| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MarkA" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 07:00:01 AM |
| Object: |
Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 07:31:07 AM |
|
|
"On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:00:01 GMT, in article
<pan.2005.12.12.12.59.55.101821@stopspam.net>, MarkA stated..."
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
The standard examples of "irreducible complexity" given by
advocates of ID do not distinguish between the human body and that
of most other mammals (let alone, between humans and chimps and
other apes):
* The vertebrate eye - shared by most vertebrates
* The adaptive immune system - shared by most jawed vertebrates
* The blood clotting system - shared by most mammals
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 10:06:50 AM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.12.12.12.59.55.101821@stopspam.net:
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common
ancestor?
The short answer: No. (Duh :-)
But you're answering for an unlikely absolute negative in the first
place.
"But what if we haven't noticed a feature thats in chimpanzee DNA that
correlates to human DNA, but which is SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT IT HAD TO BE
THE MARK OF THE CREATOR?" ... etc etc. Yawn. It'll never happen
because the evidence of evolution is obvious in our DNA. As predicted..
You need to ask the inverse question - what evidence is there that
'micro' evolution - expressed in DNA - led to the major differences
between humans and chimpanzees?
There's plenty of 'micro' evidence - DNA mutations - to indicate common
ancestry.
One of the most convincing is that the human chromosome 2 aligns to the
other primates 2p/2q chromosomes and also clearly showing remnants of the
defunct parts of the ancestral chromosmes. And thereby neatly explaining
why primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23.
Read further from
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
Think about that - merging of whole chromosomes. This is no mere
"micro" event, its implications are huge. It probably means speciation
would quickly occur between the members of the species with the mutation.
But note that it's a *single* mutation. Which is "micro" evolution,
right? Except it would lead rapidly to incompatibility between members
of the species.. which would mean they were different species.. which is
"macro" evolution.. right?
Which places the entire "micro"/"macro" evolutionary distinction in a bit
of a jam, wouldn't you say...
jesus
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 09:41:09 AM |
|
|
"On 13 Dec 2005 02:06:50 +1000, in article
<Xns972B157BF4529jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228>, Jesus H Christ stated..."
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.12.12.12.59.55.101821@stopspam.net:
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common
ancestor?
The short answer: No. (Duh :-)
But you're answering for an unlikely absolute negative in the first
place.
"But what if we haven't noticed a feature thats in chimpanzee DNA that
correlates to human DNA, but which is SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT IT HAD TO BE
THE MARK OF THE CREATOR?" ... etc etc. Yawn. It'll never happen
because the evidence of evolution is obvious in our DNA. As predicted..
[...snip...]
From a letter to the editor in support of ID:
"Another convincing proof is the fact that there are similarities
between species, which would be expected if they were all designed by
the same Designer."
The Mountain Press for December 12, online at:
<http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1211&dept_id=169695&newsid=15724716&PAG=461&rfi=9>
If there is a difference between humans and chimps, it could
only come about by design. If there is a similarity, it could only
come about by design. Ironclad proof of design.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 07:29:40 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
That's for the creationist to answer if that's what he's claiming. The
burden of proof rests with the claimant.
If the creationist is claiming that "kind" is a useful way of
classifying living things then he has to define it, otherwise it's
effectively meaningless.
If he's also repeating Michael Behe's claim about "irreducible
complexity" then he faces the same problem that faces Behe: to make
the categorical claim that there is _absolutely no way_ that a
biological structure or system could have evolved he has to be able to
exclude all possible evolutionary pathways - both known and unknown -
that might have led to it. The reality is that neither Behe or anyone
else know enough to justify making that claim.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 09:26:23 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Before you go any further, press him on his definition of a "kind". If
he wants to use that classification scheme, he has to lay out some
ground rules. He'd better have a damn good justification for saying
housecats and tigers are in one kind, but humans and chimps are in
different kinds.
And no coopting standard nomenclature, please. Don't let him get away
with any of this vague hand-waving ***** like "well it's sort of a
genus except when it needs to be different". The devil's in the details
here, and so far he doesn't seem to have considered too many of them.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 10:43:28 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Humans have a "fused" chromosome. Apes and monkeys do not. Lemurs do.
So, using this fused chromosome as a marker, the line between lemur to
human would not intersect with the line from monkey to ape. If
Evolutionary science weren't currently so invested in the ape-man
model, the DNA would mandate that homonids were descended from now
extinct giant lemurs. DNA doesn't lie, but science isn't willing to
consider the evidence, yet... give them another 100 years.
I blame Edgar Rice Burroughs. His popular Tarzan novels were in
circulation in the late 19th century. In a way, it was probably how he
imagined evolution had worked. Simplified and easy for children to
understand, Tarzan and Cheeta fictionally formed that extended family
from one speciation to the next. Children read the novels and accepted
his vision. The post-Scopes Trial children saw the movies and more
easily accepted his vision. The idea simply became embedded in popular
thought that humans descended from apes, until DNA. Even then, science
has spun the results to ignore the fused chromosome (at least 4% of the
total DNA) and claim up to 98% matching between chimp and human DNA
(clearly, impossible). It's hard to let go of a popular notion.
Scientifically, Evolution doesn't suffer whether humans evolved from
apes or lemurs, we're just not used to a lemur-man model. Lemurs and
humans have greater dexterity and are more optical in their orientation
to the world than apes. Once you get over the shock, it is more
realistic that proto-homonids (giant lemurs) would become extinct as
evolved descendants made better use of their environmental niche. If
humans descended from apes, it would be improbable that apes would have
survived into the modern era.
JTG 12/12/05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 11:52:12 AM |
|
|
<jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1134405807.959268.98570@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.. If
humans descended from apes, it would be improbable that apes would have
survived into the modern era.
The apes that humans descended from did *not* survive into the modern era,
as you predict.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
13 Dec 2005 02:32:54 AM |
|
|
<jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1134405807.959268.98570@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a
mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Humans have a "fused" chromosome. Apes and monkeys do not. Lemurs do.
So, using this fused chromosome as a marker, the line between lemur to
human would not intersect with the line from monkey to ape. If
Evolutionary science weren't currently so invested in the ape-man
model, the DNA would mandate that homonids were descended from now
extinct giant lemurs. DNA doesn't lie, but science isn't willing to
consider the evidence, yet... give them another 100 years.
Of which lemurs are you speaking? There are a large number of lemur
species, and a quick check on Google reveals that their chromosome counts
range from 2n=44 (for humans it would be 2n=46) to 2n=60. There is at least
one subspecies (_Eolemur fulvus collaris_) in which individuals have
different chromosome counts (2n=50, 51, or 52), which strongly implies that
a fused chromosome exists as a variant in this species. That's not too
surprising, really; the same situation obtains among okapis, and no doubt in
some other species. It must have existed in one of our ancestral species.
But anyway, fused chromosomes (whether as variants or as fixed traits) are
common. It would be more striking if, in some species of lemur, the
chromosomes homologous to human chromosome 2 were fused (of course, the
differences in chromosome numbers between lemur species, and lemurs and
humans, suggest that the sections of chromosome homologous to those on human
chromosome two might well be scattered over more than two chromosomes).
Note, with reference to some of your comments below, that differences in
chromosome number, or the presence or absence of a fused chromosome, don't
even necessarily qualify individuals as members of different races, much
less different species, much less species so distinct that they cannot be
seriously regarded as closely related.
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/cpa/brlemur.htm
Saying that lemurs are genetically more like humans than chimps are, because
they have a "fused chromosome," is on a par with saying that insects are
more morphologically similar to geckos than rattlesnakes are, because
insects have legs.
I blame Edgar Rice Burroughs. His popular Tarzan novels were in
circulation in the late 19th century. In a way, it was probably how he
imagined evolution had worked. Simplified and easy for children to
understand, Tarzan and Cheeta fictionally formed that extended family
from one speciation to the next. Children read the novels and accepted
his vision. The post-Scopes Trial children saw the movies and more
easily accepted his vision. The idea simply became embedded in popular
thought that humans descended from apes, until DNA. Even then, science
has spun the results to ignore the fused chromosome (at least 4% of the
total DNA) and claim up to 98% matching between chimp and human DNA
(clearly, impossible). It's hard to let go of a popular notion.
At least give credit to Burroughs's publisher; it's no mean trick to
circulate _Tarzan_ novels in the 19th century when the first of the series
was written in 1912. Note that the original novels contained no character
"Cheeta," nor were the apes among whom Tarzan grew up identified as to
species. Burroughs did, to be sure, write of human evolution from apes, but
surely he owed this idea (and the idea owed its popularity) to Darwin (who
identified chimps and gorillas as humanity's closest evolutionary relatives)
and Huxley.
I'm not sure how you understand the distinction between DNA and chromosomes.
A fused chromosome need not affect genes, or DNA sequences, any more than
combining _Lord of the Rings_ into one volume affects any chapter of the
novel. The 98% matching between human and chimp sequences involves
comparison of relatively short sequences of DNA, not entire chromosomes,
although it has also been determined that the actual sequence of genes in
chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b is very similar to that on human chromosome 2.
Joining two chromosomes end-to-end doesn't affect most of the genes.
Scientifically, Evolution doesn't suffer whether humans evolved from
apes or lemurs, we're just not used to a lemur-man model. Lemurs and
humans have greater dexterity and are more optical in their orientation
to the world than apes. Once you get over the shock, it is more
realistic that proto-homonids (giant lemurs) would become extinct as
evolved descendants made better use of their environmental niche. If
humans descended from apes, it would be improbable that apes would have
survived into the modern era.
The apes we descended from seem not to have survived. Some other ape
species, in somewhat different ecological niches, have suffered but have
survived, so far.
JTG 12/12/05
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 11:51:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Humans have a "fused" chromosome. Apes and monkeys do not.
Humans are apes. Next.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 03:16:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Humans have a "fused" chromosome. Apes and monkeys do not. Lemurs do.
Can you document this claim? First I've heard of it.
So, using this fused chromosome as a marker, the line between lemur to
human would not intersect with the line from monkey to ape. If
Evolutionary science weren't currently so invested in the ape-man
model, the DNA would mandate that homonids were descended from now
extinct giant lemurs. DNA doesn't lie, but science isn't willing to
consider the evidence, yet... give them another 100 years.
This is crazy. If indeed it's true that lemurs have the same fuzed
chromosome as humans do (and I doubt this sincerely), that's only one
bit of evidence that contradicts millions of other bits of evidence.
I blame Edgar Rice Burroughs. His popular Tarzan novels were in
circulation in the late 19th century.
You can't even get this right. Tarzan was published in 1914.
In a way, it was probably how he
imagined evolution had worked. Simplified and easy for children to
understand, Tarzan and Cheeta fictionally formed that extended family
from one speciation to the next.
Cheeta is later, from the movies, not the books.
Children read the novels and accepted
his vision. The post-Scopes Trial children saw the movies and more
easily accepted his vision. The idea simply became embedded in popular
thought that humans descended from apes, until DNA. Even then, science
has spun the results to ignore the fused chromosome (at least 4% of the
total DNA) and claim up to 98% matching between chimp and human DNA
(clearly, impossible). It's hard to let go of a popular notion.
You are confused about all this. Where do you get your information? If
you want to read something real, try this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
Your statement that the fused chromosome is at least 4% of the total DNA
is meaningless. Homologous sequences average about 98.5% similar, and
96% of sequences have homologs between chimp and human.
Scientifically, Evolution doesn't suffer whether humans evolved from
apes or lemurs, we're just not used to a lemur-man model.
That's because it's a silly model that doesn't account for the data in
any way.
Lemurs and
humans have greater dexterity and are more optical in their orientation
to the world than apes. Once you get over the shock, it is more
realistic that proto-homonids (giant lemurs) would become extinct as
evolved descendants made better use of their environmental niche. If
humans descended from apes, it would be improbable that apes would have
survived into the modern era.
This is the dumbest common creationist question, i.e. if we come from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Are you sure you want to be
associated with it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoeBussen" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
13 Dec 2005 01:52:12 AM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
MarkA wrote:
<<snip>>
You are confused about all this. Where do you get your information? If
you want to read something real, try this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
Thanks, John, for this link to Nature, 1 Sept 2005: Initial sequence of
the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. It is
interesting to see how science is done today. The article has 67
authors from 24 institutions in at least four countries! Several
Harvard and MIT people, though the actual sequencing was apparently
done at Washington University in St. Louis, my old stomping grounds.
I like to scan the references cited, to see how current they are.
References 1 and 2 are to Darwin and Huxley. Of the rest, 13 are dated
1962-1989, 22 are 1990-1998, and 135 are 1999-2005 (including one
"submitted" and two "in press"). If my math is right, 77% of
the citations are from articles or books published in the last five to
six years.
These folks don't seem to be aware that evolution is on its "last
legs", soon to be replaced by a new "paradigm".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 01:03:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Humans have a "fused" chromosome. Apes and monkeys do not. Lemurs do.
So, using this fused chromosome as a marker, the line between lemur to
human would not intersect with the line from monkey to ape. If
Evolutionary science weren't currently so invested in the ape-man
model, the DNA would mandate that homonids were descended from now
extinct giant lemurs. DNA doesn't lie, but science isn't willing to
consider the evidence, yet... give them another 100 years.
Ummm...
No, this more likely shows that the fused chromosome occured after the
human line split from the common ancestor with the chimps and bonobos.
The fused chromosome, IIRC, shows mutations that we share with chimps
but not non-ape primates.
I blame Edgar Rice Burroughs. His popular Tarzan novels were in
circulation in the late 19th century. In a way, it was probably how he
imagined evolution had worked. Simplified and easy for children to
understand, Tarzan and Cheeta fictionally formed that extended family
from one speciation to the next. Children read the novels and accepted
his vision. The post-Scopes Trial children saw the movies and more
easily accepted his vision. The idea simply became embedded in popular
thought that humans descended from apes, until DNA. Even then, science
has spun the results to ignore the fused chromosome (at least 4% of the
total DNA) and claim up to 98% matching between chimp and human DNA
(clearly, impossible). It's hard to let go of a popular notion.
Darwin and Burroughs: the co-founders of modern evolutionary theory.
Heh. Tarzan was quite bright; he taught himself to read from children's
books that his dead parents left behind. But he only spoke ape. So how
did he know how to spell "Tarzan" in English letters when he wrote an
anonymous not to Jane?
My favorite Burroughsism is in his hollow Earth (Pellucidar) series, in
which he describes a stegosaurus leaping off the edge of a cliff,
flattening its spines, and gliding down...
Scientifically, Evolution doesn't suffer whether humans evolved from
apes or lemurs, we're just not used to a lemur-man model. Lemurs and
humans have greater dexterity and are more optical in their orientation
to the world than apes. Once you get over the shock, it is more
realistic that proto-homonids (giant lemurs) would become extinct as
evolved descendants made better use of their environmental niche. If
humans descended from apes, it would be improbable that apes would have
survived into the modern era.
But lucy and the other transitional species look more like an
intermediate betweeen human and chimp then human and lemur. Also, the
DNA sequences show this.
Kermit
JTG 12/12/05
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 02:01:46 PM |
|
|
While we share certain genes with chimps and bononos, we share far less
with orangs and gorillas. It is distinct how little tranposes across
the three major ape species (assuming we're agreed that orangs and
gorillas are all apes). Therefore as our understanding of DNA stands,
the simularities between chimps/bononos and humans could reasonably be
chalked down to random chance (random deviation). In the absense of
Chimps/Bononos, the DNA of orangs and gorillas would easily eliminate
any relationship between humans and apes.
The actual remains of Lucy are extrapulated to produce how science
expects a transitional ape/human to have appeared. If we were looking
for a transitional lemur/human, the extrapulation would have expressed
that image. It's also noted that Lucy could have been just an ape.
These types of fossils no longer contain DNA.
JTG 12/12/05
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Wayz" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 04:42:06 PM |
|
|
I think it's fair to assume that chimps are descended from
humans. Humans have a way of trying to destroy themselves,
and chimps are the visible proof of some past promiscuity.
(tongue in cheek)
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
While we share certain genes with chimps and bononos, we share far less
with orangs and gorillas. It is distinct how little tranposes across
the three major ape species (assuming we're agreed that orangs and
gorillas are all apes). Therefore as our understanding of DNA stands,
the simularities between chimps/bononos and humans could reasonably be
chalked down to random chance (random deviation). In the absense of
Chimps/Bononos, the DNA of orangs and gorillas would easily eliminate
any relationship between humans and apes.
The actual remains of Lucy are extrapulated to produce how science
expects a transitional ape/human to have appeared. If we were looking
for a transitional lemur/human, the extrapulation would have expressed
that image. It's also noted that Lucy could have been just an ape.
These types of fossils no longer contain DNA.
JTG 12/12/05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
14 Dec 2005 05:51:32 PM |
|
|
In <1134417705.958279.93100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
While we share certain genes with chimps and bononos, we share far less
with orangs and gorillas.
Ok so far.
It is distinct how little tranposes across
the three major ape species (assuming we're agreed that orangs and
gorillas are all apes).
Genus, not species. Gorilla, Pongo (orangs), Pan (chimps).
Therefore as our understanding of DNA stands,
the simularities between chimps/bononos and humans could reasonably be
chalked down to random chance (random deviation).
Huh? Deviation from what? Are you saying that all the features that
put Homo and Pan together are coincidence? They don't have *real*
shared characteristics beyond what we already share with gorillas and
orangs - anything that indicates we would be more closely related is
just happenstance - is that it?
In the absense of
Chimps/Bononos, the DNA of orangs and gorillas would easily eliminate
any relationship between humans and apes.
Huh? We would be no less *similar* to orangs and gorillas, both
physically and genetically. We'd still be more similar to them than
to anything else.
The actual remains of Lucy are extrapulated to produce how science
expects a transitional ape/human to have appeared.
Most of the extrapolation is just assuming that the left and right
sides are mirror images. Go look at some pictures. Even without
Australopithecus afarensis, we'd still have some pretty good ape/human
transitionals.
If we were looking
for a transitional lemur/human, the extrapulation would have expressed
that image.
We'd only be looking for lemur-to-human links if the evidence
suggested we were more closely related to existing lemur species than
to the great apes. And that wouldn't have made A.afarensis any more
lemur-like.
It's also noted that Lucy could have been just an ape.
That's a meaningless statement. Of course A. afarensis was an ape. We
are apes. Lucy just represents one part of the "bush" of human
evolution. We are an end stem of that bush. A. afarensis may be part
of the branch we stem off of, or may be its own stem a bit further
back. Doesn't really matter which, Lucy's still transitional.
These types of fossils no longer contain DNA.
It would be nice if they did, but we can learn quite a lot without it.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 05:25:43 PM |
|
|
On 12 Dec 2005 12:01:46 -0800, in alt.atheism
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote in
<1134417705.958279.93100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
While we share certain genes with chimps and bononos, we share far less
with orangs and gorillas. It is distinct how little tranposes across
the three major ape species (assuming we're agreed that orangs and
gorillas are all apes).
I count five current great ape species: orangs, gorillas, chimps,
bonobos, and humans.
Therefore as our understanding of DNA stands,
the simularities between chimps/bononos and humans could reasonably be
chalked down to random chance (random deviation). In the absense of
Chimps/Bononos, the DNA of orangs and gorillas would easily eliminate
any relationship between humans and apes.
No, it would not. There is clear evidence of relatedness between us and
gorillas and orangs. I have no idea how you came to any other
conclusion.
The actual remains of Lucy are extrapulated to produce how science
expects a transitional ape/human to have appeared. If we were looking
for a transitional lemur/human, the extrapulation would have expressed
that image.
No. Are you still trying to ignore genetics?
It's also noted that Lucy could have been just an ape.
These types of fossils no longer contain DNA.
So?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 02:48:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
While we share certain genes with chimps and bononos, we share far less
with orangs and gorillas.
Humans, gorillas and chimps/bonobos are closer to each other
genetically, tha to any other organism.
It is distinct how little tranposes across
the three major ape species (assuming we're agreed that orangs and
gorillas are all apes).
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Therefore as our understanding of DNA stands,
the simularities between chimps/bononos and humans could reasonably be
chalked down to random chance (random deviation). In the absense of
Chimps/Bononos, the DNA of orangs and gorillas would easily eliminate
any relationship between humans and apes.
Do you ahve any references to the peer-reviewed literature?
Or are you just another sore creationist trying desparately trying to
invent a problem?
The actual remains of Lucy are extrapulated to produce how science
expects a transitional ape/human to have appeared. If we were looking
for a transitional lemur/human, the extrapulation would have expressed
that image.
Lemurs are prosimians, and therefore at best distant relatives.
Like most creationsits, you are completely ignorant of even basic
biology.
It's also noted that Lucy could have been just an ape.
We are apes too.
Now go home and wash yourself.
Stuart
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hersheyhv" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 09:47:05 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
No. Moreover, we do have most of the genome of both humans and chimps.
There is no difference in these genomes that cannot be accounted for
by known mutational events (which includes deletions, insertions, and
chromosome translocations and inversions as well as point mutations).
Nor is the number of such differences so large that it cannot be
accounted for by the known rate of such mutational events and the
amount of time that has elapsed since the two lineages diverged. There
is generally a close correlation between the rate of mutational events
and its rate of fixation (the two are about the same) when a site has
no selective value. This is unaffected by population size.
Indeed, the number of observed differences between chimps and humans is
*close to* but *less than* that which would be expected if *all* these
differences were due solely to neutral drift and not selection. This
is not surprising. The differences are over-represented in DNA that
does not code for protein, in third nucleotide sites in coding
sequences, and in aa's that are not crucial for function. Since such
sites represent more than 95% of the human genome, it is not surprising
that the number of changes is close to that which one would expect by
chance drift alone. That it is slightly *less* than chance alone would
produce merely tells us that most of the important sites (those
actively involved in function) in chimps and humans are being
selectively *conserved* rather than selectively *changed*. That tells
us directly that the differences that produce the visible
distinctiveness of the two species (differences subjet to positive
selection) are a small fraction of the total number of differences that
we see.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
15 Dec 2005 05:10:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:00:01 GMT,
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
Here's the general rule about "kinds". A "kind" is anything that guarantees
that humans aren't apes. We can lump everything else together into any
"kinds" that we want, but the definition must always clearly hold humans as
a separate "kind", no matter how absurd that will make any other particular
"kind" classification.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Are chimps and humans the same "kind"? |
12 Dec 2005 09:40:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:00:01 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
This question came up on a thread at alt.atheism. A creationist was
insisting that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't. He
could not provide a qualitative difference between the two, or a mechanism
whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Like most creationists, he was quite certain that chimps and humans were
different "kinds", but was unable to define what makes them so different,
when housecats and tigers ARE the same "kind", even though they be
genetically much more different than chimps and humans.
So, the million dollar question comes down to this: is there any
structure in humans that could not have "microevolved" from a similar
structure in the chimps, or, more correctly, a presumed common ancestor?
We must anxiously await the rewriting of the talk.origins essay on
macroevolution.
People use the word "macroevolution" to mean far too many different
ideas. Biologically, it is not "just a whole bunch of microevolution"
but rather the development of species and, more importantly, higher
taxonomic groups. There are some important biological issues,
especially about the origin of the higher groups, that really do go
beyond "a whole bunch of microevolution."
But that is not the issue here. It is true that all the proteins and
other cellular structures found in chimpanzees microevolved into the
homologs in humans. The same goes for the cells and tissues and
organs. However, developmental biologists know that small changes in
details of developmental interactions and timings can produce
enormous differences in product. The fact is that humans and chimps
differ enormously in many features mediated by the nervous system.
These include language and the consequent reorganization of social
behavior to include culture and the accumulation of knowledge outside
the genetic system. You can throw consciousness and morality into the
mix if you wish. Human and chimp capabilities are vastly different,
even if the physical composition and workings of our bodies are
virtually identical. That difference is not what is meant by
"macroevolution".
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
It is true that many Christians do not practice what they preach.Same with Jews, Hindus, Muslims as well as Atheists... Why should that be asurprise...they are all imperfect humans?
Re: Talk.Origins Banned Subject: Humans are half Banana, a BudikkaHole
So Athests Believe Humans Are No Smarter Then Chimps???
Yawn... Who cares if teen GIs are lied to by corporate America? - CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JUSTICE FOR COPS - DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GOD - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE FOR AMERICA ! ! ! - dying broke as self made losers
Re: ATTENTION: All admirable soldiers and police officers - Realize, CNN and CBC have received this post, yet, continue to treasonously lie to dying soldier families - CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JUSTICE FOR C
Are Humans 'Computers Made of Meat'?
OT: 'If you start looking at them as humans, then how are you gonna kill them?'
Re: Will YOU please, support my rise to speak publicly challenging anyone who disagrees with me, GEORGE WALKER BUSH needs to be arrested immediately for 911 - CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JUSTICE FOR COPS - DEM
| I AM AMERICA - ATTENTION: All admirable soldiers and police officers - Realize, CNN and CBC have received this post, yet, continue to treasonously lie to dying soldier families - CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JU
40,000 pounds of bombs dropped by ANTICHRIST FORCES OF EVIL on apopulated City - Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take Marines" - Americancorporations actively attempt to
Simple truths: All religions and gods are 'man'made. Made and made up by humans.
CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JUSTICE FOR COPS - DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GOD - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE FOR AMERICA ! ! ! - HANNITY interviews JOHNNY AMERICA - "Death to our indiscriminately murderous thieving enemies of
Re: CNN CBC FOXNEWS ARE LYING DEMON ENEMY BETRAYERS TO US HUMANS: DEMAND JUSTICE FOR COPS - DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GOD - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE FOR AMERICA ! ! ! - HANNITY interviews JOHNNY AMERICA - "Death to our indiscriminately murderous thieving enemies
40,000 pounds of bombs dropped by ANTICHRIST FORCES OF EVIL on apopulated City - Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take Marines" - Americancorporations actively attempt to
Psycho Hippy New World Order Malthusian Satanist Kook at University of Texas ADVOCATES the Genocide of 90% of Human Race: This Psycho and His Supporters are Clear and Present Dangers to Humans, and Should be Dealt With Acoordingly
|
|
|
