Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 118 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 3:46 AM
364 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 362 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,104 Year: 20,710/21,208 Month: 1,143/2,326 Week: 479/345 Day: 2/134 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 106 of 128 (525142)
09-21-2009 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by valentin.d
09-21-2009 10:29 PM


Re: where to go?
And why so much to this theme it is devoted magazines, scientific works, dissertations and scientists.....

Because that's how science works. You need your work reviewed by a panel of peers in order to validate it. Otherwise, any chump can say anything and call it scientific fact. Kinda like creation science.

However, I have done a google search on the name Dr. (Mr.) Valentine Dolzhenko, and I see the same post on numerous places (mostly blogs/forums) so it appears as though you are effectively spamming the entire internet with this, while not taking the effort to substantiate it.

You, sir, are appearing fraudulent.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by valentin.d, posted 09-21-2009 10:29 PM valentin.d has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by valentin.d, posted 09-22-2009 1:19 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
valentin.d
Member (Idle past 1012 days)
Posts: 44
From: Moscow
Joined: 09-17-2009


Message 107 of 128 (525167)
09-22-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by hooah212002
09-21-2009 10:45 PM


Re: where to go?
I once again with you agree!
And all the same I not by means of the publication and the dissertation wish to tell in a science the word, but by means of experimental dating.
I will tell to you Newton's word: Give me the address of scientific laboratory of dating of fossils, and I will carry out revolution in anthropology!
But I cannot find it in the Internet.
Yours faithfully Valentine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by hooah212002, posted 09-21-2009 10:45 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by greyseal, posted 09-23-2009 12:51 PM valentin.d has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1356 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 108 of 128 (525457)
09-23-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by valentin.d
09-22-2009 1:19 AM


Re: where to go?
Hi!

You could try these guys:

http://www.gi.ee/rlqg/

obviously though, such an esteemed scientist as yourself should have no problem finding a lab for such a trivial overturning of the scientific literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by valentin.d, posted 09-22-2009 1:19 AM valentin.d has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by barbara, posted 09-20-2010 1:57 AM greyseal has responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2296 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 responded

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

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1356 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 110 of 128 (582149)
09-20-2010 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by barbara
09-20-2010 1:57 AM


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.

Sadly, most creotards would disagree with you there - they propagate lies such as "Lucy was part of a pig's jawbone" or "they made it all up because they had so few pieces". There are some people who seriously believe that "Lucy" is all we have of afarensis, or that it's actually a gorilla or a monkey mistaken for a hominid ancestor.

All the other primate lineages are limited to a few skull fragments with the exception of gorilla's fossils that were never found.

So now...what? Because the human evolutionary line is perceived as being so good, and all others aren't, it's still fake?

I say perceived - ape ancestry is also very well known. You're buying into the same lies as for human ancestry. No, I'm sure they don't have all the pieces, but they do have many. Far more than "a few skull fragments".

I see many changes occurred for our line but our primate cousins hardly changed at all. Can anyone explain this?

I can explain it - you're wrong and they changed a lot. Alternatively, degree of change isn't some marker of importance or of "amount of evolution". There is no real marked "up" or "down", it is mostly sideways at this level. if there were a group of monkeys well adapted to their environment and said environment didn't change for millions of years, I don't see why there would be pressure to change overmuch in a scant few million years. Tens or hundreds of millions is another thing, but even on such long timescales can similarity be retained if the form is well adapted.

In short, I'm not a developmental biologist nor anthropologist, but many of your questions are reasonably trivial to answer and the only reason I suspect you don't know is you haven't asked the right people (or alternatively have been lied to).

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.

See, this tells me you've been reading something, but you either don't understand it or it is wrong or misleading. If it's being quote-mined by creationists it is likely you don't understand it because it has been manipulated and is intended to mislead you.

quote your source, let's have a look at it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by barbara, posted 09-20-2010 1:57 AM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 9:29 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2296 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 yet responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 112 of 128 (583629)
09-28-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by barbara
09-28-2010 9:29 AM


Re: where to go?
Isn't that what the peer committee is for to approve papers based on its findings that support other facts?

Not at all.

Peer review just tests that the particular paper conforms to the methods of science. The conclusion of any paper may well be totally false (that gets checked later when others examine the idea presented and try to duplicate the results or conclusions).


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 9:29 AM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 1:56 PM jar has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2296 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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 114 of 128 (583695)
09-28-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by barbara
09-28-2010 1:56 PM


Re: where to go?
That could have been both more accurate and more coherent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 1:56 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 115 of 128 (583726)
09-28-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by barbara
09-28-2010 1:56 PM


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.

Nonsense. There are things we don't know yet but we know more and more everyday, and there is no indication that the puzzle is 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.

Well, the goal in science is to always move towards more accurate, but when you say "DNA dating right now doesn't match up to fossil dating" I have no clue what you are talking about.

Similar appearance in life forms that were assigned the same name to identify them are proving no relationship at all in the DNA results.

You totally lost me there too.

[qas]Genetics is creating an impression of science that they do not know what they are talking about when it comes to life.[/qs]

See above.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 1:56 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6991
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 116 of 128 (583755)
09-28-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by barbara
09-28-2010 9:29 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.

New evidence and new methodologies allow us to make more accurate conclusions. If scientists had to wait for the perfect methodology and results to come around nothing would get done.

You mention DNA percentages. The accuracy of this number has always been a reflection of the technologies and methodologies used. One of the earliest methods used to measure the DNA homology between humans and other apes was hybridization, the ability of similar DNA sequences to stick to one another. Of course, this only gives a gross estimate for DNA homology. The advantage of this method is that it is able to probe the entire genome at once.

Of course, DNA sequencing is the most accurate method. However, up until recently DNA sequencing was labor intensive, produced a lot of data that had to be crunched by either humans or (relatively) primitive computers. Back in the day I actually poured sequencings gel and then read the sequence visually using 32P terminally labelled PCR reactions. The gel would look like this:

You would have to run 4 PCR reactions for each DNA sequence and read the gel visually, recording the data yourself either on a notepad or into a computer. We used to run 16 lane gels so we could only look at 4 DNA sequencing runs at a time.

Because of this it was slow going when trying to sequence an entire genome. So what did people do? They compared sequences from small portions of the genome and extrapolated to the whole genome. Of course, this can only produce an estimate and not a true percentage of homology.

It wasn't until DNA sequencing technology came of age that whole genome sequencing became doable. New automated technology can run thousands of sequencing runs in parallel, and they use dyes instead of radioactively labelled nucleotides which allows them to run a single PCR reaction for an entire sequencing run. These automated sequencers are also linked up to huge computer networks that crunch all of the data for you. On top of that, 454 Life Sciences developed what they call pyrosequencing which speeds up DNA sequencing even faster, and it only requires a single strand of DNA to do it. 454 sequenced an entire human genome (that of the infamous James Watson) in just 3 months where the Human Genome Project took two 13 years to do the same thing.

So to make a long story short, conclusions are only as good as the methodologies that support them. That is what peer review focuses on most is methodology. What they look at second is if the conclusions made by the authors go beyond what the methodology can show. Any well written paper will qualify the conclusions with reference to how accurate the methodology is. If you read closely you can pick this out.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 9:29 AM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM Taq has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2296 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 responded

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

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6991
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 118 of 128 (584928)
10-04-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by barbara
10-04-2010 1:30 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.

"Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species."

"Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage."
http://www.nature.com/...al/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Do you understand the difference between these comparisons? While 70% of the proteins are different in amino acid sequence they only differ by 1 or 2 amino acids between the proteins, on average. So if the average protein is 500 amino acids we are talking about a tiny change between proteins, even if 70% of the proteins are different by a tiny amount.

Your confusion seems to stem from assuming all percentages can be directly compared with each other. They can't. You need to understand the context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 119 of 128 (584929)
10-04-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by barbara
10-04-2010 1:30 PM


Re: where to go?
quote:

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.


Nothing in the chimpanzee genome paper implied that we are closer genetically to rats than to chimpanzees. As Taq has already said, you're misunderstanding something in the paper.

quote:

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.


I don't know what you mean here. Selection can occur if there is a single copy of a functionally different allele.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by barbara, posted 10-08-2010 3:18 PM sfs has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2296 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 yet responded

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017