Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
42 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux (3 members, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We're Really Chimps???
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8933
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 76 of 92 (301027)
04-05-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by knitrofreak
04-05-2006 1:33 AM


Re: 93 percent
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by knitrofreak, posted 04-05-2006 1:33 AM knitrofreak has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by knitrofreak, posted 04-06-2006 1:36 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
knitrofreak
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 92 (301422)
04-06-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
04-05-2006 1:41 AM


Re: 93 percent
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 04-05-2006 1:41 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 04-06-2006 2:43 AM knitrofreak has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 78 of 92 (301426)
04-06-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by knitrofreak
04-06-2006 1:36 AM


Re: 93 percent
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by knitrofreak, posted 04-06-2006 1:36 AM knitrofreak has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 04-06-2006 4:20 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 79 of 92 (301431)
04-06-2006 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wounded King
04-06-2006 2:43 AM


Re: 93 percent
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.

http://www.creationists.org/aquestionoforigins.html

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 04-06-2006 2:43 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Shalini, posted 04-09-2006 11:22 PM lfen has responded

  
Shalini
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 92 (302759)
04-09-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Juhrahnimo
01-16-2005 12:41 AM


Re: Folds, errors, etc?
Which evolutionary scientist claims that humans evolved FROM chimps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-16-2005 12:41 AM Juhrahnimo has not yet responded

  
Shalini
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 92 (302761)
04-09-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by lfen
04-06-2006 4:20 AM


Re: 93 percent
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 04-06-2006 4:20 AM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 04-09-2006 11:30 PM Shalini has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 82 of 92 (302766)
04-09-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Shalini
04-09-2006 11:22 PM


Re: 93 percent
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Shalini, posted 04-09-2006 11:22 PM Shalini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Shalini, posted 04-10-2006 12:27 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
Shalini
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 92 (302789)
04-10-2006 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by lfen
04-09-2006 11:30 PM


Re: 93 percent
It's really hard, as Bible-thumping fundamentalism is a serious disease.
(sigh)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 04-09-2006 11:30 PM lfen has not yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 995 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/releases/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 responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 85 of 92 (303269)
04-11-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by kalimero
04-11-2006 2:21 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by kalimero, posted 04-11-2006 2:21 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by kalimero, posted 04-11-2006 3:49 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 995 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 yet responded

  
DownAndOut
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 92 (312468)
05-16-2006 1:54 PM


well guess what
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


Message 88 of 92 (359722)
10-29-2006 7:50 PM


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


Message 89 of 92 (366291)
11-27-2006 12:30 PM


Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten

Edited by AdminModulous, : removed copyrighted material. added link to said material.


Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AdminWounded, posted 11-27-2006 12:34 PM nO_JeZeBeL has not yet responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 92 (366295)
11-27-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL
11-27-2006 12:30 PM


Stop spamming now or else!
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL, posted 11-27-2006 12:30 PM nO_JeZeBeL has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020