DescentBB

and a theory on the development of HLA in modern humans:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- ... 7237.story


this fits perfectly with what is known about natural selection and conferred advantages of genetic variants,
and is just an interesting piece in the overall puzzle. Having had the recent thread on evolution and all, I found this pertinent to post a link to.

Well one has to wonder if modern Cro-Magnon may have actually evolved from the inter-breeding of the African hominids coming north into Europe and the Neanderthals already living there.

You know, there is a dispute in the bible which I've noticed alot of Christians conveniently elude. It always goes back to an argument over incest but what about this theory. God being as creative as he is makes beings very similar in appearance to man but not exactly made in HIS image as Adam and Eve was. Then they breed with cro-magnum men who made canoes, and bows and arrows..ancient technology and there you have a generous gene pool making incest unnecessary and the end result being what we are today. That would also explain the abruptness in the fossil record and still means there is nothing scientifically absurd or wrong with the biblical account. Where did Cain get his wife?

flip wrote:Where did Cain get his wife?

On the Asian market?

Lol.

interesting. yesterday, I read an article that the doctors that work around xray machines are adapting at a cellular level to withstand radiation exposure.

Spidey wrote:

flip wrote:Where did Cain get his wife?

On the Asian market?

.....slick searches in vain for the rimshot smilie.

Ferno wrote:interesting. yesterday, I read an article that the doctors that work around xray machines are adapting at a cellular level to withstand radiation exposure.

I can't see all types of tissue adapting at that rate, as cell division slows down in mature adults.

callmeslick wrote:I can't see all types of tissue adapting at that rate, as cell division slows down in mature adults.

yeah?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... -radiation

Interesting. I wonder if they can ever figure out what changes are occurring at the genetic level to cause this?

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I can't see all types of tissue adapting at that rate, as cell division slows down in mature adults.

yeah?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... -radiation

I looked up the article and read it before your post, and yes, it seems to be causing changes in the blood cells, which DO maintain constant cell division and regeneration. My point was that certain tissues would be damaged with no chance of repair, and I still maintain that. What this does, however, is cause a higher level of bodily response to harmful mutations elsewhere in other tissues. Natural selection, and evolution, before one's very eyes. Thanks for the link.

ROFL, well I guess that settles it then.

Paabo of the Max Planck Institute said that he had some "minor quibbles" with the authors' conclusions but that he was happy to see another group using the ancient genomes his lab had produced to further our knowledge of the evolution of Homo sapiens and its closest relatives.

Doctors whose bodies are regularly exposed to x-rays may be adapting at the cellular level to protect themselves against radiation, according to a new study. The research hints that humans could adapt to withstand radiation exposure.

“Our findings clearly emphasize for the first time that exposure to a level of radiation which is considered ‘safe’ by regulatory standards for interventional cardiologists can induce a profound biochemical and cellular adaptation,” Russo said in a news release.

Doctors should not stop working with radiation, he noted — they just need to ensure their own protection.

This suggests only tolerance to me, NOT adaptation and this last quote is telling them that what is considered to be "safe" may not be at all. Then advises not to abandon radiation technology altogether but to take more precautions and develop better safety standards.

that's the way science works, Flip......one tiny step at a time. Facts will prevail, superstition recedes.

Sure it is. This isn't however.

Natural selection, and evolution, before one's very eyes. Thanks for the link.

flip wrote:Sure it is. This isn't however.

Natural selection, and evolution, before one's very eyes. Thanks for the link.

what do you mean, Flip? In what way?

That you jumped to a conclusion when the study uses words like "hints" and "could". These are possibilities they are considering that could happen. Nothing observable, yet. Nothing conclusive, yet. It's how people build their strawmen and support their superstitions.

EDIT: When I say people in this case I mean you Slick . The scientists involved in the study seem to be objective.

I don’t exactly see how “natural selection” is working in this case…

I grow some mean callus when I do heavy work to protect my skin. Seems like something humans already have the ability to do…unless clinicians are dying off at some rapid rate and being replaced by resistant ones.

flip wrote:That you jumped to a conclusion when the study uses words like "hints" and "could". These are possibilities they are considering that could happen. Nothing observable, yet. Nothing conclusive, yet. It's how people build their strawmen and support their superstitions.

that such observed data exists is proof that some natural selection and evolution has occurred. What the authors speak of with highly tempered words is the reasons behind the change. That said, it is a VERY limited set of data on a small group, so whether such effects can be seen on a wider basis is, thus far, unknowable.

Are you talking about “natural selection” at some cellular level, because this looks more like an ordinary reaction to cell damage to me.

Yeah, I'm with Spidey on this one, it doesn't really count as evolution till it gets passed on to their children. Rather than them evolving, it could simply be the exposure to radiation has activated some defense/damage control mechanism that has always been there but hasn't been observed before.

Spidey wrote:I don’t exactly see how “natural selection” is working in this case…

I grow some mean callus when I do heavy work to protect my skin. Seems like something humans already have the ability to do…unless clinicians are dying off at some rapid rate and being replaced by resistant ones.

natural selection is merely the genetic response to an outside selective pressure. In this case, radiation.
Now, the questions to pursue based on this limited study would be:
1.Is this due to a mutation, or merely a change in gene expression(controlled by types of RNA and certain
proteins)? This speaks to your analogy, Spidey, as a change in expression would be sort of like the callous
growth, albeit a far more complex response than forming keratinized epithelial cells.
2.Is the phenomenon widespread among a larger population of workers exposed to radiation? The group
studied was pretty tiny, so the study results are far from conclusive.

And, before you and Flip get too carried away, I was sort of tongue-in-cheek when being effusive about
natural selection and evolution. If one wishes to really see such processes occur in real-time, one need only
observe bacterial colonies.

Spidey wrote:Are you talking about “natural selection” at some cellular level, because this looks more like an ordinary reaction to cell damage to me.

not really. Cell damage occurs routinely in the human population. Wholesale changes in the blood cell makeup do not occur in response, however.

flip wrote:You know, there is a dispute in the bible which I've noticed alot of Christians conveniently elude. It always goes back to an argument over incest but what about this theory. God being as creative as he is makes beings very similar in appearance to man but not exactly made in HIS image as Adam and Eve was. Then they breed with cro-magnum men who made canoes, and bows and arrows..ancient technology and there you have a generous gene pool making incest unnecessary and the end result being what we are today. That would also explain the abruptness in the fossil record and still means there is nothing scientifically absurd or wrong with the biblical account. Where did Cain get his wife?

Wow, that's a stretch.

For you maybe. What do you have to offer except just what you've been told and trained to think? Ever think of all the possibilities?

I don't know about "trained to think", but the best answer I've heard is that Cain married a daughter of Adam and Eve. I said it's a stretch not because I think it's ridiculous, but because there's no evidence for anything like that (the "wow" meant I thought it was ridiculous ). The final Biblical commentary on your idea, I believe, is that the Bible says that Eve was the mother of all living, and in another place that we are all sons of Adam.

I never said it was more than a theory, derived about 4-5 minutes before I wrote it, but it does attempt to answer valid questions.

best answer I've heard is that Cain married a daughter of Adam and Eve

You mean best guess.

There is nothing new under the sun

hmmmm, quick 'devolution' from an interesting study on gene codes into religion. As expected.

Don't roll your eyes Slick, your erroneous proclamation of truth started it

wow. this thread sure turned into a horrible trainwreck...

flip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:best answer I've heard is that Cain married a daughter of Adam and Eve

You mean best guess.

It's not really a guess, it's more of a lack-of-an-alternative conclusion regarding something that we don't have any direct account of. There really isn't a whole lot of wiggle room, scripturally. The problem that folks obviously have with this is that later in scripture people are commanded not to marry close relatives. But it has been pointed out that this is later in scripture. Like I said it's the best answer I've heard. I wouldn't beat anyone over the head with it, but I'd be happy to show when anyone hasn't thought an alternative through.

As an afterthought, Adam and Eve were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply", and "fill the earth". You tell me how that involves adding non-relatives anywhere down the line. Sounds like a complete plan to me.

Well, look dude, I see it like this. I look around me and I can see creation. I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God just by looking at the universe around me. I'm also sure that Jesus Christ was the Son of God as he claimed to be because of the complete agreement I've found in the scriptures. I'm just trying to figure out how he did because as you said, it's a very condensed account. I see God has the heart of a farmer. Here a little, there a little. Hell, at least half the fun of having a garden is watching it grow.

Bible thumpers once again come in and ruin a perfectly good science discussion.

Nice slam Wood. Discussing a biblical stance on an issue does not make you a "Bible Thumper" any more than you not discussing it makes you a Deiphobe. (fear of a Deity)

Discussion of evolutionary mechanics touches on ideas about origins, so tangents happen. It shouldn't be any more surprising than a post about a legal issue evoking political tangents.

It happens. If you want to steer the dialogue back toward the original topic, or a particular tangent, then do it.

Here's an interesting observation, dolphins using a new method to get at hidden food. Smart little boogers getting at fish that try to hide in shells. Is this a new behavior that will eventually make it's way into the long term evolution of the species, or just a local area learning experience that can change when circumstances dictate? I guess it depends on whether this learned feeding method becomes a requirement for survival long term.

http://news.yahoo.com/fish-catching-tri ... 48681.html

this fits perfectly with what is known about natural selection and conferred advantages of genetic variants,
and is just an interesting piece in the overall puzzle. Having had the recent thread on evolution and all, I found this pertinent to post a link to.

This was in dispute as far as I was concerned, and the OP made a direct reference to the evolution thread. This was a slightly off-hand way to disregard that thread and kind of pick it up over here again I guess. Or that's the way i saw it. As Foil said, it's ultimately about origins an hell no, I would never let somebody jump ship, board another and then shoot a "see evolution is true" over the bow. but I am all for people trying.