Creationists

[Hollie]

Intelligent design...offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, "there's nothing to see here." One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.

Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - Evolution News & Views

It's not surprising that proponents of religion would attempt to denigrate science in favor of supernaturalism but to suggest that creationism offers a promise of anything but promoting dogma is foolish.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, i'm shooting holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.

That makes no sense. “Early man”, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: perfection, thus your claim that “it took time for mutations to do their job” is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you’re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that “it took time for mutations to do their job”. The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to “design”.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That’s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale requires that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical science. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.

You are the clueless one.

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]

Wilma!!!!!

The above is typical of the dishonesty inherent in the religious / fundie crowd. You were careful not to include a source for your cut and paste because you parsed the data.

Here's the part you chose to edit out:

"However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]"

Deceit and dishonsety is so typically a part of the fundie crowd, That's not surprising as supernaturalism is completely divorced from science.

More importantly, none of the above has any effect of dismantling evolutionary science. That's why its so strange that a fundie would be cutting and pasting articles connected with evolution when that fundie is the classic 6,000 year old earth groupie.

 

[Hollie]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.

Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans

That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.

 

[newpolitics]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

Okay. Who cares. This does nothing to contradict what I wrote. I outlined a simple scenario to illustrate how speciation would occur because of a geological barrier. I never mentioned humans, so lets be clear. I simply trying to isolate the idea of speciation and evolution to answer your question, but I won't be shy in saying the same applies to humans anyway. However, as your quote elucidates, things are not always so cut and dry. Why should it be? For example, (and this is what the article was eluding to) I've already mentioned that modern humans mated with with Denosovans and neanderthals, evidenced by our DNA containing 1-4% of their DNA. This causes problems in tracing our lineage and our roots as far a phylogenetic classification and creating visual models of our lineage, but does not effect the underlying theory or mechanism of natural selection, speciation, geographic isolation, etc... not one iota.

 

[newpolitics]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth. Actually, its a sign of arrogance, and it seems to be seen more in the creationist camp than anywhere else in human existence. YOu search these abstracts for little phrases that signal some kind of doubt within the scientific community, and then you run with it. You don't understand what "doubt" means in a scientific context. You take it to be far more significant that it is in reality, that it is doubt about the entire theory of evolution, when it is not. I have already talked about what this abstract is mentioning, several times: All it is saying, is that humans have exchanged genetic information with some other sub-species since our initial speciation event, hence, our DNA is not "purely human." We mated, as I JUST MENTIONED in the post I just made, with the Denosovans (central asia) and Neanderthals (Europe) before wiping them out in what was probably humans' first genocidal act. This is evidenced in our DNA. THAT's ALL. When this kind of information first hits the scientific community, and they don't know what to make of it, they get shaky, because they don't know where in the theory this information will fit, and how it will affect the entire model, so they ask big questions. As time goes on, they are able to integrate the new information effectively into the model, and so doubts and fears subside and such broad questions of fear are no longer justified. You pick articles from when these ideas first hit the scene, and interpret it as fundamental doubt about evolution, and it is not. It is merely the apprehension associated with not knowing what is going to have to be moved around in the theory to accommodate this new information. Sometimes, information requires the a theory be totally re-worked or even discarded. This is rarely the case with a theory as longstanding and robust as evolution. Creationisms/ ID is attempting to do this very thing, but will never be successful because their methods are unscientific.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.

Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?

Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg

None of those are apes!!! They are all hominin species (human or ancestral to humans). That timeline on that chart doesn't go back far enough, or "zoom out" enough, to get to the other "branch," which would contain the line that led to the apes we see today. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.

Nope,they came from apes so if we came from them we evolved from apes. Now if each lineage was better adapted as your theory calls for,why are transitional organisms extinct.

Look ,I can't help it you can't reason out what your theory is saying. Calling someone ignorant that knows your better then yourself, is indeed ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

Nope, i'm shooting holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.

That makes no sense. “Early man”, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: perfection, thus your claim that “it took time for mutations to do their job” is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you’re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that “it took time for mutations to do their job”. The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to “design”.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That’s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale requires that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical science. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.

How do you know early man was not created perfect,and he started to degrade over time ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why would apes evolve into humans?

I don't know. How does a microbe become a microbiologist?

That is funny.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.

Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.

You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.

The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that ID’ers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals to metaphysics as the core of their argument. They’re left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural “designer” god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.

Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.

The fact that Hollie and I both responded to our claims of proving creationism in a similar manner, and our assessment of the fundies is also somewhat similar, means that (1) we both actually understand evolution, (2) you do not, (3) we both can see WHY you refuse to understand the subject matter. Therefore, it follows that our responses will be somewhat similar.

In other words you are brainwashed and not open to rational thought.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples

Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.

Science doesn't perform experimentation?

That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.

Look scientist observe a natural process that had to be put into motion. But they have no reason to believe in macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.

You are giving baseless answers to my questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

Okay. Who cares. This does nothing to contradict what I wrote. I outlined a simple scenario to illustrate how speciation would occur because of a geological barrier. I never mentioned humans, so lets be clear. I simply trying to isolate the idea of speciation and evolution to answer your question, but I won't be shy in saying the same applies to humans anyway. However, as your quote elucidates, things are not always so cut and dry. Why should it be? For example, (and this is what the article was eluding to) I've already mentioned that modern humans mated with with Denosovans and neanderthals, evidenced by our DNA containing 1-4% of their DNA. This causes problems in tracing our lineage and our roots as far a phylogenetic classification and creating visual models of our lineage, but does not effect the underlying theory or mechanism of natural selection, speciation, geographic isolation, etc... not one iota.

Did you not read where Dr. Maxwell admitted there is no observed evidence to support macroevolution. He also admitted that they had to extrapolate from microdaptations as evidence for macroevolution.

 

[UltimateReality]

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples

Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.

Science doesn't perform experimentation?

That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.

Nice try. The TOE isn't based on science. You continue to confuse real science, like chemistry and fluid dynamics, with the speculative, non-experimentally-backed TOE.

 

[UltimateReality]

That makes no sense. “Early man”, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: perfection, thus your claim that “it took time for mutations to do their job” is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you’re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that “it took time for mutations to do their job”. The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to “design”.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That’s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale requires that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical science. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.

You are the clueless one.

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]

Wilma!!!!!

The above is typical of the dishonesty inherent in the religious / fundie crowd. You were careful not to include a source for your cut and paste because you parsed the data.

Here's the part you chose to edit out:

"However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]"

Deceit and dishonsety is so typically a part of the fundie crowd, That's not surprising as supernaturalism is completely divorced from science.

More importantly, none of the above has any effect of dismantling evolutionary science. That's why its so strange that a fundie would be cutting and pasting articles connected with evolution when that fundie is the classic 6,000 year old earth groupie.

HA!! This coming from someone that doesn't use quotes and plagiarizes someone else, passing their comments off as your own, Hollie. No, I have not forgotten and you have not gotten away with your lies. And once again your stupidity rules. Now read all three statements in context, in the order they were written. "On the other hand" conveys definite meaning in the context of the three statements, so EPIC FAIL for you again.

 

[UltimateReality]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.

But it does specifically address NP's comments about isolated species. If you actually understood the meaning of admixture events, this would have been obvious to you.

 

[UltimateReality]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.

Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans

That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.

This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.

About PLoS Genetics

PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).

PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).

Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.

 

[UltimateReality]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth.

Yes you do. If you continue to dishonestly pass the TOE off as fact. not theory, you are going to have to come up with something better.

 

[Hollie]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth.

Yes you do. If you continue to dishonestly pass the TOE off as fact. not theory, you are going to have to come up with something better.

Your lack of knowledge regarding science is the issue. The fact that evolution occurs is not at issue with the scientific community. It is an issue with the religious community but of course, religion is not science and the fundies are ruthlessly dishonest in their attempts to vilify science.

 

[Hollie]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans

You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.

Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans

That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.

This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.

About PLoS Genetics

PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).

PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).

Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.

As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.

In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.