Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

as i was browsing through the internet i found many forums and sites that say t/c and g/c have the same dna. is this true or is this a turkish propaganda plan?

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

According to Ottoman historian Professor Ronald Jennings, up to one third of Muslims in Cyprus listed in court records in the early sixteenth century were converts to the religion from Christianity. Jennings as well as other historians notes that a majority of Muslim later to become Turkish Cypriot villages were formerly either the estates of Latins or Maronites, suggesting that conversion to Islam was from Catholicism and not Greek Orthodoxy in the initial period of Ottoman rule. This persecution caused a considerable number of Christians, including a good number of Maronites, to adopt Islam as a survival mechanism (Cirilli 1898: 11, 21; Palmieri 1905: col. 2468)

[Oracle]

Oracle, the information you have supplied, is built upon the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, which relates all of us to a mitochondiral 'Eve' - which in fact is surprisingly quite parallel to some other 'dogma'(s) poured over humanity for a considerable length in time.

I think people has the right to know the truth behind this model - even if you feel more comfortable thinking that way, please read below :

Creation Model

Comfortable thinking is not for me ...

But the counter arguments to this model come from the extreme right wing, white sections who do not like the idea of us originating in Africa.

Tough ...

There is much evidence from many different sources (or I would not trust in it), even bacterial, not just fossil and genetic, which all point to our origins from Africa and to our great similarities.

[coremax]

You probably didn't read the link I posted, didn't you? The counter arguments to the evolution model has no limits, any believer would try to cross you out once you 'correct' a sacred line with a scientific fact. But the threat to factual science is 'Creationism', in it's various forms - this single mitochondrial 'Eve' serves their idea perfectly. Not self-conflicting, but I also consider the state of prejudice I am in; any idea which may serve those idiots, don't necessarily have to be wrong. But let's think about it, you're evolving, and you live in packs, and one single *selected* pack manages to evolve into the ultimate relative in Africa (or maybe it's the hand of god?! who knows! *creepy*), where homo-neanderthals cease to exist (or maybe they were dominated by the flock from Africa?), and this single pack is so ambitious, they even make their way to Indonesia, take care of the homo-fiorensis. And they somehow manage to make their way even to America (walking over ice?). Don't get me wrong as I don't have the intention to disprove any hypothesis, I believe it fosters scientific thinking. But it just feels so wrong, just to think there's one supreme, aided pack, when you know how the related science (biology and statistics would/should suffice) works. You have the same environmental conditions in some other places of earth if natural selection/evolution is at hand. And if you think about the population estimates, and the time referred, it could be possible but not reasonable.

I know that an argument on this requires intellect much above those who can only differ colours from white to black, or wings left to right - not to judge their intellect but their capability, overall - but I know many scientists lured into the 'creationism' lie, and I know the motives behind it.

Why does most of the fossil fuel come around the equator anyway?

[Floda]

Why does most of the fossil fuel come around the equator anyway?

Elementary Physics.

[Oracle]

You probably didn't read the link I posted, didn't you? The counter arguments to the evolution model has no limits, any believer would try to cross you out once you 'correct' a sacred line with a scientific fact. But the threat to factual science is 'Creationism', in it's various forms - this single mitochondrial 'Eve' serves their idea perfectly. Not self-conflicting, but I also consider the state of prejudice I am in; any idea which may serve those idiots, don't necessarily have to be wrong. But let's think about it, you're evolving, and you live in packs, and one single *selected* pack manages to evolve into the ultimate relative in Africa (or maybe it's the hand of god?! who knows! *creepy*), where homo-neanderthals cease to exist (or maybe they were dominated by the flock from Africa?), and this single pack is so ambitious, they even make their way to Indonesia, take care of the homo-fiorensis. And they somehow manage to make their way even to America (walking over ice?). Don't get me wrong as I don't have the intention to disprove any hypothesis, I believe it fosters scientific thinking. But it just feels so wrong, just to think there's one supreme, aided pack, when you know how the related science (biology and statistics would/should suffice) works. You have the same environmental conditions in some other places of earth if natural selection/evolution is at hand. And if you think about the population estimates, and the time referred, it could be possible but not reasonable.

I know that an argument on this requires intellect much above those who can only differ colours from white to black, or wings left to right - not to judge their intellect but their capability, overall - but I know many scientists lured into the 'creationism' lie, and I know the motives behind it.

I skimmed the link because I know the Creationists sabotage scientific findings and mould their arguments to fit in with the theory of evolution. The "Out of Africa" theory was clearly easy to fit into the Bible. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong. The Creationists' minds would say 'the Tsunami' was the work of God, to punish wrongdoers, but that doesn't mean the Tsunami did not take place.

Coremax, these arguments are on a number of levels. The link you posted is from an equally vested body ... that of the White Supremacists who do not like this bit of scientific evidence because it links them to Africa. So they try to denigrate any of the scientific evidence which they don't like, by suggesting it is the work of the Creationists.

So please go to the next level with these conspiracies.

At the heart of the matter, may be that you think there was some "selection" going on with all this. Evolution did not have an END in mind. Where we are today is NOT through any pre-selected conditions or requirements. BUT it's a RESULT of random environmental constraints, drives for food and reproduction ... So the outcomes could have been many, but the ones we have ended up with were by CHANCE not designs by a "Creator"!

Science has to be an open, unbiased, accessible book ... so go and look at the evidence yourself. See the fossils. Track where they came from. Study how to sequence DNA and do homology studies etc etc until you can formulate an idea yourself. Or just take my word for it!

The DNA of an African is the same as the DNA of a KKK activist .... and is is chemically, broadly indistinguishable, from that in Bacteria!

Why does most of the fossil fuel come around the equator anyway?

Because that's where most of the exploration has occurred so far .... since I contemplated helping (hindering) the Antarctic Fossil Fuel Explorations ... but they had a "no women" policy in the late 80's They have found plenty of stuff which still ties in with the "Out of Africa" hypothesis .... no signs of past Human Habitations down there!

[coremax]

So the outcomes could have been many, but the ones we have ended up with were by CHANCE not designs by a "Creator"!

Fully agreed...

... See the fossils. Track where they came from. Study how to sequence DNA and do homology studies etc etc until you can formulate an idea yourself. Or just take my word for it!

You're not reading what I wrote

The DNA of an African is the same as the DNA of a KKK activist .... and is is chemically, broadly indistinguishable, from that in Bacteria!

Broadly indistinguishable from Bacteria? We're not talking about genome sizes then? You're getting me confused - 'broadly indistinguishable'...

Make an exception for once, and see the link below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_with_genome_size.svg

Are you going to suggest that the fact of evolution in bacteria has covered a wider span, not because of antibiotics and other emerging threats on bacteria, but because 'the research was done mostly on bacteria'?

[Oracle]

The DNA of an African is the same as the DNA of a KKK activist .... and is is chemically, broadly indistinguishable, from that in Bacteria!

Broadly indistinguishable from Bacteria? We're not talking about genome sizes then? You're getting me confused - 'broadly indistinguishable'...

Make an exception for once, and see the link below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_with_genome_size.svg

I can't download the tree, but I assume it is standard.

You cannot draw meaningful assumptions on the "genome size" between different species, only within (intra-) species comparisons. For example, bacteria have a small "genome", but are very successful ubiquitous colonisers, whereas we have abigger "genome" but still struggle to colonise as many environments (Most of our DNA is Junk anyway, which bacteria have gotten rid of. Maybe as little as 5% of our DNA is biologically functional) .... As I recall, Wheat has more DNA/cell than us and multiple copies of Chromosomes (polyploid), whereas we only have one set of chromosomes per cell. Studies between different Wheat strains/races are meaningful in terms of their chromosome number/genome load because they lead to different yields of "flour", but that would not be applicable as a comparison to us! Besides all humans have the same number of chromosomes apart from, obviously, if a mutation has taken place - and this (as well as a few other factors) is why we, unlike some other species, cannot be put into different races.

Why I said "broadly indistinguishable" was because I didn't want to bog the post with details. Once again, I'll leave out as much detail as possible and try and simplify what I mean. All DNA is made up of four Chemical Bases (some other chemicals too, sugars, phosphates, but they are just a backbone for the important information-involved Bases) and it is their sequence which gives us the variety on Earth. In that context bacteria and all living species are exactly the same (leave out some viruses for simplicity). Minor modifications can be added to these Bases (e.g. methylation), but these don't alter the sequence (basic information), they are just fancy regulating mechanisms for switching genes on and off. So, if spooled-out DNA from bacteria or human cells is compared, it would be chemically the same, give or take a few modifiers depending on what the cells were actively doing/not doing at the time you extracted the DNA. Hence, as far as evolution is concerned, the sequence (Bases) of the DNA is the blueprint for the organism's development and also for the regulatory mechanisms (which add/take off the methyl groups) ... which are all encoded via the 4 Bases which are the same in Bacterial or Human DNA.

Are you going to suggest that the fact of evolution in bacteria has covered a wider span, not because of antibiotics and other emerging threats on bacteria, but because 'the research was done mostly on bacteria'?

In effect, since we evolved from these early life forms, we have had as long a span to counter the Earth's challenges as Bacteria. But each time an Individual is "born" its DNA was subjected to the randomness of mistakes/mutations. Since the Earth allows for a number of variables to emerge, if they're not wiped out by the prevailing environmental/selective conditions of the time, they may yield new species/variants. You can mimic these processes in the test tube using bacteria which go through many generations in a short space of time and introduce "hazards" such as antibiotics. These provide a test for the evolutionary models proposed for how cells may survive by mutation/recombination, but they were not what gave rise to the Theory of Evolution, which was based on empirical data/sample gathering from macro-creatures.

I am the world's worst communicator, because all I can think of are the 'ifs' and 'buts' which occur with every statement I make, but I tried to focus on what I think you are suggesting.

So, how about if you now provide me with your view of the world and the evidence which has helped you formulate the picture ... and put me out of my misery as I suspect you have some MAJOR point to make which will blow me over

[coremax]

... All DNA is made up of four Chemical Bases ...

:D This is your third time insulting me by underestimation, I'll just take it as either you have no one around to understand what you mean, and take it as you put it, or every intellectual around you agrees with you, leaving you without a challenge. (which is sad for you, anyway)

... So, if spooled-out DNA from bacteria or human cells is compared, it would be chemically the same, give or take a few modifiers depending on what the cells were actively doing/not doing at the time you extracted the DNA.

This is the part that I agree with your miscommunication skills, you're unknowingly misleading people to wrong ideas, which in fact is very dangerous. Although you may think people on the forum are not geneticists, still you have to carefully pick information you're giving out.

Hence, as far as evolution is concerned, the sequence (Bases) of the DNA is the blueprint for the organism's development and also for the regulatory mechanisms (which add/take off the methyl groups)

This was the part which needs to be emphasised in order to be understood in full.

... recombination, but they were not what gave rise to the Theory of Evolution, which was based on empirical data/sample gathering from macro-creatures

Natural Selection left unsaid.

I am the world's worst communicator, because all I can think of are the 'ifs' and 'buts' which occur with every statement I make, but I tried to focus on what I think you are suggesting.

So, how about if you now provide me with your view of the world and the evidence which has helped you formulate the picture ... and put me out of my misery as I suspect you have some MAJOR point to make which will blow me over :wink:

Clearly you got my point right, we agree on all points you make, except you're shaping scientific information into either some kind of misunderstandable simpleness, or bursting a debated hypothesis as a fact - like a rollercoaster! :)

And about your suspicion, if you feel like it, surf my favourite 3 (I'll be surprised if you haven't been there yet):

"On Population" - Thomas Malthus
"Ever Since Darwin" - Stephen Jay Gould
"The Blind Watchmaker" - Richard Dawkins

Alas, I say no to any mitochondrial "Eve" - provided if you can explain the African "Adam" to me first - and don't give me the 23rd to say as man we're still neanderthals, and you gals the "V"s :D

Oh I managed to bore myself to death

[Oracle]

Coremax ... I think I've gone off you!

... All DNA is made up of four Chemical Bases ...

This is your third time insulting me by underestimation, I'll just take it as either you have no one around to understand what you mean, and take it as you put it, or every intellectual around you agrees with you, leaving you without a challenge. (which is sad for you, anyway)

When I over-estimated you, it was obvious you got confused, hence why you thought I was talking simply about genome size!

A challenge I relish, but you've posted nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory, with no evidence.

... So, if spooled-out DNA from bacteria or human cells is compared, it would be chemically the same, give or take a few modifiers depending on what the cells were actively doing/not doing at the time you extracted the DNA.

This is the part that I agree with your miscommunication skills, you're unknowingly misleading people to wrong ideas, which in fact is very dangerous. Although you may think people on the forum are not geneticists, still you have to carefully pick information you're giving out.

Hence, as far as evolution is concerned, the sequence (Bases) of the DNA is the blueprint for the organism's development and also for the regulatory mechanisms (which add/take off the methyl groups)

This was the part which needs to be emphasised in order to be understood in full.

OK ... Do you want to move into the realms of "memes" ... because I made a pact with myself not to waste my time trying to discuss them on the forum. You have something to say about memes ... let me hear it!

... recombination, but they were not what gave rise to the Theory of Evolution, which was based on empirical data/sample gathering from macro-creatures

Natural Selection left unsaid.

Yes dear ... I told you I was being brief ... and if I mentioned 'Natural selection' AGAIN, you would tell me I was just stating the bleeding obvious and under-estimating your intellect!

So, how about if you now provide me with your view of the world and the evidence which has helped you formulate the picture ... and put me out of my misery as I suspect you have some MAJOR point to make which will blow me over

Clearly you got my point right, we agree on all points you make, except you're shaping scientific information into either some kind of misunderstandable simpleness, or bursting a debated hypothesis as a fact - like a rollercoaster!

There I was feeding you all that information to pay for some reward of a nugget of something NEW and you give me NOTHING in return!

And about your suspicion, if you feel like it, surf my favourite 3 (I'll be surprised if you haven't been there yet):

"On Population" - Thomas Malthus
"Ever Since Darwin" - Stephen Jay Gould
"The Blind Watchmaker" - Richard Dawkins

Aaaahh ... Here we go again! Another person who has read those fine books and thinks he understands Evolution

Alas, I say no to any mitochondrial "Eve" - provided if you can explain the African "Adam" to me first - and don't give me the 23rd to say as man we're still neanderthals, and you gals the "V"s

Oh I managed to bore myself to death

Yes you've bored me too ... and I ain't giving you any more info until you come up with something to convince me of this self-proclaimed "intellect".

[coremax]

A challenge I relish, but you've posted nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory, with no evidence.

which unfounded conspiracy theory have I posted?

OK ... Do you want to move into the realms of "memes" ... because I made a pact with myself not to waste my time trying to discuss them on the forum. You have something to say about memes ... let me hear it!

You're an authority in stereotyping

I say, 'statistically', evolution can't take place only at a single selected individual, provided there is more than one individual at a given time, facing the exact circumstances.

And I add, if you claim it did, you have to come up with the evidence that belongs to the same era, from other sites, or with the evidence to support the so_called migration - do you read this one?

There I was feeding you all that information to pay for some reward of a nugget of something NEW and you give me NOTHING in return!

I'm challenging the hypothesis you defend. Until you have a widely accepted theory, stop distributing creationist b.s.

Aaaahh ... Here we go again! Another person who has read those fine books and thinks he understands Evolution

So I deduct, you've personally evolved in order to understand evolution Although clearly I suspect that from the way you behave...