We're Really Chimps???

I agree, though there are lotsof sequenses I agree, though there are lots of sequences in most DNA strands that were thought to be use less (called ‘Introns’, as opposed to the segments known to be directly useful in coding proteins and such which are called ‘exons’) possibly being left over codes that were once part of an enxon, or the ruminants of ERVs (retroviruses that invaded our system millions of years ago and got stuck in out genome. Greg Bear’s Darwins Radio makes good use of this idea)Anyway, the statement about the DNA of chimps and Humans being the same save for the Introns is either someone probably misunderstanding the original concept (I would not be surprised having read Universe in a Nutshell by Prof Hawkins, my head still cant get it self to understand what the hell P-Branes are)There has to be some significant differences in the DNA that codes for us as if not we would be exactly the same. It the same as making the claim that if you took two hummers and filled one with trash then making the claim that the one with out the trash is a ford Tourus.

unfortunately, maybe: they are on the brink of extinction.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The vitamin C thing was just PURE, ABSOLUTE thinking out loud; nothing more. Here's one more speculation:God made chimps as a result of Adam's "request" for a close companion. God had made LOADS of animals and brought them all to ADAM and he named each one. Seems to me that God was setting up the world to suit Adam, sort of like when we "set up" our kids' bedrooms or playrooms to be "fun" environments. After the kids get ideas of there own, we ask them what else they would like. Adam, certainly not being as creative as God himself, probably pointed out that each animal had a "companion" that seemed to fit (males and females that looked similar). Adam probably offered God some IDEAS on what his companion should look like. Probably like many of us would have, he perhaps drew a picture in the dirt of what he thought a proposed companion should/could look like. Or maybe God just read Adam's mind, or whatever. Anyway, after creating lots of different monkeys, gorillas, etc., perhaps the one Adam liked best was the chimp and they became close buddies sort of like my daughter is close buddies with her loyal dog. But it didn't take long for Adam to realize that this just wouldn't do this trick. So, God took over and made a creature from Adam's rib, who was far more beautiful and fitting than Adam could have ever imagined or designed. As for the chimp, I'm sure they were still super-buddies (like perhaps our dogs today, only on a much high level (I say perhaps!) They probably hung out together, ate together, etc., and the chimp's high intelligence (God given) was part of what Adam needed in a companion. When God stuck the vitamin C gene in Adam, he nailed his close buddy as well since they shared their meals. Or whatever. Again, this is ALL pure SPECULATION, and doesn't really matter. God created this stuff for his and our pleasure, and we were ungrateful to him so instead of wiping us out for joining forces with the enemy, he would lightly touch (curse) his creation for our sake because he had to take some kind of action for our rebellion. WHY did he do certain things in cetain ways? We usually can only speculate. But just like evolutionists say about the origin of life itself: "We don't know HOW it happened; we just know it DID".

Oh, I see. I thought someone was going to actually suggest solid competitive interpretations that explained the evidence.I guess these aren't it then and we are left with only one viable interpretation of the observations. Until there is a viable alternative I suggest that the hints that scientists are misinterrpreting the evidence be dropped as a point of discussion.An additionl note on the second quoted item above. We are, unlike the so called creation "scientists", working on it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-17-2005 10:27 AM

quote:

---

The closeness of our genomes is perfectly reasonable in the time frame involved. Remember you have a handfull of genetic changes different from your parent in only one generation. How many can pile up in a quater of a million generations? This will accelerate when we are separated by a species barrier.

---

Would it be logical to assume that if another species were to develope off of the human one, it is now less likely because of our ability to travel globally with ease and so the potential of a human group being isolated is less likely?I assume this is how humans and Chimps evolved according to what you are saying. They started out with the exact same genetic information pool but then as the group's population increased, it broke up and spread, perhaps to find more food, and then evolution took one group in the dirrection of Chimps because of the enviorment, and the other group went human because that worked better for that enviorment. Perhaps there were several other groups that themselves became different hominoid species but they failed to survive for whatever reason?So evolution from the human perspective is stopped until either our species experiences some factor that can preserve isolatin of groups or space exploration can isolate a population group via distance. Am I on track or did I over simplify the evolutionary model at the species split of Chimps and humans?

I read it before I posted, and I'm quite aware of that subject. I ask again: do you have any references to the scientific literature showing any function for the GLO, urate oxidase, or odor receptoe pseudogenes that chimps and humans share? The ones that are "broken" in the same places, and make both chimps and us unable to make vitamin C, oxidize uric acid, or smell a wide variety of things that other primates can smell?

I think you are right on.We spread around the globe fairly quickly when we got enought technology to do so (about 60,000 years ago). Then it is probably that less mixing would take place. If that had kept up we might have speciated in the various locations.However, before we had a chance to get there we got even more technology and are mixing the gene pool up now. There won't be a chance for speciation again.(BTW, one suggestion for the split of the ancestral population that gave raise to us and chimps is the great rift valley. Some issues with that after finding fossils on the "wrong" side.)

Has there been any estimates as to how many generations it would have taken before the genetic rift would have been too great to rebridge (say a chance meeting of the 2 species) and thus recombine the 2 species back into one, but now different from the original parent species?

That's exactly what I meant.This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-17-2005 12:08 AM

Evolution/science.....why don't you believe in it? It is all around you and the wonders exposed are enough to make one weep.
Exploring the mysteries of the universe is a must and primary directive for the believer to make everything here and around ours to know and enjoy.
Believing or not believing does not matter. It matters only to know. Credit may be given at your discretion, but you should certainly not disparage any and all who would not do as you do.

So what was God thinking when He created the candiru fish for Adam to "play" with?The candiru is a small, blood-eating catfish that swims up the urethra of humans, and then deploys spines to irremovably lodge itself in the urethra and draw blood. The pain is immense to the point that some males resort to amputation of the penis to stop the pain. In others, the pain the candiru induces results in shock and death.What a "fun" environment with great "companions" to play with!I think the candiru points to an idea previously brought up in this thread - that its designer is necessarily cruel or stupid if "man" is the favored species.

God made changes in the evrionment and possibly DNA or whatever, as I speculated in my post. But for certain, God didn't make thorns and thistles as part of the creation either, but they showed up later for the reason mentioned. Neither did God create Eve to feel pain during chilbirth; that came later for reasons already mentioned. Neither did God create the animals with fear of man; that change was made AFTER the flood. God did not bring death into the world. We did that. And that was followed by murder (Cain and Abel), pain, disease, suffering, and sins heaped upon sins. What else can I say? I don't have absolute knowledge; I'm just going by the Biblical record. Sorry.

I'm glad to know I had a part in the creation of thorns and thistles.So, everything bad in the world is Man's fault. Or more specifically, "first man's" fault. (Again seems like a God punishing an entire planet for one man's mistake is not such a nice God.)But to go back to the GLO gene - by your account Adam's best bud Skippy the Chimp was sitting next to him at lunch when Adam got zapped by the God's anti-GLO ray. Skippy's mutation was just collateral damage (shouldn't God have better aim?).Then what about guinea pigs and fruit bats? They both have non-functional GLO genes, but with different mutations than humans and chimps. How does God making guinea pigs and fruit bats scurvy-prone fit into your story?

Well, others have posted references to speciation occuring in plants (and maybe mice) in a single generation. Meanwhile it is clear that it can take many, many thousands in other cases.So it would appear it depends totally on just what mutations happen to occur. Or what the split is.As an odd example there is some disease that (mmmm I think it was) an insect can get. Those with it can not breed with those without and vice versa. I think this is an "instant" rift. The two populations are identical but are split anyway.

First off, I am not so quick to rule out possible speciation due to dominant {cultural\sexual\behavioral} selection proclivities among the various sub-species of Homo sapiens, but to answer your question first:We have a model available in the amount of change needed to reach speciation in the "ring species" green warbler:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/Greenish%20warblers.html You have 5 sub-species that form a ring around the Tibetan Plateau, each one interbreeding with it's neighbor to varying degrees, but the end overlap area has two species (non-interbreeding). {{added by edit: ther is a 6th sub-species but it is totally isolated from the others}}This offers a look at just how much differentiation is needed to create non-interbreeding populations, noting that they may still be genetically able to produce offspring that they are behaviorally isolated. And they can now be genetically compared to see just how much genetic difference is involved.

---

It also models for us criteria for population co-isolation if you will: each sub-species has an area of their own and areas of overlap with other species but which appear to be more bottle necks than broad overlaps.Now consider all the sub-species (races) of Homo sapiens living in mostly {race-monolithic} areas and only interbreeding on limited scales in spite of pressures to do otherwise. Much of this can be put to cultural selection, but sexual selection is also involved, and in either case they are both behavioral mechanisms - isolating people into different sub-populations with predominant internal domination by one race or other.One can argue whether these {population co-isloation barriers} are real {cultural\sexual\behavioral} selection barriers or just cultural left-overs, the fact remains that they exist and can be observed in virtually every city, as opposed to a more homogeneous mixture that (one thinks) should have evaporated all racial differences by now if they were not operating.It is possible that genetic drift within each sub-population is occuring and that continued behavioral isolation could result in increased infertility between overlap breeding pairs.This too can now be measured with the genetics, particularly with the "Human Genome" (shouldn't that be plural?) Project to see if there is increased or decreased inter-racial differentiation.

---

Conversely, as a model for "a chance meeting of the 2 (sub)species" look at the europeans discovery of america, with the native population derived from asian stock and isolated from european stock for ?thousands? of years ... and geneticaly able to interbreed, even though that too was (relatively) rare due to cultural behavior (ignoring the impact of horny-sailor-raping-native factor for now).The ability to breed genetically extends long after {behavioral\geologial\other} barriers arise, so the question is: will rational considerations overturn basic fundamental behavior ... can "liberal thinking" prevail over "dogmatic behavior" eh?Or to be radical: do we need to force a monolithic genetic culture or let things happen as they will to allow for a greater genetic diversity overall, and if it results in speciation we can have a (birthday) party. EnjoyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-17-2005 14:02 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}