as modern humans, new research suggests.
The findings, published today (March 12) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that Neanderthals developed massive visual regions in their brains to compensate for Europe's low light levels. That, however, reduced the brain space available for social cognition.
"We have a social brain, whereas Neanderthals appear to have a visual brain," said Clive Gamble, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study.
As a result, the extinct hominids had smaller social and trading networks to rely on when conditions got tough. That may have caused Neanderthals to die off around 35,000 years ago.
Brain size riddle
Just how smart Neanderthals were has been a long-standing debate.
"Either they get regarded as lumbering brutes, or the other side says, 'No, they weren't that stupid. They had enormous brains, so they must have been as smart as we are,'" said study co-author Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Oxford.
To help solve the riddle, Dunbar and his colleagues looked at 13 Neanderthal skull fossils dating from 25,000 to 75,000 years ago and compared them with 32 anatomically modern human skeletons. The researchers noticed that some of the Neanderthal fossils had much larger eye sockets, and thus eyes, than do modern humans. [10 Odd Facts About the Brain]
The team concluded that Neanderthals used their oversized eyes to survive in the lower-light levels in Europe, where the northern latitude means fewer of the sun's rays hit the Earth. (Modern humans also tend to have slightly bigger eyes and visual systems at higher latitudes than those living in lower latitudes, where light levels are higher.) The researchers hypothesized that Neanderthals must, therefore, also have had large brain regions devoted to visual processing.
And in fact, Neanderthal skulls suggest that the extinct hominids had elongated regions in the back of their brains, called the "Neanderthal bun," where the visual cortex lies.
"It looks like a Victorian lady's head," Dunbar told LiveScience.
Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes.
By calculating how much brain space was needed for other tasks, the team concluded that Neanderthals had relatively less space for the frontal lobe, a brain region that controls social thinkingand cultural transmission.
Isolated and dying
The findings explain why Neanderthals didn't ornament themselves or make art, Gamble told LiveScience.
These results may also help explain the Neanderthals' extinction, Dunbar said.
Smaller social brain regions meant smaller social networks. In fact, artifacts from Neanderthal sites suggest they had just a 30-mile (48.3 kilometers) trading radius, while human trade networks at the time could span 200 miles (321.9 km), Dunbar said.
With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said.
By Absolute truth
"... the evidence supporting descent with modification ... is both overwhelming and compelling."
Many Darwinists wonder how we could possibly deny the 'fact of evolution'. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria 'evolving' to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying people possibly not see this? The only explanation, Darwinists say, is that we are willingly ignorant of the truth.
However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard scientist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that we deny them is a misrepresentation of our position.
A net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination of genes in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain.
Define evolution !
Evolutionists usually define their theory as 'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'. But these definitions are oversimplified.
The theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual.
In much the same way, we must add the 'instructions' which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed microbe-like common ancestor. These instructions must be
entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA 'letters' of our common ancestor must change to the three billion 'letters' of humans.
The Real Definition according to neo-darwinism:
'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.
'Change over time', 'descent with modification', and 'a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time' are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor.
So why does this matter?
Fallacy of equivocation:
Evolutionists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).
This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.
When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word 'evolution' and what facts he has to support this. No doubt 'evolution' will mean 'change over time' and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which everyone entirely agree with).
To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required).
This is illogical to say the least.
One of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome (gene version).
By Absolute truth
One of the most popular alleged evidences for evolution on the internet is Endogenous RetroViral sequences (ERVs). Evolutionists think that a type of virus called a 'retrovirus', once inserted genetic information into one of our ape ancestors' genome. So how is this evidence for evolution?
Scientists have noticed that chimps and humans have ERV genetic sequences at very similar points in our DNA. And so the story goes: our common ancestor acquired these ERVs and since humans and chimps are closely related, we should have them in similar spots in our genomes. We do. If we and chimps didn't evolve from a common ancestor (which first acquired the ERVs), how is it possible that we and chimps have ERVs in almost precisely the same locations? The only plausible explanation, evolutionists say, is evolution.
But this is far from the truth. If we can show that ERVs are not the product of retroviruses, this evidence for evolution would fall flat.
ERVS are simply more or less similar to retrovirus genome:
The first problem with this argument is that it’s hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn’t come with a tag attached saying: ” This is an ERV “. It could be that these genes something completely different. That is because if a virus is embedded in it’s complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations.
ERVS are Functional
If ERVs are found to have function, it would be highly likely that they didn't originate from retroviruses. It would be inconceivable that viral non-functional ERVs somehow became functional. Evidence has surfaced that they do have function.
"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)."(Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics 24(14):1563, 2008)
The previous quote is very telling. There are many thousands of ERV sequences in our genome and in that of chimps. Does this mean that all are beneficial?
"Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence ... and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome."("Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution Of Gene Regulatory Networks In Humans And Other Primates," ScienceDaily, University of California - Santa Cruz, Nov. 15, 2007.)
As we can see, it has been discovered that ERVs aid transcription in one fifth of the human genome!
"We report that human ERVs actively shape the p53 transcriptional network in a species-specific manner ... At least one ERV insertion likely reshaped the transcriptional landscape of its surrounding genomic area and was instrumental in creating a new gene that became part of the human-specific p53 regulatory network ... We discovered a unique distribution pattern of p53 sites within repetitive sequences of the human genome, and several ERV families emerged as being substantially enriched for p53 sites in their LTRs."("Retroviral promoters in the human genome,2008"