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.
Here's one out of hundreds of papers that includes EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Evidence for recent, population-specific evolution of the human mutation rate
Kelley Harris1
Author Affiliations
Edited by Mark Stoneking, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, and accepted by the Editorial Board February 6, 2015 (received for review September 26, 2014)
AbstractFull TextAuthors & InfoFiguresSIMetricsRelated ContentPDFPDF + SI
Significance
Most, but not all, human genetic variation is shared between populations, and whole-genome sequencing is now making it possible to catalogue population-private mutations that occur in only one ethnic group and are especially informative about recent human history. By contrasting frequencies of mutations private to Europe, Asia, and Africa, I have revealed a previously undetected difference between Europeans and other ethnic groups: Europeans experience higher rates of a specific mutation type that has known associations with UV light exposure. Although it is not clear whether the excess mutations are harmful or directly related to the UV sensitivity of light skin, this result demonstrates that the human mutation rate has evolved on a much faster timescale than previously believed.
Next Section
Abstract
As humans dispersed out of Africa they adapted to new environmental challenges, including changes in exposure to mutagenic solar radiation. Humans in temperate latitudes have acquired light skin that is relatively transparent to UV light, and some evidence suggests that their DNA damage response pathways have also experienced local adaptation. This raises the possibility that different populations have experienced different selective pressures affecting genome integrity. Here, I present evidence that the rate of a particular mutation type has recently increased in the European population, rising in frequency by 50% during the 40,000–80,000 y since Europeans began diverging from Asians. A comparison of SNPs private to Africa, Asia, and Europe in the 1000 Genomes data reveals that private European variation is enriched for the transition 5′-TCC-3′ → 5′-TTC-3′. Although it is not clear whether UV played a causal role in changing the European mutational spectrum, 5′-TCC-3′ → 5′-TTC-3′ is known to be the most common somatic mutation present in melanoma skin cancers, as well as the mutation most frequently induced in vitro by UV. Regardless of its causality, this change indicates that DNA replication fidelity has not remained stable even since the origin of modern humans and might have changed numerous times during our recent evolutionary history.
FULL TEXT INCLUDING METHODS AND MATERIALS: www.pnas.org...
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423
So you are STILL NOT going to offer any empirical evidence
I know you won't because you can't, science doesn't have any
You don't know science, scienc doesn't have any, go search empirical evidence for evolution, it doesn't exist
You lie, it's all you can do, lie
Phantom, there is no empirical evidence, there is none, that's a fact
If there was you would show it to me here and now
You, science have nothing, just faith and belief
Pull the trigger
Now please learn simple
I am not saying creation is science, there is no onus on me to prove it
I accept its a faith
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: AshFan
Then you didn't read it.
originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Raggedyman
Will you tell us your version then? with empirical evidence?. Thought not.
In fact what are your views? god made us how we are all formed and such?.
originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: AshFan
Raggy...he bleats against evolution but offers no alternative.
Wow! You got better!
originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: AshFan
Thanks! And thanks for the link - This stuff fascinates me as I used to be creationism only and 6000 year old earth type of person.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98
At least he provides opposing evidence and views.
Raggedyman doesn'tprovide anything.
The onus is not on me to provide anything, I am not saying I have evidence
The onus is on you
The onus is on science to provide empirical evidence
I still havnt seen any
All I hear is we have shown you, yet, I havnt seen any empirical evidence
So why not just show it to me, empirical evidence that is
Not assumption, real scientific evidence, not faith or belief, real science
I can go on and on and all you can do is ad hominem, let's keep playing
I just have to post asking for empirical evidence, that's all I will do
Talk is cheap, empirical evidence wins the flag, go get them my little students of science, get amongst it
Win the day, shut me up.
Get the empirical evidence
So am I to assume a face palm picture is empirical evidence, what I asked for
Or is it you trying to deflect answering my question for empirical evidence
Is that a white feather falling to the ground Phants
, a sign that you are running from true science, all you have to offer for empirical evidence
Your best shot is to hide behind the palm of your hand, to run and hide, the white feather
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98
At least he provides opposing evidence and views.
Raggedyman doesn'tprovide anything.
The onus is not on me to provide anything, I am not saying I have evidence
The onus is on you
The onus is on science to provide empirical evidence
I still havnt seen any
All I hear is we have shown you, yet, I havnt seen any empirical evidence
So why not just show it to me, empirical evidence that is
Not assumption, real scientific evidence, not faith or belief, real science
I can go on and on and all you can do is ad hominem, let's keep playing
I just have to post asking for empirical evidence, that's all I will do
Talk is cheap, empirical evidence wins the flag, go get them my little students of science, get amongst it
Win the day, shut me up.
Get the empirical evidence
So am I to assume a face palm picture is empirical evidence, what I asked for
Or is it you trying to deflect answering my question for empirical evidence
Is that a white feather falling to the ground Phants
, a sign that you are running from true science, all you have to offer for empirical evidence
Your best shot is to hide behind the palm of your hand, to run and hide, the white feather
originally posted by: JackKcaj
a reply to: Phantom423
Stop posting evidence and science and pesky facts and stuff like that. You're not going to convince or convert anybody. I'm perfectly in agreement with you, but these "Young Earth" people are very delusional. The only thing you facts will do to them, is they will admit they are only "facts". If the evidence is too overwhelming, they'll just assume the devil put it there to trick them and tempt them. It is really a sad state of affairs and I applaud your effort, but you're casting pearls before swine.