|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human - Chimp split 4 million years ago? | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Study moves chimp-human split to 4 million years ago
quote: From PLoS link:
quote: That would put australopithicus very close to the split. This is still a mathematical model of split time based on some kind of uniform rates of mutation ... or at best an average rate. I'm not sure that such models are valid for periods of speciation, when there can be more impetus for divergence to reduce direct competition. Enjoy ps - Human Origins forum ... compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just how well established is the model for a 'genetic clock' for mutations to begin with? The problem is: how do you baseline it? You can measure current rates of mutation and then assume that the rate stays constant (we wouldn't have a baseline long enough to do otherwise), but then you need some kind of measure of how many get fixed in the population - that's going to be another estimate (one I have some trouble with as we know that selection pressure can change this), and it is also going to be some rather uniform or average rate (due to lack of model for rate change or data to base one on that is more than a few years long). What they apparently did on this study was to use an 'accepted' age of the orangutan split as a baseline:
quote: So this is based on an average rate of mutation fixing in the orangutan line applied to the gorilla-chimp-human lineage. The problem I have is that we also have some evidence that the human lineage has more fixed genes than the chimp lineage: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875
quote: And having a different number of fixed genes also means a different rate of fixing genes - if we assume mutations average out to a relatively constant rate. A different rate of fixing genes makes sense because there are several different selection processes going on, processes that necessarily run at different rates: genetic drift, survival selection and sexual selection. The relative importance of each process can shift depending on circumstances and behavior patterns.
(Note - Personally I think the reason for the higher human rate is sexual selection - if not runaway sexual selection - with the evidence being the apparent skin bareness, extremely long head hair, and a creative brain that increased in size until it endangers the life of the mother and child at birth - it's maxed out.) So if we know that two branches have evolved at a different rate of fixing genes how can we assume a same or average rate anywhere else without it being suspect? It seems to me that these genetic clock studies are looking at the data from the wrong viewpoint. Rather than looking at the data and trying to develop an age from common ancestor based on assumed rates of mutation they should be looking at the data with all the current best fossil dating evidence for age from each common ancestor and be looking at what that means for the rate of fixing mutations in those populations. That would be information worth knowing. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi, I am someone who is both inquisitive and skeptical of Darwinian descent with modification. This topic is specifically about the genetic information about a common ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. To discuss this topic you need to read the referenced article and comment on what it says, not bring in other topics. Your whole post is a much more general question that is beyond the scope of this thread - you should start a new topic for it or find an existing one that discusses general evolution questions. I'll look forward to discussing your issues when you do that. Thanks. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Replying to the part that is at least vaguely on topic:
quote: I make bold the word suggests which is used to suggests but still not a fact. The genetic information is discussed in the article linked and referenced on Message 1. If you care to discuss that then point out the problems with the article. Thanks. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
anyone interested in the PLOS article referred to in the OP it is at
Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model This discusses the genetic evidence for common ancestors with humans, chimps, gorillas and macaques. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you know that posting the same erroneous message you started with shows you haven't learned a thing? That is troll type behavior.
See responses to Message 68 for some comments relating to your claim here. Please note that you need to substantiate your claim with the evidence -- something you have not done -- and that without substantiation all you have are words blowing in the wind. Cite your sources.
...animals and humans have to share these things: 1)A heart 2)A brain 3)A digestive system 4)A stomach 5)Arms and legs 6)A circulatory system 7)A nervous system 8)A reproductive system 9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth 10)An endocrine system Sponge - Wikipedia
quote: You are so easily proven wrong about such a simple claim, could it be that your whole post is pure fabrication? This specifically was pointed out on the previous thread linked above, and your failure to learn from it is noted as troll behavior. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : sponges Edited by RAZD, : last p compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... animals don't turn into humans ... Sorry, but humans are animals. Denial of this basic fact of biology does not change the fact that humans are animals. We are also mammals and primates and apes.
This definition applies to humans. Animal - Wikipedia
quote: Note the last line in particular. We are discussing the biology of humans and chimps on this thread, this is a science thread, and we use the scientific meanings of words to discuss science. Human - Wikipedia
quote: And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are. Ah yes the world wide disinformation conspiracy concept again. Please respond to How can Biologists believe in the ToE?, where your presence is requested to deal specifically with the ramifications of this claim. Be prepared to submit facts to substantiate your claims (something you seem particularly unable to do).
... since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!! Since evolution does not claim that animals "turn into" other animals, to say nothing of turning into humans, this is a straw-man argument, a falsehood, that even a child can comprehend leads to false conclusions. This too has been pointed out to you before. There are four basic reasons for posting false information:
We can also include delusional as a being between ignorance and insanity - in the context of having been mislead by others using false information that you then believe to be true because you trust those sources.
The test to distinguish ignorance (being deluded, a false belief, the state of being deluded) and insanity (fixed false belief resistant to reason or confrontation with fact) is the response to evidence that contradicts the belief in question. We can eliminate ignorance by the presentation of information, as has been done. That leaves stupidity, insanity and lying (malicious) as possible alternatives.
So as jesus says; "HE who exalts himself will be humbled." This thread is about the genetic difference between humans and chimps. Your original post was relevant to that topic, but this is not. You were asked to substantiate your claim (Message 18) "that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps" and you have not done so. This is a violation of forum guidelines. Please cite your sources for the DNA information. Failure to do so will be construed as inability to do so, with the implication that your claim is false and you know it. Please limit your posting to chimp and human DNA comparisons. That is the topic of this thread. Anything else will be construed as disruptive troll behavior. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And these two statements: For years, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees was put at 98.5%. The figure was then revised down to less than 95%. And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans." I repeat: what is your source? Either link a webpage or cite the relevant scientific journal article. Until you do so all you are doing is repeating an assertion that is unsubstantiated, and this is a violation of forum guidelines. This is the third time I have asked for this information, and the conclusion I have to reach is that you do not have substantiation and are intentionally posting false information (whether you know it to be false or not is another question). Failure to do so is a continued violation of forum guidelines.
Sorry but calling a human an animal because it's popular to do so no more makes a human an animal than calling a human a tree makes him a tree. Popularity has nothing to do with it. A human is a animal because it has the characteristics of an animal. I'll put it a different way: there is no characteristic of "animal" that doesn't fit humans.
But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century. This is off-topic. Again, your presence is requested on How can Biologists believe in the ToE? to discuss this absurd allegation of yours.
But I notice that the variations in DNA differs all over the web depending on who you talk to. So since scientists don't know, then obviously, no one can know. That would by why you should refer to scientific journal articles rather than websites, and also why you should pay attention to what specifically is being compared. When you look at structural DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 99% similar, but when you look at regulatory DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 95% similar. Your source is probably comparing structural DNA between mice\chicken and human versus regulatory (or overall) DNA between chimp and human: this is apples and oranges. So pony up your source and lets see where the problem lies eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : anglois compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would expect a high degree of similarity between species for genes that code for building blocks such as -keratins protein that are used to make hair, horns, nails, claws and hooves of mammals, because any change to the gene that affects how the protein is formed would change the protein.
This is simple back-thinking the issue: if the same protein is being used by two different organisms, then each has a gene to code for making it that results in the same protein. Such genes could be copied and mutated, but to achieve the same end result there has to be preserved the section that codes for the construction of the protein. We also know that all life is based on a limited number of basic proteins, thus the genes that produce those proteins will need to be highly similar. Hair proteins are similar, bone proteins are similar, skin proteins are similar, etc etc. In addition the basic "body plan" is also similar with number and placement of bones, organs and the like. You could make an (probably bad) analogy to building a house and a five story apartment building using brick, wood, glass, metals and such. The instructions needed to make bricks, make mortar, make 2x4's, make nails, make glass, make pipes and ducts, etc. etc. would be the same for both building. Likewise the basic construction process used to build walls and windows and doors and floors would be the same, the only difference would be the repetitions, sizes and placement of each element -- the architectural plans. Summing up all the instructions necessary to build all the elements from scratch would mean that the regulatory (architectural) proportion would be fairly small compared to the structural proportion. Thus I would expect parts of genomes that code for building proteins to be highly similar across species, but I would expect increasing differences in parts of the genomes that code for how to assemble those proteins for increasingly different organisms. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024