Some evolution questions
Chris
relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
mate with?
Chris
If life seems jolly rotten
There's spmething you've forgotten
and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
SJAB1958
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
>
Pick any two living humans in the world and the variation between them
on the genetic level is 0.1%.
Considering this even most humans today are not "100% human" because
even that tiny difference on the genetic level creates the vast
diversity in the human species that is manifest in the physical form.
John Wilkins
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
There are at least four human species between us and the last common
ancestor we had with chimps. As there are two species of chimp now, it's
likely that there were several species between them and the LCA. It
happens that few of them have been fossilised.
Why do you think this is so "far away"? Ten or so species is not all
that distant. There's a lot more species diversity among other groups
with that sort of distance betwwen existing/surviving species. And what
does "100% human" mean? Were Homo erectus, H ergaster, H
neanderthalensis (not an ancestor but a cousin) 100% human?
There *were* human species (that is, species in the human branch of that
split) that are not completely *modern* human. They are extinct. Had
things gone somewhat differently, they may well have survived through to
now. In fact, erectus was alive as recently as 50,000 years ago, and
probably coexisted with modern humans, who most likely competitively
excluded them to extinction.
And single species do not evolved from a single breeding par, an "Adam
and Eve". They evolve from populations of thousands or millions.
>
> Chris
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's spmething you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
Chimps are very close to man indeed. Some taxonomists classify them
and us as being in the same genus.
They are highly intelligent, tool-using creatures living in complex
societies. In some measures of intelligence they can outperform
humans.
> What about the nearest extinct relative?
Neaderthal man.
> How close are we to it?
In most respects Neanderthals fall within the range of variation of
modern man. A Neanderthal dressed in modern clothing could walk down a
street without promoting much comment.
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter?
There is no "less" or "more" evolved. Evolution is not goal oriented.
It has no direction.
> Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone?
No. Why should it?
> If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
Define what "human" means. A few decades ago we thought that humans
had unique characteristics which set them apart from all other
animals. I recall reading a book called "Man the toolmaker", which
ascribed the global dominance of man to his unique tool-making
abilities. Now we find tool-making pretty well everywhere in the
animal kingdom. We then thought that man was uniquely intelligent. Now
we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
chimps.
100,000 years ago there were three species of man still living, us,
Neanderthals, and the relict Erectus population on Flores (and
possibly other Indonesian Islands). The others went extinct. We
didn't.
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
Evolution happens to populations, not indviduals. The Spiderman movies
are not good sources for biological science.
RF
SJAB1958
Put Spiderman up there with the X-men, the Hulk, and various other
comicbook heros and yes it isnt good biological science but it is
cracking good fun if that is what you enjoy.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chris
> > If life seems jolly rotten
> > There's spmething you've forgotten
> > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steven J.
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>
relatives were competing with us for the same ecological niche
(originally, savanna hunter-gatherer; later, hunter-gatherer in other
relatively open environments), and we out-competed them for food and
space (also, we probably killed and ate them).
>
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
of going for _H. heidelbergensis_. It's not always clear whether
different early hominine populations represent distinct species, or
simply subspecies of a widespread and varying species.
>
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>
who, or what, is and isn't human. As noted, paletontologists disagree
even as to whether the Neanderthals were members of our species or
not. And slightly earlier hominines are sometimes given distinctive
species names, and sometimes lumped together as "archaic _Homo
sapiens_. All species have variation in them (ways in which
individuals are different from each other). That variation does not
mean that some members of the species are less than 100% in that
species (although there are cases, in living populations as well as in
extinct ones, where it is uncertain whether two different populations
are different subspecies or different species).
Humans show less genetic variation among themselves than do, e.g.
chimpanzees, or many other species. It is thought that at one point,
within the last few thousand generations, we went through a genetic
bottleneck -- a period when our species was reduced to a fairly small
population in a small area -- which left us unusually genetically
uniform. That, and intermarriage between adjacent human populations,
keeps us pretty genetically uniform, with only minor local
variations.
>
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
>
Again, you seem to assume that there is some clear dividing line
between human and nonhuman, or between our species and others. There
is now, of course, because the intermediates are all dead, but if you
went back through the generations you'd never find a point where
parents and children were of different species, or more different from
one another than the parents were from one another. Incidentally, no
one is quite sure how far back in the family tree one would have to go
to find individuals who couldn't interbreed with us, if we weren't
handicapped by living thousands of generations apart. Most
paleontologists think there wasn't much interbreeding between early
_H. sapiens_ and the Neanderthals, but the two groups were probably
interfertile.
>
> Chris
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's spmething you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
-- Steven J.
Ian Chua
Its the sea slug Aplysia Californica.
A lot of laboratory experiments have been done on it to advance
medical science because it has biomolecules which ae homologous to
those found in humans. Sometimes, process studies like metabolism,
adsorption, sensory responses, etc. are also done on it its organelles
and cells.
alwaysaskingquestions
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1177140821.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Now
> we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> chimps.
Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
intelligence?
richardal...@googlemail.com
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90280123e0bdd7fb
RF
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <58u8dfF...@mid.individual.net>):
There are very few chimp creationists.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Tony Raymonds
<chri...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> writes
>Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
Depends on your perspective. From a genetic point of view they are very
close indeed.
>What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
Probably Neanderthals, they appear to be the last species to separate
from our particular branch of the tree. Note that they appear to be a
side branch and not ancestral to us though.
The other possibility is the hobbits, although that is somewhat
controversial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
>Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
>living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
>like creature that is not 100% human is gone?
It doesn't seem odd to me at all.
If you put two species which share the same ecological niche (resources)
in the same environment and then sooner or later you will end up with
only one species remaining. The other one will be extinct, out competed
for food or shelter.
Humans are not very good at sharing resources with other organisms. Look
at the speed we are wiping out the great apes and their habitats. At
this rate our closest living relatives will soon no longer be chimps
because there won't be any chimps left.
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
TomS
<1hwxkdf.1wlsd031qu5xzbN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
What qualifies as a *human* species? Does that refer to any species
which is on the Homo sapiens side of the division between chimps
and "fully modern humans"? So that, for example, Australopithecines
were human? Or would be draw the line so that even Neandertals
weren't human?
>
>And single species do not evolved from a single breeding par, an "Adam
>and Eve". They evolve from populations of thousands or millions.
>
>>
>> Chris
>> If life seems jolly rotten
>> There's spmething you've forgotten
>> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>
>
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
John Wilkins
I take it as the first ape that was an upright walker that is not also
an ancestor of any chimp.
>
> >
> >And single species do not evolved from a single breeding par, an "Adam
> >and Eve". They evolve from populations of thousands or millions.
> >
> >>
> >> Chris
> >> If life seems jolly rotten
> >> There's spmething you've forgotten
> >> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
> >
> >
--
Ron O
Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
each other let alone to closely related species.
As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
might claim it is what we would like to believe.
There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
or so.
Ron Okimoto
alwaysaskingquestions
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1177155324.6...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, from beating pre-school children in specific areas of learning to
outperforming "us" is a bit of a leap but fascinating research all the same.
Thx.
Will in New Haven
>
> There is no "less" or "more" evolved. Evolution is not goal oriented.
> It has no direction.
I have accepted that for years. However, if there is no goal and no
direction, why is Emmylou Harris clearly superior to every other life
form?
Will in New Haven
--
You shouldn't criticize someone until you walk a mile in their shoes;
that way
when you do, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
mel turner
news:v5cj23tg0slr5v0do...@4ax.com...
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
That's not so very far. If it wasn't a case involving humans, any
pair of similarly closely related species would be treated by most
creationists as "So what? They're both still [whatevers]. That's
not evolution."
> What about the nearest extinct relative?
What about it? It's extinct.
>How close are we to it?
Much, much closer. A common ancestor just several hundred thousand
years ago, compared with the chimp-human last common ancestor
several million years ago.
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone?
Not odd at all. There's no reason to expect to see any of them still
living. After all, the closer they are to us, the greater the
likelihood of direct competition and conflict. Human history shows
that modern human groups tend to be extremely hard on their fully
human neighbors of different cultures; just imagine how tough it
would be for a different human species trying to coexist with us.
>If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
We know there were lots of such hominids. For a considerable number of
forms, we have their fossils. They simply no longer exist, but they
clearly once did exist.
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
Species level evolution doesn't work that way. New species typically
arise by gradual divergence of whole populations, not by single mutant
individuals who then have to find a similarly changed mate.
Your question is a lot like asking "We know that the French language
was derived from Latin during histioric times. So, if that's the case,
then who could the very first French speaker converse possibly with?
He or she obviously couldn't talk to his or her parents, siblings or
neighbors."
Just as there will have been no first French speaker, there will
have been no first member of the biological human species. Just
whole populations gradually diverging over many generations.
cheers
John Harshman
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
That would be, more or less, H. neanderthalensis. Judging by the DNA
fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
from each other.
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
No. The evolutionary tree is constantly being pruned by chance and by
competition. Species that are too similar to each other compete,
resulting either in selection causing them to become less similar or in
the extinction of one of them. We (and our various precursor species)
undoubtedly caused the extinction of other hominids, more so since our
niche became as broad as it is -- now we're competing with most other
species on the planet.
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
You are experiencing a confusion of time scales. Evolution is neither
instant nor glacially slow. Significant change to a population can take
many generations, but on a geological scale that's the blink of an eye.
ayer...@hotmail.com
Yes there are slightly less evolved humans still living,they are
called evolution, and darwinist.
ayer...@hotmail.com
Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
even close.
TomS
<LSoWh.3562$rO7...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>Chris wrote:
>
>> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
>That would be, more or less, H. neanderthalensis. Judging by the DNA
>fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
>moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
>from each other.
What about H. floresiensis?
Grandbank
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> I have accepted that for years. However, if there is no goal and no
> direction, why is Emmylou Harris clearly superior to every other life
> form?
>
> Will in New Haven
Because of her White Shoes.
KP
Throwback
I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.
I only take a few minutes a day on the 'puter, but I
found the next one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412141025.htm
"Human-Chimp Differences Uncovered With Analysis Of Rhesus Monkey
Genome
Science Daily - An international consortium of researchers has
published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and aligned
it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a
special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the
three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have
some significant differences among their genes."
Throwback
I mean you really have to dig to find the truth.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/218
"Gibbs and his colleagues are tackling evolutionary biology in
reverse. They are identifying key genomic differences without yet
knowing how or whether those differences translate into traits that
provide survival advantages. Traditionally, researchers have first
traced changes in the shapes and sizes of beaks, bodies, brains, and
so on, then sought the genes behind them. The hope is that the two
modes of inquiry will meet in the middle. But so far researchers have
come up short in linking genomic changes to traits subjected to
natural selection and other evolutionary forces"
Tom McDonald
> On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>>
> Darwin's explanation (and it seems a good one) is that closer
> relatives were competing with us for the same ecological niche
> (originally, savanna hunter-gatherer; later, hunter-gatherer in other
> relatively open environments), and we out-competed them for food and
> space (also, we probably killed and ate them).
>> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>>
> Richard Forrest has suggested _Homo neanderthalensis_. I was thinking
> of going for _H. heidelbergensis_.
I'm for H. heidelbergensis as our closest ancestor:
Would have been nice if we'd kept some of the leaves. I'd like a
Mohawk of the pinkish ones, and arm- and leg-bands of the spiky
green ones.
<snip>
>> Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
>> like creature that is not 100% human is gone?
Odd? No, not if you understand how evolution works with
generalists like humans.
I do find it sad, however. Personally, I'd love to have some
other human species about.
But again, since we'd more than likely compete for the same
resources, and since we are wired to survive, we'd probably just
kill the others off. Perhaps 'again.'
<snip>
>> Chris
>> If life seems jolly rotten
>> There's spmething you've forgotten
>> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
Life of Brian! OK, you can post here.
Know any Pratchett? Adams?
ayer...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Geological scale is a lie made up by evolutionist, Bacteria is on the
bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
somthing that was once living (FACT). It (geological scale) can not
be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean. If we
where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
in the water? Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate. We are
what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
science can't prove there is no GOD. I have to prove nothing, Science
proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
way things are. By those thing that just can;t happen by them selfs.
Like the big bang, science says that if rewind the expantion of the
universe it comes back to a single point in time.(A BEGINING) science
says there is no reason for it to just happen. Science fact that
everything has a begining, and for every action is a
reaction.Sciencetist say there is no reason for it to of happened.
they say our begining came from bora (NOTHING) Sounds like GENESIS.
Throwback
I know they can't adequately explain how abiogenesis occurred.
They then revert to darwin's cult belief #3 :
"We believe at some distant time, someone smarter than
us will come along and adequately explain this."
So they put it out of mind.
But this belief isn't taught right away in introductory
courses, as they proclaim miller's experiment produced
some of the building blocks of what became life, and conveniently
leave out the cult belief until they have moved up in the
initiation process from entered apprentice to ascended
master of the great secret.
Mark VandeWettering
It's not "slanted towards" evolution. It's evolution. There are
no other reasonable explanations for the relatedness of chimps
and humans.
geo...@hotmail.com
> bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> somthing that was once living (FACT). It (geological scale) can not
> be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
> lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean. If we
> where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
> in the water? Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate. We are
> what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
> science can't prove there is no GOD. I have to prove nothing, Science
> proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
> way things are. By those thing that just can;t happen by them selfs.
> Like the big bang, science says that if rewind the expantion of the
> universe it comes back to a single point in time.(A BEGINING) science
> says there is no reason for it to just happen. Science fact that
> everything has a begining, and for every action is a
> reaction.Sciencetist say there is no reason for it to of happened.
> they say our begining came from bora (NOTHING) Sounds like GENESIS.
Crikey, that sure showed him. Tell me more about this fabulous
religion! Is it true that grammar is blasphemous?
Throwback
No, it's exactly what I said. In fact, many of the articles claimed
the actual percentage differences in the DNA were far lower
than they actually were, and that this is stunning proof of
evolution's conjectural lines of evolutionary descent.
Luckily I found 2 that weren't so slanted ...
Bob T.
Umm... bacteria has nothing to do with geology.
>> Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> > somthing that was once living (FACT). It (geological scale) can not
> > be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
> > lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean. If we
> > where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
> > in the water? Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate. We are
> > what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
> > science can't prove there is no GOD. I have to prove nothing, Science
> > proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
> > way things are.
>
> I know they can't adequately explain how abiogenesis occurred.
>
> They then revert to darwin's cult belief #3 :
>
> "We believe at some distant time, someone smarter than
> us will come along and adequately explain this."
That's not true at all. What they actually say is that it is very
difficult to tell exactly what happened 4 billion years ago. Even if
we someday are able to create new life experimentally, we won't know
that it happened the same way.
Here's a metaphor: do you know what your granfather's first word was?
Do you know how old your grandmother was when she was when she was
potty-trained? Probably not - and yet, I'm sure your grandfather did
learn some word first, and your grandmother was potty-trained at some
point.
Just because we don't know the details of how life began, does not
mean we can't make reasonable speculations based on the evidence. I'm
guessing your grandfather's first word might have been "mama".
>
> So they put it out of mind.
>
> But this belief isn't taught right away in introductory
> courses, as they proclaim miller's experiment produced
> some of the building blocks of what became life, and conveniently
> leave out the cult belief until they have moved up in the
> initiation process from entered apprentice to ascended
> master of the great secret.
I believe that you are the one with cult beliefs.
- Bob T.
Perplexed in Peoria
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> mate with?
I'm tempted to respond because this is the clearest statement of
the "Where are the transitionals today?" challenge I have seen.
I think that at the heart of this challenge lies a faulty intuition
as to what should be expected if the evolutionary account is correct.
That intuition can be corrected, but it takes some math to do so.
But before I attempt that, I would like a clarification. Are you
suggesting that there is something 'spooky' about humans in that they
have no close relatives? That most other species do have close
relatives? Because I don't think that is the case. Gorilla is just
as 'isolated' as we are, and the ourangatan is twice as distant from
its closest relative. And if you consider both African and Indian
elephants to be in the same species, they are very, very far from their
nearest relative.
Or are you saying that a 'spooky' kind of isolation from nearest
relatives exists throughout biology? And that this constitutes evidence
for a 'baramin'-based special creation theory and evidence against
an evolutionary theory? If this is what you are saying, then I will
try to reform your intuitions using math.
The Last Conformist
wrote:
> But before I attempt that, I would like a clarification. Are you
> suggesting that there is something 'spooky' about humans in that they
> have no close relatives? That most other species do have close
> relatives? Because I don't think that is the case. Gorilla is just
> as 'isolated' as we are, and the ourangatan is twice as distant from
> its closest relative.
Um, surely the gorilla is considerably *more* isolated than what we
are, what with us sharing our branch with two species of chimp and
all? We've got two relatives closer than the gorilla - the gorilla has
none closer than us.
> And if you consider both African and Indian
> elephants to be in the same species, they are very, very far from their
> nearest relative.
Does anyone consider them conspecific? They're usually placed in
different genera - _Loxodonta_ and _Elephas_.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177155324.6...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:46 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177140821.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Now
> >> > we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> >> > chimps.
>
> >> Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
> >> intelligence?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90280123e0bdd7fb
>
> Hmm, from beating pre-school children in specific areas of learning to
> outperforming "us" is a bit of a leap but fascinating research all the same.
>
> Thx.
There was a TV programme on this a while ago in which Dr Susan
Blackmore was comprehensively trounced by a chimp in a computer game
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463295/)
RF
Throwback
> > I know they can't adequately explain how abiogenesis occurred.
>
> > They then revert to darwin's cult belief #3 :
>
> > "We believe at some distant time, someone smarter than
> > us will come along and adequately explain this."
>
> That's not true at all. What they actually say is that it is very
> difficult to tell exactly what happened 4 billion years ago. Even if
> we someday are able to create new life experimentally, we won't know
> that it happened the same way.
>
> Here's a metaphor: do you know what your granfather's first word was?
> Do you know how old your grandmother was when she was when she was
> potty-trained? Probably not - and yet, I'm sure your grandfather did
> learn some word first, and your grandmother was potty-trained at some
> point.
>
> Just because we don't know the details of how life began, does not
> mean we can't make reasonable speculations based on the evidence.
Reasonable speculations?
>From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
"My opinion or working hypothesis is
that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
carbon "
Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
"We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
And from an evangelist from darwin's cult:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/53c75e438fe97742?dmode=source&hl=en
"but for
all I know non-racemic amino-acids predate ribozymes."
> > So they put it out of mind.
>
> > But this belief isn't taught right away in introductory
> > courses, as they proclaim miller's experiment produced
> > some of the building blocks of what became life, and conveniently
> > leave out the cult belief until they have moved up in the
> > initiation process from entered apprentice to ascended
> > master of the great secret.
>
> I believe that you are the one with cult beliefs.
Wrong.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:41 am, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have accepted that for years. However, if there is no goal and no
> > direction, why is Emmylou Harris clearly superior to every other life
> > form?
> Because of her White Shoes.
Which she wore on Our Last Date, with her Gold Watch and Chain,
gone off to Green Pastures to be the Sweet Heart of the Rodeo. She
was Too Far Gone and ended up Tulsa Queen, Here There and
Everywhere.
However, Reba McEntire is clearly a higher life form.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> In most respects Neanderthals fall within the range of variation of
> modern man. A Neanderthal dressed in modern clothing could walk down a
> street without promoting much comment.
Maybe in New York or Chicago (I think I've seen one or two in bars in
New York) but in a small town they'd definitely engender comment.
--Jeff
--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pan.2007.04...@is.invalid>):
> Op Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:34:59 -0700, schreef ayers_39:
>
>
>> If we where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing
>> lungs in the water?
>
> Simple, we would come up for air every now and then to breathe.
>
> BTW, a few species of fish with lungs still exist. They are called
> "lungfish". Isn't that funny?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish>
>
Better than that... every fish which has a swim bladder has a... modified
_lung_.
<http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/evolution-of-swim-bladders.html>,
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~dfhoyt/classes/zoo138/PRIM_FISH.HTML>... As the
vast majority of what most people would call 'fish' have swim bladders, not
only do lung fish have lungs, but so do _all_ of the 'bony fish', the
Osteichthians. This would include codfish, goldfish, tuna, sailfish, sunfish,
and indeed virtually all fish except sharks, skates, rays, hagfish, and
lampreys.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Perplexed in Peoria
"The Last Conformist" <andr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177179186.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 7:18 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > But before I attempt that, I would like a clarification. Are you
> > suggesting that there is something 'spooky' about humans in that they
> > have no close relatives? That most other species do have close
> > relatives? Because I don't think that is the case. Gorilla is just
> > as 'isolated' as we are, and the ourangatan is twice as distant from
> > its closest relative.
>
> Um, surely the gorilla is considerably *more* isolated than what we
> are, what with us sharing our branch with two species of chimp and
> all? We've got two relatives closer than the gorilla - the gorilla has
> none closer than us.
More isolated, but not *considerably* more isolated. My understanding is
that gorilla diverged just a short time before man and chimp split.
> > And if you consider both African and Indian
> > elephants to be in the same species, they are very, very far from their
> > nearest relative.
>
> Does anyone consider them conspecific? They're usually placed in
> different genera - _Loxodonta_ and _Elephas_.
Ok, so wait a century or so. The African elephant may be extinct by then. ;-(
Ron O
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just curious, but what is your interpretation of the quotes that you
mined?
In your own words express just what you think these papers can be used
to conclude. What are your conclusions?
Ron Okimoto
eerok
> On Apr 21, 12:49 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Just because we don't know the details of how life began,
>> does not mean we can't make reasonable speculations based
>> on the evidence.
> Reasonable speculations?
>>From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>
> http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> "My opinion or working hypothesis is that the first
> replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon "
>
> Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>
> "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon in
> the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro or
> levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
Did you read this part?
"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four
billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and
speculations."
> And from an evangelist from darwin's cult:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/53c75e438fe97742?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> "but for
> all I know non-racemic amino-acids predate ribozymes."
>
And here you elided the "We don't know."
>> > So they put it out of mind.
Or maybe no one knows, just as the people you've quoted here
have said.
[...]
>> I believe that you are the one with cult beliefs.
> Wrong.
Well, I'm not big on label-flinging, but I think the consensus
among scientists is that we don't really know how life began
on earth -- at least that's what they keep saying. Of course,
one is free to speculate, which includes you.
But if you claim your speculation, whatever it may be, is
objective fact, and you don't see fit to back it up with
evidence, you really won't get anywhere with those who'd
rather wait for or work toward a more substantive answer.
And what does this have to do with Darwin?
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
eerok
Perhaps to the home-schooled, though depending on the home.
The Last Conformist
wrote:
> "The Last Conformist" <andre...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177179186.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:18 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > But before I attempt that, I would like a clarification. Are you
> > > suggesting that there is something 'spooky' about humans in that they
> > > have no close relatives? That most other species do have close
> > > relatives? Because I don't think that is the case. Gorilla is just
> > > as 'isolated' as we are, and the ourangatan is twice as distant from
> > > its closest relative.
>
> > Um, surely the gorilla is considerably *more* isolated than what we
> > are, what with us sharing our branch with two species of chimp and
> > all? We've got two relatives closer than the gorilla - the gorilla has
> > none closer than us.
>
> More isolated, but not *considerably* more isolated. My understanding is
> that gorilla diverged just a short time before man and chimp split.
I seem to recall Dawkins saying it was several million years in The
Ancestor's Tale, but I (or he) may be wrong.
> > > And if you consider both African and Indian
> > > elephants to be in the same species, they are very, very far from their
> > > nearest relative.
>
> > Does anyone consider them conspecific? They're usually placed in
> > different genera - _Loxodonta_ and _Elephas_.
>
> Ok, so wait a century or so. The African elephant may be extinct by then. ;-(
For the meantime, we've got the bowfin (_Amia calva_), which
apparently parted ways with its closest living relatives in the
Triassic.
John Harshman
> "On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:05:31 GMT, in article
> <LSoWh.3562$rO7...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>>>relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>>>What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>>
>>That would be, more or less, H. neanderthalensis. Judging by the DNA
>>fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
>>moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
>
>>from each other.
> [...snip...]
>
> What about H. floresiensis?
No DNA, to my knowledge. Those who think they're a separate species
generally think that neandertals are closer to us than H. floresiensis is.
John Harshman
So much wrong in one short paragraph. Where to begin? I suppose I'll
just dive right in.
> Geological scale is a lie made up by evolutionist,
Actually, no. When I say "geological scale" I merely mean "over a long
time, such as is encountered in geological sections".
> Bacteria is on the
> bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> somthing that was once living (FACT).
Nope. Bacteria are in fact among the primary photosynthesizers, and have
many other ways of extracting energy from inorganic materials that you
have never heard of. Bacteria are vastly more diverse than you, in your
ignorance, imagine. If all animals and plants were to disappear today,
the main biological cycles would continue undisturbed, with all roles
filled by bacteria. In fact the main energy-producing organelles of
animal and plant cells -- mitochondria and chloroplasts -- are just
captive bacteria.
> It (geological scale) can not
> be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
> lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean.
I think this is a garbled reference to the complete geological column
not being found in any one place. Though irrelevant to any real geology,
or to any point I was making, this claim is not in fact true. There are
several places in which rocks of every phanerozoic period are stacked on
tope of each other.
> If we
> where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
> in the water?
> Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate.
You understand, don't you, that there are living fish that have both
lungs and gills?
> We are
> what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
> science can't prove there is no GOD.
You are confusing disproof of a literal Genesis with disproof of God.
Many creationists make this same mistake. Don't feel too bad.
> I have to prove nothing, Science
> proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
> way things are.
Lack of proof is proof? Thanks, Mr. Orwell.
> By those thing that just can;t happen by them selfs.
> Like the big bang, science says that if rewind the expantion of the
> universe it comes back to a single point in time.(A BEGINING) science
> says there is no reason for it to just happen. Science fact that
> everything has a begining, and for every action is a
> reaction.Sciencetist say there is no reason for it to of happened.
> they say our begining came from bora (NOTHING) Sounds like GENESIS.
You are perhaps the least literate creationist I have encountered so
far. Presumably there are worse ones, but they can't figure out how to
post messages.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177180772.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>
> http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> "My opinion or working hypothesis is
> that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> carbon "
>
> Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>
> "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
> in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
> or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
Er. I am not a fan of Stanley Miller, but I think you are misinterpreting
him here. He is definitely not claiming that carbon was not tetrahedral
in the past. He is suggesting that each carbon in the replicated molecule
either had two hydrogens or had a double bond (to oxygen, say).
Your 'cult belief #7' is a straw-man. No one has ever seriously suggested
that. Incidentally, are you getting these 'cult beliefs' from a list
somewhere, or are you making them up as you go?
Mark VandeWettering
No. What you said was deliberately trying to obfuscate what all rational
people accept. That you choose not to is an indication of your slant,
not anyone elses.
> In fact, many of the articles claimed the actual percentage
> differences in the DNA were far lower than they actually were,
There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes. The
variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in the
way that these numbers are measured.
> and that this is stunning proof of evolution's conjectural lines of
> evolutionary descent. Luckily I found 2 that weren't so slanted ...
Sigh.
Mark
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> What qualifies as a *human* species? Does that refer to any species
> which is on the Homo sapiens side of the division between chimps
> and "fully modern humans"? So that, for example, Australopithecines
> were human? Or would be draw the line so that even Neandertals
> weren't human?
Reading the news I don't think Homo sapiens can be classified as human.
Walter Bushell
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177155324.6...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 21, 11:46 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1177140821.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > Now
> >> > we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> >> > chimps.
> >>
> >> Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
> >> intelligence?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90280123e0bdd7fb
> >
>
> Hmm, from beating pre-school children in specific areas of learning to
> outperforming "us" is a bit of a leap but fascinating research all the same.
>
> Thx.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html?_r=1&pagewanted=al
l
Quote:
Tetsuro Matsuzawa, a Kyoto primatologist, described a young chimp
watching as numbers 1 through 9 flashed on the computer screen at random
positions. Then the numbers disappeared in no more than a second. White
squares remained where the numbers had been. The chimp casually but
swiftly pressed the squares, calling back the numbers in ascending order
‹ 1, 2, 3, etc.
The test was repeated several times, with the numbers and squares in
different places. The chimp, which had months of training accompanied by
promised food rewards, almost never failed to remember where the numbers
had been. The video included scenes of a human failing the test, seldom
recalling more than one or two numbers, if any.
³Humans can¹t do it,² Dr. Matsuzawa said. ³Chimpanzees are superior to
humans in this task.²
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Bacteria is on the
> > bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> > somthing that was once living (FACT).
>
> Nope. Bacteria are in fact among the primary photosynthesizers, and have
> many other ways of extracting energy from inorganic materials that you
> have never heard of. Bacteria are vastly more diverse than you, in your
> ignorance, imagine. If all animals and plants were to disappear today,
> the main biological cycles would continue undisturbed, with all roles
> filled by bacteria. In fact the main energy-producing organelles of
> animal and plant cells -- mitochondria and chloroplasts -- are just
> captive bacteria.
In fact, humans do live off of what was once living and some bacteria do
their own kill, as we know full well. So much ignorance in one sentence
fragment. The author should apply for a job in the Bush administration.
The Last Conformist
> In article <58uiguF2iked...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1177155324.6...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 21, 11:46 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1177140821.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> [...]
>
> > >> > Now
> > >> > we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> > >> > chimps.
>
> > >> Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
> > >> intelligence?
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90280123e0bdd7fb
>
> > Hmm, from beating pre-school children in specific areas of learning to
> > outperforming "us" is a bit of a leap but fascinating research all the same.
>
> > Thx.
>
> l
> Quote:
>
> Tetsuro Matsuzawa, a Kyoto primatologist, described a young chimp
> watching as numbers 1 through 9 flashed on the computer screen at random
> positions. Then the numbers disappeared in no more than a second. White
> squares remained where the numbers had been. The chimp casually but
> swiftly pressed the squares, calling back the numbers in ascending order
> ‹ 1, 2, 3, etc.
> The test was repeated several times, with the numbers and squares in
> different places. The chimp, which had months of training accompanied by
> promised food rewards, almost never failed to remember where the numbers
> had been. The video included scenes of a human failing the test, seldom
> recalling more than one or two numbers, if any.
> ³Humans can¹t do it,² Dr. Matsuzawa said. ³Chimpanzees are superior to
> humans in this task.²
Had the human subject received a comparable amount of training?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Steven J." stev...@altavista.com wrote in message
news:1177147271.3...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com wrote:
>> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> Darwin's explanation (and it seems a good one) is that closer
> relatives were competing with us for the same ecological niche
> (originally, savanna hunter-gatherer; later, hunter-gatherer in other
> relatively open environments), and we out-competed them for food and
> space (also, we probably killed and ate them).
Whilst I accept the overall thrust of your post, that particular point seems
a bit over simplistic to me.
From http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
"The savanna has a large range of highly specialized plants and animals.
They all depend on the each other to keep the environment in balance. There
are over 40 different species of hoofed mammals that live on the savannas of
Africa. Up to 16 different species of browsers (those who eat leaves of
trees) and grazers can coexist in one area. They do this by having their own
food preferences, browsing/grazing at different heights, time of day or year
to use a given area, and different places to go during the dry season.
These different herbivores provide a wide range of food for carnivores, like
lions, leopards, cheetahs, jackals and hyenas. Each species has its own
preference, making it possible to live side by side and not be in
competition for food."
Does the principle of slight behaviour modifications allowing species to
exist side by side not apply to closely related species?
[...]
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <5913a3F...@mid.individual.net>):
> Whilst I accept the overall thrust of your post, that particular point seems
> a bit over simplistic to me.
>
> From http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
>
> "The savanna has a large range of highly specialized plants and animals.
> They all depend on the each other to keep the environment in balance. There
> are over 40 different species of hoofed mammals that live on the savannas of
> Africa. Up to 16 different species of browsers (those who eat leaves of
> trees) and grazers can coexist in one area. They do this by having their own
> food preferences, browsing/grazing at different heights, time of day or year
> to use a given area, and different places to go during the dry season.
>
> These different herbivores provide a wide range of food for carnivores, like
> lions, leopards, cheetahs, jackals and hyenas. Each species has its own
> preference, making it possible to live side by side and not be in
> competition for food."
>
> Does the principle of slight behaviour modifications allowing species to
> exist side by side not apply to closely related species?
Of course it does. There are just a few complicating factors.
1 humans are large omnivores. This means that, unlike the various hoofed
mammals noted above, they can eat a _large variety of different foodstuffs_.
The large mammals noted above are not just herbivores, but _specialist_
herbivores. As _specifically noted_ in the excerpt you quoted, they eat
_specific_ plants, or even _specific parts_ of specific plants... and leave
the other plants, or the rest of the plant, alone. This is not necessarily
the case with an omnivore. As omnivores eat a _wide variety_ of foods, they
compete in a _wide variety_ of niches... and there just ain't that many spots
open for large plains omnivores. Especially when you consider that humans
ain't the only large plains omnivores. Pigs, for example, are also omnivores,
and there are some pretty damn big pigs roaming the world in general and the
savanna in particular. Hell, humans ain't even the only large _primate_
omnivores; chimps are primarily vegetarian, but aren't that picky about what
kind of vegetation. Baboons are smaller than either chimps or humans, and
aren't that picky, either.
2 while it is certainly _true_ that the various predators on the savanna
_prefer_ one or two types of prey... a kill is a kill and the various
predators aren't at all adverse to muscling in on someone else's kill if they
feel they can get away with it... even if that kill is something they'd not
normally hunt themselves. The primary reason that male lions are the size
they are is that they're the pride's anti-hyena (and anti-other-male-lion)
defence... and even they give way if a _large_ hyena pack arrives. African
Hunting Dogs (Lycaon pictus) are much smaller than lions or hyenas, but
travel in packs of up to 100, which means that when a large pack makes a kill
the lions and hyenas stay away... which is not the case when a small pack
makes a kill. They usually go for smaller animals, under 100 kg in weight,
but have been known to chase, catch, and kill just about anything under rhino
size if the pack is big enough. This includes animals that lions would
normally chase... but the lions are smart enough to not want to annoy a
100-strong pack of hunting dogs and back the hell off if the hunting dogs
decide they want some wildebeest or zebra today instead of their usual
impala.
3 humans, (and many other primates, including chimps and baboons) like lions,
hunting dogs, wolves, and hyenas, are pack animals. Large packs need more
food than just a single individual. This means that food sources which a
single individual might ignore _will_ be used. It also means that food
sources which a single individual could not possibly tackle can be used...
and will be. Normally, animals wildebeest and larger size would be safe from
attack by an animal our size, they're just too big to handle and a single
human would have problems defending the kill from other predators, especially
hyenas. This is not so when a dozen or more humans are hunting in cooperative
packs. Adult elephant are safe from attack from even lions, they're just too
big and powerful, unless they're sick. Humans can and do hunt elephant with
paleolithic technology.
Humans are, if not the top, then at least one of the top three, predators in
any terrestrial ecosystem. (And, given tools such as boats and nets, don't do
too badly on the water, either.) Humans are also pretty good at converting
vegetable matter mass to large omnivore body mass. Humans occupy _several_
major niches in any ecosystem they're part of. Another, closely related,
species would be in direct competition with humans for a lot of those food
sources.
You'll note that the living non-human large primates have a rather limited
range while humans have an extremely large range. This is not a coincidence.
Frank J
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
I see many replies, so I won't add more of the same. Rather, I'd like
to know what "camp" *you* are in. Be specific. Don't just reiterate
incredulity and/or misunderstanding about current explanations, but
state in detail what you might be less incredulous about. E.g. do you
think that humans and chimps are products of separate abiogensis
events? When do you think those events (or "event" if you think the
lineages are related) occurred.
(snip)
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 21, 12:07 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> > >> > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > >> > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> the actual percentage differences in the DNA were far lower
> evolution's conjectural lines of evolutionary descent.
> Luckily I found 2 that weren't so slanted ...
Or you found two that were slanted in the direction that agreed with
your mind-set.
Will in New Haven
--
Dum Vivamus, vivimus- While we live, let us live
alwaysaskingquestions
interesting explanation
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C250F1B2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Desertphile
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > In most respects Neanderthals fall within the range of variation of
> > modern man. A Neanderthal dressed in modern clothing could walk down a
> > street without promoting much comment.
Except for the thick brow ridge and robust body.
Oh, wait.... The NFL. Never mind.
> Maybe in New York or Chicago (I think I've seen one or two in bars in
> New York) but in a small town they'd definitely engender comment.
Very likely not merely comment, but also fear and anxiety,
therefore anger and hatred. The liberals would try to invite their
new Neanderthal neighbors to church to learn all abour Jesus,
while the right-wingers would sharpen their pitchforks, heat up
the tar, and pluck some chickens for their feathers.
Desertphile
This silly.net.nut ought to know by now that *ALL* studies on all
species on Earth are "slanted towards evolution." Reality itself
has a well-known evolution bias, for the same reason planets are
slanted towards gravity.
>>> It's not "slanted towards" evolution. It's evolution.
Now try to convince someone occult-addled: it isn't possible.
>> No, it's exactly what I said.
> No. What you said was deliberately trying to obfuscate what all rational
> people accept. That you choose not to is an indication of your slant,
> not anyone elses.
But the history of Chimpanzees *ARE* (er, also *WERE*) slanted
towards evolution. "Throwback" finally wrote something that is
correct, which as far as I know is a "first" for him.
> > In fact, many of the articles claimed the actual percentage
> > differences in the DNA were far lower than they actually were,
> There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes. The
> variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in the
> way that these numbers are measured.
Different proteins from any two species will yield different
variation amounts: exactly what scientists expect to see occur
because of evolution, yet "Throwback" sees as an imaginary
problem. I wonder if he attended Gish's Bullfrog sermon.
> > and that this is stunning proof of evolution's conjectural lines of
> > evolutionary descent. Luckily I found 2 that weren't so slanted ...
> Sigh.
Two out of some ten million? Fifteen million? How many science
papers have been published on evolution and evolutionary theory in
the past 300 years? And the two he "found," he claims, is what has
"convinced" him that scientists are wrong---- his occult biases
didn't convince him: the two web pages did.
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Top posting
Is a VERY stupid thing to do.
--
Bob.
Throwback
Chimp DNA is definitely longer than human DNA.
Throwback
wrote:
> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177180772.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>
> >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> > "My opinion or working hypothesis is
> > that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> > carbon "
>
> > Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>
> > "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
> > in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
> > or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
>
> Er. I am not a fan of Stanley Miller, but I think you are misinterpreting
> him here. He is definitely not claiming that carbon was not tetrahedral
> in the past. He is suggesting that each carbon in the replicated molecule
> either had two hydrogens or had a double bond (to oxygen, say).
He is refering to the fact that amino acids being dextro or
levorotary, and his hypothesis is that the symmetrical carbon
in amino acids that makes dextro and levorotary forms
wasn't symmetrical (or tetrahedral) in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Function
Notice the structural representation of tryptophan.
It has a carbon bonded to 4 different groups. This
is the carbon that gives rise to the dextro and
levorotary foms. The carbon is bonded to four
different groups. H, NH2, CH2, and COOH.
His claim is that this carbon, in the past, must
not have been tetrahedral, and thus there would have
been no dextro or levorotary forms.
Throwback
> Two out of some ten million? Fifteen million? How many science
> papers have been published on evolution and evolutionary theory in
> the past 300 years?
And how many of those had the DNA evidence to test evolution's
conjectural lines of descent?
The DNA evidence is just now coming in.
Throwback
And they were stacked to make it appear the percentage
differences of the dna portions they tested were far lower
than they actually are, and claimed it a stunning proof
of the evolutionary lines of descent.
Throwback
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:34 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 10:05 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > > > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> > > > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
> > > > fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
> > > > moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
> > > > from each other.
>
> > > > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > > > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> > > > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>
> > > > competition. Species that are too similar to each other compete,
> > > > resulting either in selection causing them to become less similar or in
> > > > the extinction of one of them. We (and our various precursor species)
> > > > undoubtedly caused the extinction of other hominids, more so since our
> > > > niche became as broad as it is -- now we're competing with most other
> > > > species on the planet.
>
> > > > > mate with?
>
> > > > instant nor glacially slow. Significant change to a population can take
> > > > many generations, but on a geological scale that's the blink of an eye.
>
> > > bottom of geological scale.
>
> Umm... bacteria has nothing to do with geology.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> > > be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
> > > where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
> > > what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
> > > proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
> > > way things are.
>
>
> > They then revert to darwin's cult belief #3 :
>
> > "We believe at some distant time, someone smarter than
> > us will come along and adequately explain this."
>
> That's not true at all.
So you don't believe that in the future, abiogenesis
will be adequately explained?
richardal...@googlemail.com
The DNA evidence has been coming in for decades. It has helped us to
understand a lot about how evolutionary processes work, and the
relationships of living organisms.
It has been used very extensively to test hypotheses of relationships
derived from morphological data, and has in general supported such
hypotheses. In the case of the relationships of humans and chimps, it
has helped us to understand that we are closer to chimps than those
morphological analyses had suggested, and helped us overcome the
biases that we are more different from chimps than is actually the
case. Other studies, such as those into behaviour and intelligence
have, shown the same thing. Some taxonomists argue that we should be
placed in the same genus as chimps.
I suggest that rather than trying to cherry-pick sources which you
don't understand you try to learn something about science and how it
works.
RF
Ron O
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who told you this and why do you believe them? Have you been able to
substantiate this claim? Demonstrate it if you can, since it is a lie
this will be pretty difficult to do.
Ron Okimoto
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177269511.0...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I understand how chirality works. Since he has a PhD in organic chemistry,
I assume that Miller also understands how chirality works. The point is
that you are (deliberately?) misinterpreting Miller. When he says 'the first
replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon', he is saying that
amino acids and sugars were not part of the first replicated molecule.
(That, of course, makes the famous Miller experiment pretty much an
irrelevancy, but c'est la vie.)
Incidentally, you didn't answer my question as to whether 'cult belief #7'
was taken from some list, or whether you are just making them up as you go.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:989n235h1t4d3dtlh...@4ax.com...
... but not as stupid as reposting a very long post just to say "Thank you"
at the end of it.
Before you ask why I didn't snip it, check this thread, posts 35-41 :)
http://tinyurl.com/27bm2x (Google Groups)
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And showing just how right they were all these years.
--
Bob.
Bob T.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It happened a very very very very very
very very long time ago, and the first organisms were doubtless very
very very small. As I said, even if scientists actually create life
in the laboratory, it won't prove that it started the same way on
Earth.
Here's another analogy: we all know that Julius Caesar was a real
human being. What meals did he eat on March 15th, 10BC? While we can
guess that he had something to eat that day, and we can be quite
certain he had something to eat that month, we will never know exactly
what it was. Time passes, and not everything about the past leaves a
record for the future.
- Bob T.
Terry
I am still puzzled how one can be so sure that Julius Caesar was real,
but ignore the fact that he was eating a meal in 10 BC. This was
after all only 10 years before Christ
derdag
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> mate with?
>
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's spmething you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
It was very random and incremental and slow with lots of mistakes
which didn't fossilize an all dat. lol
Good post!
Look at them spin, slither, contort!
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:989n235h1t4d3dtlh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:55:41 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>Top posting
>>
>> Is a VERY stupid thing to do.
>
>... but not as stupid as reposting a very long post just to say "Thank you"
>at the end of it.
That would have been less stupid, but only just.
>
>
>Before you ask why I didn't snip it, check this thread, posts 35-41 :)
>http://tinyurl.com/27bm2x (Google Groups)
>
Nope. You were stupid enough to top post - that is all there is to it.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
While I wouldn't a priori reject a claim that chimpanzee DNA was 10%
larger than human DNA - the DNA content between closely related species
can diverge due to differential amplification of non-coding DNA,
especially retrotransposon sequences, as, for example in the plant genus
Gossypium, which has a three-fold variation in DNA content among the
diploid species [1], and I don't have sufficient familiarity with the
rates involved to tell immediately whether 10% is within the expected
bounds of divergence - I was curious as to where this claim was coming
from.
Gregory, Nucleotypic effects without nuclei: Genome size and erythrocyte
size in mammals, Genome 43: 895-901 (2000) cites a 1982 paper for values
of 3.5pg for Homo sapiens and 3.9pg for Pan troglodytes.
Morand and Ricklefs, Genome size is not related to life-history traits
in primates, Genome 48: 273-278 (2005) give values of 3.5pg for Homo
sapiens and 3.63pg for Pan troglodytes.
WikiPedia gives a size of 3.2 gigabases for Homo sapiens, and 3.1
gigabases of Pan troglodytes, citing papers in Nature.
It seems to me that human and chimpanzee genomes sizes are the same to
within measurement error; the error bars are larger for the older
techniques such as flow cytometry and Feulgen microdensitometry, and
even in the case of direct sequencing the length of repetitive sequences
is difficult to ascertain. Intraspecific variation also has to be taken
into account. (There have been reports of genome size variations far in
excess of 10% in plant species, but it's not clear that any of these
have stood up to re-examination.)
[1] Hendrix & Stewart, Estimation of the nuclear DNA content of
Gossypium species, Annals of Botany 95(5): 789-797 (2005)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>>news:989n235h1t4d3dtlh...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:55:41 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>>Top posting
>>>
>>> Is a VERY stupid thing to do.
>>
>>... but not as stupid as reposting a very long post just to say "Thank
>>you"
>>at the end of it.
>
> That would have been less stupid, but only just.
I'm a great believer in bottom/inline posting 99% of the time but I think
the stupidest thing of the lot is slavishly following convention just for
the sake of it when there's a simpler answer on a specific occasion,
provided you clearly show when you're breaking convention.
Anyway, it's not that important, you and I can find - and have found -
plenty of more interesting topics to debate :)
Richard Harter
Much like complaining about it.
John Harshman
Though you make a useful point, a more fundamental question -- which you
touch on but don't make explicitly -- might be why we would consider
relative genome size to be an appropriate measure of genetic similarity.
Ayers apparently thinks it is, and Throwback seems to be supporting him.
Why should this measure be preferred to the percent similarity of
homologous sequences, which average 98.8% identical?
Frank J
Or calmly ask questions that 99+% never answer.
Mark VandeWettering
No. They were reporting the numbers that were associated with the
measurements that they made. If you measured the genomes in the same
way that they did (and were honest) you would report similar numbers.
I'm confused though: by any measure, the genome of chimps and humans are
similar, and the chimp genome more similar to humans than any other animal
species. Just what is your explanation for this if not common descent?
Mark
Richard Harter
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>I'm confused though: by any measure, the genome of chimps and humans are
>similar, and the chimp genome more similar to humans than any other animal
>species. Just what is your explanation for this if not common descent?
Not a problem. After all, some animal's genome has to be more similar
to humans than any other animal species. It's scarcely surprising that
the animal that is closest would have a lot of features in common with
humans.
Martin Andersen
"why do some animals look more like humans than others?". Chance? Why would any
two species even look remotely similar?
Steven J.
do one ape species; He has to do a bunch of ape species to show off
the potential for the design. And perhaps, having limited Himself to
the possibilities and constraints of biology, the range of workable
designs was limited, and He had to repeat Himself in some details.
However, it's less obvious, under either assumption, why there should
be such systematic resemblences at the genetic level: on the one hand,
since many enzymes perform essentially identical roles in different
organisms, there should be no reason why homologous enzymes are more
similar between humans and chimps than between, e.g. humans and pigs,
or perhaps even humans and pine trees. On the other hand, since the
genetic code is degenerate (each amino acid is coded for by from two
to six different codons) there is no need for identical or near-
identical proteins to be coded for by identical or near-identical
genes.
-- Steven J.
TomS
<1177309560.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Steven J. stated..."
Of course, the ultimate "design" answer is that we don't know what
the methods, materials, and purposes were for the "intelligent
designer". All we "know" is that it couldn't happen by accident, so
there must have been some "design" involved.
On the "evolution" side, however, I would suggest that the evidence
for evolution is not merely the similarities between any two species,
but the whole "tree of life": That all forms of life fall within the
"nested hierarchy"; that there is a pattern to the relationships, with
chimps and bonobos being most closely related, gorillas a bit less
so, other apes still less, and so on, throughout the tree of life. This
pattern, I suggest, is far more complex than the patterns that the
creationists insist cannot be "mere chance" - and, therefore, using
their reasoning, the pattern of the tree of life cannot be a matter
of "mere chance", it demands an explanation, and the only
explanation that anybody has ever thought of is "common
descent with modification".
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Shane
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>>news:989n235h1t4d3dtlh...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:55:41 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>>Top posting
>>>
>>> Is a VERY stupid thing to do.
>>
>>... but not as stupid as reposting a very long post just to say "Thank you"
>>at the end of it.
>
> That would have been less stupid, but only just.
Come on YOO, a number of people top post occasionally in the manner
AAQ used, without anyone getting uptight about it. ISTM, also the best
way to handle the particular situation AAQ describes, which is
generally what it has been used for the previous times I have
encountered it.
>>Before you ask why I didn't snip it, check this thread, posts 35-41 :)
>>http://tinyurl.com/27bm2x (Google Groups)
>>
> Nope. You were stupid enough to top post - that is all there is to it.
Well then you will have to lump a number of t.o. regulars in with AAQ,
and IIRC, you have just called some of the heavyweights on the
evolution side stupid.
Throwback
> On Apr 22, 8:22 pm, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 12:50 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > Two out of some ten million? Fifteen million? How many science
> > > papers have been published on evolution and evolutionary theory in
> > > the past 300 years?
>
> > And how many of those had the DNA evidence to test evolution's
> > conjectural lines of descent?
>
> > The DNA evidence is just now coming in.
>
> The DNA evidence has been coming in for decades.
No, the DNA evidence has been compared
side by side in detail only this decade.
last
Throwback
Mark vandersomething.
Throwback
wrote:
> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177269511.0...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
No, he is claiming the first amino acid was not chiral,
thus there would be no dextro or levorotary forms of the
amino acids.
Throwback
> On 22 Apr 2007 12:22:25 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Apr 22, 12:50 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >> Two out of some ten million? Fifteen million? How many science
> >> papers have been published on evolution and evolutionary theory in
> >> the past 300 years?
>
> >And how many of those had the DNA evidence to test evolution's
> >conjectural lines of descent?
>
> >The DNA evidence is just now coming in.
>
> And showing just how right they were all these years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/218
"Gibbs and his colleagues are tackling evolutionary biology in
reverse. They are identifying key genomic differences without yet
knowing how or whether those differences translate into traits that
provide survival advantages ...
But so far researchers have
come up short in linking genomic changes to traits subjected to
natural selection and other evolutionary forces ...
The surprise of the chimp genome, the first nonhuman primate to be
sequenced, was the large number of insertions and deletions that
differed between humans and our closest living cousins. There were
more changes in the order and number of genes and blocks of genes than
changes in single base pairs, highlighting the importance of this kind
of expansion and shuffling in primate speciation.
But the chimp data proved frustrating as well, because researchers
couldn't put the chimp-human comparisons into an evolutionary
context ..."
Looks to me it wasn't confirmed at all ...
Throwback
It isn't necessary to duplicate or replicate it in the
LAB, simply provide an adequate explanation of
how it occurred.
Throwback
> In message <1177268905.076856.211...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
I don't know what the percentage difference is in length,
but if it were 10%, that means human and chimp DNA
are only 90% similar at the gate, and then any
direct comparisons would place the similarity
in the 80% range ...
Throwback
> In message <1177269511.030370.305...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
Which claim?
That the carbon in amino acids that gives
rise to dextro and levorotary forms is
symmetrical (tetrahedral), and that this
is the foundation of organic chemistry,
which is the foundation for biochemistry,
which is the foundation for molecular
biology genetics, so that anyone who
claimed a hypothesis under the guise of
science that the particular carbon in the past was
not symmetrical if taken as true would undermine
the science of organic chemistry and spill
over into biochemistry and molecular biology,
or that if false is simply a pseudoscientific nonsensical
ridiculous conjectural speculation, wholly unsupported
by anything than his whim and desire to tenaciously cling
to his theory which is believed to be a fact?
Is this the claim you are referring to?
Throwback
It appears since chimp and human DNA are of different
lengths, instead of lining up one end of the dna from the
chimp with one end of the human dna, they placed the dna
where there was the most similarities, and then started to
calculate the differences from that point.
the
Mark VandeWettering
[ Incidently, my name is perfectly easy to spell, particularly when it
can be coped directly from the text above. Isn't it more than just a
little lazy not to do so? ]
I never said that. In fact, I rejected that idea, and explained how
you might innocently come to that conclusion. You know:
> "There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes.
> The variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in
> the way that these numbers are measured."
These numbers are in no way "stacked", and you've provided no evidence
that they are.
Mark
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
(Note for clarity. The simplest amino acid, glycine, NH2.CH2.COOH, is
not chiral, and it is possible that someone would refer to this as the
first amino acid. This would not translate into a claim that carbon, in
the past, was not tetrahedral, and that there were not d- and l-isomers
of organic compounds.)
--
alias Ernest Major