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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atmisk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atmisk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atmisk

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red_cartoon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jem02081

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jem02081

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 ? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jem02081

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red_cartoon

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

"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].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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. 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) 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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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?