PDA

View Full Version : Study finds twist in human evolution


Achilles
08-08-2007, 05:16 PM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution) WASHINGTON - Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.
Normally, I only post the first paragraph, but considering the topic and anticipating the influx of rhetoric, I'm including the final paragraph as well :D

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.
I found this observation to be quite thought provoking:
Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
Anthropologists have been suggesting for some time that humans are naturally "serial monogamists". I wonder if there is any correlation between between physical size and maintainability of monogomy, even when we are genetically predisposed toward non-monogomy and physiologically pre-disposed to serial monogomy. Hmmm...

Darth InSidious
08-08-2007, 05:34 PM
Interesting, but I fail to see anything inflammatory about this. Dammit, I wanted to see blood on the walls! And be ankle-deep in it, for that matter! :xp:

Achilles
08-08-2007, 05:39 PM
I knew you would be disappointed :D

Rogue Nine
08-08-2007, 11:04 PM
even when we are genetically predisposed toward non-monogomy
We are?

John Galt
08-08-2007, 11:52 PM
I'd say this find lends more credibility to evolutionary theory, if anything. Shows that the "impossible odds" argument that creationists tend to use isn't actually all that relevant, as the evolutionary path isn't a straight line.

Achilles
08-09-2007, 12:07 AM
The purpose of sexual reproduction is to allow for the maximum amount of variation in the gene pool. Monogamy runs counter to that. Mammals tend not to be monogamous, though there are a few examples of monogamy amongst primates. Our fragile evolutionary tendencies toward serial monogamy are a relatively recent development and still run counter to our much older and therefore much stronger instincts (males attracting as many mates as possible).

That's the nickel tour. I can probably come up with a list of suggested readings if you'd like to learn more. Just let me know.

Jae Onasi
08-09-2007, 02:23 AM
I'd say this find lends more credibility to evolutionary theory, if anything. Shows that the "impossible odds" argument that creationists tend to use isn't actually all that relevant, as the evolutionary path isn't a straight line.

Doesn't matter if it's straight, convoluted, or somewhere in between. Impossible odds are still impossible odds. Of course, I think God can make the universe any darn way He wants, and if He wants to make it along evolutionary lines, straight, convoluted, or otherwise, fine. Not like I have any choice in the matter. :)

Achilles
08-09-2007, 02:48 AM
Impossible odds are still impossible odds. Is this an evolution thread or a creationism vs. abiogenesis thread? Last time I checked they were separate subjects. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. If you would like to discuss life origins, I'd be more than happy to join you in that thread.

Unless, of course, I misconstrued your meaning and you are arguing that god created all life on this planet in its present form and it has not changed at all since.

Thanks.

Jae Onasi
08-09-2007, 03:13 AM
Is this an evolution thread or a creationism vs. abiogenesis thread? Last time I checked they were separate subjects. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. If you would like to discuss life origins, I'd be more than happy to join you in that thread.

Unless, of course, I misconstrued your meaning and you are arguing that god created all life on this planet in its present form and it has not changed at all since.

Thanks.

I don't know if He made it in its present form or not, though I fall into the 'guided evolution/progressive creation' camp and think that He utilized the scientific laws He created--I don't see God and evolution as incompatible. Likely the 'impossible odds' does belong in an abiogenesis discussion.

Achilles
08-09-2007, 03:37 AM
I don't know if He made it in its present form or not, though I fall into the 'guided evolution/progressive creation' camp and think that He utilized the scientific laws He created--I don't see God and evolution as incompatible. So then there's no question for you that evolution is real, your question is who started it and/or who guides it? "Odds" (impossible or otherwise) don't really come into play then?

Likely the 'impossible odds' does belong in an abiogenesis discussion. I'll get a thread started.

jonathan7
08-10-2007, 02:25 PM
I presuming here is where I am meant to stick my thoughts on evolution. Stricktly speaking I am sat on the fence if evolution is proved beyond my reasonable doubt it doesn't really change my perception of the world, neither would this perception change if it were disproved either.

I think evolution in many ways is abit like Freuds theories in psychology/psychiatry; it is a very pervasive theory. Because it is such a large and broad theory. It has permiated into our language for example normally when typing I do very quickly however in a previous post to Achilles when I wrote this;

I feel I may be making a post in the evolution thread. Strictly speaking I am completely sat on the fence, I am unsure currently of how life has changed on earth. All I know is; the earth is 6Billion years old; there is alot of animals who are related in various ways which inhabbit the earth. etc etc

It took me a fair while to articulate myself here as I was going to use the word evolved and then realised this presented a problem given I am unsure about evolution.

I would be interested in seeing the data which some of you believe's prooves evolution (mainly as haven't really studied evolution much since A-level biology, the last thing I read on evolution was the National Geographic issue that was entitled; Was Darwin wrong? (the answer in the article was no)). But it didn't address my understanding of the issue. I do believe in Micro evolution and natural selection. However Macro evolution to me is pervasive as can we actually observe it? Do we then change what the actual facts are to suit the theory? Is macro-evolution an observable phenomenon? I have as yet been unable to read Darwkins books (I'm very poor atm, so am unsure if he address the above or the issues I will list below). My A-level understanding of biology also tells me that; you can't gain genetic code, that is to say if something mutates it either keeps the same ammount of genetic information or loses some genetic information. For evolution to be possable surley you need the ability to gain genetic information? And have we ever observed any organism gain genetic information from mutation/natural selection? That concludes my questions for now.

Achilles
08-10-2007, 04:12 PM
I do believe in Micro evolution and natural selection. The quick tour looks something like this (I'll take liberties with some of the factors to make this less than 50,000 words, but not with the process itself).

All present life shares a common ancestor. As living things replicate, small "copying errors" occur. This is especially true in complex life forms that have DNA. Take you for instance: half your genetic code came from your mother and half from your father. Your genome is unique and not an exact replica of either parent.

That genetic code is incredibly long and even though the code itself is relatively simple (DNA only uses 4 amino acids), copying errors do occur from time to time. From 2 genomes, a completely unique 3rd genome was created. Information was added. Because of the fact that copying errors occur, mutations are a reality.

So two groups of lifeforms that are genetically compatible (i.e. from the same species and able to mate/reproduce with one another) become separated. One ends up in the desert and one ends up near the sea. The group near the desert reproduces, adding new possible combinations of genes each generation.

Suppose each generation is then categorized in three groups: Group 1 has no mutations. Their genomes are unique, but no copying errors occurred. They are 100% capable of reproducing with other members of the species. Group 2 did have copying errors, so there code has mutations. They are 99% able to reproduce with other members of the species. Group 3 also had mutations and are 99% able to reproduce with other members of the species.

Over time, the mutations from Group 2 are shown not to add any competitive advantage. The species depends on running for survival and the mutations in Group 2 include one guy with shorter legs, another with less cartilage between joints, a third with smaller lung capacity, a fourth with diminished motor skills, etc. Nothing obvious, but just enough to increase the probability that they are the ones that get eaten if the group is being chased.

Group 3 however has the exact opposite problem. Their mutations provided cases of longer legs, increased cartilage between joints, increased lung capacity, or slightly increased motor skills. These guys are going to be just a little bit faster than Group 1 and a lot faster than Group 2.

But instead of just assuming that all of Group 2 are going to get eaten while Group 3 and most of Group 1 run to safety, suppose that some of the members of Group 2 got better eyesight along with their bad knees. They couldn't run as fast, but they could spot predators better than any other member of the species. Maybe they were born pale, and while mocked by other members of the species, were better able to blend in to the environment (later to be picked off by nocturnal predators :D).

Similarly, suppose that someone in Group 3 got crappy hearing so they couldn't hear the warnings when their compatriots tried to warn them that they were about to run face-first into a tree. The mutation that gave them long legs also shortened their arms and they were no longer able to feed themselves, so they died before reproducing.

Time goes on. Some of the species die before they are able to reproduce because they are ill-suited for the environment. Others survive and have lots of offspring because they are better suited to the environment. Group 1 never changes. Each generation, slight mutations occur and those with mutations are just a little less capable of reproducing with the original un-mutated species. After 50 generations or so, some new members or the species are no longer able to reproduce with members of Group 1. We now have a new species.

Suppose that while this is going on, similar things are happening with the group that was separate toward the sea. Knowing that the mutations in the group are going to be different that those in the desert group, we can safely predict that it will only take 25 generations (possibly less) before some members of the sea group are able to reproduce from members of the desert group. Where we had 1 species before, we now have 3 or even more.

I'm not going to drone on anymore here, but hopefully I've given you enough of the picture that you can begin to run with it. Let me know if anything is unclear or if I skipped step that would have aided with understanding.

However Macro evolution to me is pervasive as can we actually observe it?
<snip>
Is macro-evolution an observable phenomenon?
Is the question: Have we observed so-called "macro evolution" (a creationists term)?

The answer is yes, via the fossil record. Creationist tend to refute this evidence because the fossil record is incomplete.

Apparently A,B, hypothesized C, partial record of D, E, F, G, hypothesized H, etc is not sufficient to convince some that there is an alphabet. However the magical creation of Z is a completely plausible alternative and should be blindly accepted because a book written more than 2000 years ago tell us that we should (even thought there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Z was magically created and scientific evidence shows that a relationship to the other 25 letters does exist).

My A-level understanding of biology also tells me that; you can't gain genetic code, that is to say if something mutates it either keeps the same ammount of genetic information or loses some genetic information. Quick recap of above.

If I have 1-2-3 and I want to add additional information, I don't have to tack on a 4, I can simply re-sequence the numbers as 3-2-1, 2-1-3, 2-3-1, etc. This is precisely how additional information is created within species.

Side-note: Humans actually have one fewer chromosome pair than apes (we have 46, they have 48). However if you look at chromosome 2, you can tell that at some point in our genetic history, a copying error (mutation) caused two chromosomes to become fused. Meaning at some point, humans had the same number of chromosomes as they do. Hmmm... :D

Sorry for the length.

Achilles
08-18-2007, 09:11 PM
How Sharks Hide Their Fingers
The genetic potential to create fingers and toes apparently existed ages before animals even crawled onto land, dating back to the distant common ancestors of sharks and humans, research now reveals.Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070817/sc_livescience/howsharkshidetheirfingers)

damian622
08-19-2007, 05:28 AM
(...)I don't see God and evolution as incompatible.
Well, I see. If evolution is fact, that means God work was beta (or maybe even alpha...) and needs upgrading/patching. Do Good Creator release not full product (yes, that's also comment about LucasArts due to TSL Restoration Product :))?

Dagobahn Eagle
08-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Impossible odds are still impossible odds.Well, as people have very likely pointed out to you, there's nothing special with one specific result. Evolution being what it is, it's only natural that a great diversity results. We're only one of many possible outcomes.

I mean, I just threw a reduced stack of 28 cards to the floor. Then I picked them up and stacked them as I retrieved them. The resulting sequence of cards came about randomly. Yet, I can list the sequence and go 'wow, what are the odds of this sequence, out of so many possibilities, coming about? The odds are too great!'. But still, I threw them to the ground and picked up and stacked them randomly, with no intention of creating any sort of system.

And even if you decide that there was divine interventions behind the enormous odds, they're still near-impossible odds. The problem remains. I mean, God is almighty, right? He had an infinite range of combinations to choose from? What are the odds he would choose this one? Still 'impossible'.

PoiuyWired
08-19-2007, 05:14 PM
Well, I see. If evolution is fact, that means God work was beta (or maybe even alpha...) and needs upgrading/patching. Do Good Creator release not full product (yes, that's also comment about LucasArts due to TSL Restoration Product :))?

How do I file a bug report?

So, we are supposed to be happy that we don't get BSOD everyday? How do I switch to Linux?

The Source
08-19-2007, 07:58 PM
Evolution and God are interesting subjects. Personally, I believe that mankind did evolve into what we are now. Even though we may have started off small, God was still involved with the whole proccess. We can go into Christianity conundrums, but that is a conversation for another thread. I don't believe that mankind will ever figure out what God did, but we will come very close in figuring out the complexities of our species. You never really know. Maybe the key to our existance is on a planet far, far, far away.

Arcesious
08-19-2007, 09:20 PM
I guess we'll see what the 'great mystery' really is someday won't we. personnally, i can't wait to see Chrisitanity proven solidly correct, but that'll neve rhappen at this rate. we'll just have to see what happens in the end of all things.

PoiuyWired
08-20-2007, 02:58 PM
Evolution and God are interesting subjects. Personally, I believe that mankind did evolve into what we are now. Even though we may have started off small, God was still involved with the whole proccess. We can go into Christianity conundrums, but that is a conversation for another thread. I don't believe that mankind will ever figure out what God did, but we will come very close in figuring out the complexities of our species. You never really know. Maybe the key to our existance is on a planet far, far, far away.

Thw "we are aliens from outterspace" Theory? Interesting that someone brought it up.

Also, there are theories of the earlier humanoids interbreeding with each other and things like that. But I don't have enough knowledge of these currently.

The Source
08-22-2007, 08:49 PM
Thw "we are aliens from outterspace" Theory? Interesting that someone brought it up.

Also, there are theories of the earlier humanoids interbreeding with each other and things like that. But I don't have enough knowledge of these currently.
If you follow the logic of Christianity, you will find that Adam's and Eve's children did some interbreeding. Ouch. I hear several people screaming now. Lol...

When it comes to our species starting on another planet, the possibility is definately there to theorize. Since asteroids hit Earth constantly, what if the one that killed the dinos brought our bacteria. Otherwords, the asteroid hit and killed all life on Earth, but it dropped the basis for our biological beginnings. All it needed was something that existed allready on Earth, and then it started a process of evolution that created current mankind.

With one big yell everyone in the Christian community screamed, "You call yourself a Christian?" Lol... It is okay to be a Christian and have these thoughts. No one is going to kill me when I get to heaven. Hehehehe....

Achilles
08-22-2007, 10:24 PM
Since asteroids hit Earth constantly, what if the one that killed the dinos brought our bacteria. Otherwords, the asteroid hit and killed all life on Earth, but it dropped the basis for our biological beginnings. All it needed was something that existed allready on Earth, and then it started a process of evolution that created current mankind. Small mammal already existed when the dinos were wiped out. They were better adapted to the new environment so they survived while most everything else died. It's not as though life started over from scratch :)

EDIT: More info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#Evolutionary_history) if you're interested.

and yes, in order for the origin myth of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have had to have been some incest. Ewww.

Jvstice
08-23-2007, 12:11 AM
Adam and Eve's children, and also Noah's children both had to commit incest, because Genesis describes humankind as only having one family on all Earth left twice. Not to mention that Abraham was married to his half sister, Isaac married his cousin, and Jacob also married his cousin.

Something interesting about evolution. Has anyone else here ever heard of the concept of ring species? There are a number of bird species that are divided into many populations that encircle the globe. These populations overlap each other in their physical locations so that the members of one population are capable of reproducing with those adjacent to them on each side, but no other members of their species other than their own population. So on and so forth all the way around the world.

If you eliminate any population group of a ring species anywhere in the world, then the two groups adjacent to the wiped out population can't breed with one another. If you did this to any two non- adjacent populations, you make what was 1 species into two, because it becomes impossible for the populations on one side of the divide from exchanging DNA with those on the other side. In essence, you will have created a "new" species.

Anyway, I'll post more specifically related to human ancestors later if anyone's interested.

Arcesious
08-23-2007, 01:11 AM
I don't fully beleive evolution is correct, but soem parts of it are still correct. i don't believe macro evolution is real, and i will make my points with what scientific knowledge i have. it is a factual science but still a theory.

Macro Evolution:
Are fossils proof enough? have we ever actually recovered some perfectly intact DNA strnad sform what remains of the dinosours instead of looking at other animals and saying the chicken is related to the Tyranasurus Rex, or some repilian lizard is related to an amphibian through evolution? do we actually have solid truth of macro evolution where no important bits or peices of vital evolutionary genomes are missing?

Micro Evolution:
What has this been tested on? so far i've only heard it's from bacteria ans such, which are completely unrelated to other forms of larger living things, which i will explain later? Is interspecies intercourse of flies and bacteria even proof of true micro evolution when it is from two completely different species that aren't even of the smae family?

Here are my sicnetific points:

Two big dogs- AA and AA, breed and make aa, a smaller dog. Aa and Aa are heavily mixed parents, making an aA breed, having genetic disorders- which is not evolution as far as i can tell.

Bacteria types A and B have never had contact with each other, and are not of the same family, but are of the same Phylum. Type B dies out, and type A makes Type B bacteria. that isn't evolution because of this:
Bacteria and such are a special Phyla, completely different genetic setup than other Phylas. They naturally have randomized genetic codes, a form of natural slection, but not evolution itself. They are the closest thing to evolution however.

Now, slightly more complex things:
Interspecies intercourse- not evolution.

Species AA and BB mate. BB overrides most of AA's genetic codes. Species Xx breeds with species yY, and you have a perfect cross, at least i think that's how it works when that happens. Species yY has genetic disorders due to heavy mixing of different creatures of it's same species, the yY not being natural, as it should go Yy, yy, or YY.
Those two species mate, and you Get Either XY or YX, or that in lowercase xy, yx, or xY, yX. Normally species Y should overide species X, but if the gnetic disorder causeds the lowercase or the higher starting letter, the lower starting letter that is capital is the dominant gene.
None of that is evolution. Natural slection is the DNA slection of compltely new genes without mating thugh interpsieces or identical species.
Human DNA study has revieled i think about 2 Billion possible genome combination in DNA already, and all of that appears to not be evolutionary- it is of different races of Humans mixing their DNA through their children so much that disorders happen that appear to be evolution. so far, the only way evolution can work is interspecies intercourse. now don't worry, i'm not trying to disprove evolution itself, as you saw with my explanation of bacteria, that is a form of evolution that is real.

if species Dd and dD mated, you'd have a perfect cross, likely resulting in multple offspring. but if this happened, i'm not fully sure on this one though, but i'll still explain it: DD mated with DE, you'd get evolutionary traits longer along the line. the DE was recived by interspeices intecourse, but if gene DE was De, the e would not override the normally less dominant D. If DE still was mated, the mixture over time could result in evolution.

In conclusion, what i've seen is that only Interspexcies intercourse and specil genetic setups can result in evolution. The T-rex had to mate with a bird dinosour to eventually have the Chicken as a relative. Bacteria is a totally different setup than the normal double-helix DNA right? or wait? is it or did i get something wrong with that? Correct me if that's wrong. There you go- my views on what's right and wrong of evolution. I am not the best at science, so if i've made some mistakes, i am open to correction of them.

here's just a radom idea: what if humans never evolved? what if they were the first species, like Chrisitnaity says? how would that effect evolution if it was proved true? I'm not going to get into religion though, so don't worry- that's just a idea to throw out here.

(i sorta copied and edited this from another thread i made)

Jvstice
08-23-2007, 02:20 AM
Arcesious: a very basic example of microevolution can be found if you look up Biston betularia. It's the first example you run across in any basic college biology course. It's not a crossbreed. It's something that naturally happened to a moth species twice, immediately after the industrial revolution began in england and soot piled up on everything, and a century or two later, when environmental clean up lead to the original habitat of the species being restored.

Bacterial reproduction is very different than for large multicellular organisms because sexual reproduction for them is the exception and not the rule. In most animals, plants, and fungi at least, that is not the case. In asexual reproduction (which you find prevalently in the bacteria) the offspring are genetic clones of their parents. All differences from their parents and siblings are mistakes in copying their genetic template during reproduction.

Over time, this led to different cell lineages of bacteria, and eventually what we call different species. That is why every bacteria is not like every other. Of course, the term species as it applies to bacteria is somewhat arbitrary in that their exchange of genetic material can occur between species, and is not a part of their regular reproduction.

here's just a radom idea: what if humans never evolved? what if they were the first species, like Chrisitnaity says? how would that effect evolution if it was proved true?
If we were the first species the way some people who misinterpret genesis literally claim, then we could place no faith whatsoever in the fossil record, in any method of radioactive dating (and probably physics), in archeology as a science, in biology as a science (including the sciences of medicine, genetics, proteinomics, evolutionary biology & psychology, comparative anatomy, and more), and there'd have been few good effects from having left the Roman Catholic Church for most Europeans (because most of their claims were right, because there'd be little moral arguement against the divine right of kings or that God doesn't want divine theocracy). Also, the universe cannot be a lawful, reasonable place, (because we cannot rely on physics, and it only runs because of constant effort to maintain the system by God) and even what we regard as universal law could turn against us at any moment killing all of humanity on a whim.

Have I touched on everything? I think that's all the major points....

Arcesious
08-23-2007, 09:42 AM
Huh... interesting. So those moths evolved to adapt to the industrial revolution eh? just to be sure- did they mate with another similar species or not? If they did, then they didn't evolve, the simply adaped?

Here's another idea:

This is the only way i think evolulution can work:

A red bird and a blue brid mate and get a purple bird. the purple bird still retains what those two had, but it's offspring always mate with the red bird. eventually, say a ton of mattings later, the gene of the blue bird becoems dominat again, and you get a lighter shade of the blue bird, the blue bird being msotly of the red bird species, but being a different new species.

Of course, as i've seen- evolution uses natural selection- where the genes are selected without mating, and then used at mating to produce a new species. but i haven't seen anything do that yet, besides bacteria. still, these evolutions that species have not seemed to be from the phylum of mammalia at all. therefore, i find no proof that apes or whatevver type of monkey it was were relate to humans when we don't actually know the evolutionary genome as of yet. my other question is this: i huans did evolve, why didn' all the apes or whatever monkey it was evolve along with them over those many, many, years?

I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd.
here's onother question out in the open: What if earth isn't as old as many people think it is? what if the geology info of it being millions and billion s of years old is wrong? i find evolution textbooks kinda odd when they say this:
'The ape didn't evolve for billions of years' and later in the textbook 'the ape didn't evolve for millions of years' and then it says 'trillions of years ago...' -just make up their minds when it evolved- or do the evolutionists not even have an exact timeframe and are just guessing by fossils only and havn't discovered the evolutionary genome?

I think that earth is only about ten thousand years old- as our sun isn't going blue yet- and if it was billions and trillions of years ago, wouldn't it be blue by now? and if it was billions and trillions of years ago- wouldn't the moons be about twice as far away from earth than it is now, as via the discovery that the moon moves just slightly farther out of orbit each year? explain that to me.

Achilles
08-23-2007, 10:19 AM
If they did, then they didn't evolve, the simply adaped? What is the difference between evolution and adaptation?

A red bird and a blue brid mate and get a purple bird. Species cannot interbreed.

Of course, as i've seen- evolution uses natural selection- where the genes are selected without mating, and then used at mating to produce a new species. Natural selection is the process by which organisms that are sufficiently adapted to their environments survive long enough to pass on their genes. Those that aren't, don't. Mating has to happen first.

therefore, i find no proof that apes or whatevver type of monkey it was were relate to humans when we don't actually know the evolutionary genome as of yet. We have both genomes and they are 98% similar.

my other question is this: i huans did evolve, why didn' all the apes or whatever monkey it was evolve along with them over those many, many, years? They have - within their own species.

I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd. Technically they weren't. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. One branch became our ape-like ancient ancestors and another became theirs. One did not come from the other.

here's onother question out in the open: What if earth isn't as old as many people think it is? what if the geology info of it being millions and billion s of years old is wrong? We have multitudes of ways to do geologic dating. They would all have to be wrong.

I think that earth is only about ten thousand years old- as our sun isn't going blue yet- and if it was billions and trillions of years ago, wouldn't it be blue by now? Why blue? Why not pink or green?

and if it was billions and trillions of years ago- wouldn't the moons be about twice as far away from earth than it is now, as via the discovery that the moon moves just slightly farther out of orbit each year? explain that to me. How did you come to decide that it would be twice as far away? Do you know how close the moon was to the earth when it was formed? Do you know how long the earth had been around before the moon was formed? Do you know how much the moon moves away each year?

Ray Jones
08-23-2007, 10:19 AM
I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd.So, what's so weird about it? I mean.. I think it's pretty astounding. Also, primates are great animals, with genetic and many other similarities to humans. they use tools and logic to solve problems. They act as team. They have a somewhat complex social structure.

In fact I do not mind "coming from the apes", or other animals.

Jvstice
08-23-2007, 11:25 AM
Arcesious: Achilles has answered you right. No person who actually knows evolutionary theory would claim that humans come from any still living group of apes, or that the apes came from a still living group of monkeys. Just that there is an ancestor in common to apes and humans if you go back far enough. Likewise, there are fossils that indicate what an ancestor to both apes and monkeys would look like. Or an ancestor to all primates. They have found transitional fossils in many of these cases with traits in common to both groups, but more primitive than both groups in other ways. I might reccomend you to look up Chris Beard's In search of the Dawn Monkey, if you are interested in classification of some of the ancestors of modern primate groups. He barely touches on the apes, but his discussion of the fossil reccord and methodology is pretty thorough so that you can see how he reaches his conclusions, whether you agree or disagree.

The regular chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) has long been said to be genetically our closest ape relative. They have compared the DNA to that of the pygmey chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) and found that both are equally distantly related to us. Most thought that they would be more closely related to one another than they are to us before they looked up their genome, but both groups are slightly closer to us than they are each other. We group both species of chimpanzees within the same genus though, and give humans an entirely different one. A large part of that is based on anatomical and behavioral differences, but if you were going purely on genetic similarity we should be grouped closer, not further.

JediMaster12
08-23-2007, 01:16 PM
After reading the topic post I thought I should say that the anthropologists are forgetting that not everything is that linear. A. robustus and the more gracile Australopithicus existed roughly the same time. Personally I am more inclined to believe that to start there were a whole bunch of these subspecies but through evolution, those that simple couldn't survive, didn't. Also the other problem is that the some of those skeletons may be within the same genus but they don't look too much alike.

As to the whole monogamy thing, that is way over my head. The sad thing with archaeology is that the fossil record is incomplete and that all we are digging up is just one moment in time and not specifically a whole life.

Achilles
08-23-2007, 01:27 PM
Personally I am more inclined to believe that to start there were a whole bunch of these subspecies but through evolution, those that simple couldn't survive, didn't. At the mouth of the evolutionary tributary, there couldn't have been more than one, however there is little doubt in my mind that further down the way there were more subspecies than we are currently aware of. History is written by the winners as they say ;)

JediMaster12
08-23-2007, 04:48 PM
I would agree with you on that quote Achilles. Of course you do have to take in mind that Darwin conceived we had a common ancestor. With genetics that is where you get the different subspecies.

Jvstice
08-23-2007, 05:19 PM
JM12: There's something to it. Orangutans differ in size between males and females so that adult males are about 2x the size and mass of adult females, and they are the most promiscuous of the great apes.

PoiuyWired
08-23-2007, 07:22 PM
I would agree with you on that quote Achilles. Of course you do have to take in mind that Darwin conceived we had a common ancestor. With genetics that is where you get the different subspecies.

Also remember that even a relative small difference in the genetic code can have quite some difficult physical appearance. And size is just a really tiny segment of things. Plus, there are many external factors to size, things like diet, lifestyle, environment, culture... not just genetics.

For something easier to understand, look at dogs, a great dane and a chihuahua is a bit different in size and looks. But genetically these two can interbreed, though i won't even want to imagine the Great Dane being the father, that spells... dead chihuahua.

Point, "simple species" as not as simple as one might think, and its about who is able to adapt EVEN BETTER to a specific environment and time. The world is changing, so what works great today does not mean it would work equally good tomorrow, when things changes.

oh, there is also the theory of "sub species" close enough to each other interbreeds creating newer ones, but I think that is a whole different topic.

Arcesious
08-23-2007, 07:51 PM
Different species' of cats can interbreed, so can birds. that's interbreeding. i said interbreeding of a different species or family, not of a different phyla.

I needed to correct my statwement on the moon, but i didn't get the chance before you guys read it. the moon should actually be about a dozen miles farther away from earth than it is now if it is trillions of years old along with earth, give or take a few unknown events that we haven;'t theorized that could cuase it to shift so drastically. still- hopw long is the average lifespan of a star the size of our sun? trillions, billions, millions, decitrillions, Octiquadrillions?

How can natural selection occur when it needs different genes to mix to occur from interspecies breeding? the new gene just can't come out of nowhere, except with bacteria and insects. some animals can't interspecies breed, but some can. if that is the only way evolutionc an work, is the natural slection concept of evolution just wrong in one of it's side aspects?

Evolution is the complete change of a genome from seemingly nothing that can cause it, which doesn't make much sense. Adaptation is through breeding with a slightly different species of the smae family/phyla of animals. An animal can't just 'change' to adapt, it has to breed to get it's mixed adaptable genes to go into it's offsrping.

Evolution doesn't sound so massive when you think of it's minor concepts and not the macro evolution concepts-whihc i doon't believe of the macro evolution concept since natural slection doesn't seem to work the way i see it being explained.

Achilles
08-23-2007, 11:39 PM
I needed to correct my statwement on the moon, but i didn't get the chance before you guys read it. the moon should actually be about a dozen miles farther away from earth than it is now if it is trillions of years old along with earth, give or take a few unknown events that we haven;'t theorized that could cuase it to shift so drastically. still- hopw long is the average lifespan of a star the size of our sun? trillions, billions, millions, decitrillions, Octiquadrillions? Not sure where you're getting "trillions" from. Current estimates put the universe at approximately 13.7 billion years old, our solar system at about 4.5 billion years old, and the moon at approximately 50 million years after that. If you have scientific evidence that would shift those estimates by orders of magnitude, please feel free to present it so that we can benefit.

How can natural selection occur when it needs different genes to mix to occur from interspecies breeding? the new gene just can't come out of nowhere, except with bacteria and insects. some animals can't interspecies breed, but some can. if that is the only way evolutionc an work, is the natural slection concept of evolution just wrong in one of it's side aspects? As I've pointed out elsewhere, you don't need to add new genes in order to add information. A-G-T-C and C-T-G-A are different "codes" even thought I haven't added any letters. Natural selection simply eliminates genomes that are poorly adapted to the environment.

Evolution is the complete change of a genome from seemingly nothing that can cause it, which doesn't make much sense. Adaptation is through breeding with a slightly different species of the smae family/phyla of animals. An animal can't just 'change' to adapt, it has to breed to get it's mixed adaptable genes to go into it's offsrping. Evolution happens when coping errors (mutations) occur in the genome during reproduction. Some mutations are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental. The detrimental mutations are weeded out via natural selection. I'm sure you will pick most of this up over the next couple of years as you progress through high school.

Evolution doesn't sound so massive when you think of it's minor concepts and not the macro evolution concepts-whihc i doon't believe of the macro evolution concept since natural slection doesn't seem to work the way i see it being explained. Frosh biology should help to clarify a lot of this for you. I'm sure your instructors will be more than happy to help work though any points not sufficiently explained by your text books.

I hope that helps.

Arcesious
08-24-2007, 01:13 AM
Well, i still don't believe everytihng about evolution, but some of it just seems to be a differeent way of explaining Science itself without evolution in the first place. in the end, it isn't so bad anymore- except that i don't beleve Humans evolved from apes still, which yuo may call stubborness if you wish, but i'll just keep that opinion, as evolution isn't really that big of a a deal for me in my lifetime, except with the advancment of medical science for keeping me healthy.

But one last question- what causes natural sleection? what is the 'mind' behind natural selection? what controls it if DNA and RNA only copy each other and cannot adapt themselves? what is Natural slection caused by, since as i've leanred in school, DNA controls the assembly of a cell and clusters of cells, and RNA creates only DNA but never changes it because it does not have it's own mind, and is not linked to the mind of the creature possessing it, and therefore adapting with natural slection doesn't make sense?
Just plain and simply, since a rope of nucleotides cannot be switched around by RNA when RNA creates DNA, and visa versa, then how do they switch around since nothing is driving them to switch around to adapt?

Jvstice
08-24-2007, 03:09 AM
Arcesious: Evolution is nothing more than species (and populations of species) changing through time. Dictionary.com gives a lot of more specific definitions, and annoys me in that they as often as not confused evolution of stars and cosmic events (unfolding according to a predictable pattern) and biological evolution (which is a random, not a directional process). Half the definitions they posted attempted to imply directionality of simple to more complex in the history of life on earth.

Wikipedia's is better in that it seems more accurate, but I was hoping to simplify things for you and their article definitely doesn't simplify the issues involved. I will point out that the existence of evolution is a different debate than the origins debate, though they are related.

We have documented evidence of evolution occuring for almost 150 years, since Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species." In that time we enough have evidence of heritability, mutation of genes, adaptation to local environments, and other evidence that these processes are ongoing, to fill whole libraries. These processes are different than the origin debate, but sort of flows naturally from it.

We can look at rates of mutation that currently take place in two closely related species. We can then ask, if the rate of mutation and adaptation remained constant, how long would be sufficient to go back before both were part of the same species, or a common ancestor?

The thing is that the predictions that geneticists make by looking at still-living organisms and trying to trace them back matches pretty closely what archeologists actually find in the fossil record. Also, both of these forms of knowledge also match pretty closely different radioactive dating methods.

Yes, there are assumptions made in each of these tests, that if the assumptions proved invalid it would skew the test as to when the starting point would be for what information you were looking for.

Achilles: I don't think that there will be a point where abiogenesis as an origin is proven. I think we will reach a point where it may be proven to be scientifically plausible, but not actual.

Science advances knowledge by observation and attempting to disprove hypotheses by observation. I can see how we'd come up with a test to prove, can living matter be created from non-living matter. That is a different question than "did living matter spontaneously arise from non-living matter over a long period of time in numerous steps?" One is observable, the other is not with any conceivable technology anywhere on the horizon.

Perhaps if you could travel faster than light, and go where the light from the earth was several billion years ago, train a telescope with such perfect resolution on the earth that it were capable of picking out individual strands of DNA, RNA, or individual cells, and you knew the specific location on the earth's surface, and atmospheric conditions were such that you could see through the ancient Earth's atmosphere with enough detail, you might be able to observe the answer to such a question. I can't imagine a way of getting an instrument that precise over such a long distance though, much less setting it up far away enough so that you could look back that far in time, but still get the data in real-time.

And the experiments in A.I. or M.I. as many in the field like to call it now, that is not true abiogenesis they are studying. Minds are trying to recreate life either from scratch, or in digital form.

mur'phon
08-24-2007, 09:08 AM
what is the 'mind' behind natural selection?

There is no (proven) mind behind natural selection.

what controls it if DNA and RNA only copy each other and cannot adapt themselves?

The thing is, when DNA copy itself, it sometimes make a mistake, which can cause the creature the mutation ocured in to get diferent physical traits. This hapens quite often, and means that a lot of creatures have not only have direct copies of their parents DNA in their bodies, but also mutated DNA.


then how do they switch around since nothing is driving them to switch around to adapt?

Nothing is driving them to adapt, but since a few mutations are advantegous, those with such mutations are more likely to reproduce.

An example is when a scientist took a group of lizards from one island with few predators to another island with many predators. The lizards where big and slow, and had no way to defend themselves as they had no need to do so in their natural enviroment. The scientist goal was to observe when a speicie dies out. 20 years later, He found quite a few lizards alive. Theese lizards where much smaller, and survived by hiding from predators. How it happened is simple, the new conditions favored the small lizards, who then got a better chance of reproducing, thus making the specie adapt.

An example of mutation is almost all animals with camoflauge collours. Where mutations have caused the lucky ones to blend in with the suroundings.


Hope this answers your questions

Achilles
08-24-2007, 09:26 AM
except that i don't beleve Humans evolved from apes That's ok because no one does. As I pointed out earlier, that isn't a hypothesis offered by science.

Achilles: I don't think that there will be a point where abiogenesis as an origin is proven. I think we will reach a point where it may be proven to be scientifically plausible, but not actual. Was this intended for the abiogenesis thread? I don't believe I've even mentioned life origins here.

I believe your conclusions are based on your sense of incredulity. Your best case scenario sounds dangerously similar to a scientific theory, unless of course, I misunderstood your point.

Thanks.

Arcesious
08-24-2007, 09:41 AM
Huh. but why did the lizards adapt to to become small when the DNA mutations are random? And now i at least know i'm not the only one who doesn't believe humans evolved from apes or whatever monkey it was.

Achilles
08-24-2007, 10:21 AM
Huh. but why did the lizards adapt to to become small when the DNA mutations are random? Random mutation = some lizards are smaller, some are larger, and some are the same size.

Natural selection = In environments where smaller lizards have a competitive advantage, they will survive while the others die off. After hundreds of generations, the entire population is smaller.

And now i at least know i'm not the only one who doesn't believe humans evolved from apes or whatever monkey it was. Do you mean ape-like ancestor? If so, then you misunderstood the point. Both apes and humans came from a common ape-like ancestor.

mur'phon
08-24-2007, 11:24 AM
After hundreds of generations, the entire population is smaller.

In this case however, disaster meant that it only took a few generations.
Sorry for the prickyness :ears1:

Achilles
08-24-2007, 11:46 AM
I was just trying to be conservative with my estimates :)

Jvstice
08-24-2007, 12:48 PM
Achilles: Don't dismiss me without addressing my point please.

My best case scenario was to illustrate just how many technological advances we'd have so that actual abiogenesis, (rather than the potential being there) would even be a testable hypothesis. As it is, it's utterly untestable. There is no timetable for it to ever be testable with even forseeable technology. Some of this has to do with the tools we have to look at hte problem vs the tools that we'd need to be anywhere near as precise as you want. Also, some has to do with the nature of the kinds of questions science is equipped to ask, verses those it's not.

I'd say that very much speaks to the title of the thread. Is your question relevant to science, or not? Does it give testable, replicable results? Are they observable so that observer bias doesn't come into it? From everything I've seen, no. There's no way to get beyond the hypothesis state. In that regard, it's about as useful as sigmund Frued's speculation about human nature. A scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science, except that it serves to steer thinking scientists away from what not to do.

Is there a way of asking a question about abiogenesis and recieving an answer where you could find consistent laws for creating life by introducing enough complexity to a system? I have serious doubts that any such thing is built into universal law.

Achilles
08-24-2007, 01:06 PM
Achilles: Don't dismiss me without addressing my point. I addressed your point in post 39. Based on your message here, you didn't care for my response, but I can't help that.

My best case scenario was to illustrate just how many technological advances we'd have so that actual abiogenesis, (rather than the potential being there) would even be a testable hypothesis. As it is, it's utterly untestable. There is no timetable for it to ever be testable with even forseeable technology. Perhaps an interesting argument for the abiogenesis thread. This is an evolution thread. No one brought up abiogenesis until you did a few posts ago. It is completely non sequitur to the conversation and we already have a thread in progress on that topic.

Is your question relevant to science, or not? Does it give testable, replicable results? Are they observable so that observer bias doesn't come into it? Which question are you referring to?

From everything I've seen, no. There's no way to get beyond the hypothesis state. In that regard, it's about as useful as sigmund Frued's speculation about human nature. A scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science, except that it serves to steer thinking scientists away from what not to do.I agree that a scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science. I think that might be why scientists occasionally do things like look for ways to test their hypothesis. Sometimes they don't find a way first try.

Is there a way of asking a question about abiogenesis and recieving an answer where you could find consistent laws for creating life by introducing enough complexity to a system? I have serious doubts that any such thing is built into universal law. From wikipedia:
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead.
Cheers!

Jvstice
08-24-2007, 02:02 PM
Achilles: Oops. Sorry about posting the wrong thought in the wrong thread.

It's worthwhile to seek answers to the questions of evolution, evolution of human life, etc. We expand our understanding of both the universe, and our place in it, as well as gain a respect for the rest of nature and natural law. I wouldn't be surprised if we find most of the answers to these questions within our lifetimes, at least to a preliminary consensus within the scientific community as to the overall direction of direct descent. So not quite the near future, but not unforseeable either.

I do think it's entirely possible we might most of the gaps filled in the primate family tree. A lot of the DNA tests on neandertals and modern people by the Bryan Sikes, the DNA tests on modern humans, and the recent DNA and archeological tests done with Homo floriensis seem particularly encouraging to me for filling in the great ape branch of the family tree. Also, the recent entrance of archeologists into paleopsychology to try to reconstruct the way that some of our prehuman ancestors thought and behaved based on the tools they made and used also seems a major step forward.

Also Chris Beard and others' finally fully separating the evolutionary trees from the great chain of being (what was with those ladder depictions from early this past century anway?)to get a more logical idea of place on the family trees is encouraging for the primate philogeny as a whole.

Arcesious
08-24-2007, 06:20 PM
Several points in my science book:

Science is fallible and prone to error
Science is only deals with the physical realm
Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began
Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness.
Therfore, science is limited to a certain point.

Hmm.... This evolution doesn't seem much different from my textbooks, whihc teach agaisnt evolution, as i go to a Christian school, but everything siad in the Christian textbooks relates to evolution exactly, except for man's evolution'. I don't see why they need to conflict except for the difference in belief of man's evolving or being created by a higher being, because they're pretty much exactly the same. Pretty much, evolution seems the smae as what is taught that doesn't mention evolution. therefore, fighting over whether it's correct or incorrect is kinda breath wasting, when they almost completely agree! What if God let's animals evolve, but Man didn't evolve? The Bible practically says he let animals evolve (adapt as is says), but not man, and some similarities between them that seem like man's evolution from monkeys he put there on purpose...
That would work for my beliefs, but you people who don't Believe in God can still believe waht you want, as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact. Thnaks for clearing up this conflict i've been having Achilles, now i have a way in which both my beliefs in God and proven science no longer conflict.

mur'phon
08-24-2007, 08:23 PM
Science is fallible and prone to error

Add the fact that it has a self corecting mecanism, which means that the errors are found and eliminated, and I would agre

Science is only deals with the physical realm

The thing is, as long as we only know about the physical realm, dealing with any other seams kinda pointless

Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began

True, but it can make a hypothesis increadibly likely, using the self corecting mecanism- ex: humans evolved from the same ancestor as modern apes

Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness.

Is it a better way to deal with things that cant be witnessed

Therfore, science is limited to a certain point.

Until something can fill the things beyond said point I think I'll keep to my limited science :ears1:

as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact
:)

Achilles
08-24-2007, 09:29 PM
Science is fallible and prone to error Correct, which is why scientists are skeptical by nature and demand the highest levels of evidence before something is commonly accepted. Compare this to religion, which claims to have unfettered access to absolute truths, which coincidentally cannot be backed up with any evidence or objectively tested in any way, and dogmatically rejects any argument which contradicts its foregone conclusions.

Science is only deals with the physical realm Correct, assuming that by "physical realm" you mean "the natural world". Science deals with emotions and our spiritual nature as well. What it does not do is presume supernatural causes. Compare this to religion which presumes supernatural causes for absolutely everything (from origins of the universe to bridges collapsing in midwest cities).

Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began Incorrect. This is like stating that you cannot prove that your dog pooped on your carpet because no one witnessed it. If all your windows and doors are locked and undamaged you can rule out the possibility that someone broke in and pooped on your carpet. If you live alone, you can rule out the possibility that it was someone else in your family. If you are potty-trained and pretty consistent about using the toilet and if you are not prone to memory lapses, you can probably rule out that it was you that did it.

At this point you could probably safely assume that it was the dog, but scientists would probably want more proof before they felt comfortable drawing a conclusion. They would want to know when the last time the dog had been outside. They would want evidence that showed that dogs have been known poop on carpets in other situations. They would test the carpet elsewhere in the house to see if there was evidence of other poopings in the past. They would want to send the poop away for analysis, hoping that the contents would hold traces of the dog food that Fluffy eats. Only once every other testable alternative explanation could be ruled out would scientists accept that was your dog, but they wouldn't have to see it happen in order to determine that it happened.

Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness. Correct, for reasons that I've already addressed above.

Therfore, science is limited to a certain point. Correct. And goddidit is an intellectually rigorous alternate explanation how? Yes, by way of comparison, religion is limitless in its ability to explain the universe. The fact that it uses the same bludgeon for every question is beside the point.

Hmm.... This evolution doesn't seem much different from my textbooks, whihc teach agaisnt evolution, Huh? :eyeraise:

I don't see why they need to conflict except for the difference in belief of man's evolving or being created by a higher being, because they're pretty much exactly the same. Because it would probably be far too embarrassing for your school to deny the theory of evolution when there is so much evidence support it. At some point they are interested in churning out bright young students that can compete for jobs in the secular world. Unfortunately, they also have to pander to the fact that if your parents didn't want for you to have a christian education, they would have sent you to a public school. Therefore, they have to teach evolution, but can't teach that it applies to god's chosen.

Some food for thought though:
Why do humans share the same building block as all other living things (DNA)?
Why do humans use sexual reproduction, just like all other animals?
Why do humans acquire their body plans early in embryonic development, just like almost all other animals?
Why do humans have a spine, just like all other vertebrates?
Why are humans warm-blooded, just like all mammals?
Why do humans have hairy bodies, just like all mammals?
Why do humans have four-chambered hearts, just like all mammals?
Why do human females produce milk, just like all mammals?
Why do humans have 5-finger hands (including opposable thumbs and fingernails), just like all primates?
Why do humans have binocular vision (eyes facing forward and work together to produce images), just like all other primates?
Why do human males tend to be larger than human females, a characteristic common in other primate groups?
Why do humans share 97% of their DNA with all other hominids?
Why do humans share 98% of their DNA with apes?
Why do humans have so many vestigial organs and traits, if they were perfectly designed by a perfect creator?
Why it that, even with all this evidence, some people still cannot accept that we are highly sophisticated animals that evolved over hundreds of millions of years just like every other living thing on this planet?

therefore, fighting over whether it's correct or incorrect is kinda breath wasting, when they almost completely agree! I disagree. There is only one correct answer. The hang up isn't that science has even a shred of evidence that religion is correct, it's that religion refuses to accept any explanation for our existence that doesn't include god.

What if God let's animals evolve, but Man didn't evolve? I would be perfectly ok with that hypothesis if there was any evidence to support it. Unfortunately, not only is there not any evidence but there is an insurmountable mountain of evidence that points the other way.

The Bible practically says he let animals evolve (adapt as is says), but not man, and some similarities between them that seem like man's evolution from monkeys he put there on purpose... Why would god seek to intentionally deceive us?

That would work for my beliefs, but you people who don't Believe in God can still believe waht you want, as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact. Thnaks for clearing up this conflict i've been having Achilles, now i have a way in which both my beliefs in God and proven science no longer conflict. Glad I could help :)

Arcesious
08-25-2007, 01:52 AM
Yeah, but i'm still skicking with God.

With the science cannot prove anything that cannotb e witnessed thin, here's what i manet: the origin of the universe- an event that is all but unobservable.


With your saying huh? abotu my tectbooks thing, i go to a christian school with christian science books.

God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him.
God creates a fallible race becasue out of goodness he woulg later make them infallible and perfect along with him in the end. there are some things i cannot explain about as to why because you do not see it the way i do, whuich i don't expect that to be understood. If you were a perfect God, a beign that could do anything, the you wouldn't make a race greater than yourself, but you would make them fallible. As God, you would be so good that you have a desire for others to experience perfection along with you. and in perfecting mankind out of fallibleness in the end, you would therefore be able to be perfect by having someone to prove your perfction to. Man's flawed concepts of Go are what arise many speculations suhc as 'the God paradox', and as one Bible verse says, can't rember what it was- tihnk it was Isiah something, it pretty much says "no one can think at the level of God, and their limited understnading of him often leads them to having flawed concepts of him'. that's not exactly how that bible verse goes, but ithat's what it means. God is perfection, and therefore nothing can fully undeerstand him. He is almight, but he intentionally created humans as fallible, a great plan i do not expect you to understand. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but there are some things that only a person who believes in God fully and faithfully can understand that one who doesn't believe in him cannot because he thinks the bliever of it is the one who is decieved. that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.

Anyways, agree partly with evolution in some respects as i might, i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use. But i bleive discussing more about the God's truth or unttruth will only becoem pointless for me, as all odds are agaisnt me. i'm not giving up a fight or retreating, but i don't expect the understnading i have of God to be understood by you, which you will take as me not understnading you, and you may consider this as me being arrogant, whihc i am not even though it soudns very much that way, which i also don't expect to be understood. don't get me wrong- you guys are very intelligent people and can understnad many things very well, but this is the one thing you probably can't the way i see it. therefore, i suggest we do not discuss agaisnt God any more since it will only be pointless for me, and we get back on topic and not mention God. Pleas edon't tka ethat as arrogan though, i'm not trying to come accross as 'above you' or anything, when i'm no better than you, as we are all equals, and i am likely less intelligent in science than you.
Huh- reminds me of a bible lesson i had last week, titled 'Inpersuadableness...
eh- goodbye. i'm tired of discussing this whne i know i won't win in your sight, so i guess i'll just go see if that 'Imperial Knights RP' thread is alive agian.
(no hard feelings please if i came accross as being arrogant towards you guys. Also, again, my conflictions with science and God are reolved in my sight, so i don't really care if science kinda proves man's evolution on a 2-3% difference, as i still think God did it because it can work either way, and animals are diffeenent than man in that cetain respect and God probably made them able to 'evolve' naturally, decribed as 'adpat' in the bible.)

Jae Onasi
08-25-2007, 02:28 AM
Why do humans share 98% of their DNA with apes?
Actually, 95% (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129726) for chimpanzees, who are closest to us genetically. Even if you go with the 1.2% difference, it "Although this difference may appear small, it accounts for more than 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions, not including such differences as insertions, deletions and duplications. The majority of these differences; however, even those affecting the amino acid composition of proteins, are likely to be selectively neutral and thus have no detectable effect on phenotypic traits [3]. It has long been argued that, in addition to gene sequence differences, changes in RNA and protein expression may provide additional and crucial perspective on the evolutionary differences between humans and chimpanzees [4]. However, similar to DNA sequence differences, the majority of gene expression differences seen between species are likely to be selectively neutral [5]. Thus, the identification of genes affected by positive selection on either DNA sequence or RNA and protein expression levels during human evolution represents a challenge. Nevertheless, this is a challenge worth perusing—identification of positively selected genetic changes in humans can shed light on the molecular mechanisms underlying human-specific abilities." (from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (http://www.science.ngfn.de/10_264.htm)).

So we have 35 million nucleotides that are entirely different from chimps.

Of course, we share somewhere around 50% of our DNA with bananas. The devil's in the details. :D

Arcesious
08-25-2007, 02:41 AM
Now there's possiblility humans evolved form Bananas? oi... now that 90+ % Similarity doesn't seem like nough to warrant evolution of humans form monkeys fully with 35 million different nucleotides... lolz. i'm related to a banana by 50% now...

Achilles
08-25-2007, 04:40 AM
God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him. Mental gymnastics FTW!

that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.
<snip>
i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use. Well done.

Actually, 95% (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129726) for chimpanzees, who are closest to us genetically. For the sake of argument, let's forego dueling sources and just go with your number. I will take a moment to point out that the margin of error is smaller than the difference between 95% that they "probably" feel is more accurate and the previously accepted 98%.

Now, how does that come close to negating any of the other points that I raised?

So we have 35 million nucleotides that are entirely different from chimps. Ok, figure about 200 million nucleotides in a chromosome times 46 chromosomes in a genenome = 9.2 billion nucleotides. These 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions would make up approximately 0.4% of the geneome. Let's assume my numbers are wrong by half and there are only 4.6 billion nucleotides in the human geneome. 0.8% of the genenome. Not even 1%.

Let's also not forget that all other primates have one more chromosome pair than humans (human chromosome 2 is fused giving us 46 instead of 48 chromosomes). If one chromosome has 200 million nucleotides (or 100 million going with my 50% margin of error), how significant is 35 million hold up against the 400-200 million "extra" nucleotides that chimps have which we don't?

Plus the fact that estimates put "junk" dna at 80-90% of the geneome. Very convincing.

Of course, we share somewhere around 50% of our DNA with bananas. The devil's in the details. :D I wonder which creationist website you found that on.

jonathan7
08-25-2007, 06:56 AM
Right let me clarify several things before I begin; I am a devout Christian and scientist, however I am going to have to defend and back up Achilles on a few points here;

Yeah, but i'm still skicking with God.

With the science cannot prove anything that cannotb e witnessed thin, here's what i manet: the origin of the universe- an event that is all but unobservable.

The origin of the universe unobservable? That my friend is a matter of conjecture; to my mind Big Bang Theory has been proven beyond a doubt now from all the information we have; although as I'm sure Achilles will admit there are perhaps one or two problematic questions science has yet to answer with that reguard if you are an athiest.


With your saying huh? abotu my tectbooks thing, i go to a christian school with christian science books.

Science should be free of all slants to provide a fair answer. What do these 'science' book says? If they say that the eart is 6,000 years old I would contend that they are psuedo science

God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him.

Extraporlate, I disagree, God may test faith in many ways, but I do not see how monkeys are a test of that faith.

God creates a fallible race becasue out of goodness he woulg later make them infallible and perfect along with him in the end. [QUOTE=Arcesious]

Re-read Genesis m8, you may see God did great man as infallibe, but then this pesky dude called Satin came along and the rest is history... (or not if your Achilles ;))

[QUOTE=Arcesious]there are some things i cannot explain about as to why because you do not see it the way i do, whuich i don't expect that to be understood. If you were a perfect God, a beign that could do anything, the you wouldn't make a race greater than yourself, but you would make them fallible. As God, you would be so good that you have a desire for others to experience perfection along with you. and in perfecting mankind out of fallibleness in the end, you would therefore be able to be perfect by having someone to prove your perfction to. Man's flawed concepts of Go are what arise many speculations suhc as 'the God paradox', and as one Bible verse says, can't rember what it was- tihnk it was Isiah something, it pretty much says "no one can think at the level of God, and their limited understnading of him often leads them to having flawed concepts of him'. that's not exactly how that bible verse goes, but ithat's what it means. God is perfection, and therefore nothing can fully undeerstand him. He is almight, but he intentionally created humans as fallible, a great plan i do not expect you to understand. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but there are some things that only a person who believes in God fully and faithfully can understand that one who doesn't believe in him cannot because he thinks the bliever of it is the one who is decieved. that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.

No offence but thats just rubbish. I've got to run, so will debunk most of what you have said when I return, however you may want to consider this;

We are called to always have an anwer for all those who ask; 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect". The sign of a cult is when peole say; "you should just believe". Finally your Biblical understanding is not great I would advise you to go back and READ your Bible more.




i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use.

In many respects what is the point of saying such things, you attack Achilles for not having na open mind, yet you yourself do not have one.

PoiuyWired
08-25-2007, 05:23 PM
To be fair, saying Monkeys are a "test of faith" is just like saying Bananas being a "test of faith to atheism"

No, there is no faith-testing monkeys. Monkeys are just, monkeys. They are not trying to test you, they are just creatures on this planet, like anything else.

The whole ordeal with "this must be faked", or "its a test" or "this guy works for santa" is just a way to NOT look into a counter-theory before making a comment.

Yes, I do know that there are bad apples where people are faking scientific result, so did some fake-theists faking miracles. But generally, I urge people to understand a theory, then pass your judgement of your believe or disbelieve in a matter, and not just shutting the door before giving it any chance of explanation.

Jae Onasi
08-25-2007, 11:25 PM
For the sake of argument, let's forego dueling sources and just go with your number. I will take a moment to point out that the margin of error is smaller than the difference between 95% that they "probably" feel is more accurate and the previously accepted 98%.
That was just an fyi, not a dueling issue. I thought the article was interesting and wanted to share it more than anything else.

Ok, figure about 200 million nucleotides in a chromosome times 46 chromosomes in a genenome = 9.2 billion nucleotides. These 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions would make up approximately 0.4% of the geneome. Let's assume my numbers are wrong by half and there are only 4.6 billion nucleotides in the human geneome. 0.8% of the genenome. Not even 1%.

Approximately 3 billion nucleotides, actually. (link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761580681)
So closer to 1% in this case, which isn't adding up to either of our numbers. :) I hate it when that happens. :)


I wonder which creationist website you found that on.
Ah. You assume a lot there. :)
May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000
Science journal of WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1018544984675195320.html)
from University lecture (http://www.bmsf.unsw.edu.au/training/CHEM7116/downloads/lectures/7116ProteomicsMS01.pdf). See page 2. Note this comment:
Human proteome: 2^60,000 possible
states!!! + post translational
modification
What's the probability of that happening by chance, by the way?

Achilles
08-26-2007, 01:09 AM
That was just an fyi, not a dueling issue. I thought the article was interesting and wanted to share it more than anything else. Glad we're still being honest :)

Approximately 3 billion nucleotides, actually. (link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761580681)
So closer to 1% in this case, which isn't adding up to either of our numbers. :) I hate it when that happens. :) Hmmm...I wonder if that's why you didn't provide that source the first time (being potentially contradictory to your argument and all).

Ah. You assume a lot there. :) Yes, Jae, because experience tells me that when you post definite statements like that without a source, you've either made it up or are citing a creationist website that you know I'm going to question.

May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000
Science journal of WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1018544984675195320.html)
from University lecture (http://www.bmsf.unsw.edu.au/training/CHEM7116/downloads/lectures/7116ProteomicsMS01.pdf). See page 2. You know what I don't see from either source? A cited study. I'm sure that you're more than happy to take the ultra-conservative WSJ at face value (which is what Prof. Guilhaus did, for all we know), however I'm not.

Also, your New Scientist source doesn't mention banana DNA once, let alone how it compares to human DNA. In fact the only reference to non-human DNA is a closing paragraph about how researchers hope to sequence rats, mice and zebrafish in the near future (article published in 2000).

FWIW though, your sources really don't matter because even if the 50% number was correct, I'm not sure what your point is. Are we half banana? The fact that human beings and bananas shared a common multi-cellular ancestor billions of years ago hardly blows my hair back (nor does it blow back the hair of anyone with a working knowledge of evolution or genetics).

So yeah, if there are five (two?) little percentage points separating us from chimps (which are part of the ape family, btw), then 50 percentage points between us and bananas is completely plausible.

Note this comment:
<snip>
What's the probability of that happening by chance, by the way? I don't know, Jae. Math was never my strong point. However whatever it is, evolution was obviously more than capable of taking care of it (us being here and all).

Jae Onasi
08-26-2007, 01:25 PM
Yes, Jae, because experience tells me that when you post definite statements like that without a source, you've either made it up....

I NEVER have, nor ever will, MAKE UP A SOURCE. I may be mistaken at times, but I HAVE NEVER LIED ABOUT A SOURCE. Your accusation that I'm that dishonest is extraordinarily offensive and extremely hurtful. I thought you were a far better person than accusing someone of lying in order to further your own 'arguements'. If you want to engage me, do so, but don't accuse me of dishonesty in order to distract from the discussion.

Achilles
08-26-2007, 01:33 PM
I thought you were a far better person than accusing someone of lying in order to further your own 'arguements'.My statement had absolutely no bearing on my argument. You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I explained why (i.e. when I ask someone for a source and they gloss over the request, claim that they can't find it, or abandon the thread, I tend to assume that they made it up). If the shoe doesn't fit, then you shouldn't have much to worry about.

If you want to engage me, do so, but don't accuse me of dishonesty in order to distract from the discussion. My statement was a response to yours. Who's the one distracting from the argument?

PS: Shouldn't this have been a PM, Moderator Jae?

Thanks for reading.

Rogue Nine
08-26-2007, 02:31 PM
My statement had absolutely no bearing on my argument. You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I explained why (i.e. when I ask someone for a source and they gloss over the request, claim that they can't find it, or abandon the thread, I tend to assume that they made it up).
You know what they say when you 'assume' things. :rolleyes:

Everyone needs to take a step back and cool down. Discussion in here should be friendly, not pointed and angry. Achilles, there's nothing wrong with asking her to cite sources in a nice way. You need not 'assume' such things, because that attitude is counterproductive to friendly discussion. Jae, no need to get heated about accusations, that ain't conducive to a friendly atmosphere either.

Oftentimes people forget that this place isn't the Senate. It's discussion here, not formalized debate. Please do well to remember that.