Interesting Stuff Thread

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

AJG, rather than entertaining those muppets in a new thread I think it better we place this in here.

Apologies in advance, Evolution, for even associating you with this.

*ahem*

Galvasean wrote: »

This is not another thread to discuss evolution versus creationism, but rather a place to put interesting articles about evolution research and discoveries. To this end it is also not a 'Creationists are silly' thread.

Dades

These are not the droids you are looking for.

/waves hand

pH

Missed this earlier, I'm in 2 minds whether this goes in this thread or 'religious humour', anyway ....


Creationist exams comparable to international A-levels, says Naric

ICCE teaches that Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and apartheid benefited South Africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/31/creationist-exams-comparable-to-a-levels

Anyway the gist of it is that the claim that the existence of a plesiosaur in Loch Ness disproves evolution is being taught in 50 UK Christian schools, and has been given course approval and accreditation by Naric in the UK.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Missed this earlier, I'm in 2 minds whether this goes in this thread or 'religious humour', anyway ....


Creationist exams comparable to international A-levels, says Naric

ICCE teaches that Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and apartheid benefited South Africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/31/creationist-exams-comparable-to-a-levels

Anyway the gist of it is that the claim that the existence of a plesiosaur in Loch Ness disproves evolution is being taught in 50 UK Christian schools, and has been given course approval and accreditation by Naric in the UK.

That is the most ignorant crock of **** I have ever read. Firstly, if you believe there is a plesiosaur living alive and well in Loch Ness you need to examine the facts and/or have your head examined.
'Nessie' sightings didn't match the description of a plesiosaur until 1933, the year the film King Kong was released, a film depicting a long necked prehistoric monster. Before the film's release sightings varied from a big snake, a whale, a giant swimming horse and even a shaggy musk ox like creature. Before 1933 there were no plesiosaur esque sightings.
The most famous 'Nessie' photo depicting a plesiosaur like neck and head was revealed to be a hoax by it's taker. He even showed details of how he did it and anyone can recreate the hoax with relative ease, as has been done many times.

the exam wrote:

Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland?

Yes, how many points is that worth?

the exam wrote:

'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine,

Those findings are highly dubious. THe researchers admit that the sonar could have been representing aything from a large fish (or indeed group of small fish) to a hunk of drift wood.

the exam wrote:

described by eyewitnesses,

Who all describe different things. Bear in mind many 'eye witnesses' have livelyhoods that depend on the tourism brought in by 'Nessie', so they have a vested interest in being able to reprt having seeing "something in the Loch".

the exam wrote:

and photographed by others.

A few doctored photos and blurry pictures of 'something' (most likely a wave in most cases) does not constitute valid proof.

the exam wrote:

Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Only since the first screenings of King Kong...

the exam wrote:

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur?

Pelesiosaurs were not dinosaurs. They were a form of aquatic reptile which were not closely related to dinosaurs.
However, evidence has shown that fish were ancestral to dinosaurs and other land vertebrates, but I'll let you continue on that note...

the exam wrote:

As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles.

To quote Aldo Raine, "Yes, yes, yes, yes!"

the exam wrote:

This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis.

Actually, all of the pier reviewed scientific evidence on this matter suggests that this theory is correct.

the exam wrote:

No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered

They already have, now stop talking out of your a$$.

the exam wrote:

because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals.

Maybe he did. If he did, he most certainly used evolution to do so.

the exam wrote:

Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all

Again, if he did all evidence points to evolution as his master tool.


INteresting exam, do you think I passed?

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

INteresting exam, do you think I passed?

Somehow I think not, you didn't mention God or Jesus hardly enough.

Glad you enjoyed it though

Dades

The Guardian wrote:

"Jonny Scaramanga, who was a pupil at a school in Bath that used the textbooks..."

Who better to blow the lid on this scandal, than Jonny Scaramanga, who with his supernumerary nipple demonstrates how nature has made us all so different.

Zillah

I'm confused by this Naric thing. These schools around the UK...are they teaching this shite instead of the normal curriculum?

Also, this line at the end throws me off completely: "Tim Buttress, Naric's spokesman, told the TES its remit did not cover the curriculum's content."

Flamed Diving

Hi, I remember seeing a study where the similarity in genetics between populations was conducted and found that there was more diversity between groups in East and West Africa, than between East Africa and parts of Europe.

Anyone know where I could find either the paper or articles?

Zillah

I remember that article! That was quite interesting. The logic being that European/Asian races were essentially an offshoot of the original African group.

No idea where it was though.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

I remember that article! That was quite interesting. The logic being that European/Asian races were essentially an offshoot of the original African group.

No idea where it was though.

Good to know it exists anyway! Anyone know its location? It's in the cause of making a fool of a racist!

Zillah

This isn't the one I originally read but I presume it's the same thing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326376/African-DNA-has-more-genetic-diversity.html (EDIT: Wait that's something different. Bottom link is probably the one you're looking for)

Actual paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1172257

Flamed Diving

Thanks! If anyone can find the other paper as well, that would be great.

marco_polo

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thanks! If anyone can find the other paper as well, that would be great.

The book Out of Eden covers a very similar topic if you are intrested, using Genetics as a its major source of evidence.

Wasn't this paper was it:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v325/n6099/abs/325031a0.html

EDIT: Ton of references at the bottom of this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

Flamed Diving

marco_polo wrote: »

The book Out of Eden covers a very similar topic if you are intrested, using Genetics as a its major source of evidence.

Wasn't this paper was it:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v325/n6099/abs/325031a0.html

EDIT: Ton of references at the bottom of this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

Cool, those two papers combined should do, thanks.

Zillah

Our of curiosity, what is this fool of a racist claiming?

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Our of curiosity, what is this fool of a racist claiming?

Oh, you wouldn't believe the ignorance. So much so that I have now assumed they are trolling and stopped responding.

It was the usual, 'whites are more evolved than blacks' rubbish.

darjeeling

BBC Radio 3 - normally the hallowed preserve of serious classical music - this week reheated a couple of good programmes on Darwin, both available for the next few days:
Prog 1 - French evolutionary science prior to Darwin: Lamarck (and what he got right) & Cuvier
Prog 2 - how Darwin's religious views changed with his science.

And for anyone who shared Dawkins' frustration when watching his interview with that stary-eyed rictus-grinning creation lady (thread), his extended conversations with Jonathan Kingdon (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) and Richard Leakey (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) are a welcome tonic.
You have to excuse a bit of repetition - these aren't really edited - but the pay-off is watching Dawkins and Kingdon pretending to be bum-shuffling ape-men.

.

darjeeling

This is good too - Dawkins talks to doctor Randolph Nesse about applying insights from evolution to medicine:
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5

In fact, there's a whole Official Youtube Dawkins channel here with hours more videos. Be warned - it may devour your free time!

pts

I'm not sure if this has been posted in another part of A&A, I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood mods will sort it out if it has.

"Creationists, now they’re coming for your children" by Richard Dawkins. It's from his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. I think it is a very well written piece on the unwarranted trouble creationists are causing at the moment.

Dades

^^It's all good!

I'm really looking forward to this book, tbh.
High time I brushed up on the latest in understanding of our monkey relatives.

Tyler MacDurden

Latest in the rather excellent series on Evolution from The Richard Dawkins Foundation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIPq-Zjuxu4

robindch

The analogy's a bit strained at times, but it's an interesting take all the same:

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

The analogy's a bit strained at times, but it's an interesting take all the same:

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

If my eye's weren't bleeding already, I'd be reading that...bookmarked.

Awesome find Rob..:D

Kante

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I personally read some very scary articles about choice and free will this year that I'd rather not have to believe.

Hey Man,

Could you post linky to mentioned articles?

Turtwig

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this whopper lecture kicks ID in the crotch and doesn't let it stand back up:D

Note especially from 33 minutes 39, that's what led to me this lecture:)

darjeeling

Boards biology has split from medicine (now 'Health Sciences') and gained its own forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1273

¡Viva La Evolución!

Zillah

Malty_T wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this whopper lecture kicks ID in the crotch and doesn't let it stand back up:D

Note especially from 33 minutes 39, that's what led to me this lecture:)

It has been posted before but no harm linking it again, Ken Miller is brilliant.

iercepa

bill o reilly and dawkins go at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M

thats facism, baby!

pts

Might be of interest to some people here:
"Evolution details revealed through 21-year E. coli experiment".
Prof. Dawkins mentions this research a lot in his books and lectures.

pts

This might be of interest to some: Uracil Made in the Lab

NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the basic structure for uracil, part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is central to protein synthesis, but has many other roles.

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."


An ice sample is deposited in a chamber, where it is irradiated with high energy UV photons from the hydrogen lamp at approximately - 442 F. The bombarding photons break the chemical bonds in the ice samples, which then form new compounds, such as uracil.
Credit: NASA
NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer solar system for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been identified in meteorites, and are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are six-carbon ringed structures that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

Pyrimidine also is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

“Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat whimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don’t have nitrogen,” said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. “We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil.”

In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from radiation destruction. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).


Many of the ingredients for life formed in outer space. The Earth formed from star dust, and later meteorites and comets delivered even more materials to our planet. But scientists are still unsure which molecules played the most important roles in life’s origin.
Image Credit: European Space Agency
These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (approximately - 340 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in water ice, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA component uracil, which is found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

“We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development,” said Stefanie Milam, a researcher at NASA Ames and a co-author of the research paper.

“Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed,” explained Sandford.