Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 33 of 138 (448945)
01-15-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 6:27 PM


Teen, it looks like this discussion is going to derail the thread.
If you'd like to continue a design debate, please take it to the appropriate thread:
Message 1.
Message 1.
Message 1.
Message 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 6:27 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 40 of 138 (449009)
01-15-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by johnfolton
01-15-2008 8:30 PM


The myth of mitochondrial Eve
The answers from genesis folk actually agree with you but they point out that the Y chromosome is inherited through the male so it can be used in the same way to look for Adam.
Neither the Y chromosome nor mtDNA are truly representative of heritage.
Let me walk you thru this.
The Y chromosome is inherited only by the boys.
You are a son. You inherited your Y from your dad. Therefore, nothing of your mom's side (that Y lineage) is represented. It is lost.
Repeat backwards for 10 generations on your dad's side, keeping in mind, of course, that each female's contribution to that line is completely lost. 10 generations back, you have 1,024 paternal ancestors. Your Y chromosome will represent only one of those 1,024 paternal ancestors.
Both Y chromosomes and mtDNA represent only a very, very tiny fraction of the whole picture.
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2008 8:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 44 of 138 (449026)
01-16-2008 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
01-16-2008 3:07 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
john writes:
Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA,[2] mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations.
Mitochondrial DNA - Wikipedia
This is also from wiki:
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans. Passed down from mothers to offspring for over a hundred thousand years, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
Please note.
They mention Y chromosome Adam, yet they don't mention the problem in tracing ancestral heritage.
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.[citation needed] The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
If you accept the science re: mitochondrial Eve, you have to accept the evidence re: the molecular clock.
So there goes your 6,000 years.
In addition, Homo sapiens has been around a lot longer than 140,000 years. More like 500,000. That should tell you something.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity.
Got that? NOT the most recent common ancestor OF ALL HUMANITY.
You want to know how they know that?
Because tracing lineage thru mtDNA has the exact same kind of problems as tracing it thru the Y chromosome.
It misses hundreds of millions of ancestors.
If you're going to rely on wiki, be sure and read the whole thing next time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 9:12 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 62 of 138 (449490)
01-18-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
01-18-2008 3:19 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
"Johnfulton". "Bret". "Charley". "Craig". "reversespin". "The Golfer". "Tim". "Tom". "whatever".
We haven't any time for your nonsense here.
Take a hike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 3:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 9:47 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 65 by AdminNWR, posted 01-18-2008 9:55 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 69 of 138 (449605)
01-18-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
01-18-2008 12:49 PM


Crack a bio text once in a while.
But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein.
Oh, you are sooooooo wrong.
Protamines have a limited number of amino acids. For example, human sperm protamines have only 7 amino acids.
In fact, it is very, very rare to find all 20 amino acids in a protein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:23 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 73 of 138 (449779)
01-18-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
01-18-2008 10:23 PM


Re: Crack a bio text once in a while.
This is OT, so this is my last response to this question.
MBG, a cell only becomes a cell when amino acids are bonded by a peptide chain.
You said ALL 20 must be present just to make ONE SINGLE protein. Wrong!
Proteins are defined by their inimitable sequences of amino acid residues.
Also wrong. Amino acid substitutions can, and do, lead to perfectly functional proteins.
So when talking about abiogenesis, it leads to a chicken-egg problem. For instance, enzymes can't exist without genes, and gene's can't exist without enzymes. The only real way to alleviate that conundrum is to assume that RNA came before DNA.
RNA before DNA is a given. No serious abiogenesis scientist would suggest otherwise. Your protein conundrum is moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 91 of 138 (449978)
01-20-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 12:32 AM


Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
The only thing that could make me seriously believe that chimps and humans are from the same descent are shared mistakes. Because similarities are specious for the sole reason that it does not prove relatedness. However, the same genetic mistakes would seriously bring in to question the relatedness of one organism from another.
Did you miss the part about "the same mistakes"?
Here. Let me show you.
cavediver writes:
DNA similarity, down to containing not only the same functions, but also the same mistakes, and ERV sequences.
ERVs are "mistakes" too. ERV = endogenous retrovirus, a virus that inserts in the host genome.
ERVs insert randomly into the host genome. An ERV locus shared by two species is evidence of descent from a common ancestor into whose germ line the original viral infection took place.
This is true of chimps and humans.
A pair of infertile creature that are NOT intimately related?
First miscegenation = misogyny, now interfertile = infertile.
Juggs. If you don't know the meaning of a word, look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024