A new Homo erectus specimen

It's still just a mammal. It doesn't prove mammal-to-human evolution.

I can't resist pointing out to R.A. Cartwright that humans such as you and I are in fact mammals already. Oh, and the concept of 'proof' doesn't mean anything in science. You got yer observational evidence and you got yer hypotheses and theories to integrate the evidence into a more comprehensible synthesis, but there is no such thing as proving a scientific theory.

"It's still just a MAMMAL[sic]"

(What the....!?! Did he have some sort of vocabulary seizure, or is he willing to state a creationist "view" when literally 100% ignorant? Is he a "evolutionist" trying to make the Xians look bad? Beyond explanation, this sort of thing.)

VKW & darwinfinch:

Where's your sense of humor? Unless he just had a massive stroke, Reed is a very sapiens homo.

Reed, I think we need to add the http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/hutml.htmHumour Markup Language to Kwickcode, so that netx time you make a joke, people will get it.

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 2, 2004 01:40 PM It's still just a mammal. It doesn't prove mammal-to-human evolution.

monkey... daaaaah......

Skeletons of the Gibbon. Orang. Chimpanzee. Gorilla. Man. Photographically reduced from Diagrams of the natural size (except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn by Mr. Waterhouse Hawkins from specimens in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons

WHOA Stop the presses...

— Creationist Timmy

Like most of the creationists, CT doesn't come around much anymore. However, when he does show up, his comments are no less insightful than other creationists. There's little reason for him to be around right now, because what he likes doing, is agreeing with and expanding on other creationists' thoughts. I think we all have to learn to tolerate them. They are beautiful, in a way, these Creationists in the Mist.

Me, I prefer better activities, like linking PLOS articles, summarizing creationist positions, etc. Right now I'm reading On the Origin of Species. Dude, it's a must-read. What's great about it is, you see this guy fighting through the data jungle, deciding what's reliable, fitting data to his theory, and determining how seriously other data conflicts, and possible reasons for it. At this point, evolution's irrefutable, but 140 years ago, he really had to fight through a mess of somewhat conflicting knowledge, and it's a treat to see the brilliance.

Like most of the creationists, CT doesn't come around much anymore. However, when he does show up, his comments are no less insightful than other creationists. There's little reason for him to be around right now, because what he likes doing, is agreeing with and expanding on other creationists' thoughts. I think we all have to learn to tolerate them. They are beautiful, in a way, these Creationists in the Mist.

Anyway, ignoring creationists is easy. I do it all the time. ;-)

Me, I prefer better activities, like linking PLOS articles, summarizing creationist positions, etc. Right now I'm reading On the Origin of Species. Dude, it's a must-read. What's great about it is, you see this guy fighting through the data jungle, deciding what's reliable, fitting data to his theory, and determining how seriously other data conflicts, and possible reasons for it. At this point, evolution's irrefutable, but 140 years ago, he really had to fight through a mess of somewhat conflicting knowledge, and it's a treat to see the brilliance.

Speaking of actual science, for whatever reason I can't get

Ferro-Novick S, Jahn R.
Vesicle fusion from yeast to man.
Nature. 1994 Jul 21;370(6486):191-3.

via NCSU online. They only seem to have full-text Nature from 1997-on. If anyone has it, could you please send it to me? I'm interested in it for work, but it has a broader aspect, which is that this class of proteins, which is involved in some very basic cellular events, is very similar between yeast cells and humans, though the two split hundreds of millions of years ago. The really cool thing is, there's huge differences in the sequences, but the sites which create the functional faces are much more similar than the rest of the structure--mutations which are functionally important have been weeded out, but so much of the protein isn't so important, and the differences there are huge. If you were to look at the genetic and amino acid sequences, you wouldn't even guess they were similar, but toss it into RasMol and they're wickid close, structurally. Align the sequences, and amidst all the differences, you can see reqular similarities, which are the parts which create the faces. The paper I mentioned examines the similarities and differences between the SNARE proteins across nature. How cool is it, to see details of how evolution worked over hundreds of millions of years.

Let's try this again. Sheesh. Well anyway, just click on the URL.

— Garry Hurd

Opps. My bad!