From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

What's weird to me about genetics is, macro-scale traits - like the thickness of your hair, or whether or not you have extra fingers, or whether your 1st abdominal segment (assuming that you're an insect) grows legs instead of mouthparts - are generally controlled by much less of the genome than you would think.Like, you'd think that shorter arms would necessitate mutations in genes controlling skin, muscles, bones, nerves, and all manner of other things. But it turns out that changes like these are generally accomplished by changes to only one or two genes.I don't know, step by step, what mutations you would need to turn the genetics of a chimpanzee into that of a human. But if the genetics of development and structure are any indication we're not talking about really complicated changes.

You've been shown in several different threads why this is not the case.Are you ever going to reply to those responses? Or are you just here to spam the forum? I guess I'd like to know in advance how much time I should waste on you. Are you going to respond to well-reasoned argumentation in kind, or simply call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

I don't understand what makes you think it's been that way since the beginning of time.Let me ask you a question. Can you concieve of a situation where two populations that have the ability to interbreed could lose that ability over time?

None of that actually answers my question.Could you please go back, re-read it, and try to answer it again?

No, actually, some of us do. A fair number of us argue from a position of years of academic training and teaching in the biological sciences, or years of experience in employment in biological research and application, or sometimes both.For my own part I'm a genetics student and a lab technician working for the USDA on beetles and spiders. (I help develop and implement research techniques; I'm kind of a tech guy.) The problem you're going to have is that your sources don't understand evolution. Your best bet is to make an effort to understand it yourself, not relying on erroneous creationist distortions.

No, actually, he solved equations to arrive at his famous "E=MC^2"; then, later, experimental evidence confirmed his result. Actually:

quote:

---

The Flynn effect is the year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It was named by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve after the New Zealand based political scientist James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications (Flynn, 1984, 1987). The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade.

---

I don't know - is that evidence? If you think IQ tests measure innate human intelligence, it would have to be. (I don't think they do, nor do I believe that what psychometrics calls "g" is really something that exists, or can be accurately measured with IQ tests.) There's no need to believe in it; the proof of the effectiveness of the scientific method is arrayed around you; indeed, the very computer you're reading this on is proof that the scientific method is the best tool we have for determining what is most likely true about the universe. Religious revelation has never produced truths.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.