Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,926 Year: 20,962/19,786 Month: 1,359/2,023 Week: 310/557 Day: 3/47 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 128 (247400)
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


I have run across this idea a few times recently. It makes evolution from monkey to man seem soooo easy. For instance, in Message 185, one can read the statement:

I mean, how different are chimps and people really? Lose some hair, shorten the arms, lengthen the legs, etc.

Now, chimps and humans are extant species and I realize no evolutionist is actually proposing that chimps evolved into humans (but the official proposal is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor). However, I take issue with what appears to be an oversimplification of the process. It was my understanding that it was not old structures evolving into new structures but that, according to the theory, all changes in structure are the result of mutations to DNA.

So, then, are the necessary DNA mutations considered in simple-sounding statments like "just shorten the arms and lose some hair?" (And, really, aren't there more than 5 or 6 differences between the two types of creatures?) Does the transition from chimp to human stay so simple-sounding when trying to mutate from chimp DNA to human DNA in a step-by-step method? Does it stay possible, even?

If current science is simply too ignorant to know, then isn't rather un-scientific-like to say such things?

--Jason


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 7:27 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 9:28 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 09-30-2005 4:00 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 10:02 AM TheLiteralist has responded
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:57 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Brad McFall, posted 01-20-2007 7:05 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 116 by pop, posted 06-01-2007 12:17 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:54 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 128 (247401)
09-29-2005 7:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 128 (247409)
09-29-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


So, then, are the necessary DNA mutations considered in simple-sounding statments like "just shorten the arms and lose some hair?"

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by pop, posted 07-24-2006 12:41 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20271
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 4 of 128 (247458)
09-29-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


hair issue
for some information on the differences in hair see

Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=1

and in particular msg 41 on that thread
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=41#41

It is not much of a change really.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 128 (247527)
09-30-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


So, then, are the necessary DNA mutations considered in simple-sounding statments like "just shorten the arms and lose some hair?" (And, really, aren't there more than 5 or 6 differences between the two types of creatures?)

bone structure is quite different. it's probably easiest to see in the hips. we have wider hips, good for walking upright. chimps have taller hips, more suited to their gate.

granted, we ARE relatively close in terms of dna and somewhat in anatomy when compared to a lot of other creatures -- but it'd take a bit more than shorter arms and a shave.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by truthlover, posted 10-18-2006 5:01 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 6 of 128 (247627)
09-30-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


Quote Mining in the extreme
Hi Literalist,

I noticed you've started an ENTIRE THREAD based on a quote you mined out of a discussion I was having with Faith.

Let's put this in some perspective, shall we? Wouldn't that be fair? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

*** Disclaimer!!!***
*** We are not arguing Faith's original point in this thread ***

Faith had originally suggested that all changes which occur through mutation were actually already built into the genetic code and were simply being expressed. In otherwords, every feature found on every person who ever lived (brown eyes, blue eyes, no hair, covered in hair, dark skin, light skin, 12 ft tall, 3 ft tall, etc.) were all present in Adam at the point of Creation and are not the result of any change in genetics.

My response was:

If all genetic variety is available in a single individual from brown eyes to an albino's pink eyes, or from long haired, to hairless, to wire haired cats, then isn't it reasonable to assume that even the differences between species are locked up in the same genetic coding?

I mean, how different are chimps and people really? Lose some hair, shorten the arms, lengthen the legs, etc.

Was meant to demonstrate that the physical differences between people and chimps are very small. And given Faith's theory, would be very easily expressed.

But, of course, expressing my entire point, or putting it in context wouldn't help you, would it?

The fact that you have to resort to such extreme quote mining to build your strawmen is just one more example of how weak your stand really is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-30-2005 5:15 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 09-30-2005 7:01 PM Nuggin has responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 128 (247763)
09-30-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
09-30-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Quote Mining in the extreme
Nuggin,

I have taken your quote out of context, I apologize. It was unintentional. I am guilty of skimming in this case. The sentence caught my eye. And I had seen a very similar statement earlier Message 44:

Andya Primanda writes:

Let's see...I'll use the gibbon as my starting point and to change it to a modern man:
-Increase overall body size.
-Increase brain volume
-Shorten body hair
-Make face flatter
-Make canine teeth smaller...

...There. From gibbon to human, nothing new needed, just variations. We can bring this to the Human Origins forum if you like.

(And maybe I'm taking Andya Primanda out of context...he/she is perfectly welcome to correct me on the point.)

I'm glad you set the record straight on the context. However, I think my argument still stands that many evos (and probably even creos) are oversimplifying the problem by focusing on changes needed in the physical features...when the focus should be on changes needed in the DNA.

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-30-2005 05:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 10:02 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Lammy, posted 10-01-2005 8:36 PM TheLiteralist has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 128 (247804)
09-30-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
09-30-2005 10:02 AM


An apology Nuggin
I think you could apologize to TL here Nuggin. I thought before he apologized to you that it was a pretty easy mistake for him to have made about the meaning of what was written. To suggest he made the mistake deliberately wasn't fair imho.

In any case the topic is a good one. And noting the different issues with the morphology and genome is a good thing too.

I'd like to see it continue. This is going to be a fascinating area of research in the next decade. We are actually starting to piece together the jigsaw puzzle that offers a clue as to just how (in some detail) we may have evolved. Fun stuff!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 10:02 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 11:00 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-17-2006 2:20 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 9 of 128 (247851)
09-30-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminNosy
09-30-2005 7:01 PM


Re: An apology Nuggin
Aye, if unintentional, then my reaction was too harse. I apologize

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 09-30-2005 7:01 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-01-2005 6:06 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 128 (248010)
10-01-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
09-30-2005 11:00 PM


It was understandable
Hi Nuggin,

Your reaction was understandable. No prob'.

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-01-2005 06:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 11:00 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3613
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 128 (248044)
10-01-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by TheLiteralist
09-30-2005 5:15 PM


Re: Quote Mining in the extreme
TL writes:

I think my argument still stands that many evos (and probably even creos) are oversimplifying the problem by focusing on changes needed in the physical features...when the focus should be on changes needed in the DNA.


I don't think anyone is oversimplifying the evolutionary process, except perhaps creos. The thing is the kind changes (DNA vs physical) that required when a population evolved is obvious to some of us already.

For example, take a look at the following tarantulas.

Though these two look very alike, they are two completely different species of tarantulas. They are even more different from each other than a horse and a donkey. They are so different that they can't even reproduce with each other at all.

Since I'm an arachnid collector, I have run across some species that are physically identical to another, yet they are different species and can't procreate with each other at all.

Like I said, this kind of thing is obvious to us. I don't think I hae run across a coherent person of science that actually thought physical outlook was all there was to it.

This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-01-2005 08:38 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-30-2005 5:15 PM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 2:48 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 59 by pop, posted 07-24-2006 12:45 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 128 (248408)
10-03-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Lammy
10-01-2005 8:36 PM


non-mating tarantulas
Hi Lam,

Okay. It's sort of a side issue...more along the lines of "what defines a species." Do you know whether anyone has tried to create offspring from two non-mating tarantula species through artificial insemination?

Sometimes the "no procreation" boundary between species is more of a cultural type thing (for instance, the members of the other species may be the "wrong" color). I'm just wondering if that has been ruled out.

Or, is it that the different species will mate but just can't produce offspring?

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Lammy, posted 10-01-2005 8:36 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Lammy, posted 10-03-2005 3:12 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Carico, posted 12-09-2005 9:14 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3613
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 128 (248410)
10-03-2005 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 2:48 AM


Re: non-mating tarantulas
TL writes:

Okay. It's sort of a side issue...more along the lines of "what defines a species." Do you know whether anyone has tried to create offspring from two non-mating tarantula species through artificial insemination?


Noone has tried simply because it won't work. Those two aren't even in the same genus. Just because they look alike doesn't mean it will work.

Sometimes the "no procreation" boundary between species is more of a cultural type thing (for instance, the members of the other species may be the "wrong" color). I'm just wondering if that has been ruled out.

Like I said, they as as different to each other as a dog and a cat.

Or, is it that the different species will mate but just can't produce offspring?

Sometimes some members of some species will mate. They either produce sterile offsprings or they don't produce anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 2:48 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Nighttrain, posted 10-03-2005 6:01 AM Lammy has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2315 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 14 of 128 (248431)
10-03-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Lammy
10-03-2005 3:12 AM


Re: non-mating tarantulas
Re cross-breeding. Has it been confirmed that cross-breeding is impossible on a genetic level, or might the breeding imperative be blocked by personal preference? There are a few women I wouldn`t want to mate with. Especially those gals from Planet Q#f^j*.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Lammy, posted 10-03-2005 3:12 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Lammy, posted 10-05-2005 5:53 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3613
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 128 (249196)
10-05-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Nighttrain
10-03-2005 6:01 AM


Re: non-mating tarantulas
Yes, it has been confirmed by hobbyists that you can't breed those. Can you imagine the kind of money making market if they could have hybrids like that? I mean, the one on top is a thailand black which sells for around 50 bucks or so. The one on the bottom is a bird-eater (yes, they have been known to eat live birds and small mammals like rats and stuff). That one sells for about 90 to 120 bucks each. Just imagine the kind of money breeders would make if they could breed some hybrids. Why don't they do this? It's because it's impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Nighttrain, posted 10-03-2005 6:01 AM Nighttrain 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 © 2019