It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Evolutionary geneticists date events using the number of mutations that have accumulated since they occurred. For instance, they date the spilt time between humans and chimps by dividing the number of genetic differences between them by the rate at which new mutations arise. Recently those dates have been mired in uncertainty, with new estimates of the mutation rate suggesting that the human splits from chimps and gorillas are more than two times older than previously thought. Importantly, the new split time estimates appear to be at odds with the fossil record.
Researchers at Columbia University introduce a model that considers how life history traits (e.g., age of puberty and reproduction) in parents affect the number of mutations inherited by their children. They find that because life history traits evolve, so should the mutation rate. In other words, the molecular clock is expected to wobble. Based on this model, and using what we know about life history traits in apes, they revisit the question of when humans and other apes split. Accounting for changes to life history on the ape phylogeny suggests that mutation rates have declined toward the present, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown. The resulting split time estimates reconcile the genetic and paleontological data, and in particular, they suggest that the human-chimp split may have occurred as recently as 6.6 MYA.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
As great and revealing the fossil record can be..What? what fossil record
originally posted by: Raggedyman
You claim a truth that is clearly not true
originally posted by: Raggedyman
I would be an evolutionist if the fossil record was Great
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Most of that record consists of a few bones that scientists have created a whole species from
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Please show me something that suggests that the fossil record is great
originally posted by: Raggedyman
or even in existence
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Fossil record of half one animal and half another or even the evolution of one species into another in the fossil record
originally posted by: Raggedyman
You know a great fossil record with many transitional fossils, not a few that you believ are transitional and prove nothing but GREAT, with lots that prove EVERYTHING
originally posted by: Raggedyman
No evidence presented
originally posted by: Raggedyman
I thought that evolution was a proven science according to some
Just love the way that this science has to keep changing, searching, discovering and according to your op, assuming
Those pictures don't convince me.
Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human
They have evidence on the table? Yeah, just not the public table, just behind closed doors
I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science
someone needs to expose this lie for what it is, religion of faith
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
The word was "transitional"
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I obviously erred
I thought that evolution was a proven science according to some
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just love the way that this science has to keep changing, searching, discovering and according to your op, assuming
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Those pictures don't convince me.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human, Huxley knew that years ago
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I love the words and imaginary images in the quote
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
someone needs to expose this lie for what it is, religion of faith
Evolution is not creation or a means for a beginning as it would always need something to evolve from... Therefore creationism and evolution are two different things that should stop being compared and that's a fact...
However this also means creation would allow for evolution... So why do we have defectives who believe evolution is an argument against creation?
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Well you said evolution is a fact...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Ape to man is not a fact...
It is still assumed...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I just figured with that sentiment you were against creationism and wished to stir the pot...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Incidentally I'm thinking the subject matter discussed in your op will only prove to widen this gap in time...
Will be interesting to see...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Teddy916
This could just as easily be argued by a creationist in reverse by stating evolution is false because it does not fit the story of creation...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Especially seeing as evolution does not have its own pieces in order to prove a damn thing...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
At any rate Creation and evolution 2 different things and creation is greater for it has the power to allow for evolution see...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm not the one who first brought up creationism in this thread so I don't want to be accused of derailing it...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
What I'm really saying is people are stupid for attempting to use evolution as an argument against creation...