Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
54 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 52 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: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 46 of 128 (267145)
12-09-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Carico
12-09-2005 9:14 AM


Pick One On Topic Thread Carico
Carico, I'm going to "strongly suggest" that you pick either this thread or Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus. Posting the same types of pseudo-questions and responses all over the forum will not be allowed.

Pick one and stay there with your discussion.

We here at EvC try to keep a handle on our thread topics. Posting off topic to the main theme of the thread is hightly frowned upon and at times has gotten members suspended.

Please do not respond to me here other than a "yes, I understand." Any discussion of this suggestion can be taken to the appropriate thread listed in my signature box.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by Carico, posted 12-09-2005 9:14 AM Carico has not yet responded

      
    babelfish
    Inactive Member


    Message 47 of 128 (267268)
    12-09-2005 4:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
    12-07-2005 3:23 PM


    Liger's and Tigons... Oh my!
    quote:
    Lions and tigers are interfertile to at least some degree, and I'll bet a shiny nickel that those two differ more genetically than man and chimp.

    BEHOLD:

    Ligers and Tigons abound!

    The tigon article indicate that hybrid females are indeed fertile in the giant cats.

    - Babelfish


    The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
    "But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2005 3:23 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 12-10-2005 6:12 PM babelfish has not yet responded

      
    Omnivorous
    Member (Idle past 160 days)
    Posts: 3811
    From: Adirondackia
    Joined: 07-21-2005


    Message 48 of 128 (267599)
    12-10-2005 6:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by babelfish
    12-09-2005 4:22 PM


    Re: Liger's and Tigons... Oh my!
    Beautiful creatures. Thanks, babelfish.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by babelfish, posted 12-09-2005 4:22 PM babelfish has not yet responded

      
    Cthulhu
    Member (Idle past 4403 days)
    Posts: 273
    From: Roe Dyelin
    Joined: 09-09-2003


    Message 49 of 128 (267612)
    12-10-2005 6:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 41 by pink sasquatch
    12-08-2005 5:11 PM


    It has been done. A group of scientists got an ovum and a spermatozoon, one from a human and one from a chimp, to fuse. After several cell divisions, it was destroyed. I'll try to dig up a link.

    Edit: Searches on Google and Wikipedia have turned up nothing. I must have been imagining it.

    Second edit: I tried using other apes in the search criteria and still didn't get anything. What makes this particularly irritating was that I could have sworn I originally heard about this on this forum.

    This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 12-10-2005 06:50 PM

    This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 12-10-2005 06:57 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-08-2005 5:11 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by Asgara, posted 12-10-2005 8:54 PM Cthulhu has responded
     Message 54 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 2:08 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

      
    Asgara
    Member (Idle past 854 days)
    Posts: 1783
    From: Wisconsin, USA
    Joined: 05-10-2003


    Message 50 of 128 (267645)
    12-10-2005 8:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Cthulhu
    12-10-2005 6:44 PM


    Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.

    Human sperm is capable of penetrating the gibbon oocyte.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Cthulhu, posted 12-10-2005 6:44 PM Cthulhu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-10-2005 10:32 PM Asgara has not yet responded
     Message 53 by Cthulhu, posted 12-11-2005 1:37 PM Asgara has not yet responded

      
    pink sasquatch
    Member (Idle past 4574 days)
    Posts: 1567
    Joined: 06-10-2004


    Message 51 of 128 (267682)
    12-10-2005 10:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by Asgara
    12-10-2005 8:54 PM


    Human sperm is capable of penetrating the gibbon oocyte.

    Thanks for the source. But to clarify for others - it doesn't seem that actual fertilization/cell division took place (solely based on the assumption that the authors would have mentioned something that important in the abstract).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by Asgara, posted 12-10-2005 8:54 PM Asgara has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 52 by Ben!, posted 12-10-2005 10:57 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

      
    Ben!
    Member
    Posts: 1161
    From: Hayward, CA
    Joined: 10-14-2004


    Message 52 of 128 (267691)
    12-10-2005 10:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 51 by pink sasquatch
    12-10-2005 10:32 PM


    Full article... for those who have access
    For the priveleged few who have access to this journal via some University or however...

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109877093/ABSTRACT

    Link to the full text is there, if you're interested.
    Or... I can just paste it here:

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109877093/PDFSTART

    There's some nice photos at the end of the article.

    As an amateur, I can't be sure what's being said, but I'm pretty sure that, for whatever reason, fertilization did not occur:

    Since the gibbon oocytes still possessed a vesicular (dictyate) nucleus when examined for sperm penetration, the finding that the human spermatozoa did not enter the vitellus after passing the zona probably should not be interpreted as bearing on the specific identity of the gametes.

    Ben


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-10-2005 10:32 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

      
    Cthulhu
    Member (Idle past 4403 days)
    Posts: 273
    From: Roe Dyelin
    Joined: 09-09-2003


    Message 53 of 128 (267776)
    12-11-2005 1:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by Asgara
    12-10-2005 8:54 PM


    That's what I was thinking of. Thanks.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by Asgara, posted 12-10-2005 8:54 PM Asgara has not yet responded

      
    Carico
    Inactive Member


    Message 54 of 128 (268216)
    12-12-2005 2:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Cthulhu
    12-10-2005 6:44 PM


    Sorry, but you're talking about human manipulation of genes. You forget that humans weren't around before primates created them to manipulate genes. So again, how did apes breed human beings (or primates who haven't been found yet)? And why isn't anything resembling a primate today prdoucing offspring that have turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history?

    Also, if this was done strictly through mutation, then why the need for a common ancestor? Thank you.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Cthulhu, posted 12-10-2005 6:44 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2005 4:37 PM Carico has not yet responded
     Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2005 4:46 PM Carico has not yet responded
     Message 60 by MarkAustin, posted 09-07-2006 5:48 AM Carico has not yet responded
     Message 62 by fallacycop, posted 09-07-2006 2:04 PM Carico has not yet responded

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


    Message 55 of 128 (268311)
    12-12-2005 4:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by Carico
    12-12-2005 2:08 PM


    Can you explain where there was any manipulation of genes in the reference given?

    TTFN,

    WK


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 2:08 PM Carico has not yet responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8933
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 56 of 128 (268313)
    12-12-2005 4:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by Carico
    12-12-2005 2:08 PM


    Knowledge of the Evolutionary Explanation
    Now, were you the poster who has a lot of knowledge of the evolutionary explanation for all this or was that someone else?

    Was it you or sam?? that has a bio degree?

    Based on that could you explain this utterly bazarre question?

    Perhaps before jumping into human evolution you should state your understanding of the evolutionary explanation of how populations change over time. I think you did say you knew a lot but we can't help you sort things out if your basic understanding is a totally screwed up as it appears to be.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 2:08 PM Carico has not yet responded

      
    pop 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 57 of 128 (334692)
    07-24-2006 12:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
    09-29-2005 7:27 PM


    mutations are not mechanisms for evolution.
    Mutations
    A deformed foot, the product of mutation.
    Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

    Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

    The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

    First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19

    Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

    Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

    Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

    Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.

    It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

    Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
    Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

    Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

    The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.

    A mutant fly with
    deformed wings.
    The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:

    Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23

    The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."

    The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.

    They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

    It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

    Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24

    So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 7:27 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by AdminJar, posted 07-24-2006 12:44 AM pop has not yet responded

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 58 of 128 (334694)
    07-24-2006 12:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 57 by pop
    07-24-2006 12:41 AM


    pop, you were warned
    You are suspended for 48 hours. When you return, DO NOT post more cut&pastes.


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by pop, posted 07-24-2006 12:41 AM pop has not yet responded

      
    pop 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 59 of 128 (334695)
    07-24-2006 12:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
    10-01-2005 8:36 PM


    mutations are not evolutionary mechanisms
    The Pleiotropic Effect
    The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such as human beings, in this way:

    1. The wings do not develop.
    2. The hind limbs reach full length, but the digits do not fully develop.
    3. There is no soft fur covering
    4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are absent.
    5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development of the kidney.

    On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.

    The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."26

    Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.

    To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

    l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

    2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

    3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

    The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes.
    All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

    Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.27

    Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 10-01-2005 8:36 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by AdminNosy, posted 09-07-2006 11:03 AM pop has not yet responded

      
    MarkAustin
    Member (Idle past 2366 days)
    Posts: 122
    From: London., UK
    Joined: 05-23-2003


    Message 60 of 128 (347220)
    09-07-2006 5:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 54 by Carico
    12-12-2005 2:08 PM


    You are again demonstrating your total lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution. It does not reqauire or even predict that apes breed human beings.

    Let's do a thought experiment. Assume all your maternal anscetors are alive. Take a chimp from the zoo and do the same.

    You take your mother's right hand; the chimp takes takes her mother's left. Repeat with grandparents and so on. On your side, eventually you will see other species of homo; then australopithecus, and eventually, you will end up with one individual who holds your line in the right, and the chimp line in the left hand. At this point, and for a distance above, there will be little or no difference between the human and chimp lines. These will accumulate gradually.

    I repeat the key point: At any point in either chain neigbouring individuals will be little different, but changes will be seen moving up or down the chain.

    Insofar as I understand your point, you seem to be arguing that teh TOE calls for saltation (the "hopeful monster"). It does not. It is the accumulation of many tiny changes over many generations.

    The conventional wisdom at present is that the hominid line evolved as a savannah animal as a response to forests shrinking, while the chimp line retreated further into the remaining forests, and it was the gradual accumulation of changes to cope with this altered life-style that eventually led to us. However, the details are not important: what is important is that there is geographic separation, to prevent breeding back to the norm.

    Sorry, but you're talking about human manipulation of genes. You forget that humans weren't around before primates created them to manipulate genes. So again, how did apes breed human beings (or primates who haven't been found yet)? And why isn't anything resembling a primate today prdoucing offspring that have turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history?

    Also, if this was done strictly through mutation, then why the need for a common ancestor? Thank you.


    For Whigs admit no force but argument.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 2:08 PM Carico 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