Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 109 of 128 (582143)
09-20-2010 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by greyseal
09-23-2009 12:51 PM


Re: where to go?
What I find amazing is that the literature on the various stages of when we started walking upright and all the transitional appearances of pre-human until what we look now was so well preserved in the fossil evidence that backs this story up as being factual. All the other primate lineages are limited to a few skull fragments with the exception of gorilla's fossils that were never found.
How did the fossils of our ancestry were so well preserved while all others only produced fossil fragments providing little evidence? The few fossils of skulls look like modern primates but they were bigger in the past.
I see many changes occurred for our line but our primate cousins hardly changed at all. Can anyone explain this?
Retroviruses on primate lineage showed no connection and they are unique to each primate group. Location of retroviruses may be the same but the retrovirus associated with it is not the same in each primate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by greyseal, posted 09-23-2009 12:51 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by greyseal, posted 09-20-2010 3:14 AM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 111 of 128 (583619)
09-28-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by greyseal
09-20-2010 3:14 AM


Re: where to go?
Unfortunately all my research on the subject is producing radically different conclusions, DNA percentages are different, time lines is different, common ancestry is different, etc. It seems no one in the scientific community can agree with each other on the results.
Isn't that what the peer committee is for to approve papers based on its findings that support other facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by greyseal, posted 09-20-2010 3:14 AM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 09-28-2010 10:08 AM barbara has replied
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 7:15 PM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 113 of 128 (583680)
09-28-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
09-28-2010 10:08 AM


Re: where to go?
The conclusion is that no one really knows and genetics is not helping preconceived logical conclusions to explain the tree of life. In fact, putting the pieces of the puzzle together is proving impossible to do. Hopefully when the genetic sequence is done for a large portion of the biota on the planet, new models can used to replace existing ones that are more accurate. DNA dating right now doesn't match up to fossil dating. Similar appearance in life forms that were assigned the same name to identify them are proving no relationship at all in the DNA results. Genetics is creating an impression of science that they do not know what they are talking about when it comes to life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 09-28-2010 10:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 2:30 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 115 by jar, posted 09-28-2010 4:50 PM barbara has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 117 of 128 (584868)
10-04-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taq
09-28-2010 7:15 PM


Re: where to go?
I just read the Chimpanzee genome project and if you go there you will find is there are several differences between us and chimps. A 30% difference that covers all areas. We are closer in relationship to a rat that shows we are 88% identical and they mention the human/rat common ancestry.
It is obvious to me that common ancestry is not a key factor in that it makes no sense at all. There is another mechanism that is apparently unknown right now that is affecting how species change over time.
All changes occur at the molecular level and if it is true that many mutations over time results in a functional gene then I would think that many individuals in that population also have these mutations. Natural selection can only occur when the gene is functional and there are several individuals that also have this functional gene. This would seem to be required to avoid inbreeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 7:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 10-04-2010 6:01 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 119 by sfs, posted 10-04-2010 6:11 PM barbara has replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 3:34 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 122 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2010 12:44 AM barbara has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 120 of 128 (585522)
10-08-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by sfs
10-04-2010 6:11 PM


Re: where to go?
Forget it! I give up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by sfs, posted 10-04-2010 6:11 PM sfs has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024