Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
79 online now:
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,415 Year: 1,061/14,102 Month: 53/411 Week: 74/168 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 6 of 341 (582647)
09-22-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
08-17-2010 8:27 PM


Some of the journals that I have read state that humans are 96% the same as in chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. However, I also read that some of the retroviruses sequences are species specific in each one.

The neanderthal DNA also says we are 96% the same. They appear closer to humans then chimps yet the difference is still 4%. These percentages seem to contradict depending on what journal you read so this may not prove anything yet.

There hasn't been any other species between Neanderthal and modern humans is there in the fossil record?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 08-17-2010 8:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2010 1:50 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2010 2:29 PM barbara has responded
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 09-22-2010 4:05 PM barbara has responded
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 8:57 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 10 of 341 (582786)
09-23-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2010 2:29 PM


Which part is the actual difference?
Do you use base pairs, codons, genes, or proteins to determine what sets us apart from other forms of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2010 2:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2010 2:19 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 12 of 341 (582794)
09-23-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taq
09-22-2010 4:05 PM


If you ignore insertions and deletions of DNA in all species, would we be 99% the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 09-22-2010 4:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 09-23-2010 4:07 PM barbara has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 38 of 341 (583405)
09-26-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
09-23-2010 4:07 PM


Deletions
How do you know it was deleted if it is no longer there anymore? The same question for insertions, how do you know that it wasn't always there in a genome sequence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 09-23-2010 4:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nij, posted 09-27-2010 1:10 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 09-27-2010 3:14 PM barbara has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 44 of 341 (583464)
09-27-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jon
09-27-2010 12:49 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
I agree that "common ancestry" should not be used since it is too messy and it is based on speculation. The geographical environmental gene pool that defines a specific ecosystem is the primary initiator for evolution to take over for changes in appearances of the biota over time. That is a better explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 12:49 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Strongbow, posted 09-27-2010 2:31 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 09-27-2010 2:41 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 09-27-2010 3:21 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 60 of 341 (583576)
09-28-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taq
09-27-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Deletions
Thanks Taq, that makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 09-27-2010 3:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 61 of 341 (583577)
09-28-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
09-24-2010 1:06 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
If we take the human lineage completely out of the picture, how did the chimp, gorilla and orangutan diverge? Did both diverge from one? These 3 live in specific locations so its hard to grasp that they would have cross paths in history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 09-24-2010 1:06 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:04 AM barbara has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 68 of 341 (583614)
09-28-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 4:04 AM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Response to diagram on common ancestry. Could you please now add in Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthal, Homo Cro-magnom, woodland apes. and then modern humans.

Thanks

Woodland apes are australopithecine which may be the same as australopithecus. My error.

Edited by barbara, : No reason given.

Edited by barbara, : correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2010 10:56 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Jon, posted 09-28-2010 11:58 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 69 of 341 (583616)
09-28-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 4:27 AM


Re: SCOTUS Ruling Tactics = Bad Analogies
I read that the genetic differences between chimps and bonobos is 3% and bonobos are chimps but are separated by boundaries, their social behavior is the complete opposite in that chimps are very aggressive while the bonobos are peaceful.

Another article said that our lineage split at the same time as the chimps did from a common ancestor. The 4% difference between us and chimps seems to put us farther back then chimps and bonobos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 82 of 341 (583783)
09-28-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Jack
09-28-2010 5:32 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Dr A's drawing is not based on evidence. It is purely speculative. There is no DNA evidence of those species that lived 2.5 million yrs ago when they split. Today's DNA between them are not identical or even close. There are no fossils of gorilla and only a few of orangutan. The fossils of chimps look very much like they do today.

Genetics claim that a fresh water dolphin is not related to the salt water dolphin so do you really expect me to believe we are related to chimps based on a silly diagram? Please stop turning evolution into a religion before its loses all credibility. Common ancestry cannot be proven so why waste your time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Jack, posted 09-28-2010 5:32 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2010 12:36 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 12:48 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 12:57 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2010 4:58 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 93 of 341 (583875)
09-29-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by olivortex
09-29-2010 8:56 AM


Re: Questions, quests.
Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
________________________________________

|--------------- orangutans
---|
| |----------- gorillas
|---|
| |--- chimps
| |---|
|---| |--- bonobos
|
|------- humans
Dr A.
Did you use the Fitch parsimony method based on morphological analysis? If indeed, this is the case then you couldn’t add in the other species of human ape-like creatures in this diagram. There is no DNA evidence for all of them except Neanderthal and modern man. The molecular clock is unrealistic even for the ones you do have listed here. These models present hypothesis and in no way conclude that it is a fact.
Do you realize how many morphology differences there are in dog breeds in contrast to your analysis based on morphology similarities in primates? But yet a dog is still a dog and a human is still a primate. There is no consistent measure of understanding it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by olivortex, posted 09-29-2010 8:56 AM olivortex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 2:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 98 of 341 (583974)
09-29-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Jack
09-29-2010 2:12 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
The human and mouse genome shows there is one difference in 14 genes on chromosome 16 are not human. Chromosome 21 in humans is not found in a mouse. All of the rest of the human genes are found in a mouse and most are grouped together and in the same order in both of them.

You can use a mouse as being as common ancestor if you wanted and use genetics as evidence. Would this be true?

The human skull diagram that shows all of the species of ape-like man up to modern human is not clear of what is being proven here.
You can take all breeds of dog's skulls and line them up and it will show various sizes in skulls, these are all living today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2010 2:12 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 5:08 PM barbara has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 101 of 341 (584015)
09-29-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jon
09-29-2010 5:27 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
This sounds good but in order for this to happen these several beasts would have to be able to sexually reproduce offspring. Currently there is a couple that do this but their offspring is usually infertile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 5:27 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:31 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 102 of 341 (584019)
09-29-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blue Jay
09-29-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
The dog ancestry is a dead end. Apparently the specific breed ancestry was never documented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 5:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:36 PM barbara has responded
 Message 108 by caffeine, posted 09-30-2010 4:22 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3591 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 105 of 341 (584032)
09-29-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jon
09-29-2010 8:36 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
I'm sorry I thought that all breeds of dogs was man's creation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:36 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 9:30 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 9:33 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 9:55 AM barbara 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 © 2021