Is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off them as a result of evolution?

Also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

I believe it is and some people doubt that

Some people don't believe evolution is correct because it does not follow with their religious beliefs. Science is yet to show determinately that evolution is true, however, we share something like 98% of our genetic makeup with some chimps, so... it's up to you to decide if it's true or not.

In my opinion that statement is for the most part true and correct. Some others won't.

What do you feel?

Science is yet to show determinately that evolution is true.

This is incorrect. The idea that all species on Earth today evolved from earlier forms is true, proven true, and accepted without doubt by virtually all modern biologists. No practicing biologists are in doubt about this. It is as well accepted as other scientific theories, such as gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, the cell theory, etc.

Asking

is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off of them as a result of evolution?

Yes. We actually ARE great apes! (Although because early biologists didn't want to say that, we got stuck in a different group.) But, in fact, we branched off from among the other apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas). They are like our cousins. Somewhere back in time, we share a common ancestor, a great grandparent, if you will. Most biologists think we are most closely related to the chimpanzees and bonobos.


also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

Yes. This paragraph is essentially true, although due to some writing errors, there are little mistakes here and there. But that is a problem caused by the person who wrote the paragraph, not with the theory of evolution.

By the way, last Saturday was the 148th anniversary of the first publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species, and therefore "Evolution Day."

I posted about evolution earlier this month and addressed some of these questions here:
<https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirituality/atheists-do-not-believe-how-111864-56.html#post701713> I hope this helps, Atmisk.


i believe it is and some people doubt that
It is true that many people doubt the theory of evolution. But they are not biologists, and science is not a popularity contest. It's not a matter of getting the most votes for or against from non scientists or from scientists in unrelated fields. It's great that so many people are interested in science, but non scientists don't get to say, "I don't like gravity and because my friends and I don't like it, it's not true." Same for evolution, relativity, and other scientific ideas. I respect that some Christians object to evolution on religious grounds. I think they are justified in their dislike of the idea. But it's not true that any real biologists are in doubt about it. As far as science is concerned, evolution is an irrefutable fact.

Hope this helps clarify.
Asking

No of course humans are not decended from apes, is that not the silly thing a person ever thought of. First there is no evidence at all, that it is possible, and the idea of mass evolution from primates beyond being silly, one would ask why the others did not evolve but stayed apes, guess they did not want to have to work, build houses and the such.

So no we are not

is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off them as a result of evolution?

Yes, The evidence is overwhelming & compelling. I would also add that all of modern biology and medicine is built on this foundation.



Also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been...


Yes!
You can “formally” call evolution a theory as you would speak of gravity as a theory. But the theory part refers to the explanation (Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of general relativity). In a similar manner “The theory of” evolution refers to the mechanisms by which the process occurs (eg natural selection).

Do you know what mitochondria are? All multicellular organisms (animals & plants) have mitochondria in their cells and all of these mitochondria (in human, apes, fish or trees) are thought to have a common ancestor. The most widely accepted theory (endosymbiotic theory) is that all of these mitochondria are the descendants of a bacterium that was taken up by a primitive cell. Don’t think that could happen? Look up coral algae symbiosis.

I suppose you are right, evolution is obviously something that happens, but I meant that, it's yet to prove that we descended from apes.

For the theories like Gravitation, we have got absolute proof. Newton, Kepler, Galileo and other scientists of the past have done tremendous work to prove this true. In the beginning the church did not like that idea at all. But today the church agrees. We have got rigorous mathematical proof now, how can anyone disagree.

Now for the theory of Evolution, scientist are yet to present a rigorous proof, be it mathematical or in any other form. So right now, nobody can prove that Evolution true. Neither can anyone prove Evolution false or wrong. So evolution is still an ongoing research. We are waiting for the result of the research. In the mean time you can be a part of the game ( i.e. become a scientist and participate in the research ) , support either of the teams and cheer for them. Or do whatever you want to. Just remember not to discriminate people on their favorite team in the game of evolution research.

For the theories like Gravitation, we have got absolute proof. Newton, Kepler, Galileo and other scientists of the past have done tremendous work to prove this true. In the beginning the church did not like that idea at all. But today the church agrees. We have got rigorous mathematical proof now, how can anyone disagree.
.

Which theory of gravitation do we have absolute proof for?
Newton?
General Theory of Relativity?

Absolute proof doesn't reside in science... only in religion.
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

Which theory of gravitation do we have absolute proof for?
Newton?
General Theory of Relativity?

Neither.
What we have today is OK for today, but usually turns out to be 'limited' or 'special case' and sometimes 'wrong' in tomorrow. What I wanted to say is, the story of gravity has come a long way since middle ages. These days the church does not try to burn someone who thinks sun is not rotating around earth.


Absolute proof doesn't reside in science ... only in religion.
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

I think you are partially correct. Science rejects an old theory when a better explanation is found for the phenomena. But in religion ( think of all the religions, not just the well known monotheist 'higher' religions) most of the myths are conflicting with reality and followers just believe them. What do you think about that ? :)

In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

And the idea that humans are descended from and in fact a species of ape is perfectly consistent with all the evidence. We are as similar to the other apes as dogs are to wolves and foxes (all members of the dog family). Likewise, we share with other apes the same sequences of DNA and similar behaviors. We even have the same digestive tract as other apes. :) The fossil record likewise shows a long sequence of different apes that become more and more human over millions of year, bigger and bigger brains, standing upright, etc.

No biologist or anthropologist is in any doubt that humans are descended from apes and that we are a kind of ape--in the same way that dogs, wolves,and foxes are related, or parrots and parakeets, or crickets and grasshoppers. They are different yet similar because they share common ancestors. We too share a common ancestor with the chimps and gorillas. For the purposes of science it is "proven."
Asking

Law of Gravity, darn, I was flying and floating around all day till I learned it was illegal, did not want to be arrested for breaking the law of gravity.

Course I have been to some of my family reunions, perhaps the missing "link" is hiding there.

But on a serious note I am not sure that even in the idea of evolution it is fully accepted that man and ape are that related,
In that there was perhaps a early animal that both may have came from, but the ape, monkey and the such are not in the direct line, but off shoots from an earlier line. ** not my belief of course but from some of the books I have read

Fr_Chuck, You are very funny!

But honestly, the idea that humans are descended from an ape lineage is completely accepted by biologists and anthropologists. It's not accepted by some non scientists, and the reasons for that are understandable, and religious. But as far as scientists who know the field are concerned, it's been accepted for over a hundred years, and every year there's more supporting evidence and never any than contradicts the idea.
For scientists, it's a done deal.
Asking

And if man did not evolve from the great ape who did man evolve from?

Dinosaurs?
Fish?
Single celled amoeba?

With the factual evidence available today,showing, say, birds adapting to certain environments,or prairie grasses.

I live and study sand prairie,we have shown, beyond any doubt the evolution of the grasses needs to have short controlled burns to release their seed pods,this is evolution and adaptation necessary to survival.

With the last paragraph I state this, If grass needed to adapt, birds needed to adapt, where is it so difficult to see where humans had to adapt,meaning EVOLVE from something else,not just suddenly 'Be there'?

Where does absolute proof reside ANYWHERE in religion? I'd like to see that.

I believe in God, I believe in evolution. I think that we are relative of apes, but do I think we are descendants? No, but if science proves it, I will change my opinion. Until then, I don't rely solely on religion, the bible is not strictly factual, and 100% correct, just a book written by man.


Math proves gravity, I'm fairly certain.

We are most probably not descendants of the current day great apes, but cousins perhaps. From common grand parents or grand grand parents may be. But we are family nonetheless.

I like to believe in evolution because it gives feeling of being a very responsible member of the BIG family. Love all animals/plants/beings. Take care of the world etc.

We are most probably not descendants of the current day great apes, but cousins perhaps. From common grand parents or grand grand parents may be. But we are family nonetheless.

I like to believe in evolution because it gives feeling of being a very responsible member of the BIG family. Love all animals/plants/beings. Take care of the world etc.

Right. We are definitely not descendants of the modern apes, in the same way that we can't be descendants of our own first cousins, for example. I also enjoy that close knit feeling of family with other primates (although sometimes some of them embarrass me :) ). And just as DNA tests can confirm that we are related to our own parents and siblings, DNA tests confirm that we are related to our great ape kin.
Asking

Asking:

"The fossil record likewise shows a long sequence of different apes that become more and more human over millions of year, bigger and bigger brains, standing upright, etc. "

Can you show the links to prove this?

For example:
From
'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/cshl-ei061305.php)

"Clearly, factors other than DNA sequence are necessary for such "punctuated" duplicative transposition events to occur during genome evolution. During the divergence of the human/great-ape lineage from the Old World monkey lineage, the genome MAY
have been particularly permissive to segmental duplication events. The scientists SPECULATE that the molecular driving forces behind this "punctuated" duplicative activity may have been changes in transcriptional status or chromatin conformation"

The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.


The dna of humans and apes may be very similar but that does not prove they came from the same ancestor.

If I were to compare a average home and a shopping mall
They have similar features:
Doors
Windows
Plumbing
Electrical circuits
Similar if not the same building materials

This is not proof that the home and the mall had "a common ancestor." What is known is that there was or is a builder[s].

Asking:
Can you show the links to prove this?

Every year the fossil record grows richer. Every year the gaps shrink & the confidence grows. Can there ever be enough proof for someone who already believe he know the truth. A truth which doesn’t need any factual evidence?


Asking:
The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.

Yes, they’re speculating about what accounts for the observed “temporal bias in gene duplication events”. This is a reasonable speculation given that punctuated equilibrium (see Wikipedia) is a well established theory in evolutionary biology and that transcriptional activity & chromatin conformation have will described roles in other structural changes in DNA (euchromatin).

What they are not speculating about is that “regions of the human genome have been hotspots for acquiring duplicated DNA sequences – but only at specific time-points during evolution”

Read the press release & if you want more understanding of the topic the press release refers to an article (Horvath et al. Genome Research 15 (7): 914. (2005)) which is available for free from Genome Research (http://www.genome.org/). Genome Research is one of the best scientific journals in this field. This is a paper about the evolutionary analyses of a human centromeric region, but this is a tough read ;) For more general info, I found a site (The Evolution Evidence Page (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html)) that gives a good introduction to “comparing human & ape chromosomes as evidence for common ancestry”.

Professor Poopfossil believes in evilution.
He tells people, "Once I was an amoeba so very thin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a jungle tree. Now I am a teacher of insanity."

Professor Poopfossil believes in evilution.
He tells people, "Once I was an amoeba so very thin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a jungle tree. Now I am a teacher of insanity."

You sound like some one who does not really like animals.

Hummm, maybe there is something to this evolution thing after all. Tell me, when a monkey turns into a man, does it take him a long time for his brain to develop?

Hummm, maybe there is something to this evolution thing after all. Tell me, when a monkey turns into a man, does it take him a long time for his brain to develop?

Yeah, as you might expect some are faster and some are slower. You can spot the slower ones because their first reaction is to deny where they came from.

Some even turn into internet trolls …hard to believe that trolls the product of intelligent design.

Back to biology?

The Neanderthal (IPA: /niːˈ&#230;ndərθɑːl/, also with /neɪ-/, and /-tɑːl/) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)[1] that inhabited Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.[2] By 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Asia, although they did not reach extinction in Europe until 33,000 to 24,000 years ago, perhaps 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe.[3][4][5] It is believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals.[6]

Genesis 6

1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
2)That the sons of God saw the daughters were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4)There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

"And also after that."
The ones that are still here are the evilutionist. If you think you are of that ilk, fine. It is all based on lies to cover the real truth. That truth is in the bible.
The real truth explains the age old struggle between good and evil on earth, its beginnings and its end.

It is all based on lies to cover the real truth. That truth is in the bible.So the scientists are involved in one big conspiracy to fabricate evidence that contradicts the 'real truth' which based on faith?

No, I am saying the scientist don't know what the hell they are talking about since there is not enough spiritual mixed with science. They have over looked some very important facts. Has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with closed minds and those minds dictating the total of public knowledge.

Genesis 6

1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
2)That the sons of God saw the daughters were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4)There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


When the early Aryans came to the indian-subcontinent, they found many dark-skinned, blunt-nosed, black-haired tribes living in those lands. Very much different from the fair-skinned, sharp-nosed and somewhat coloreful haired Aryans that they were. So they decided to call these people monsters, devils, crooks, monkeys and other things like this. These are references from the Vedic scriptures. Any interested person can read the Vedas to verify this.

In some biblical stories, the Philistines ( people of a land called Philistine ) are villains. Depicted with somewhat monster like attributes. The word 'philistine' is used by some english speakers and christians as a bad word up to this day. The meaning is probably someone unsophisticated and brutal. I do not know the exact meaning but I am sure I am pretty close to it. Once I read in a novel that, a man wishes to tear down a bible into four smaller parts for the ease of reading. But his sister calls him a 'Philistine' for brooding such and evil idea in his head.

The Nazi's killed a lot of Jews during the world war. They thought Jews are not really humans. It's OK to kill a lot of them, run whatever experiment you like on them and do other evil things to them.

Have anyone seen the movie ROOTs ? Remember the part where Kizzy is in here teens and her master's daughter asks her mom whether their slaves do have feelings like "love" and her mother replies that they are close to animals, they only feel pains and things like that, not sophisticated things like "love".

It is a very common trend to name people you don't like as "non-human". I don't think the giants of the biblical reference you have shown were actually giants. Most probably a neighboring non-semite nation who happened to be have higher average height.

Can you show the links to prove [a lineage of hominids]?

Absolutely. Which link do you want? Australopithecus amanesis? Australopithecus afarensis? A.africanus? A. robustus? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens? It all depends on how far back you want to go and whether you want to argue about which ones were direct ancestors and which ones merely "uncles and aunts."



for example: "Clearly, factors other than DNA sequence are necessary for such "punctuated" duplicative transposition events to occur during genome evolution. During the divergence of the human/great-ape lineage from the Old World monkey lineage, the genome MAY have been particularly permissive to segmental duplication events. The scientists SPECULATE that the molecular driving forces behind this "punctuated" duplicative activity may have been changes in transcriptional status or chromatin conformation"

So? This in no way undermines the idea of human evolution. Whoever you are quoting is saying that when the lineage of humans and other great apes (which it clearly acknowledges as a real group) split off from the old world monkeys, the human/ape genome experienced duplications. That is, some stretches of DNA doubled. (Like repeating a sentence.) Duplication is a well-known mechanism for evolutionary change. Its been demonstrated in other groups of animals and plants. This writer is saying that some unnamed scientists speculate that duplication might have allowed a large change in a relatively short amount of time (i.e. Gould's punctuated equilibrium). In other words, this is a speculation about the details of the evolution of both humans and apes. Nowhere does your paragraph suggest that there's any doubt that both humans and apes evolved over time from earlier ancestors.


The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.

Inbox, The words "may" and "speculate" here refer to whether the duplication events in fact allowed the large changes that we know occurred to occur. (I.e. We know large changes occurred. What made those large changes happen? MAYBE it was duplication of the DNA.) The words you've seized on do not refer to whether large changes occurred, and they do not refer to whether we evolved.


The dna of humans and apes may be very similar but that does not prove they came from the same ancestor.

In fact, it does, as much as anything can be proved in science. By comparing the anatomy of dogs and wolves, we can infer that they are closely related. By comparing their DNA, we find that the DNA of dogs and wolves is more similar than the DNA of dogs and cats or dogs and humans. This is because dogs are more closely related to wolves than to cats or humans. It is a basic fact of biology that similarities in DNA are an indication of relatedness.

The same evidence is used in criminal trials and in paternity cases. The fact that similarities in DNA sequences indicates relatedness is so well accepted that we decide legal cases based on it. And nearly all modern biology depends on accepting this fact, including a lot of current medical research. That doesn't mean there's no room for error, but it does mean that similarity in DNA is one VERY GOOD measure of relatedness. DNA fingerprinting is much more accurate than real old fashioned fingerprints. Your DNA tells us who your mother and father are, who your siblings are, your grandparents and cousins--and your ancestors from millions of years ago as well.

No, I am saying the scientist don't know what the hell they are talking about since there is not enough spiritual mixed with science. They have over looked some very important facts. Has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with closed minds and those minds dictating the total of public knowledge.

Not enough spiritual with science? What proves the spiritual information?

What proves the spiritual information? That's easy, the answer is: Everything you have never experienced, including LOVE.

Am I still stuck in Charlottes web? Probably.

I believe in some ways every living creature has evolved in various ways, I do not however believe that just because our genetic makeup might resemble an ape that means we evolved from them. It is strictly a matter of opinion and you can decide for yourself if you believe your distant ancestors were apes if you like.

Whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth is not strictly a matter of opinion. You can actually go out and look and see that the scientists of several hundred years ago did their math right and, in fact, the Earth goes around the Sun, just like they figured out.

When it comes to science--and evolution is definitely a science--it's not opinion, but evidence that determines what is true. It's possible to make predictions based on the facts and theories that make up evolution, and if the predictions are correct (and they are), we can be reasonably sure that evolution is correct (it is).

Of course, anyone can decide they don't believe the conclusions of science, that they don't believe that nuclear bombs work the way physicists say they do, or that vaccines don't work the way immunologists say they do, or that evolution doesn't work the way biologists say it does. But that's not science, it's just opinion or belief.

I can say that my dog is a kind of cat because I say so. But that doesn't make it so. It's just an odd assertion. Saying that humans didn't evolve is like that. If you don't know enough science to know any better, it just sounds odd to someone who does know the science, as if you'd denied being related to your own mother. No one can make anyone believe anything they don't want to.

I didn't say anything about the sun or nuclear bombs, I was talking about your ape ancestors.

So was I. Sorry to confuse you.

Absolutely. Which link do you want? Australopithecus amanesis? Australopithecus afarensis? A.africanus? A. robustus? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens? It all depends on how far back you want to go and whether you want to argue about which ones were direct ancestors and which ones merely "uncles and aunts."



So? This in no way undermines the idea of human evolution. Whoever you are quoting is saying that when the lineage of humans and other great apes (which it clearly acknowledges as a real group) split off from the old world monkeys, the human/ape genome experienced duplications. That is, some stretches of DNA doubled. (Like repeating a sentence.) Duplication is a well-known mechanism for evolutionary change. Its been demonstrated in other groups of animals and plants. This writer is saying that some unnamed scientists speculate that duplication might have allowed a large change in a relatively short amount of time (i.e., Gould's punctuated equilibrium). In other words, this is a speculation about the details of the evolution of both humans and apes. Nowhere does your paragraph suggest that there's any doubt that both humans and apes evolved over time from earlier ancestors.



Inbox, The words "may" and "speculate" here refer to whether the duplication events in fact allowed the large changes that we know occurred to occur. (I.e., We know large changes occurred. What made those large changes happen? MAYBE it was duplication of the DNA.) The words you've seized on do not refer to whether large changes occurred, and they do not refer to whether we evolved.



In fact, it does, as much as anything can be proved in science. By comparing the anatomy of dogs and wolves, we can infer that they are closely related. By comparing their DNA, we find that the DNA of dogs and wolves is more similar than the DNA of dogs and cats or dogs and humans. This is because dogs are more closely related to wolves than to cats or humans. It is a basic fact of biology that similarities in DNA are an indication of relatedness.

The same evidence is used in criminal trials and in paternity cases. The fact that similarities in DNA sequences indicates relatedness is so well accepted that we decide legal cases based on it. And nearly all modern biology depends on accepting this fact, including a lot of current medical research. That doesn't mean there's no room for error, but it does mean that similarity in DNA is one VERY GOOD measure of relatedness. DNA fingerprinting is much more accurate than real old fashioned fingerprints. Your DNA tells us who your mother and father are, who your siblings are, your grandparents and cousins--and your ancestors from millions of years ago as well.






"infer" is not proof - it is putting a hypothesis forward.

When speaking of dna similarities or physical commonalities [ homology ] - these are factual observations and ,yes, it indicates "relatedness," BUT
It does not prove origin.

It is like looking at blueprints - say of diffferent buildings to continue my analogy - and observing what they have in common, but how did these blueprints come about in a natural manner?

The major question for evolution is:

How did these blueprints / the genetic code come about? The scientific facts demonstrating the origin of dna are not known or experimentally proven or reproducible.

If evolution does not have the answer it is in fact a THEORY.




Regarding dogs and wolves. This is a good example.

Why are there not spontaneously "evolved" native chihuahuas or poodles or pomeranians or any other breed that can be traced back to wolves WITHOUT
Direct human knowledge and manipulation?

What proves the spiritual information? That's easy, the answer is: Everything you have never experienced, including LOVE.

Am I still stuck in Charlottes web? Probably.


Love isn't science, it doesn't prove theories, it's something totally irrelevant in this conversation. Why are you so angry and bitter? Why can't you spell experience?


Ugh, anyway.

I think the personal attacks need to end, this should be a mature discussion, not a huge fight with people berating each other.

List of number of chromosomes of various organisms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms )

how does evolution explain acquiring "new genes" or more genetic material?

How come mosquitos have 6 chromosomes, humans 46, algae 146, amoeba 13?

You would think there would be a direct linear progression:
the older more primitive more simple organisms would have less chromosomes than more complex, more advanced, more recent organisms, but there is no correlation.

If algae came before humans how did they get 146 chromosomes in the first place?


genome.gov | 2000 Release: Fruitfly Genome Sequenced (http://www.genome.gov/10002081)

the fruit fly's genome has 165 milliion base pairs
the mouse and human genome consist of approximately 3 billion base pairs.

It took mankind this long to get this smart to figure out that genes are the key to life. With the aid of computers and working in collaboration, they have deciphered the genome.

Do you believe that the genetic code of even the fruit fly was due to chemicals randomly interacting with each other and whatever environment they were in even given 4 billion years?

Realistically what are the chances?

How does evolution "prove " this.

Genes are a kind of coding.

If you have any idea of computer programming then you'll know that bigger codes does not always mean efficient/powerful/strong/better programs.

You want answers?
Let’s start at the top.


how does evolution explain acquiring "new genes" or more genetic material?.
There are many ways with many books written about each of then. Le’s start with two methods that came to my mind.
1. Gene duplication. There are numerous examples in the human genome. Here are a couple of which you might be familiar with. Look up why people are red green colorblind or what causes (alpha or beta) thalassemia. Of course, this isn’t restricted to humans.
2. Gene transfer. Have you heard of MRSA? This is an example of horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. This also happens outside of the human influenced biosphere, but human are less interested in reading about that. Influenza H5N1? This is an example of the genetic recombination of genes between different types of viruses. I can give you human examples as well (endogenous retroviuses).



How come mosquitos have 6 chromosomes, humans 46, algae 146, amoeba 13?

You would think there would be a direct linear progression:
the older more primitive more simple organisms would have less chromosomes than more complex, more advanced, more recent organisms, but there is no correlation.

This question has been asked & answered and the answers aren’t controversial. But you need to be a bit of a science historian to remember when this question was first asked and answered. It been a long time since someone thought that “higher organisms” should have more chromosomes. It used to be mentioned in the first chapter of genetics textbooks, but I haven’t looked in a while.

An interesting question (with a convincing answer) is why all of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46.


It took mankind this long to get this smart to figure out that genes are the key to life. With the aid of computers and working in collaboration, they have deciphered the genome.

“genes are the key to life.” is an interesting phase. There are whole schools of the thought in evolutionary biology which start from that point. Ever hear of the term “selfish gene”.


Realistically what are the chances?

Chances are zero if the world is ten thousand years old & most people who have studied this think the chance is almost a certainty if the earth is billions of year old.

Any questions on these topics?

If don’t want your questions answered then why are you lurking here?

Why are there not spontaneously "evolved" native chihuahuas or poodles or pomeranians or any other breed that can be traced back to wolves WITHOUT
direct human knowledge and manipulation?

InTheBox: That's the whole point; there are! There are more than one million named species of organisms living on Earth today, which evolved from a common ancestor over 3.8 billion years. That is, they can be traced back to common ancestors because they are all related to one another. Biologists think there may be many more species alive today--perhaps 10 million or even 30 million. These millions of species--which evolved without the intervention of intelligent beings, human or otherwise--represent just 1% of all the species that have ever lived on Earth. The other 99% went extinct during the billions of years since life first arose on Earth. Many of them left fossils, but obviously not all.

From among all those millions of species, there are all KINDS of different dog-like animals, some still living, some extinct. Here -- at the website below -- are a tiny fraction of the members of the dog family, dogs that ALL "evolved without direct human knowledge and manipulation." Of course, they aren't dogs! But they are related to dogs; they are jackals, coyotes, foxes, wolves, wild dogs, raccoon dogs, bat-eared foxes, and a fennec. Take a look! They are beautiful.

ADW: Canidae: Pictures (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/pictures/Canidae.html)

Each of these species includes a huge amount of genetic diversity, so that if you started selecting for long legs (or short legs), short snouts (or long ones), you could very soon have a whole lot of "pomeranian fennecs" or "great dane fennecs," and so on. Almost anything you want. There's very little difference between natural selection and artificial selection. The only difference is that in one case, the environment selects the dogs that are best suited to that particular environment, and they end up having the most puppies, while in the other case, human breeders decide which dogs get to have the most puppies.

Same story with plants. For example, Europeans farmers took a single species of "mustard" plant and made cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and of course mustard. All from one species. If there's that much variation in one species, think how much there is in a whole family of animal species such as the "canids," or dogs. It's the miracle of life.
Cheers,
Asking

Lots of good stuff in JEM's post..

First, how to make more genes:


You want answers?
1. Gene duplication.
2. Gene transfer.

And chromosome duplication, too.

[QUOTE=jem02081]It been a long time since someone thought that “higher organisms” should have more chromosomes. It used to be mentioned in the first chapter of genetics textbooks, but I haven’t looked in a while.

I just looked in a college genetics textbook and don't see it. Still, I just read an article in Science or similar in the last couple of months that commented once more on the amazing fact that "simpler" organisms sometimes have more DNA than more complex ones... Yawn.


An interesting question (with a convincing answer) is why all of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46.

Um, so, JEM, what is the answer? I'm on the edge of my seat... :)
Why do the other great apes have an extra pair of chromosomes? I hadn't realized we'd mislaid a pair, like losing a pair of socks at the laundromat?


“genes are the key to life.” is an interesting phase. There are whole schools of the thought in evolutionary biology which start from that point. Ever hear of the term “selfish gene”.

To me, “genes are the key to life” is 99% rhetoric. What isn't the key to life? DNA? Cell membranes? Ribosomes? Evolution itself? Water? Every master switch is a weak link. I'm not saying genes aren't important, but much else is too. And there's the sticky question of defining what exactly a gene is.

Asking

An interesting question (with a convincing answer) is why all of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46.

And the answer is that one of our chromosomes is actually two chromosomes fused together (and of course they come in pairs, hence 46 instead of 48).

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk)

chances are zero if the world is ten thousand years old & most people who have studied this think the chance is almost a certainity if the earth is billions of year old.

Well said.

... Europeans farmers took a single species of "mustard" plant and made cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and of course mustard. All from one species.

Wow, I did not know that. Can you please suggest some links on this topic, I would really like to do some reading on it. Thanks in advance :)

You want answers?
Let’s start at the top.

There are many ways with many books written about each of then. Le’s start with two methods that came to my mind.
1. Gene duplication. There are numerous examples in the human genome. Here are a couple of which you might be familiar with. Look up why people are red green colorblind or what causes (alpha or beta) thalassemia. Of course, this isn’t restricted to humans.
2. Gene transfer. Have you heard of MRSA? This is an example of horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. This also happens outside of the human influenced biosphere, but human are less interested in reading about that. Influenza H5N1? This is an example of the genetic recombination of genes between different types of viruses. I can give you human examples as well (endogenous retroviuses).


This question has been asked & answered and the answers aren’t controversial. But you need to be a bit of a science historian to remember when this question was first asked and answered. It been a long time since someone thought that “higher organisms” should have more chromosomes. It used to be mentioned in the first chapter of genetics textbooks, but I haven’t looked in a while.

An interesting question (with a convincing answer) is why all of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46.

“genes are the key to life.” is an interesting phase. There are whole schools of the thought in evolutionary biology which start from that point. Ever hear of the term “selfish gene”.

chances are zero if the world is ten thousand years old & most people who have studied this think the chance is almost a certainity if the earth is billions of year old.

Any questions on these topics?

If don’t want your questions answered then why are you lurking here?



You have not explained anything, let alone providing links to explain what you assert.

and what you assert is factually wrong

Thalassemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassemia)
"Thalassemia produces a deficiency of α or β globin, unlike sickle-cell disease which produces a specific mutant form of β globin.

β globin chains are encoded by a single gene on chromosome 11; α globin chains are encoded by two closely linked genes on chromosome 16. Thus in a normal person with two copies of each chromosome, there are two loci encoding the β chain, and four loci encoding the α chain.[2]



DELETION of one of the α loci has a high prevalence in people of African-American or Asian descent, making them more likely to develop α thalassemias. β thalassemias are common in African-Americans, but also in Greeks and Italians"

deletion not duplication.
Also note that most gene mutations are actually deleterious to survival
- down's, sickle cell, cystic fibrosis etc...


Show me a link a explaining how dna came about via evolution.

This is my main assertion of my posts.

I agree that dna, molecular biology, modern techniques are facts, I was once a lab tech working on frog mitochodria of all things.

Francis Crick of Dna double helix fame could not explain the origin of dna - he even thought of panspermia - look it up.

You have to remember that when Darwin came out with his theory he did not have the technology to know that a single cell was so complex - having its own organelles etc.

He did not know of DNA or RNA - each scientific discovery makes evolution less and less likely.

Look at stem cells from skin cells. Scientists directly manipulated cells and still there are draw backs - like potential cancer causing genes in these transformed cells.

This is a directed process - not random chance.

Think again - how did this come about?

Computer programs - less complex than fruitfly genome - did they come about randomly?

wow, I did not know that. Can you please suggest some links on this topic, I would really like to do some reading on it. Thanks in advance :)

Here's one.
Evolution 101: Evolutionary Change (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml)

And you are welcome! I didn't even mention kohlrabi, either. In each case, they selected for a different thing--big flower buds (broccoli), huge stems kohlrabi, huge leaves (kale), and so on.
Asking

Show me a link a explaining how dna came about via evolution.

This is my main assertation of my posts.

I agree that dna, molecular biology, modern techniques are facts, I was once a lab tech working on frog mitochodria of all things.

Francis Crick of Dna double helix fame could not explain the origin of dna - he even thought of panspermia - look it up.

I have to go to an appt, so I write in haste.
It seems to me you were asking about NEW DNA in earlier posts, that is, how organisms increase the amount of DNA they have or make new genes. Those questions were answered clearly by JEM. (although you'd have to do some reading elsewhere to get all the details).

NOW you are asking about the origin of life, which is an entirely different question than whether evolution explains the origin of species. Given a single cell 4 billion years ago, evolution by means of natural selection (and other ancillary mechanisms) explains how we have millions of species, from green algae to redwood trees, one-celled organisms and mushrooms, whales, fennecs (see left!), and human beings.

If you want to discuss the origin of that cell, you get into deeper waters and you are correct, there is less certainty about the origin of the first DNA or RNA-loaded cell. But that's not to say there's no explanation for the cell, just that--unlike evolution--it is more speculative. But if you start with a cell, evolution explains the origin of new species of organisms, and that's what most people mean by evolution.

The origin of living cells is certainly not what the original question was about ("is it true that humans are descendants of apes").
Asking

Another source of new genes

Another source of new genes, it turns out, are viruses that insert themselves into the DNA of sperm or eggs. At conception, the viral genes in the sperm or egg becomes part of the DNA of a new human being and the virus is passed on to the next generation.

About 8 percent of our DNA is composed of fragments of viral DNA, some of which is inserted itself into our DNA millions of years ago. Like fossil diseases, they are remnants of infections that afflicted our ancestors.
Asking

You have not explained anything, let alone providing links to explain what you assert.

and what you assert is factually wrong

Thalassemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassemia)
"Thalassemia produces a deficiency of α or β globin, unlike sickle-cell disease which produces a specific mutant form of β globin.

β globin chains are encoded by a single gene on chromosome 11; α globin chains are encoded by two closely linked genes on chromosome 16. Thus in a normal person with two copies of each chromosome, there are two loci encoding the β chain, and four loci encoding the α chain.[2]

DELETION of one of the α loci has a high prevalence in people of African-American or Asian descent, making them more likely to develop α thalassemias. β thalassemias are common in African-Americans, but also in Greeks and Italians"

deletion not duplication.
Also note that most gene mutations are actually deleterious to survival
- down's, sickle cell, cystic fibrosis etc...


Dear inthebox,
Sorry for the slow response but the Patriot’s game was more important ;)

I was wrong on 2 counts. First, I thought that both alpha & beta thalassemias were due to the same spectrum of mutations and I should have focused on alpha thalassemia where one of the main types of mutations is a gene deletion. Second, I didn’t provide you with enough information to understand what I meant.

Your right that a deletion isn’t a duplication, but deletions are linked to amplifications. The most common mechanism for a deletion is what is called “unequal crossing over” (see definition at ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ghr/glossary/unequalcrossingover or unequal crossing-over - Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-unequalcrossingover.html)) You can find a detailed review in a PNAS article titled” Processes of copy-number change in human DNA: The dynamics of alpha-globin gene deletion” Inaugural Article: Processes of copy-number change in human DNA: The dynamics of {alpha}-globin gene deletion -- Lam and Jeffreys 103 (24): 8921 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/24/8921)

The loss of 1 alpha gene has occurred several times in modern humans, but this is a rare event so the number of affected individuals is quite small.
And as you point out “most gene mutations are actually deleterious”, however the operative word is “most”. Both thalassemia & sickle cell anemia occur in areas where malaria is endemic. Both are recessive traits which are quite harmful to those who are homozygous for the mutant form of the genes. However the carriers of the trait (heterozygous) are protected from malaria. (see the PNAS paper or Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Natural Selection (http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_4.htm) or most any other genetics website)

This explanation predicts that chromosomes missing an alpha globin gene (deletion) will be under positive selection (That’s Darwin’s “natural selection”) in areas where malaria existed. This will match what you wrote “thalassemias are common in African-Americans, but also in Greeks and Italians"
This explanation also predicts that the chromosome containing 3 alpha genes (duplication) will remain rare since it isn’t under positive selection.

The other example I gave earlier (red-green colorblindness also has a similar spectrum of deletion... amplification in the human population)



Show me a link a explaining how dna came about via evolution.

Are you asking about the origins of life? Start with Wikipedia.

I actually prefer the RNA world hypothesis (also in Wikipedia) but it is far from certain.

I'm not taking a stand here cause I'm too damn tired to fight it out... but PLEASE don't count chromosomes and use the numbers to explain complexity.

If you think the human genome project was the end of the mapping process you are clueless. Introns, exons, and coding "oh my"!.

The next generation of mapping will involve understanding how the regulation of genes is encoded... those who simply count genes don't have a clue about the real complexity of the human genome.

Another source of new genes

Another source of new genes, it turns out, are viruses that insert themselves into the DNA of sperm or eggs. At conception, the viral genes in the sperm or egg becomes part of the DNA of a new human being and the virus is passed on to the next generation.

About 8 percent of our DNA is composed of fragments of viral DNA, some of which is inserted itself into our DNA millions of years ago. Like fossil diseases, they are remnants of infections that afflicted our ancestors.
Asking


Link?
Which virus[es]?

So in theory, our generation, on average, should have more genes or at least more dna base pairs, than the average human say 10 generations ago?


...



Perhaps I found your source..

Annals of Science: Darwin's Surprise: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter)

The New Yorker - hardly a name peer reviewed scientific journal - I know..

Here are some interesting excerpts:

Page 1 fourrth paragraph:

"Like dinosaur bones, these viral fragments are fossils. Instead of having been buried in sand, they reside within each of us, carrying a record that goes back millions of years. Because they no longer seem to serve a purpose or cause harm, these remnants have often been referred to as “JUNK DNA.” Many still manage to generate proteins, but
scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick."


Page 5 third pargraph

"They focussed on chimpanzees, our closest relatives. Chimpanzees are easily infected by the AIDS virus, but it never makes them sick. That has remained one of the most frustrating mysteries of the epidemic. How did nearly identical genetic relatives become immune to a virus that attacks us with such vigor? The most dramatic difference between the chimp genome and ours is that chimps have roughly a hundred and thirty copies of a virus called Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus, which scientists refer to by the acronym PtERV (pronounced “pea-terv”). Gorillas have eighty copies. Humans have none."

Theoretically are not humans suppose to be closest to chimps an gorillas are off on a different branch?



Contrast scientific results with gene therapy

Gene Therapy (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml)

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved any human gene therapy product for sale. Current gene therapy is experimental and has not proven very successful in clinical trials"



There are instances of viruses that can cause cancer.

Burkitt lymphoma and Burkitt-like lymphoma : Cancerbackup (http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Cancertype/Lymphomanon-Hodgkin/TypesofNHL/Burkitt)
"The Epstein-Barr virus is able to survive and 'transforms' the normal B-lymphocytes into cancerous cells."


Human T-lymphotropic virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_T-lymphotropic_virus)


So it appears that viral genetic additions are actually useless or cause harm [ in humans at least ] - hardly a good thing for a species.

So basically, someone out there can show how humans crossed the land bridge from ASIA to NORTH AMERICA some 15,000 years ago, as hunters and eventually settlers, and we are still on the concept of when(or how) man was developed VS the written theological word?

Seems like undeniable proof to me folks, but what do I know?

KEN

I'm just pointing out the questions that evolution can't answer.

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in evolution.

Honestly, I feel there's more inconsistencies in creationism than in evolution, and evolution is presented by scientists, creation is taught by people who know nothing about science and the human genetics, dna, the like, however, I am a Christian so I believe that perhaps God made us and also made evolution to help us get better over time.

IntheBox, are you saying that because Gene Therapy is a bust, that proves that viruses are bad, which proves that evolution is inconsistent? I want to make sure I understand your point. (This is a bit ironic for me, because I've been arguing that Gene Therapy is not going to work ever since they started hyping it in the early 80s.) But if that's what you mean, I'll try to address that.

And yes I admit my secret vice: I was reading the New Yorker last night. Michael Specter makes lots of errors when writing about evolution, which bothers me. Especially when he gets above the level of the cell. But the substance of what he says in this article is coming from the researchers and makes sense. Has been published elsewhere in journals. If you can read the original articles and show that Specter is SUBSTANTIVELY wrong, I'll listen. I think he makes too many big claims, but I didn't mention those. Like, he said that endogenous retroviruses are the best evidence yet for human evolution. I think it's great evidence, but there is lots of excellent evidence out there. I hate it when writers try to make their bit of science, their researcher, seem more important than it is, just for the sake of hyping one article.
Asking

So in theory, our generation, on average, should have more genes or at least more dna base pairs, than the average human say 10 generations ago?

No. I don't think that's the prediction. We can get new genes, we can lose genes. I don't know that anyone is making claims about a constant net gain of DNA, especially over time spans as short as 10 generations. For example, birds have LESS DNA than their ancestors. They have lost DNA for some reason.

The question was how can evolutionary theory account for the accumulation of new genes or new DNA. This allows us to have new sequences, new traits, new material for natural selection to work on.

Some answers:
Gene Duplication
Gene Transfer
Chromosome duplication
Endogenous retroviruses

im not taking a stand here cause im too damn tired to fight it out... but PLEASE dont count chromosomes and use the numbers to explain complexity.

if you think the human genome project was the end of the mapping process you are clueless. introns, exons, and coding "oh my"!....

the next generation of mapping will involve understanding how the regulation of genes is encoded... those who simply count genes dont have a clue about the real complexity of the human genome.


Exactly the point.


As science discovers more and more about genetics and molecular biology the complexity increases, and

It becomes harder and harder to fit all this with the theory of evolution.


Now it is up to the individual to draw their own conclusions about this.

As science discovers more and more about genetics and molecular biology the complexity increases, and

It becomes harder and harder to fit all this with the theory of evolution.

Now it is up to the individual to draw their own conclusions about this.

Hi Inthebox,
I'm fine with people drawing their own conclusions if they have access to relevant information (or really even if not, because they will anyway! :) ).

But why do you think molecular biology is "hard to fit" with evolution? My point actually was that everything discussed in this thread DOES fit with the theory of evolution. Every new fact --whether it's from molecular biology or ecology--that is consistent with what's already known and understood about how evolution works further supports evolution.

Because of the way science works, you can disprove things, but you can never prove something is true. So you can't prove that gravity exists everywhere and for all time. (But most reasonable scientists accept that it's a general law of natural science because everything is consistent with it's being a general truth.) For the same reason, you can't outright prove evolution. But as hundreds of years go by and NO discovery DISproves it and virtually all of biological science supports it, it is hard to understand why a person would hold out hope for a single discovery that would finally come along and prove it wrong. Duplication, Gene Transfer, Chromosome duplication,and Endogenous retroviruses are all consistent with the theory of evolution. As far as I know, they fail to disprove evolution.

For example, in the case of endogenous (built-in) viruses: if our ancestors were infected with viruses with a unique sequence of DNA (like a unique bar code) millions of years ago and if other apes carry the same viral bar code, then it's logical to conclude that we and they are descended from the same ancestor, the one infected by the virus. It's pretty straightforward. Where's the inexplicable complexity?

Analogously, if the package of Cheetos I bought at Safeway taste the same, look the same, and have the same packaging as the Cheetos I bought at 7/11, then I'm going to conclude they are the same basic product. If later, I notice they have the same barcode, too, that's going to tend to convince me I'm right EVEN MORE. Endogenous retroviruses are like that barcode; they seal the deal on humans and apes being related. We already look alike, act alike,and so on. Now we discover that we share an invisible bar code. How cool is that?

Do you see it differently, IntheBox?
Asking

Hello:

The problem with most lay people is that they don't understand the words "scientific theory". They think it means a proposition that hasn't been proven yet.

Nope. That's not what it means. Not even close. In fact, evolution has been proven time, and time again, just like gravity has...

excon

ERV's ?

look at my post #51

if chimps are closer to humans than gorilla's for the ptERV why do chimps have 130 copies, gorillas 80 and humans zero?

Also viruses by definition are obligate intracellular organism - they are not even considered life [ can't independently reproduce, use atp... ] so how does evolution explain how viruses came to be in the first place?

They must have come from the pre- existing host in the first place.

Any theories? Any links?

At the very least a virus has nucleic acid and a protein coat - even that is very complex to come about by random chance and mixing chemicals even over 100s of millions of years. And if one happens to be it has to get into a host in order to reproduce?

However, there are also interesting facts against the endogenization theory. (1) Endogenization of modern exogenous retroviruses is rarely observed in nature. (2) Most modern ERVs are not actively transposing (moving around or duplicating) in the host cell genome. At least all human ERVs appear fixed in numbers and positions; although some mouse ERVs are capable of expanding in the host genome. Are the human ERVs older, therefore more degenerated and less active? If the human race is younger than the murine race, as evolutionist biologists believe, there is no reason to suppose that the human ERVs are older than those of the mouse. (3) Xenotropic ERVs reside in cells that have no receptor for them. Instead, envelope (env) proteins of these ERVs bind receptors on cells of other animals.8 How did these ERVs get into the cell, if they were not built inside?

How about bipedalism [ walking upright ]?

This is typical
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=27&idContribution=658

We are taught that walking upright developed due to humans originating in savannahs - now informations indicates it might also have been among forests in which case there is no advantage.

At least this scientist is honest in saying what is not known - having to rethink theories as new information comes up - there is no strict dogma.



Here is another one
The origin of human bipedalism (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/wuis-too071607.php)

They acknowledge that walking upright might have a advantage by being more energy efficient - they use words like "could have" and "theory"

One reason is because humans have longer legs. But if you are a prehuman primate millions of years ago - what is the advantage of having long legs when you are a tree dweller?

Here is another link as to the human ape question

http://www.whyevolution.com/chimps.html

I like the fact that we are studying the evidence and discovering new things. To me that makes more sense than an unseen being picked up dust, blew into it and made a man, then took a rib from that man and made a women, then all humans thereafter are products of incest. This from a 2000 year old book that we are not supposed to question.

Hello again:

It's simple. There are people who believe that book. They just do. Then there are people who DON'T believe that book. They just don't.

Those non believers aren't ever going to convince the believers, and the believers aren't ever going to convince the non believers.

Let's just leave it at that.

excon

Look back on all my posts-

I have discussed this all on a scientific level - even my links.

This is my point :
Evolution cannot stand up to scientific rigor.

Here is another example from today's headlines

Bloomberg.com: U.S. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYwzc.iLgtg4&refer=news)

So is gene mutation really good for the species ? Or for cancer?


Here is another

Gene Mutation Predicts Alzheimer's (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/03.13/GeneMutationPre.html)



So the question is - is gene mutuation a evolutionary / naturalistic method of advancing the species?

Of going from ape to human?


Looks like the actual science raises serious doubts as to the validity of evolution.

Let's look at the alternative:

Why does God put cancer in good people? Y'know, the ones that lead a bible-driven life and worship Him, why do they get cancer? Or Alzeimer's?

NK;

that's diversion from evolution as a implausible scientific theory.

besisdes - you don't believe in God or the validity of the Bible - so you blaming God for disease is a false argument. Interesting that I'm trying to keep this rational and scientific and you bring God and the Bible into it.

If there is no God and life is just reduced to chance and evolution, then cancer and disease are just that - facts of life - there is no judgement or moral value as to why or the cause - it just is and that is the cold hard fact.

But YOU believe on God and the Bible and that's your view on how man and all living things were created. That's why you argue so extensively against evolution. And cancer and disease are indeed facts of life, what else can it be?

Yes I do ,

But the op question at hand is evolution.

And I'm arguing against evolution purely from a scientific perspective, and a healthy skepticism is part and parcel of science - does that trouble you ?

So people who believe in evolution and not God should curse and blame evolution for cancer and disease etc...

So people who believe in evolution and not God should curse and blame evolution for cancer and disease etc...No cursing and blaming, it's rogue cell reproduction, I hope we find a cure eventually as we have for other illnesses. Praying ain't going to do the trick. :)

I do love it "in the box" when they can't defend their position, they change the subject. They can not win on evolution they start with why bad things happen to good people.

I will say start a new thread on that and you will learn that being saved does not mean a perfect life, none of Jesus followers retired to the ocean front with carts pulled by 6 white horses, they had their battles,

Since to believe in God is to know satan is alive and on earth and everyday is a fight with him.

Thank you.

debunking evolution (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)

exposing lies in evolution (http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/07/17/exposing-lies-in-evolution/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexposingliesinevolution.blogspot .com%2F2007%2F06%2Fdr-jacksons-rebuttal.html&frame=true)

refuting the lies (http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting.html)

greatest hoax of the century (http://www.authorsden.com/ArticlesUpload/25606.pdf)


No we are not related to apes.
Genesis 1
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”


Why would one be able to reason, love, think, create (man) and not the other (ape) unless God designed it so?

This is my point :
evolution cannot stand up to scientific rigor.

It does stand up. You ask lots of good questions. But there are answers to all of them if you take the time to listen to the answers and to read. (I recommend "One Long Argument," a book by Ernst Mayr, for example.) But whenever someone answers your question, it seems like you just come up with another one. There are practically an infinite number of questions you can ask about biology. Some of them people don't know the answers to yet. Many of them we do have answers for. But just asking a question doesn't prove evolution wrong. It just means that you have asked a question.


so is gene mutation really good for the species ? Or for cancer?

Of course not. No biologist thinks mutations are all good. That would be silly. A mutation is just a change in the information in the DNA. Its effects can be good or bad depending on lots of things, including the environment of the organism. So not only can a mutation be really bad, or really good, it can be bad in one situation but good in another. Some people think they can even be neutral, neither good nor bad. What happens in evolution is that the environment changes and mutations that were slightly bad or neutral suddenly can become useful and spread through a population. Then evolutionary change has occurred. (With lots of change you see species become very different fromone another and actually become different species--especially if they can no longer interbreed.)

Mutations themselves are random. But natural selection, the process that determines whether a mutation spreads through a population or not, is not random. This is an important distinction.


So the question is - is gene mutuation a evolutionary / naturalistic method of advancing the species?

No! Natural selection changes species by acting on both new mutations AND preexisting variants. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "advancing" a species. They change, they adapt. But what's good for one particular environment may not be good in another. There is no progress. This is another important idea that is sometimes hard to grasp if you haven't studied evolutionary biology. (But you ask great questions.)


Of going from ape to human?

This isn't a complete sentence, so I don't know what your question is this time. It's not a good idea for me to try to guess. But I will say that humans evolved from ape like ancestors who were the ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans. We share great, great, great, great... grandparents. The australopiths who lived 2.8 million years ago were bipedal, they walked on two legs like us. In fact, their descendents, probably evolved to be runners--as their legs got longer and longer, their toes got shorter (they way horses' toes got smaller) and they developed other adaptations to long distancer running (but not sprinting).

Then about 2.5 million years ago ancient humans started using stone tools and butchering scavenged animals that they probably stole from leopards, lions, and hyenas, and saber toothed cats! Then their brains doubled and then tripled in size, and they seem to have gotten smart enough to hunt, even though we have no sharp teeth or claws (like most predators). All the while, they were still eating lots of fruits, nuts, and roots (like yams and carrots). Humans cannot eat more than about 50% meat in our diet because we evolved from fruit eating apes. So too much meat and protein is toxic to us and can make us sick and even kill us.


Looks like the actual science raises serious doubts as to the validity of evolution.


Just the opposite. All of biology supports the theory of evolution, and specifically also the idea that humans evolved from "lower" animals. Evolution is universally accepted by all practicing biologists. There are some high school teachers who teach creationism and there is one biochemistry college professor (to my knowledge), but all other biologists -- thousands upon thousands of them, and, importantly, ALL of the ones who actually do biology -- all accept evolution. Virtually any scientist who objects to the idea turns out to not be a biologist and hasn't actually ever studied evolution or biology. The "scientists who are creationists" are nearly all engineers, physicists, or chemists who know no more biology than the checker at your local grocery store. They may be good people, but they don't know about biology, let alone evolution.

There is one other person who is a creationist who went to UC Berkeley specifically to get a degree in biology because, he said, he wanted to "destroy evolution." He got a PhD in biology and was apparently a very good student there--I asked his professors! He did not attack evolution itself, but he did attack the way it was being presented in some textbooks--somewhat badly--so now the textbooks are better. So he actually made evolution stronger in the sense of improving the way it's being taught, which I think was a good thing. I don't know what he's up to anymore. He's a very smart guy. But he had no effect on research biology, real evolutionary biologists who study the intricacies of evolution every day in the real world.

By the way, medical researchers often do not understand evolution very well, as they are taught other things in medical school. It depends on the doctor, but don't assume that because they can't answer one of your excellent questions that there isn't an answer. They just may not have studied much evolution, if any.

If it is true that humans are descendants of apes,why are apes still around?

If it is true that humans are decendants of apes,why are apes still around?

The same reason that your cousins are still be alive even though you are descended from the same grandparents. Your cousins don't have to die out in order for you to live!

Evolution involves lineages splitting into two, four, or even dozens of branches. You can have all kinds of cousins. And the apes are our cousins going back about 5 million years or so. Likewise, all the mammals are descended from a common ancestor that split off from the reptiles even longer ago. So your dog or cat is also a VERY distant cousin in evolutionary terms.

Over time, evolution allows more and more species to form. So if some cataclysm caused 90% of the species on Earth to go extinct tomorrow, new species would begin forming and we would have just as many species again in about 5 million years.

Just as individuals can make more and more people by reproducing, and forming more and more big families, lineages of species can split and actually form more and more new species. (They can also go extinct. So for example, there used to be several species of humans all living at the same time and now there's only one species left.)

If it is true that humans are decendants of apes,why are apes still around?
You and your first cousin share a common ancestor, your grandparent. You are not descended from your cousin, and your cousin is not descended from you. You are both descendants of your grandparent.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes and apes did not evolve from humans. They are both descendants of an earlier hominid.

You and your first cousin share a common ancestor, your grandparent. You are not descended from your cousin, and your cousin is not descended from you. You are both descendants of your grandparent.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes and apes did not evolve from humans. They are both descendants of an earlier hominid.

Sort of. Hominds are everything on the human side of the split from the rest of the apes, so technically, the other great apes (gorillas, chimps, orangutans) are not descended from a hominid. They and we are all "hominoids" however. But I don't think that word helps the average person understand anything. Technically, you are right that the ancestor wasn't an ape either, for the same reason. The apes are everything on the ape side of the split.

Humans and modern apes have a common ancestor. We can't really call it a hominid, because it probably wasn't bipedal--it didn't walk upright on two legs like we do. It was a biggish primate adapted to living in trees, with no tail, and a pretty big brain (though nothing like ours). I think if most people today saw one, they would see that it was not a modern chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, or orangutan, not any modern ape we would recognize.

But I think most of us would still think it looked more like an ape than anything else we've ever seen. If I personally saw one at the zoo, I'd call it an "ape." But this is a semantic question about words, not really a question about evolution.

What would you call the common ancestor of wolves and dogs? Some people call it a wolf. . . . That doesn't seem to bother many people. I guess I don't understand why calling the common ancestor of humans and apes an "ape" is a problem. It looked like an ape and walked like an ape. What's the problem with calling it an ape?

Asking

That makes lots of sense. I had never thought of it that way.

But according to evolution, does not all birds, fish, man, animals, reptiles and even plants, trees and flowers all have some common ancestor ?

Since they would claim all life, of all kinds and types came from the same start of life?

So even just on the animal side, the claim woujld be that dogs, cats, man, rats, and elephants all had a common ancestor?

Sort of. Hominds are everything on the human side of the split from the rest of the apes, so technically, the other great apes (gorillas, chimps, orangutans) are not descended from a hominid. They and we are all "hominoids" however. But I don't think that word helps the average person understand anything. Technically, you are right that the ancestor wasn't an ape either, for the same reason. The apes are everything on the ape side of the split.
I based my usage of the term on this: Hominid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid)

A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid": The original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, including only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid" in which it includes all great apes.

I based my usage of the term on this: Hominid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid)

You and Wikipedia are right. I was wrong. The terminology has changed multiple times recently. What used to be called a "hominid" (everybody in the human lineage, including Australopiths and Homo sp.) is now called a "hominin," and what used to be called a "hominoid" (humans and apes) is now called a "hominid."

Re: What is the difference between hominin and hominid when classify humans? (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1050350684.Ev.r.html)
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae)

I'm an older biologist. :)
Hopefully, I'll get used to the new terminology!

Here's the currently accepted taxonomy as I understand it. It's really different from how I learned it... but the family tree looks the same, just a change in names.
Current System
ORDER: PRIMATES
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea

Family: Hominidae


Subfamily: Ponginae (orangutans)


Subfamily: Homininae (gorillas, chimps, humans and their ancestors)



Tribe: Gorillini (gorillas)
Tribe: Hominini




Genus: Pan (chimpanzees)




Genus: Homo (humans and ancestors-- Homo sapiens, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, etc.), about 7 species of Australopithecus.)

They actually have proven evolution... not necessarily to humans but of animals period. And well since all animals are made up of similar genetic patterns then if one animal can evolve they all can just some are slower than others because the need is not there.

There was an experiment done and because I haven't been in biology in 4 years I can't remember who it was done by so I am sorry for the lack of sources but anyway they took a flock of nonflying birds that bred together and lived together etc and separated them. Half of them were put on an island away from the other half. I can't remember the number but a set amount of years later the birds were brought back together in an attempt to get them to breed but they no longer could because they had evolved and were no longer the same species. There have been other similar experiments with soy bean plants if I remember correctly. The question is not of whether evolution happens the question is are people willing to stray from what a religion tells them. None the less there will always be arguments about if it is real or not even if science can prove it because evolution goes against the bible.

asking: you seem very educated on this matter I have enjoyed reading your posts here. Correct my input if it is not correct because as I said it has been quite awhile since I took biology I was surprised that you didn't use these experiments in earlier posts. So it makes me question if something has been found wrong with them to make them no longer accepted?

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.
I do find it both interesting and perplexing. Nevertheless, I have really enjoyed asking's answers to cromptondot's question, and cromptondot's response to his answer is priceless:
That makes lots of sense. I had never thought of it that way. A response like that is reward enough for going to the trouble to explain something.

So whoever atmisk is or what their motive was in posting or why they haven't come back to participate, something worthwhile came of it. Dontcha just love it?

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.


I have been reading this thread since day one. Don't know many facts on the subject, so I'm just here to learn. I would imagine that the OP really was just asking a general question, but it became very intellectual. Some run from that... me on the other hand sit back and read. Great info you have provided here... thanks.

I'm an older biologist. :)
Hopefully, I'll get used to the new terminology!

Here's the currently accepted taxonomy as I understand it. It's really different from how I learned it ....but the family tree looks the same, just a change in names.
Well, I'm older too, but not a biologist, so I'm in over my head here and I appreciate your more professional expertise. Thanks for laying the tree out like that. All the levels and sublevels are far more complex than I realized.

I really enjoyed that response too! "That makes sense. I never thought of it that way."

I think atmisk did thank early responders but the discussion probably went into too much depth. I have really enjoyed this thread too. Compared to other discussions I've seen, everyone has been respectful, interesting, and thoughtful. OrdinaryGuy doesn't sound like he is in over his head. :)

As for Brown Eye's question about speciation in flightless birds. This kind of thing has definitely happened in evolutionary time, repeatedly--a population gets separated on two or three different islands and then evolves into two or three different species. (It was seeing that exact pattern of closely related but different species on the Galapagos Islands that led Darwin to realize that evolution was real and made him try to figure out HOW it could happen.) But did a person actually divided a group of flightless birds on purpose, leave them separated for a long time, and have them evolve apart in historical time? I confess I've never heard of that. I tried to search for it and found lots of other discussions of evolution on islands--many whole books just about this one topic-- but nothing that sounds like your example. But I didn't look very long.

If you can think of any more details that would make it possible to find the example I'd love to know as it sounds like a cool example. It's possible that there was some mistake in what you heard; or maybe I have just not heard of it. If you remember what kind of bird or what islands or when it happened, or some specific detail that will make it easier to find, let me know.

It does stand up. You ask lots of good questions. But there are answers to all of them if you take the time to listen to the answers and to read. (I recommend "One Long Argument," a book by Ernst Mayr, for example.) But whenever someone answers your question, it seems like you just come up with another one. There are practically an infinite number of questions you can ask about biology. Some of them people don't know the answers to yet. Many of them we do have answers for. But just asking a question doesn't prove evolution wrong. It just means that you have asked a question.



Of course not. No biologist thinks mutations are all good. That would be silly. A mutation is just a change in the information in the DNA. Its effects can be good or bad depending on lots of things, including the environment of the organism. So not only can a mutation be really bad, or really good, it can be bad in one situation but good in another. Some people think they can even be neutral, neither good nor bad. What happens in evolution is that the environment changes and mutations that were slightly bad or neutral suddenly can become useful and spread through a population. Then evolutionary change has occurred. (With lots of change you see species become very different fromone another and actually become different species--especially if they can no longer interbreed.)

Mutations themselves are random. But natural selection, the process that determines whether a mutation spreads through a population or not, is not random. This is an important distinction.



No! Natural selection changes species by acting on both new mutations AND preexisting variants. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "advancing" a species. They change, they adapt. But what's good for one particular environment may not be good in another. There is no progress. This is another important idea that is sometimes hard to grasp if you haven't studied evolutionary biology. (But you ask great questions.)



This isn't a complete sentence, so I don't know what your question is this time. It's not a good idea for me to try to guess. But I will say that humans evolved from ape like ancestors who were the ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans. We share great, great, great, great.......... grandparents. The australopiths who lived 2.8 million years ago were bipedal, they walked on two legs like us. In fact, their descendents, probably evolved to be runners--as their legs got longer and longer, their toes got shorter (they way horses' toes got smaller) and they developed other adaptations to long distancer running (but not sprinting).

Then about 2.5 million years ago ancient humans started using stone tools and butchering scavenged animals that they probably stole from leopards, lions, and hyenas, and saber toothed cats! Then their brains doubled and then tripled in size, and they seem to have gotten smart enough to hunt, even though we have no sharp teeth or claws (like most predators). All the while, they were still eating lots of fruits, nuts, and roots (like yams and carrots). Humans cannot eat more than about 50% meat in our diet because we evolved from fruit eating apes. So too much meat and protein is toxic to us and can make us sick and even kill us.



Just the opposite. All of biology supports the theory of evolution, and specifically also the idea that humans evolved from "lower" animals. Evolution is universally accepted by all practicing biologists. There are some high school teachers who teach creationism and there is one biochemistry college professor (to my knowledge), but all other biologists -- thousands upon thousands of them, and, importantly, ALL of the ones who actually do biology -- all accept evolution. Virtually any scientist who objects to the idea turns out to not be a biologist and hasn't actually ever studied evolution or biology. The "scientists who are creationists" are nearly all engineers, physicists, or chemists who know no more biology than the checker at your local grocery store. They may be good people, but they don't know about biology, let alone evolution.

There is one other person who is a creationist who went to UC Berkeley specifically to get a degree in biology because, he said, he wanted to "destroy evolution." He got a PhD in biology and was apparently a very good student there--I asked his professors! He did not attack evolution itself, but he did attack the way it was being presented in some textbooks--somewhat badly--so now the textbooks are better. So he actually made evolution stronger in the sense of improving the way it's being taught, which I think was a good thing. I don't know what he's up to anymore. He's a very smart guy. But he had no effect on research biology, real evolutionary biologists who study the intricacies of evolution every day in the real world.

By the way, medical researchers often do not understand evolution very well, as they are taught other things in medical school. It depends on the doctor, but don't assume that because they can't answer one of your excellent questions that there isn't an answer. They just may not have studied much evolution, if any.



I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.

I have also posted links demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with current facts.

Look back on some of them.

Regarding mutations as a means of evolving - that in conjunction with natural selection -
would you consider irradiating fertile people to induce mutations to "speed up" evolution?
How about members of your own family - induce mutations in order to evolve?

If you don't want to do that - how can you believe that mutations are, on the whole a good thing?

Sickle cell anemia - caused by ONE BASE PAIR CHANGE - and mutation is good?

If computer operating systems are a very primitive analagy to the information in an organisms genetic code, would you let just any computer hack randomly alter your computer's code in the hope that it speeds it up or makes it more efficient or gives it new applications...

wait a minute that involves purposeful action.

Often a post can take up a life of its own, grow, change some. Actually it is a farily fun topic, and a lot better of someone starting a new one similar where a lot of it has to be done again. Perhaps for the fun of the other posters without regard to the original poster

Over the years I have heard several news reports where human remains have been discovered that are older than apes and monkeys and chimpanzees. There are scientist and biologist, etc who don't believe we came from monkeys, chimpanzees, apes, etc. Could it be that they don't believe it purely out of convenience?

Maybe we should demand to see those human remains for proof.

Someone is lying.

Professionals of all kinds are territorial and have to protect their beliefs, their territory but especially their livelihood.

Scientist and all professions are known to make up theories just to get recognition and for financial gain.


I do find it interesting that monkeys and apes and baboons still exist. Why didn't they become human? Did nature or God punish some monkeys and apes and baboons, etc and did not make them become humans?

When you get right down to it, they are basically theories. Anyone can falsify their research to meet their needs. Many people today question all that is called "research" and would prefer instead to call it "theories."

Fr_Chuck

I started a new post asking for feedback regarding the human remains that some scientist claim to have found that are older than apes, monkeys, gorillas, etc.

Hello Dana:

I think they're lying about gravity too. That's still a theory, you know. If gravity is true, how do they fly?? So there!

excon

Hello excon

You're still as funny as ever.

I came to this site in hopes of running into you.


Thanks for the laugh.

Here is the post I started.

Anyone have anything to add?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-member-discussions/human-remains-found-older-than-apes-monkeys-chimpanzees-gorillas-etc-168085.html

I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.

First, I want to qualify: Evolution is a scientific theory that explains a lot of things about biology, but it can't necessarily answer every question anyone comes up with--even in principle. Also, if the relevant experiments haven't been done yet, or we don't yet have the technology to do certain experiments, again evolutionary biology may not be able to answer certain questions. None of that means it's wrong, especially in overall outlines. The theory of gravity can't explain why I didn't want to get up yesterday morning. A particular theory doesn't explain everything.

Second, if you provide evidence that is true AND is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution by natural selection, that's another thing. So far, to my knowledge, you haven't done so. Even if you do succeed, it's also incumbent on you to offer an alternate scientific theory that DOES explain both your particular fact (the one that supposedly disproves evolution) AND all the facts that evolution by natural selection already explains--a tall order.

"God did it" is, unfortunately, not a scientific explanation. It's a statement of faith, which is wonderful in its own way, but not a scientific argument. I hope it's obvious that I am NOT saying that if you don't come up with another scientific explanation for why there are millions of species on Earth that are obviously related to one another in the same way that families of humans are related to one another, that means there is not God. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if you want to argue science, then, by definition, you have to propose an alternative scientific theory to explain your fact.

So, I'm eager to know: What is your fact that is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution by natural selection? You say it's in the thread, but I don't know which statement you made is the one you are thinking of. Many of your arguments have already been rebutted by one or more people. Was it one of those? And you feel that people were wrong? Or was there one that nobody responded to?


Regarding mutations as a means of evolving - that in conjunction with natural selection -
would you consider irradiating fertile people to induce mutations to "speed up" evolution?
How about members of your own family - induce mutations in order to evolve?

I have no idea why you are asking this, as it seems completely irrelevant to our discussion. But would I consider irradiating my kids? No! Not for a second. I don't want my kids to have damaged chromosomes. They would get sick from radiation poisoning and they might have children who are monsters, as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Irradiation causes really nasty mutations. But to make evolution go faster you also need "selection pressure." For example, some populations in Africa,where large numbers of children die of diarrhea, are experiencing selection pressure for any genes that will protect them from the effects of diarrhea. Evolution happens faster when more individuals die without reproducing. If there are more mutations, that can make evolution go a little faster maybe, but the direction of evolution and the speed is mainly determined by selection--some individuals reproducing more or less than others. Without selection, there's not likely to be much change, except by random drift.



If you don't want to do that - how can you believe that mutations are, on the whole a good thing?

I didn't say that mutations are all "good." :)

That's like saying that words are good (or bad). It depends on the word and what you do with it. We wouldn't be here without mutations, because the little differences between the DNA of apes and people is what allow you and me to argue about evolution. I hope that's a good thing! And people with sickle cell anemia have a mutation that protects them from malaria if they only have one copy of the gene. They only get sickle cell when they have two copies. So the gene is good if you have one, bad if you have two.


Sickle cell anemia - caused by ONE BASE PAIR CHANGE - and mutation is good?

Great minds! You were thinking about sickle cell too. But see my comment above. You be the judge. Is the sickle cell gene bad because it causes sickle cell disease? Or is it good because it protects against malaria? Mutations just are. Mutations can be good OR bad, or BOTH at the same time. The point is that mutations are part of what makes the world go round, whether we like them or not. My mother used to drop things in the kitchen and say, "Gravity!" in annoyance, but it was joke because there's nothing you can do about gravity. Same with mutations. We are stuck with them.

Recent research suggests that the genes that give Europeans pale skin may only be about 6000 years old. Are those good genes? If you get sunburned easily, you might think they are bad. But if you admire fair skin, you might think they are good.

The genes spread rapidly through Europe, and before long everyone was white, because white skinned people are better at making Vitamin D when there's hardly any sunlight than darker skinned people. So it was a useful trait that helpled people reproduce faster -- but only in northern Europe. Those genes weren't useful in Italy, Africa, or India, so they didn't spread there.


If computer operating systems are a very primitive analogy to the information in an organisms genetic code, would you let just any computer hack randomly alter your computer's code in the hope that it speeds it up or makes it more efficient or gives it new applications...


My own code is all set, so I don't need to worry about anything hacking into my code. But if my 47 great grandchildren carry a gene that makes them better adapted than my friend Paul's 56 great grandchildren, then I'll end up with more great, great grandchildren than Paul will. No one can know if that's going to happen until it happens. There is no plan. It could turn out, when the time comes, that Paul's great grandchildren are better adapted than mine because they happen to carry 6 genes that make them resistant to the high temperatures caused by global warming and it turns out to be very hot indeed. Darn! Paul "won!" Oh, well. He ends up with 90 great great grandchildren to my 77. He's ahead and his genes are over represented compared to mine. That's really all there is to evolution at the micro level. It doesn't mean mutations are good or bad or that anybody is trying to do anything bad to anyone.

The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that the environment selects for mutations that work better and selects against mutations that work not quite as well for whatever reason. All our "code" is buggy and filled with mistakes and little back up systems and redundancies. It's a LOT like Windows, which was badly designed from the beginning, but keeps getting fixed and made more and more complicated and yet somehow works anyway. Every living person is a mutant. We are each unique, as are other animals. Every chimpanzee is different from every other chimpanzee. But, for better or worse, there's no master gene hacker, no one at Microsoft or Genetech who is there to make it all "right," to issue security upgrades when things go wrong--at least not yet. We should just marvel at how well our code works, allowing us to have this discussion. To me, that's a miracle.

I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.
No biologist or other scientist would deny that evolution is a theory, but you are using the colloquial meaning of the term here (the opposite of "fact") rather than its scientific meaning.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science)

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

All our "code" is buggy and filled with mistakes and little back up systems and redundancies. It's a LOT like Windows, which was badly designed from the beginning, but keeps getting fixed and made more and more complicated and yet somehow works anyway.
LOL. Great analogy.

asking:


the op states that evolution is "fact" - I've posted to the contrary

if mutations are a major a means of evolving as you have stated the majority are "nasty"... nasty enough that you would not CHANCE it by intentionally subjecting your descendents to mutations. So if that were the case why would you think that pure random chance mutations would be "better" or not nasty.

The sickle cell is analogy is a base change - genetic information is not added it is altered..
How about adding a hundred base pairs and see what happens?

I am skeptical that mutations and natral selection would be able to add genetic information in a beneficial manner.

It is interesting that you use God, faith, miracle in your last post. Faith and belief in miracles would be consistent with believing evolution is a fact.

and the computer analagy validly proves a purposeful design.
even though windows may not be perfect , hundreds of intelligent human computer techs are tinkering with code to make it better.

whether it is Play station or windows or cell phones the thing that makes them run correctly is a specific code altered, modified, changed by intelligence - human that is.

Playstaion 1 did not just sit on a shelf and randomly become play station 3 ?

Doing anything to your dna alters it! The computer is a great example. Why don't you try to add a code to your software and see how it runs! And yea people tinker with them but we still don't know what every base code in dna does only the ones that don't appear in everyone <mutations if you will> and a select few others.

Oh and there are some laws against taking humans and rewriting their dna! YOU can't DO IT. It is considered inhumane. No one can know exactly what will happen. Who cares if one out of 5,000,000,000+ computers will never be able to be used again because of a code change gone wrong. If you do that to humans you might as well bring hitler back and start sowing peoples arms to other peoples backs just to see if it will work!

Faith and belief in miracles does not make evolution a fact. People who have faith typically believe in there GOD so much that anything that remotly questions it is evil wrong and can not be believed. I have a friend that is so afraid of his religion being disproven that he thinks da vinci is an " idiot that didnt deserve to be created. his parents should have killed him at birth!" he's never even read the book da vinci's code he just knows that it questions the truth to the bible. Da vinci was a great artist and to me that is a statement that a christian should never say anyway about anyone because it is against his religion anyway.

Oh and just a tidbit from my psychology class... most people that are truly religious and believe in god or w/e are considered insane by all psychological standards but they don't make that well known because then they will be a conspiracy against the church just like the biologists that have proven evolution!

asking you didn't say if my experiments were acurate or not? I don't want to have outdated knowledge posted on here. Like I said haven't had biology in a very long time.

Oh and your playstation one to three is kind of a good example for us. In this case of virtual evolution the humans used positive selection and choose the qualities of the ps 1 that they liked and kept them around then they did some tinkering and put in other desirable traits to make the ps2 then they again choose the positive features of them and tinker again to make ps 3. but by using that exaple playstaions don't catch colds or have diseases and don't reproduce so how can they just evolve from ps1 to ps 3 w/o human help??

Dna is much more complicated than a computers software because we can't just mess with it without possibly costing peoples lives. Maybe that is what the next <Hitler> will torture people with. Find out what each piece does of their DNA. Unless another person like that comes around it is and will remain unfeasable to just breakdown someone's dna and add more too it or take some away! We still don't know enough about it and probably won't for many years!

if mutations are a major a means of evolving as you have stated the majority are "nasty"... nasty enough that you would not CHANCE it by intentionally subjecting your descendents to mutations. So if that were the case why would you think that pure random chance mutations would be "better" or not nasty.

I've already answered this and explained about mutations as best I can. Sorry it doesn't make sense to you that some mutations can be useful, some not, depending on circumstances. For example, the mutations that give some people white skin are valuable in northern latitudes, but dangerous in the tropics. They are dangerous in the tropics becauses pale skin allows the sun light to destroy folic acid in our blood, which if you are a woman carrying a baby, can cause the baby to have neural tube defects like spina bifida, which is often fatal. Is white skin good or bad? That depends on where you live (and I'm not talking about racism here!) A mutation for long hair might be good if it showed up in a bear living in the far north. The same mutation might be fatal for an animal living in a hot desert or a steamy jungle. Everything is a matter of context.



The sickle cell is analogy is a base change - genetic information is not added it is altered..

So you no longer think this disproves evolution?


How about adding a hundred base pairs and see what happens?

It would depend on where you added them. If you put them in the middle of the gene for hemoglobin, a valuable protein, that would be a problem. But if you put them somewhere less important, you would just have some new DNA that could mutate and be selected for or against. In once case it could be lethal and anyone who got it would die and never pass it on to any future generations. In the other case it might turn out to be useful, or not.


I am skeptical that mutations and natral selection would be able to add genetic information in a beneficial manner.

I understand that you feel skeptical.


It is interesting that you use God, faith, miracle in your last post. Faith and belief in miracles would be consistent with believing evolution is a fact.

I was pointing out that there is room for a sense of wonder while still accepting the facts of evolution. Appreciating the amazing way in which life has evolved on Earth over billions of years leaves room for people with a spiritual life.


and the computer analagy validly proves a purposeful design.
even though windows may not be perfect , hundreds of intelligent human computer techs are tinkering with code to make it better.

An analogy is not proof. It helps us understand and think about good questions to ask, but it is not the thing itself. The circulatory system is a little like the metal pipes in a house. But veins and arteries are not in fact metal pipes.


Playstaion 1 did not just sit on a shelf and randomly become play station 3.

That's right. But butterflies and oak trees are not playstations. And they did not sit on a shelf and "randomly become" butterflies or oak trees. They evolved over millions of years from earlier life, one step at a time.

Likewise, Australopiths did not sit on a shelf and randomly become humans. They walked and looked for food and loved and had children, some of whom had more children if they happened to run faster (when fleeing leopards) than their cousins who were, alas, a bit slow. And some of the fast children's children had more children because they were quite a bit smarter than their third cousins, who never could remember to carry a stone to throw at a leopard...

I was pointing out that there is room for a sense of wonder while still accepting the facts of evolution. Appreciating the amazing way in which life has evolved on Earth over billions of years leaves room for people with a spiritual life.
I'd just like to second this, and say "Hear Hear!!". So much of the resistance and argument put up by religious people seems to arise from the fear that if they allow any divergence at all from their established interpretation of the biblical story, their whole spiritual life will crumble to dust.

All I can say is that I myself have lived through such a transformation (evolution, if I might use the word) of my beliefs, and that my spiritual life is much richer, fuller, more meaningful, more practically useful, and more comforting than it was while was clinging to my literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

All I can say is that I myself have lived through such a transformation (evolution, if I might use the word) of my beliefs, and that my spiritual life is much richer, fuller, more meaningful, more practically useful, and more comforting than it was while was clinging to my literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

I am always fascinated by stories like yours.

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5855/1390)


For now, we know the profile of gene resistance to lateral transfer in one organism, but the existence of a prokaryotic Tree of Life remains an open question. Sorek et al. do not address the issue of horizontal transfer and genomic fusions in eukaryotes. However, recent analyses show that eukaryotes have a chimeric nature (9, 10). When eukaryotes are included in our considerations of evolution, the phylogeny of life seems better represented by a network than a tree, making any core genes-based argument in favor of the TREE OF LIFE ESSENTIALLLY Irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------

So science contradicts Darwin's "tree of life" - everything comes from a single cell.

read the entire article - there are many difficulties in manipulating [ human intelligence ] the prokaryote genome. How about human genome. How unimmaginably and impossible would it be for mutations, selection, random chance to alter or add genetic information that would be viable and reproducible?



The resistance to the scientific questions that evolution cannot answer by those who believe in evolution truly is religious. ;)

ScienceNOW -- Sign In (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1021/1)

There's no shortage of anatomical evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. But paleontologists have still had to contend with a SLIGHTLY EMBARRASSING gap in the fossil record: The oldest known bird fossil, Archaeopteryx, is MUCH OLDER than fossils of its closest dinosaurian relatives [ that it was suppose to evolve from? ]

-------------------------------------
Remember we were told that archaeopteryx WAS the missing link between birds and
Dinosaurs.

"About 60% of the skeleton is preserved" and based on this

"Like the later troodontids, the proportions of the feet and limbs suggest it was terrestrial rather than tree-dwelling, further SUPPORTING the idea that flight evolved from the ground up, Hartman says."

---------------------------------------

Is this science or guessing at a hypothesis to fit into the evolutionary mindset?

How about proposing how to get from terrestrial feet and limbs to those that are flight ready?

"Now, that gap has been PLUGGED."--Science magazine, October 21, 2005
Sounds pretty clear to me.
And 60% of a skeleton tha told is a lot! Skeletons rarely if ever remain fully intact for 150 million years. You are talking about a time that is more than twice as long ago as when T. rex went extinct...

"Paleontologists had expected such fossils would eventually be discovered, and they're pleased that this one begins to fill the time gap between bird fossils and their closest dinosaur relatives. "This is seriously cool," says Jim Kirkland of the Utah Geological Survey, who has studied birdlike dinosaurs." ----Science magazine, October 21, 2005

Sounds seriously cool to me too. What's not to like?
Evolutionary biology predicted that this creature would exist and someone found one, confirming one more prediction of evolutionary biology. This has happened thousands and thousands of times. If you read the story more carefully, it should become clear why this confirms evolution instead of undermining it.

The bit about "from the ground up" is a reference to a running dispute among paleontologists about whether birds evolved flight from dinosaurs that ran on the ground or from dinosaurs that lived in trees and perhaps glided from tree to tree, like flying squirrels. This animal suggests maybe the ground dinosaur theory is the right one. But either way, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The fact they scientists don't already know everything there is to know about things that happened 150 million years ago doesn't mean they don't know anything at all. That's kind of a silly argument if you don't mind my saying so. I think it's amazing that paleontologists know as much as they do about the past. Thanks for posting this article.

ScienceNOW -- Sign In (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1021/1)

Theorys are ideas... doesnt mean there true...

So it isn't a 100% true fact we evolved from apes.

People are people.
Animals are Animals.
That's my side of the story.

Here's an interesting quote from Darwin: Copied from Darwin's Racism (by Harun Yahya) - Media Monitors Network (http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.html)

Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.

' At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla'

Which theory of gravitation do we have absolute proof for?
Newton?
General Theory of Relativity?

Absolute proof doesn't reside in science ... only in religion.
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

QFE.. This is my new sig... BTW if any of it was anything more then a theory it would be stated as such.

The·o·ry- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Smoked, you're using the wrong definition.

Here's the (more) correct one:

A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Also, please read this link for more information: Definition of Scientific Theory (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html)

Hello smoked

Nope, that's not the meaning of scientific theory. It's OK, though.

excon

Hello smoked

Nope, that's not the meaning of scientific theory. It's ok, though.

excon


Dictionary definition of theory big guy.. alt c alt v.. its OK though..

Here you go for your definition.. please read carefully

Scientific theory

Noun
A theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
the·o·ry- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.Hello again, Smoked:

Keep trying. You're making headway.

excon

I do not think your sig means what you think it means...

so.. when did we test millions of years of evolution? Did you put a monkey in a lab and sit and watch? Or is a matter of looking at a couple bones. Realizing "oh look they have some similarities" it must be where we came from. The fact of the matter, and the only fact for that matter, is that no one really knows. Is it excepted in some scientific circles? We except a lot of concepts at face value. Does that make them irrefutably true? They are only "true" until the next great theory comes along..

scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"


What this means is that a scientific theory can't be a unprovable negative. For example I can't have a scientific theory that states god exist but is beyond our reach because I can't be proven wrong. How ever if I was to say god lived in my closet and you could talk to him that could be a hypothesis. If I indeed had god in my closet that could be called a theory. If it was proven beyond any doubt that god was in my closet and everyone knows that you can talk to him that would be a law.

Hopefully this clears things up for you a little bit. If there is any direct questions of why you don't understand evolution feel free to ask. We have enough people that have taken advanced science classes that we should have no problem answering them or at least pointing you in the right direction to get those answers.

Simply put,

It depends on if you believe the biblical account of creation of if you believe in evolution. So it's a matter of opinion, rather then a right or wrong. There are arguments to support both view points. However, I must say, there is much more evidence to support creation.

Simply put,

It depends on if you believe the biblical account of creation of if you believe in evolution. So its a matter of opinion, rather then a right or wrong. There are arguments to support both view points. However, I must say, there is much more evidence to support creation.

The problem is it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of right and wrong. The other problem with what you said is that there are mountains of evidence that supports evolution, while there is no I repeat no scientific evidence that supports creation. If you can point me to a repeatable experiment that supports creation I'll shut up.

NO! We did not come from apes, although some resemble them greatly. God made both man and also apes.

NO! we did not come from apes, although some resemble them greatly. God made both man and also apes.

Your right we didn't come from apes. We came from animals like apes but not apes as we know them today.

Apes are modern animals just like we are. At some point we shared a similar ancestor but they took one path that lead them to where they are today while we took a different one.

The problem is it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of right and wrong. The other problem with what you said is that there are mountains of evidence that supports evolution, while there is no I repeat no scientific evidence that supports creation. If you can point me to a repeatable experiment that supports creation I'll shut up.

Funny! It IS a matter of opinion. If you want an experiment for this, try to crunch the mathematical odds of creation vs. evolution. The odds of us just having evolved are astronomical. How is that for an experiment.

Be that as it may, I am NOT taking sides. So you see, it really is a matter of opinion. Yours vs. Mine. Yours, vs. Others. It all depends what you believe.

Now if you want to talk facts... Where are the half developed spicies? Also, everything in nature is very logical. There is no excess, there is nothing missing. How did that happen? Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longe used, as it developes? As for that matter, give me a logical explanation of some of our human emotions? What purpose does Love have and how does it fit in with evolution? It really is not a necessary emotion, as basic instinct would surfice. So, did we get here just by chance... highly (and mathematically) improbable.

Now, I'm not saying that things took place as the bible states. That indeed can not be proven. But just because someone believes that we are part of an intelligent design, does not make then dumb. For all we know, we got put here as a science experiment by other life in the universe. We don't know and we may never know.

In the end, who knows, we might end up being just a tick on a big wet dog??

However, it is equally impossible to prove evolution as it is creation. So, it IS a matter of opinion. ;)

Your right we didn't come from apes. We came from animals like apes but not apes as we know them today.

Apes are modern animals just like we are. At some point we shared a similar ancestor but they took one path that lead them to where they are today while we took a different one.

Thank you for clearing this up. It's often asked why some apes evolved into humans, whereas other apes didn't evolve. Of course the answer is that a modern species of ape and humans are different twigs on the same branch, evolved for an equal amount of time. Best adapted for its environment.

It makes me so mad when teachers try to tell you when you are a kid that we, humans, evolved from apes. Come on! It's really pathetic. And even if you don't believe god, Do you really think that we eventually evolved from a monkey to a human? There is no proof whatsoever. We were never Apes! And do you know how scientists explain the formation of earth. They say that all life on earth started from one piece of bacteria. It's really hard to believe that bacteria formed rivers, animals, plants, and apes that eventaully evolved into humans

Funny! It IS a matter of opinion. If you want an experiment for this, try to crunch the mathematical odds of creation vs. evolution. The odds of us just having evolved are astronomical. How is that for an experiment.

That's not an experiment, we have no data to plug in as variables into such a calculation!


Be that as it may, I am NOT taking sides. So you see, it really is a matter of opinion. Yours vs. Mine. Yours, vs. Others. It all depends what you believe.

Reality does not depend on what you believe.


Now if you want to talk facts... Where are the half developed spicies? Also, everything in nature is very logical. There is no excess, there is nothing missing. How did that happen? Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longe used, as it developes?

"Half developed species" are not as efficient in an evironment as the "fully developed species" (as you put it), so they die out. We have huge amount of evidence for transitional forms.
And you're right, there should be species with parts that are no longer used, like the human tailbone, our upper ear muscles, whale's hind legs? You've seriously never heard the phrase "vestigial organ"?


As for that matter, give me a logical explanation of some of our human emotions? What purpose does Love have and how does it fit in with evolution? It really is not a necessary emotion, as basic instinct would surfice. So, did we get here just by chance... highly (and mathematically) improbable.

Love makes you stay with your mate, makes you protect your young, helps them to protect your young, makes your young (genes) more likely to survive. We're just complex machines that our genes use to proliferate.


Now, I'm not saying that things took place as the bible states. That indeed can not be proven. But just because someone believes that we are part of an inteligent design, does not make then dumb. For all we know, we got put here as a science experiment by other life in the universe. We don't know and we may never know.

Sure, not dumb, but people who believe in creation are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for evolution through natural selection.


However, it is equally impossible to prove evolution as it is creation. So, it IS a matter of opinion. ;)

I would say that currently, evolution has several orders of magnitude more evidence than creation, in that way evolution is incredibly more likely to be true than creation, based on what we know. Creation does not explain much of the evidence sufficiently.

It makes me so mad when teachers try to tell you when you are a kid that we, humans, evolved from apes. Come on! It's really pathetic. And even if you don't believe god, Do you really think that we eventually evolved from a monkey to a human? There is no proof whatsoever.

Not proof, but there is an incredible amount of evidence.


We were never Apes! And do you know how scientists explain the formation of earth. They say that all life on earth started from one piece of bacteria. It's really hard to believe that bacteria formed rivers, animals, plants, and apes that eventaully evolved into humans

Harder to believe than an infinite, invisible, all knowing, all seeing god for which there is no solid evidence?
The bacteria we see today are really well evolved organisms, the first forms of life were likely to be self-replicating protein strands, something similar but much less complex than the DNA that we all still have inside of us. The evidence is right there!

I believe Humans are humans. Animals are Animals.
Although we are oen chromosome away from apes.
I don't believe it.
If people will ask, "Oh yeah, then were did people come from?"
Here's a good questions, Where did Animals come from? How did animals and people appear from the "big bang" ,and even that is a theory. The world is a mystery.
No body knows how the world was created, hw animals were made, how we were created, what happens when we die. No body knows.
Its scary but... such is life.

I believe Humans are humans. animals are Animals.
Although we are oen chromosome away from apes.
I dont belive it.
If people will ask, "Oh yeah, then were did people come from?"
Heres a good questions, Where did Animals come from? How did animals and people appear from the "big bang" ,and even that is a theory. The world is a mystery.
No body knows how the world was created, hw animals were made, how we were created, what happens when we die. no body knows.
Its scary but...such is life.
Mud and lightning, right? ;)

There is a whole wealth of information about what we so far understand to be what has happened during the timeline of our universe. I would love to explain it to you but I really do not have the time, read a good cosmology text book. Stellar evolution, planetary formation and all these things are so fascinating to learn about and put everything in perspective.

Hahaha, but of course! :p

I really have to stop thinking so much at 12:30 A.M hahaha
But its ag reat thing to think about , eh?

Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longer used, as it developes?

Ever heard about the human appendix? Yes I know the purpose of even that is being debated... just boils down to what information is believed.

That's not an experiment, we have no data to plug in as variables into such a calculation!



Reality does not depend on what you believe.



"Half developed species" are not as efficient in an evironment as the "fully developed species" (as you put it), so they die out. We have huge amount of evidence for transitional forms.
And you're right, there should be species with parts that are no longer used, like the human tailbone, our upper ear muscles, whale's hind legs? You've seriously never heard the phrase "vestigial organ"?



Love makes you stay with your mate, makes you protect your young, helps them to protect your young, makes your young (genes) more likely to survive. We're just complex machines that our genes use to proliferate.



Sure, not dumb, but people who believe in creation are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for evolution through natural selection.



I would say that currently, evolution has several orders of magnitude more evidence than creation, in that way evolution is incredibly more likely to be true than creation, based on what we know. Creation does not explain much of the evidence sufficiently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are really too funny. I'm glad you believe in evolution. But you are dead wrong about your "overwhelming" evidence. There is actually MORE evidence to support a creation accounts, then there is evolution. You know, you really should do some more research before making these outragous claims. Your argumentative posts seem a bit desperate to me.
-----------------------------
Even Mycoplasma genitalium, the organism with the shortest-known DNA sequence, has approximately 580,000 Base pairs. Each base pair can be one of 4 possible configurations (A-T, C-G, G-C, or T-A), leading to a total of 4580,000 possible genetic codes to try before arriving at a working Mycoplasma genitalium. 4580,000 works out to a number with about 116 thousand zeros in it. Therefore the odds of life appearing at random, as the evolutionists claim, is about one in ten to the 116th power – or so close to zero that if you you rolled the "dice" one million times a second for 4.5 billion years (the evolutionarily-claimed age of the earth) you would bring the odds of creating the Mycoplasma genome all the way up to – wait for it! – 1 in 1092!
-----------------------------
Since you are obviously not going to take my word for it... look at some of these, by authorities on the subject.

------------------
Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 1060, which is impossibly small.
-----------------
Also, for example:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest possible degree…The belief than an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."

---Charles Darwin (E. Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, p. 468).
----------------------------------------
"To create from inert matter a living organism--that is, a thing that could replicate itself, metabolize food, etc.--would require a technology beyond imagination. The ultimate problem is that we couldn't possibly put together, in a coherent life-producing sequence, the submicroscopic DNA acid molecules and the surrounding proteins."

---Joel Achenback, "Why Scientists Can't Create Life," Knight-Ridder, February 26, 1989
-------------------------------------

"All the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Speaks, Volume 90, May 1982, p.44.
---------------------------------------

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)
---------------------------------------

"Darwinian myth is the greatest deceit in the history of science."
- Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Swedish evolutionist

--------------------------------------

The problem, some suggest, is that more than a century after paleontologists started unearthing the bones of all sorts of ancient creatures, we don't have enough fossils to say anything authoritatively about prehistoric life. "I'd say the fossil record is woefully deficient in preserving the absolute diversity of species," says Mark Norell, head of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. --

"Fossils Unearth Big Debate" USA Today, Nov. 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------

I could go on and on... but I'm sure by now you get the point.

So, all said and done... whatever you believe, is your opinion. It is therefore indeed a matter of opinion.

Ever heard about the human appendix? Yes I know the purpose of even that is being debated... just boils down to what information is believed.
----
You know, I group that in to the category of "What we don't understand fully yet"

It's like electricity. We did not understand it's purpose etc. for centuries. But we understand it now. We do not yet fully know everything about the human body, and new discoveries are made constantly. So that appendix argument holds no gound. I'm sure one day we will fully understand it's pupose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are really too funny. I'm glad you believe in evolution. But you are dead wrong about your "overwhelming" evidence. There is actually MORE evidence to support a creation accounts, then there is evolution. You know, you really should do some more research before making these outragous claims. Your argumentative posts seem a bit desperate to me.
-----------------------------
Even Mycoplasma genitalium, the organism with the shortest-known DNA sequence, has approximately 580,000 Base pairs. Each base pair can be one of 4 possible configurations (A-T, C-G, G-C, or T-A), leading to a total of 4580,000 possible genetic codes to try before arriving at a working Mycoplasma genitalium. 4580,000 works out to a number with about 116 thousand zeros in it. Therefore the odds of life appearing at random, as the evolutionists claim, is about one in ten to the 116th power – or so close to zero that if you you rolled the "dice" one million times a second for 4.5 billion years (the evolutionarily-claimed age of the earth) you would bring the odds of creating the Mycoplasma genome all the way up to – wait for it! – 1 in 1092!
-----------------------------
Since you are obviously not going to take my word for it... look at some of these, by authorities on the subject.

------------------
Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 1060, which is impossibly small.
-----------------
Also, for example:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest possible degree…The belief than an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."

---Charles Darwin (E. Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, p. 468).
----------------------------------------
"To create from inert matter a living organism--that is, a thing that could replicate itself, metabolize food, etc.--would require a technology beyond imagination. The ultimate problem is that we couldn't possibly put together, in a coherent life-producing sequence, the submicroscopic DNA acid molecules and the surrounding proteins."

---Joel Achenback, "Why Scientists Can't Create Life," Knight-Ridder, February 26, 1989
-------------------------------------

"All the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Speaks, Volume 90, May 1982, p.44.
---------------------------------------

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)
---------------------------------------

"Darwinian myth is the greatest deceit in the history of science."
- Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Swedish evolutionist

--------------------------------------

The problem, some suggest, is that more than a century after paleontologists started unearthing the bones of all sorts of ancient creatures, we don't have enough fossils to say anything authoritatively about prehistoric life. "I'd say the fossil record is woefully deficient in preserving the absolute diversity of species," says Mark Norell, head of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. --

"Fossils Unearth Big Debate" USA Today, Nov. 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------

I could go on and on... but I'm sure by now you get the point.

So, all said and done... whatever you believe, is your opinion. It is therefore indeed a matter of opinion.

Sorry, where is the evidence that supports creation accounts?

And I love that Darwin quote. Anyone who uses that quote deserves absolutely no kind of sensible rebuttal. Heh. Digging your own grave :)
Do you really need me to rebut all of these quote on why they are inaccurate, quoted out of context, etc. I've done it many times before on this very site. It would save me a lot of time if you just went and found them.

Sorry, where is the evidence that supports creation accounts?

And I love that Darwin quote. Anyone who uses that quote deserves absolutely no kind of sensible rebuttal. Heh. Digging your own grave :)
Do you really need me to rebut all of these quote on why they are inaccurate, quoted out of context, etc.? I've done it many times before on this very site. It would save me a lot of time if you just went and found them.
----------------

Well, show me your proof of evolution's accuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me.

Oh, and you mentioned the creation account. Again, I am not saying that it is provable. I'm simply stating that I do not feel it possible for us to have evolved. SHOW ME

P.S. I'm very open minded and have read many books about the cosmos etc.

----------------

Well, show me your proof of evolution's acuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me

Like I said, there is no proof, only evidence.

Well, probabilities are impossible for us to even estimate, we only know about one type of life, the life on this planet, there might have been many different types of life that could have formed. The way that this calculation is performed is assuming that all the bits for this organism came together at once and just made it, but of course natural selection is not random, the fittest survive. The only probability we need to even consider is the probability of the first self-replicating protein. I don't know what those odds will be, but there are other factors missed out, like the number of planets where this life could have formed etc etc. The whole exercise that you quoted just seems like a ridiculous exercise used to generate propaganda, because the ID guys know that some people think math is a reliable tool for this sort of thing.

In any case, 1 in 1092 (that you quoted) are not very long odds at all!

Just to illustrate, take a pack of cards, shuffle them so they're nice and random, then deal them out in a row in front of you. Now, what are the odds of you dealing out the cards in exactly that order? It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*48... *3*2*1, which is about 1 in 80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 (that's 67 0s).

But you just did it first try... wow you're good, you must be omnipotent or something right? You must have designed the cards to come out in that order right? I must have made an error in my calculation right? Wrong, things that are unlikely happen every day.

You also quoted someone saying that the evidence for human evolution can fit in one coffin. Of course, this was the case when the quote was given, in 1982. However that's 25 years ago. We now have so many fossils showing such gradual changes from ape to human that scientists argue about where they should draw the line between the species, the big breakthrough in the last 25 years that enabled all this is that we worked out where these fossils are located in the Earth's crust.

And, I just have to point out why your Darwin quote is irrelevant, to save your future embarrassment. In the Origin of species, where that quote is lifted from, the following three pages are him discussing exactly how he believes that they eye could have formed by natural selection, and we see many of the transitional forms from no eye to human eye in many living species today (because they are all functional at different levels). So by using this quote, it shows that you actually have not done your research, which would be reading possibly the most important book about which you are trying to discuss.

Like I said, there is no proof, only evidence.

Well, probabilities are impossible for us to even estimate, we only know about one type of life, the life on this planet, there might have been many different types of life that could have formed. The way that this calculation is performed is assuming that all the bits for this organism came together at once and just made it, but of course natural selection is not random, the fittest survive. The only probability we need to even consider is the probability of the first self-replicating protein. I don't know what those odds will be, but there are other factors missed out, like the number of planets where this life could have formed etc etc. The whole excercise that you quoted just seems like a ridiculous excercise used to generate propaganda, because the ID guys know that some people think math is a reliable tool for this sort of thing.

In any case, 1 in 1092 (that you quoted) are not very long odds at all!

Just to illustrate, take a pack of cards, shuffle them so they're nice and random, then deal them out in a row in front of you. Now, what are the odds of you dealing out the cards in exactly that order? It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*48.......*3*2*1, which is about 1 in 80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 (that's 67 0s).

But you just did it first try... wow you're good, you must be omnipotent or something right? You must have designed the cards to come out in that order right? I must have made an error in my calculation right? Wrong, things that are unlikely happen every day.

You also quoted someone saying that the evidence for human evolution can fit in one coffin. Of course, this was the case when the quote was given, in 1982. However that's 25 years ago. We now have so many fossils showing such gradual changes from ape to human that scientists argue about where they should draw the line between the species, the big breakthrough in the last 25 years that enabled all this is that we worked out where these fossils are located in the Earth's crust.

And, I just have to point out why your Darwin quote is irrelevant, to save your future embarassment. In the Origin of species, where that quote is lifted from, the following three pages are him discussing exactly how he believes that they eye could have formed by natural selection, and we see many of the transitional forms from no eye to human eye in many living species today (because they are all functional at different levels). So by using this quote, it shows that you actually have not done your research, which would be reading possibly the most important book about which you are trying to discuss.

------------------------------

Well, I have read the book in question... but let's put that aside.

Could you point me to a site / location where I can find actuall half- spieces. As far as I am aware, there were a number of scams, from people that wanted to prove evolution. I have to date not seen any actual physical evidence to support that claim. Which is not to say that it does not exist. But I have not seen it.

(Now I'm not being argumentative here) Point me towards a book, you feel worthy, that discusses these latest finds. So far, all the books I have read on this subject have not been very convincing to say the least. Having literally traveled the globe, I have actually visited many dig sites for these "new" creatures. But from what I have seen... I'm honestly not convinced that there is not some logical designer behind them. (And I'm not talking about God here) Either way you twist and turn it, there are valid arguments on both sides.

Which bring me to my original quote of "It is a matter of what you believe" I'd like to believe that evolution were true. But from what I have seen so far, I'm just not convinced. (yet)

A good website would be something like this:

Prominent Hominid Fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)

I don't have any book titles to hand. I'm far too busy with my own workload to be reading about paleontology.

Like they say, the sheer amount of evidence they have makes it hard to work out what the species ancestral to us are, and exactly which fossils belong in our lineage.

In any case, it's striking evidence for evolution, even if it doesn't specifically answer where humans come from. We're well on our way, though. I think the link to apes is fairly well established, especially in light of other evidence like our chromosome 2.

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)

Talk about taking something out of context. Do you really expect anyone who knows anything to believe that Richard Dawkins, the brilliant quintessential proponent of evolution and rabid opponent not just of Creationism but of religion generally, would provide evidence against evolution? It's obvious that his next sentence in this article goes on to debunk the straw man he has set up. And the idea that evolution is statistically impossible is a straw man. And Dawkins has debunked this argument over and over. But he does need to state it before debunking it... That doesn't mean he believes it.

Your argument also begs Dawkins' own challenge to the argument, which has been omitted. What is the likelihood of an intelligent creator spontaneously coming into existence? Certainly, one capable of imitating evolution in every detail, but not using evolution would have to be less than that of evolution itself. So you are left arguing that A is impossible because B is even less likely and you happen to prefer B.

In fact, as Capuchin says, there is lots of evidence for evolution, which is why scientists who read Darwin's book 150 years ago, all accepted the idea within about 10 years even though it was shocking at the time. In the century and a half since, other people have accumulated even more evidence in favor of evolution and none that disproves it. And the none that disproves it is really the most important part for those who remain dubious.

Anyone seriously interested can read about all the evidence elsewhere on this site or, better yet, in books such as One Long Argument by Ernst Mayrs, or on websites devoted to the subject. But there is no evidence for God, which is at it should be, because God is about faith in some greater that you don't question, a whole 'nother way of thinking.

It doesn't make sense to simultaneously argue that you are right because you don't need evidence to prove God's existence, but that biologists are all wrong because they do have evidence but you reject it.

Just Asking

----------------

Well, show me your proof of evolution's acuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me.

There is mountains of evidence. No way to show it all to you. I'd need a whole library.

I think the most persuasive obvious evidence is the fossil record, which shows the actual story of the evolution laid out epoch by epoch like a children's story book, illustrated with actual stone images of ancient organisms. What follows is just a few highlights, since you are talking about more thant 3 billion years of evolution. That's Billion.

In the oldest rocks are simple bacteria, then come photosynthetic bacteria, which produced so much oxygen, that our atmosphere became filled with it and all of a sudden iron all over the world began to rust and appear in sedimentary layers as orange layers. Later came other organisms that could eat the photosynthetic bacteria and then multicellular soft organisms like jellyfish. And finally, hard shelled animals sea animals begin to appear and then animals with backbones like us--sharks (with cartilage skeletons) and then bony fish. We have lots of traits in common with fish, because we are descended from fish.

After that the first lobe-finned fish appear in the fossil record. They could walk on mud and they had lungs. After them, still in the fossil record, ordered by date, come the amphibians (animals like frogs and salamanders). After those come the reptiles (including turtles, crocodiles, lizards and snakes, dinosaurs and birds). From the reptiles evolved the mammals. Reptiles, birds, and mammals all share many features such as the amniotic egg--a special kind of egg with lots of membranes. (You may have seen that bird eggs and turtle eggs are similar. It turns out that mammalian eggs are tiny inside of us, but also structured the same way, because we are related to birds and reptiles. We all have backbones and skulls and four limbs (arms and legs).

Within the mammals you can find a steady progression of animals going from the ancient primates, insectivores (shrews and mole) up through more ancient primates that evolved in tropical forests of what is now northern Wyoming. From those came monkeys and then the most ancient great apes. Some of those eventually evolved into gorillas,some into orangutans, some into chimpanzees, and of course, some into humans. Most of the great apes that have ever lived are now extinct of course. Only a few family lineages continue to survive.

The fossil record just goes on and one. It's all in order by date and shows the entire story of evolution laid out in great detail, including lots of fossils showing virtually every stage in the evolution of horses--for example, if you are hungering for a gradual record. In other places there are gaps, just because it's statistically unlikely for many animals to be preserved at all, let alone one exactly every 5000 years or so like ticks of a clock. It's normal and expected for there to be bits and pieces missing. It would be strange if nothing were missing, as if there had been an intelligence archivist keeping track of every species that ever lived. And of course, there is no Archivist, so what gets preserved is pretty random. Soft animals like slugs don't get preserved much. Also very delicate animals such as small insects or tiny flowes. But trees, pollen, and big animals with hard bones, like dinosaurs or ones with hard shells, like clams DO get preserved. So we know more about dinosaurs, horses and clams than we do about insect evolution. But even insects get preserved sometimes, such as in amber--which is tree sap that is millions of years old.

The entire story of evolutuion has been confirmed by comparing the anatomy of modern animals to show that ones that are more closely related have more features in common than those that are less related. Like all mammals have hair and similar teeth. While birds and dinosaurs have similar hips. All the crocodiles have similar skulls, that are different from those of turtles, mammals, or even lizards. They have their own lineage. And then modern crocodiles also have hearts that are different too, so we know it's not just the preserved bones that are different. The same family story is confirmed again when we look at the embryological development of these animals. Related animals tend to develop in similar ways--and I'm talking about patterns of cell division, not the debunked drawings by Haeckel. AND the same family relations have also been confirmed by comparing amino acid sequences in proteins. Animals that are closely related have similar proteins. And the same family trees have been likewise confirmed by looking at base sequences in DNA. There isn't a single reason not to believe that evolution happened here on Earth.And then you can look at the evolution of plants and find the same pattern of commmon descent, where some plants all belong in the same family, and other plans are in other families. Sometimes when organisms persist over millions of years, they change a lot -- like people have over the last 6 million years. Other times, they stay the same and hardly change at all--like cockroaches, ants, and anteaters. If what an animal is doing works well, they can stay the same. If their environment changes and lots of them are dying, then they tend to change over time. And that's the end of my less for today!

Just Asking

Apparently evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

A good website would be something like this:

Prominent Hominid Fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)

I don't have any book titles to hand. I'm far too busy with my own workload to be reading about paleontology.

Like they say, the sheer amount of evidence they have makes it hard to work out what the species ancestral to us are, and exactly which fossils belong in our lineage.

In any case, it's striking evidence for evolution, even if it doesnt specifically answer where humans come from. We're well on our way, though. I think the link to apes is fairly well established, especially in light of other evidence like our chromosome 2.

Capuchin is absolutely right. Between 6 million years ago and now, there are huge numbers of fossils of hominins--ancient animals that are part way between ancient apes and ourselves. We can tell how like us they are and we know when each kind lived. But it's not easy to tell exactly which ones are descended from which because many of them lived at the same time. That is there were sometimes several half-human, half-ape like animals living at the same time. It must have been a strange time.

If you look at all of them together, then you can see that over time, they become less like apes and more like us. It's the big picture story of evolution, like in my last post that tells the story in dated rock images of what happened. Those rock images--which are In Order, just like the pages of a book--make it clear that 6 million years ago there were apes living in trees. Then these apes (which were ancient apes, not modern chimpanzees or gorillas) started to walk on two legs (while still in the forests).They probably ate fruits and nuts and may have started walking because of having to wade during part of the year when there was seasonal flooding. (maybe)

They also evolved hands and shoulders that would have been good for throwing stones and digging with sticks. They still looked like apes and had small brains, but they walked upright and could manipulate stones, throw them and hammer on things better than any other ape before them. They may have needed those special hands to drive off leopards by throwing stones, because lots of these apes had leopard teeth marks on their fossilized bones. They may have used sticks to dig for roots in the ground because the climate became drier and the forests full of fruit (their usual diet) were beginning to die out and be replaced by grasslands. Eventually, these apes that could walk and throw stones, started stealing food from lions and hyenas, probably throwing stones at the bigger predators. Then, about 2.5 million years ago, these apes started making stone tools that they used to cut whole limbs from the carcasses they were stealing. We can find the worked stone tools, bones that have been smashed to get the bone marrow, and eventually bones that show cut marks. The ape-like animals hadn't started hunting, but they could steal meat and cut it up.

About 1.8 million years ago, some of these ape-like "hominins" evolved to run long distances. They had many of the same adaptations that dogs have, which are also long distance runners. Only these hominins were even better runners than dogs. They could run maybe 75 to 100 miles a day. They evolved a special "nuchal tendon" at the back of the neck for steadying the head while they ran (horses have something similar, but neither modern apes nor ancient ones do). They evolved large buttock muscles that stabilized the trunk so they didn't flop around when they ran and they evolved Achilles tendons that absorbed and released energy like a spring with each step, making their running more efficient. They didn't evolve for sprinting, like cheetahs, but for running more slowly for hours at a time. These adaptations made these ape-like animals look very like us! They were not human yet though because they still had small brains. But they were part way between ancient ape ancestors and humans. They walked and ran upright, they had shoulders and elbows adapted for throwing overhand very hard. (All other apes, modern and ancient, have to throw underhand). The idea that there is no "missing link" is not true. There are lots of links in the chain of evolution from the most ancient hominins on up to human beings.

Only later, did these same half-ape half-humans evolve larger brains. In fact, the neanderthals had even larger brains than ours. But in some ways other apes evolved more than we did. For example, gorillas evolved thinner enamel on their teeth, probably for chewing leaves and grass when they couldn't find fruit. But our ancestors kept the thicker enamel for chewing hard objects-possibly hard roots. Ancient apes from which both gorillas and humans evolved had thick enamel on their teeth, so in this case, the gorillas evolved thinner enamel and we didn't. We seem to have kept an ancient trait.

I just wrote a chapter of a book on the evolution of humans, so all this information comes from recent scientific journal articles or recent interviews with scientists in places like Time online, or Science magazine. Over the last 5 months, I read about a hundred scientific papers, stories, or book chapters from academic books. Of course, I realize Life Papparazi may choose to reject all this evidence--which is just the tip of the ice berg--but it's not true to say that there is no evidence for evolution generally or for the evolution of humans. There's lots and it's fun to learn about.
Just Asking

I saw a great show today dealing with genetics and control genes involving research on birds and their relationship to dinosaurs. It showed how birds have extra vertibrae that no longer develop because of control genes. When manipulations were done those control genes were basically shut off allowing the extra vertebrae to develop. The show went on to explain how all of the characteristics were still contained within the chromosomes, so that the control genes are what caused the birds to be different than dinosuars. There were different control genes for each portion of the body for which scientist continue to investigate. I'm not saying they are able to make dinosaurs, but scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.

...scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.

Interesting.

Of course, I realize Life Papparazi may choose to reject all this evidence--which is just the tip of the ice berg--but it's not true to say that there is no evidence for evolution generally or for the evolution of humans. There's lots and it's fun to learn about.


Touché, I stand currently defeated by all of your statements. It seems that I need to do more research about recent discoveries. But beliefe you me, I am NOT a religious person and have held on to my believes based on my previous studies of the topic... um um.. years ago. I will certainly wrap my brain around any new data on the subject. Hey, not all of us are stuck up know it alls. Some of us are open minded enough to re-think the subject, like me. :eek:

Thanks for the info.;)

Touche, I stand currently defeated by all of your statements. It seems that I need to do more research about recent discoveries. But beliefe you me, I am NOT a religious person and have held on to my believes based on my previous studies of the topic... um um.. years ago. I will certainly wrap my brain around any new data on the subject. Hey, not all of us are stuck up know it alls. Some of us are open minded enough to re-think the subject, like me. :eek:

Thanks for the info.;)

You are welcome! I'm delighted to have told you something you didn't know. Evolutionary biology is actually a pretty solid science and really interesting. I very much appreciate your gracious reply.

I'm wondering though who told you that evolution was in doubt? Was this in a high school or college biology class?

Best,
Asking

I saw a great show today dealing with genetics and control genes involving research on birds and their relationship to dinosaurs. It showed how birds have extra vertibrae that no longer develop because of control genes. When manipulations were done those control genes were basically shut off allowing the extra vertebrae to develop. The show went on to explain how all of the characteristics were still contained within the chromosomes, so that the control genes are what caused the birds to be different than dinosuars. There were different control genes for each portion of the body for which scientist continue to investigate. I'm not saying they are able to make dinosaurs, but scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.


"The control genes of birds are different." No scientific explanation as to how they became different. Or were these control genes there all along? No one can absolutely say for sure.

How did the information get to these chromosomes in the first place?

Why would dinosaurs have "flight genes" and not use them?

The science states what is there.

Some humans assume it somehow got there through evolution, that is no different than some humans saying that God created.


As to self replicating proteins, is human heredity through genes or proteins?

How did these self replicating proteins make the switch to DNA as the main mechanism of heredity and cellular control?

Did these proteins somehow decide to become ribosomes and somehow know how to interact with MRNA and TRNA, and amino acids? What of the cellular editing after initial protein synthesis. How is this all possible through the all creating force of natural selection?

The more one knows of real factual science the more silly and impossible evolution becomes.


Is natural selection intelligent to have designed this?

The more one knows of real factual science the more silly and impossible evolution becomes.


I know a few thousand scientists that would disagree with you on that one.
NCSE Resource (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

The problem as I see it is that evolution is a hard subject to grasp it's very complicated and one shouldn't be expected to get it without good amount of research. It's much easier for people to "get" god did it you don't need to understand it and then go on there way. That however doesn't make god did it the right answer.

I know a few thousand scientists that would disagree with you on that one.
NCSE Resource (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

The problem as I see it is that evolution is a hard subject to grasp it's very complicated and one shouldn't be expected to get it without good amount of research. It's much easier for people to "get" god did it you don't need to understand it and then go on there way. That however doesn't make god did it the right answer.

God aside I have read a handful (just what I have found) of geneticists that would argue the validity of your statements.

Some humans assume it somehow got there thru evolution, that is no different than some humans saying that God created.

Proving evolution doesn't disprove god - it just disproves the biblical version of events. I understand that presents a problem for a lot of people, but evolution makes no claim for or against "god".

It seems that when science makes a new claim or discovery you dismiss it because it doesn't answer every single question you can think of. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I know religion has an answer to everything, "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways" but is that really an answer? That's like saying "Because I said so". Science, instead, says, "Here's what we know, here's what we think, here's what we still need to figure out."

god aside i have read a handful (just what i have found) of geneticists that would argue the validity of your statements.

A handful of people without evidence is meaningless. Every experiment ever done has either supported evolution or did nothing to prove it wrong. If it did we would abandon the theory of evolution and start working on a new theory. That's the way science works it's only religion that doesn't abandon theories when they conflict with reality.

You are welcome! I'm delighted to have told you something you didn't know. Evolutionary biology is actually a pretty solid science and really interesting. I very much appreciate your gracious reply.

I'm wondering though who told you that evolution was in doubt? Was this in a high school or college biology class?

Best,
Asking

I did a 500 page paper on the subject when I was in college. I put over a years worth or research in to it. But, that was back in the eightees and there are, as it appears, new discoveries, which I did not take in to consideration during this discussion.

Every experiment ever done has either supported evolution or did nothing to prove it wrong. If it did we would abandon the theory of evolution and start working on a new theory.

I agree. Just finding questions that one person or another can't answer doesn't prove that evolution is wrong. When we DO find answers, they have so far always been consistent with evolution. Over 150 years, that's a lot of evidence in favor of evolution.

Sometimes when someone keeps asking questions that haven't been answered yet or which the particular person talking doesn't know the answers to and insists that the answer is that it was God, people call that kind of reasoning "God is in the gaps." That is, God is supposed to be the answer to whatever a certain person doesn't know. So, for example, if I didn't know how plants can pull water to the tops of tall trees, I might say that since I don't know how that works and I assume no one else does, then the answer is that God moves the water to the top of the tree (instead of evaporation in the leaves and "stickiness" of water molecules inside the plants' "pipes"). In fact, there is an answer, whether the person knows it or not, even if no one knows it yet. But someone will figure it out eventually.

Questions about how things work are different from why questions, like Why are we here? How things work questions can usually be answered eventually. Those are the kinds of questions that science is good at.

Asking

Just posting to see if this thread is working correctly. I've read the last post 6 times but it keeps appearing as though a new post has been added?