Genetic distances in primates and their generational times

I recently came across this article. I don't understand much about genes etc. Can someone knowledgeable explain if this is a hoax of some kind? The pictures look convincing tho Something new is happeningThis message has been edited by KOSR, 01-02-2005 12:35 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Please change the topic title to one that is more meaningful.I suggest: "Genetic distances in primates and their generational times"This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-02-2005 11:55 AM

The web page is an extract from a book titled "The Real Descent of Man - The Man Monkey Mutant Mystery".I was going to modify the topic title to reflect that book title, and then move it to either "Short Subjects" or "The Book Nook", but AdminNosy got the topic moved first.We absolutely do need a better topic title. I think either the AdminNosy suggestion or using the book title will do.Topic originators can now change topic titles by edit - It no longer requires admin action. Topic titles can be changed by clicking on "edit" of message 1.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Actually, this seem (to me) to be a "Human Origins" type topic, but the "Biological Evolution II" forum will do.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-02-2005 12:13 AM

seems to me the crux of the article (cutting through tha chaff) is that monkeys are mutant descendants of man. be interesting to see what he does with New World Monkeys.a bizarre attempt to turn evolution around, imho.I certainly cannot see what the buffaloes have to do with it.ps -- welcome to the fray.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-02-2005 12:33 AM

Well, it directly contradicts fossil evidence, of course. Humans and apes evolved together, branches of the evolutionary "tree" do not run backwards.

Since it was published online, I don't think you should worry yourself about it. If it was an article of any significance it would of been published in a peer-reviewed journal.you have to remember though that humans did not evolve directly from chimpanzees or orangutans, but from a common ancestor somewhere in the phylogeny.I also believe that mitochondrial DNA analysis has already been done and shown to be different from this "study."Although not great this is an okay image of ape divergence.Here are some links to some articles. You need Adobe Acrobat ReaderRecent African Origin of Humans Revealed by Hominoid Mitochondrial DNAsMitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

You mean, in theory.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Yes he does. He means that it is an hypothesis which was consistent with existing evidence, which was consistent with subsequent observations and experiments and has not been falsified by empirical evidence.Is that what YOU meant?

Or proved.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Right, in exactly the same way that the sun will rise tomorrow in theory, and that if I suspend a stone in the air and release it, it will accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2, in theory.See what we mean, yet?

If a theory cannot be proved true, just falsified, then that is all you get.

Yes I do. It's all clear now.I now believe in evolution.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Tal, please try to understand that most of us here are accustomed to using and seeing certain terms scientifically. When we talk about a theory, we actually mean a scientific theory. In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to have lots of evidence. And in terms of science, nothing is ever proven in the same sense that you and I are used to everyday.In everyday life, you can say, "Look at this... I told you so... I've proven to you that this exists..." But scientifically, we view the world as much more complex than that. Although some things may seem obvious to the common sense, scientists must refrain from drawing conclusions and perform many tests. In the end, they would never say, "this is the absolute unquestionable truth." Instead, they'd come up with a theory and that theory holds until it is falsified.So, when you implied that you don't believe in the theory of evolution because it is not proven, to the rest of us you seemed to not fully understand the scientific method.Regarding to what the frog said, gravity is a theory. Germs causing diseases is also a theory. These are very well established so-called "facts", but they ultimately remain just theories.I can tell from your past threads that you are sometimes frustrated because, I think, you and people like me think in different terms.As a suggestion, if you wish to falsify the theory of evolution you could start by finding examples of truly altruistic animal.Just like all other theories, the theory of evolution has a list of things that if discovered they would falsify the theory. Even though noone has ever been able to produce any evidence to falsify the theory, you have just as much chance as anyone else.Hope that helps.

quote:

---

I now believe in evolution.

---

It would be rather silly to base one's acceptance of Scientific Evidence on belief.But I guess you are saying that you don't really understand the sciene behind it?This message has been edited by Steen, 01-09-2005 15:50 AM

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution II forum.