|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: We're Really Chimps??? | |||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The genes you inherit from your mother and father are at a maximum only 93% similar and they are human genes. Source for this? method of measureing? I'm pretty sure comparing this to the human-chimp comparison is wrong but we'll see when you show how you calculated this.
Hemoglobin in humans and chimpanzees are about 98% similar but so is hemoglobin in slime molds (similar to humans) yet a slime mold is so very different from a human. Slime molds have haemoblobin? In any case, so? This doesn't have much to do with the overall similarity of chimps and humans either. Again source for this "information" please.
A cloud, watermelon and a jellyfish are 98% water. To use evolutionary logic there is no difference(or little) between these three things. Yet what we see... the extra 2% makes a World of difference And this one is just plain silly. If you think this is an argument you need to learn a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
I got my information of the video "A question of Origins"
I know it sounds weird that slime molds have hemoglobin. I agree myself but i was just stating what i heard from the video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well I would suggest that the video was perhaps mistaken. Slime molds may well have proteins with a relatively conserved hemoglobin globin domain, as in the protein flavohemoglobin, but that is by no means the same as having a protein 98% similar to the human hemoglobin protein. Having said that the closest human homolog I could see to the flavohemoglobin globin fold was neuroglobin and that was only 23% identical. *ABE* Actually I found a more similar one which is 25.68% similar to human flavohemoprotein. There is a detailed examination of globin lineages throughout the kingdoms of life in a paper published last year (Vinogradov, et al., 2005)
AS to the 93% relationship to your parents, I think you would have to use a very odd metric to get this result, such as considering any gene with even 1 nucleotide of difference to be a completely different gene. For example if you had a genome of 10 coding genes all 5 kb in length then using such a metric a single nucleotide substitution would drop your identity with the original genome to 90% even though in nucleotide terms the change in identity would only be 0.00002%. I can't see any other way to get such a cockeyed figure, which doesn't mean that there isn't one of course. One other point is that it doesn't really matter if there are slime mold proteins which are similar to those in humans, in fact common descent would suggest that you are very likely to find similar genes throughout all the kingdoms of life, the important thing is the patterns within those genes. The human and chimp hemoglobins are much more similar than those of humans and slime molds. Any organism which requires aerobic respiration to live is going to need some sort of oxygen binding proteins and hemoglobin domains are a good way of doing it, so we might expect to see such proteins throughout the anaerobic organisms. Now if you showed that slime mold hemoglobin was more similar to human hemoglobin than a chimp's you might have something which would be problematic for evolutionary theory. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 10-Apr-2006 09:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Googling on "A Question of Origins "
turned up this website and this is what they say about the video:
This visually rich, full production reveals conclusive evidence that the universe and all life were created by a Supernatural Being, and that the God of the Bible is that Creator. The Bible is the only Holy Book in the world that is scientifically accurate. In addition, scientific foreknowledge demonstrates that the Bible is truly the Word of God. This video is essential for anyone who has questions or doubts concerning the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Forbidden
I've never seen this video, so I'll let you guess how much science is in the video and what kind of science background knitro may have. I suspect there is a good chance your reply won't mean much to him. I imagine someone would have to lay a foundation of science and biology and genetics first. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shalini Inactive Member |
Which evolutionary scientist claims that humans evolved FROM chimps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shalini Inactive Member |
When they refer to scientific foreknowledge, can't anyone see the absolute BIAS of their interpretations? Can the flat earth be uesd as an example of scientific foreknowledge in the bible? Seriously....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Well, lots of us do but there are a lot of people out there who have had very little exposure to science beyond televsion and well, they just don't have meaningful criteria. The challenge is how to educate these people.
lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shalini Inactive Member |
It's really hard, as Bible-thumping fundamentalism is a serious disease.
(sigh)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2474 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Hi,
I have here an interesting article about human origins and the genome, note that the chimp genome was coded, and was equated with the human genome (unlike some remarkes here that the human genome project 'has nothing to do with it', if I remember correctly): http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/09/050901074102.htm * Any organism which requires aerobic respiration to live is going to need some sort of oxygen binding proteins Not true, alot of insects (arthropoda) and worms (Platyhelmintes and Nematoda {not Annalida}), that have open/no circulatory systems, dont have any oxygen/CO2 carrying pigments. * Oh, I'm just going by different things in the news that I see. I can't verify anything, don't look now, NEITHER CAN YOU. You only CHOOSE to believe what you WANT to believe. Just like voting republican, democrat, or whatever; YOU CHOOSE to believe the candidates or not. Since I don't keeps NOTES on news articles I read, I can't give you anything off the top of my head. But a quick web search will help you shake the rust loose for you. For example, an article in the BBC offers bits like: BBC.com writes: But whatever their function is, it is clearly of great importance.... "These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said.... He added: "I think other bits of 'junk' DNA will turn out not to be junk. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be many more similar findings." Hey, don't look at me... I'm just going by what scientists are saying. And that article is from last MAY 2004, so it's not exactly breaking news. Here's another interesting article about Junk DNA that has crazy dates going back to 1994 and 1996. Interesting reading. How much of it do I believe? Idunno. And neither do scientists. They just have to keep the information moving so they can keep getting their government grants (paid for by you and me, yes!).And the web is FULL of this topic (rethinking Junk DNA, etc). I'm surprised you act so surprised.... Based on the info that's I see out there right now, I could cut and paste web info for hours. 1. You obviosly no nothing of the subject, so how can you use this as your evidence? You dont know what it means, and you have misinterpited the information contained in it in a "I'm just quoting" manner. You give questions but not conclutions - so there is nothing to argue with you. If you want to say something then say it, dont imply it. 2. Just because some evidence goes one way, doesnt mean we can conclude that all evidence will go that way, which is what you would need to prove your point. Pseudogenes are an example of the evidence going the other way. These are genes which may have once been functional, but now are not. One of the most interesting are the globin genes that make up hemoglobin - there are alot of types of these protiens. Some are expressed only in the fetus and some only in adults, but beetween these genes are psedogenes that are similar to the other globin genes but they dont work - so why have them? Why not just have the types that work for the specific time in life? There is no reason. These genes have duplicated and made other, similar, genes through insersion sequences (I think?). Lots of these 'useless' genes are pressent in the human genome and have no function except "to multiply". * It's really hard, as Bible-thumping fundamentalism is a serious disease. (sigh) I regard myself as an athiest, evolutionist and overall openminded person, but (maybe hence) I strongly object to this kind of reasoning. It is fine by me to dislike people and their arguments, but in a critical, rational way - what you are saying is dehumanizing and nothing good will come of it. Bible-thumping fundamentalists, as much as I may object to theit way of thinking, are still PEOPLE, and they dont deserve to be catagorized as having a 'serious disease' just because of what they think.I ask you to apologise for your remark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Not true, alot of insects (arthropoda) and worms (Platyhelmintes and Nematoda {not Annalida}), that have open/no circulatory systems, dont have any oxygen/CO2 carrying pigments. They may well not have hemoglobins but they still have oxygen binding proteins. Unless that is you are proposing that they lack Cytochrome C? In which case a reference would be pretty useful. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2474 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Hi,
The cytocrome c complex is found within the mitochondrion - I was referring to extracellular distabution of oxygen and CO2. It is correct, though, that if you need to breeth oxygen you have to have oxygen binding proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DownAndOut Inactive Member |
I have the feet of monkeys..and my doctors recently found that I have a small tail forming in my lower back..
for all you non believers...the chimps are us
|
|||||||||||||||||||
42 Inactive Member |
If all the other hominids hadn't died out it would be hard to justify excluding chimps and other non-human apes from the Hominids. Its really only the gaps created by extinction that allow us to discern these groupings. We are jellyfish with highly elaborate mesoderms. But that's probably a leap too far!
Human Evolution in 42 Steps |
|||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship? by Don Batten Edited by AdminModulous, : removed copyrighted material. added link to said material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
If you spam just one more thread with a giant cut and paste I am suspending you, and I don't care whether or not you have seen these posts.
TTFN, AW
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024