Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We're Really Chimps???
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 84 of 92 (303252)
04-11-2006 2:21 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 04-11-2006 3:26 PM kalimero has replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 86 of 92 (303275)
04-11-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Wounded King
04-11-2006 3:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 04-11-2006 3:26 PM Wounded King 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