But they don't. The differences are much greater than those between cats and dogs: I described the differences that define their respective genomes. The chimp's extra long muscular arms, muscular torso and short legs with hand-like feet, plus skull shape etc etc etc, amount to greater differences in body structure than those between cats and dogs.
Can I ask how do you think the genome creates the structures of the body? You talk about mutations in terms of overall damaging genes, which suggests you are thinking of genes that code for proteins. But this is only part of the story, because there is also the mechanisms which control when these genes are expressed and how they interact. An embryo is a population of cells and as they multiply gene expression changes. So cells in a certain region form a limb bud, elongates to form an arm and finally a hand, all while the timing of when different genes are expressed changes. What you describe as differences between humans and chimps is simply differences in timing of when genes are expressed. It may not even need mutations the protein coding genes for these differences to occur. Another example for humans and chimps is the skull development of the foetus. For both species development is almost identical, with expression of genes at first developing the size of the cranium, then there is a point when this expression is reduced and instead the expression switches more to development of the jaws. In humans this switch occurs later in development than in chimps.
Can I ask how do you think the genome creates the structures of the body?
I was merely observing the fact that the adult body structure is basically the same in each species. I assume this is controlled by some part of the genome and I would like to know more about how the genome produces it but I don't see the relevance of the stages of growth as you are discussing it.
You aren't thinking and there is nothing hilarious about any of this except your refusal to think about what I'm saying. The bulldog and the whippit body structures differ in an overall way, the bulldog more squashed, the whippet more elongated, but nevertheless the basic structure is similar in the sense I was talking about it: more rigid build than a cat's in both cases, same limb shape, head positioned above shoulders etc. Differences in size, length etc., don't matter in my frame of reference which I would think would be obvious from the fact that I was clearly referring to ALL dog breeds. The basic shape is the same. Actually considering what I said would help.
For all I know and for all you said the scientists don't say anything appreciably different on this subject than I'm saying.
I made a simple observatgion about the similarity of body structure as seen on charts illustrating trilobites. I said nothing whatever about what scientists say about it AND NEITHER DID YOU. You assume a lot. For all you know they would agree about my general point. You don't bother to think you just blow hot air.
I made a simple observatgion about the similarity of body structure as seen on charts illustrating trilobites.
You actually said this
All the changes are superficial, not much of a record for the ToE which should produce far more dramatic changes if species-to-species evolution were actually true.
Which is a crass and stupid thing to say which no scientist would agree with.
quote:Because trilobites had wide diversity and an easily fossilized exoskeleton, they left an extensive fossil record, with some 50,000 known species spanning Paleozoic time. The study of these fossils has facilitated important contributions to biostratigraphy, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and plate tectonics. Trilobites are often placed within the arthropod subphylum Schizoramia within the superclass Arachnomorpha (equivalent to the Arachnata), although several alternative taxonomies are found in the literature.
Trilobites had many lifestyles; some moved over the sea bed as predators, scavengers, or filter feeders, and some swam, feeding on plankton. Most lifestyles expected of modern marine arthropods are seen in trilobites, with the possible exception of parasitism (where scientific debate continues). Some trilobites (particularly the family Olenidae) are even thought to have evolved a symbiotic relationship with sulfur-eating bacteria from which they derived food.
You are not reading the right statement. But that one is true too. The structure remains as described, it's the superficial parts that vary, and if the ToE were true the structure would change too. And I didn't say scientists would agree with me about this, just about the basic sameness of the structure.
What I've been saying is simple and true. Not worth talking to idiots about such things.
Just like your bald assertion that the differnces are great.
But mine is true
quote:According to [Kevin Hunt, director of the Human Origins and Primate Evolution Lab at Indiana University], if you shave a chimp and take a photo of its body from the neck to the waist, "at first glance you wouldn't really notice that it isn't human."
Plus, humans and chimps are the same by your criteria.
Actually, not just Faith's hyper-simplistic phenotype criterion (ie, having the same "basic shape") would classify humans and chimps as being of the same species, but also her criterion of having the same basic genome.
Humans and chimps have many of the same genes in the same places on the same chromosomes. Ah, she would equivocate and back-pedal yet again, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24 as chimps have. In fact, if you look at human Chromosome 2, you find that it was formed by the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which are still separate in chimps -- its very structure demonstrates that it is two fused chromosomes (eg, a second vestigial centromere, vestigial telomeres in the middle of the chromosome). Not only have we identified the two "ape chromosomes" that fused to form human Chromosome 2, but we have also found the same genes in the same places on human Chromosome 2 that are on the two "ape chromosomes".
Additionally, for decades now biochemists working with protein sequence comparisons have found the genetic commonalities between chimps and humans to be amazing. In 1990 I wrote a report on Duane Gish's deliberate lie on national TV about a bullfrog protein showing humans and bullfrogs to be more closely related (the most evidence he ever provided to support that was admitting that it was based on a joke he had overheard about the protein having been taken from an enchanted prince who had been turned into a frog ... seriously!). At the time, I posted it in a CompServe library and have re-posted it on my site: THE BULLFROG AFFAIR or The Enchanted Prince Croaks.
Here is my report what Dr. Russell Doolittle reported on the PBS documentary (copied from that show's transcript):
In a recent article in _Discover_ magazine, Dr. Russell Doolittle tells how his early research in protein comparisons had sparked his interest in evolution. In a 1982 PBS program ("Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982), he told this story:
Doolittle: "Ever since the time of Darwin the chimpanzee has been regarded as man's nearest living relative. Naturally it was then of interest to biochemists to see what chimpanzee proteins would look like. Now the first protein to be looked at in a chimpanzee, and compared with a human, was the hemoglobin molecule -- hemoglobin one of the blood proteins -- and in fact, there were no differences found in the chimpanzee molecule when 141 amino acids were looked at in the hemoglobin alpha chain. In contrast, if you looked at a rhesus monkey, there were four differences; or if you looked at a rabbit, you found the differences got up into the 20s. If you got up to a chicken you'd find 59 differences; and if you looked at a fish you'd find there were more than a hundred differences. Now this is exactly what you expect from the point of view of evolution."
Narrator: "Three more proteins were analyzed."
Doolittle: "Once again, no differences compared -- chimpanzee compared with human. It was astonishing. In fact a rumor began to sweep around biochemists, that maybe all the differences between chimpanzee and human were really going to turn out to be cultural. Well, in fact, one more protein was quickly looked at -- this was a large one -- 259 amino acids -- and a difference was found. Whew!"
Well, now according to Faith's "new and improved" criteria, it turns out that humans and chimps are indeed the same species and the differences are purely cultural.
On that page, I review several creationist claims about protein comparisons, including Walter Brown's infamous rattlesnake protein (which was still in his on-line book last I saw, though in a footnote without any details). From http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE:
Then in the Summer of 1984, Kenney wrote to Walter Brown about the fetal horse hemoglobin. Brown responded with a telephone call. Kenney tried to get Brown to confirm or deny the ICR's claims, or at least to pressure the ICR to produce some kind of documentation. Brown refused, but instead offered another claim: rattlesnake proteins. Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism. For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are). Kenney wrote:
"In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes." (CEN Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)
Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing. Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.
Note also that chimpanzees were also not included in the Dayhoff study. About half a decade after having written that, I obtained a library of protein sequences for various organisms and software to perform those comparisons. I ran the comparison of cytochrome c between humans and chimps. Do you remember how rhesus monkeys and humans differed by one amino acid? The difference between chimps and humans was zero. Chimp and human cytochrome c are identical.
Yet more evidence for Faith to show that humans and chimps are of the same species.
Well, if for no other reason than for sh17s and giggles, here is Gish's deliberate lie on national TV. Copied from that same PBS documentary described above, here is Dr. Duane Gish's response to Dr. Doolittle's story of chimp and human protein comparisons:
The Bullfrog Affair itself starts with the KPBS production, "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", which aired 7 July 1982. After Dr. Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins (see above), Dr. Duane Gish responded:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
This was immediately followed by Dr. Doolittle's response, "Oh bullfrog! I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you." This was the first recorded use of "Bullfrog" that I am aware of. Then Doolittle indicated a book full of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins taken from many hundreds of species and offered Gish all his worldly belongings, a '63 VW and half a house, if Gish could find just one protein in chickens or bullfrogs that is more closely related to human proteins than chimpanzee proteins.
What followed was a comedy of errors in Gish's attempts to perform a cover-up, which ended with him claiming that if we wanted that evidence so much, then it was our responsibility to come up with that evidence, not his. Gee, doesn't that sound so very familiar from all our dealings with creationists?
It also became common practice for years afterwards to respond to typical creationist BS, especially when done by Gish himself, with cries of "Bullfrog!" instead of "Bullshit!"
BTW, the original researchers didn't know what Gish had meant by his references to chicken proteins, but I think that I've tracked it down to Gary Parker's misrepresentation of the book, The Structure and Action of Proteins by Richard Dickerson and Irving Geis (1969, page 78). In their discussion of "molecular clocks" which is dating estimation based on the accumulation of neutral mutations (and therefore not subject to natural selection), they used the example of the evolution of lysozymes into alpha-lactalbumin, which were subject to selection, to warn against over-simplistic application of the "molecular clock" idea. Either Gary Parker was unable to understand what Dickerson was writing or else he deliberately misrepresented it. The answer to that question is pretty much a toss-up.