RufusAtticus

And would you happen to have a Gaia-sized room to hold it in?

-RvFvS

Oolon Colluphid

So you don’t know. That’s okay, no law against it.

How about something looking like this:



To remind you, this is what a modern human skull looks like:



The first is Homo erectus (or ergaster). It has a cranial capacity at the very bottom of the range (or outside it, depending on where you check) of that which modern humans have. So tell me about “the size and shape of the cranium, the size and shape of the temple bone, and the amount of protrusion of the jaw” in this case.

Here’s another Homo, Homo habilis, OH 24.



And here’s another skull:



Oh, but that’s an Australopithecus africanus, STS 5.

But you can’t say why you think so (apart from adherence to belief).

So did you look at those links?

I was going to just say thanks, but on second thoughts that sounds a little odd. I’ve not actually heard of that as a branch of biology. Wildlife cameraman I can understand, but ‘wildlife biologist’...? Do you study ethology, population genetics, ecology, biodiversity, predator-prey interactions, parasites, what? “Wildlife” where? Which wildlife, what species? Could you link to some of your published papers?

What about land plants, parasites and pathogens, and saltwater organisms (or fresh water, if the flood was somehow saltwater)? And how did they get to where they are now?

Cheers, Oolon

Ed

"Hard Sayings of the Bible" editors, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser et. al.

Quote:

lp: Also, it suggests that the Bible was sloppily written.

Not if that was the style in ancient times.

Quote:

lp: Or maybe it didn't happen. Big subterranean caverns necessary would collapse under their own weight, since nearly all rocks are more dense than water. Ed: They did eventually collapse that is what released the water. But there is water under parts of the crust today and it doesnt collapse. lp: Pure idiocy. That does not explain why the caverns stayed in place before Noah's Flood. Also, that crustal water is in cracks in rock and between rock grains, and not big caverns.

I dont know how they stayed in place. I am not a geologist. Maybe it was a supernatural event.


[b] Agreed.

Ed

About 15-20 years ago superheated underwater fountains were found in the deep sea. So apparently there is water in those areas under the seabottom.

lpetrich

I'd be surprised if they have any direct evidence for that contention.

Pure whitewash. A perfect book would not contain such carelessness; all such skipping over ought to be carefully noted.

Miracles can explain anything.

Water flowing through cracks that go near magma.

Quetzal

Hi Ed:

Sorry to interrupt the topic. You mentioned that you're a wildlife biologist. Outstanding! You're the first one I've encountered on this board - it seems to be filled with microbiologists, evo biologists, botanists and others of that ilk. Maybe you could help with a long-standing feud between me and my partner (an evo biologist).

A few years back we were conducting a biodiversity survey/impact assessment on a mining concession. The area was, up to about 20 years ago, primary lowland rainforest that had since been heavily impacted by subsistance ag. Although the impacted area was as expected very low in biodiversity (unless you include [i]Mus spp.[i/] ), we noted a real anomaly: all the hilltops in the concession contained primary forest fragments that were extraordinarily high in diversity. Although my partner and I agreed that this was probably an extreme example of the sanctuary effect, we disagreed pretty strongly over the relative stability of the wild populations we catalogued in the zones.

My contention: The fragments (~3-4 ha average) contained sufficient keystone species to constitute full functional groups, and since the fragments were interlinked by riparian corridors allowing inter-zonal migration, populations would ultimately stabilize with little diversity loss. Although population density would decrease, the sanctuaries would achieve equilibrium and remain functional (assuming no further impacts).

My partner's contention: Whereas current diversity was high, the system was NOT self-sustaining. Gene flow from the primary forest (edge ~12 km) boundary was blocked due to distance and the fragments were too small to avoid dessication - regardless of climatic moderating effects from the nearby forest (which stretches over 900,000 ha). He claimed that the extant functional groups were capable of maintaining the ecosystem over the short term, but over the long term the system was too unstable, and that the loss of any one of the keystone species (because of the other factors) would cause the whole edifice to collapse.

What is your opinion? Who's right on this one?

John Solum

Hi Ed,

The water in those vents isn't coming from under the crust, it's seawater that's been circulating through cracks in the seafloor near mid-ocean ridges. The heat source is the volcanism at the mid-ocean ridges. As the molten material at the ridges cools, it cracks, forming pathways for the seawater. The seawater percolates through those cracks (to a maximum depth of ~1km), where it is heated due to the presence of the body of magma under ridges, and then it makes its way to the surface forming features like black smokers.

Ed

Hello Mageth. Some species can maintain their genetic diversity if constantly receiving new input from other populations and some human populations of Africa fit this scenario.

Ed

Hello yeti. It may be that the original mutagenic source was gene specific and since apes share a very similar genetic code with humans, then such a thing as you describe would be very likely to occur.

Quote:

yeti: Also, not all pseudogenes came from genes that were once functional. Many (probably most) are what are called processed pseudogenes. These arise when mature mRNA is reverse transcribed into a cDNA, and then the cDNA is inserted randomly into the genome (although I think A/T rich regions are more likely to recieve an insert, this due to the lower melting point I presume). Processed pseudogenes have a degenerate poly A tail, a truncated 5' end, and are flanked by tandem repeats. All of this is the result of having come from an mRNA, and thus processed pseudogenes can be definitively identified. Alu sequences are an example.

Originally the cDNA may not have been inserted randomly, there may be some type of malfunction in the transcription process.

[b] Again as I stated above whatever caused the malfunction of the transcription process may have been genome specific.

theyeti

Hi Ed. There just simly isn't any evidence for this. You are talking about a specific mechanism for creating a specific mutation at a specific base pair. No one has ever seen such a thing, and it would make no sense for such a thing to exist, regardless of whether you accept a creationist or an evolutionist outlook. Why would there be a mechanism to ruin a gene in a specific way? The mechanism that we do know that exists is random point mutation, and there is simply no reason to assume that anything else is at work here, and certainly no evidence to that effect.

There has been tons of research done on this. All of the evidence shows conclusively that they insert randomly, though sometimes with bias towards G/C poor sites. There are no known consensus sequences that are inserted into, and laboratory observation has borne out that insertion is indeed random. See for example this recent paper:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=117314 95&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Genome Res 2001 Dec;11(12):2050-8</a> Genomic characterization of recent human LINE-1 insertions: evidence supporting random insertion.

Futhermore, it's a matter of identical insertion sites. Nonrandom insertion still wouldn't cause humans and apes to have the same locations for the same processed pseudogenes.

It's not a matter of "malfunction" really. Reverse transcriptases are present in the cell due to endogenous retroviruses, and one will occasionally latch on to a mature mRNA, starting at the poly A tail and working its way back creating a complementary cDNA. It usually falls off before completing the cDNA, which is why most processed pseudogenes have truncated 5' ends. Of course, the cDNA must become inserted into the genome in some manner (there are integrase enzymes that can help do this), and then this must have occured in a germ cell line that gets passed on. So you're talking about a relatively rare string of events that is very unlikely to be repeated in identical fashion in independant genomes. In fact, we don't even see identical independant insertions in members of the same species. It does no good to expect them in humans and apes. They can only come through common descent.

theyeti

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>