Evolution question.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Fair enough.

I object in the strongest terms to your convoluted logic and selective application of distain.

Apparently for you what is good for the goose has absolutely no implication for the gander...something I vehemently disagree with, and will to my dying day.

However, if your goal is to silence me by the weight of your hissy fit, you have succeeded.

Not me lol. I'm just getting started and enjoying this...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

his final point was about how we were related to absolutely every other living thing and i thought, my G!D, how beautiful a way to prove that All Is One; we are all part of one system, i share 99% of my DNA with a chimp and 90% of my DNA with a banana, shouldn't that make me feel a sense of kinship with all life? how is that *not* a religious insight on some level?

Halleluyah, and Amen.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

yes, but juan, you can't use that as a reason to dismiss darwinian evolution, any more than you can use nazism as a reason to dismiss nietszche or wagner, any more than you can use mengele as a reason to dismiss medicine. one of the biggest things in evolution is about learning new skills and acquiring new capabilities - like not making damfool mistakes like thinking that eugenics was a good idea.

WTF? Where...EVER???...on this site have I denounced evolution??? What I have done consistently is challenge the gross dogmatic assumptions and perverted logic of evolutionists.

I have never defended creationism as a POV.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you won't find me calling anyone a monkeyfecker, either.

Good, because neither did I. A false accusation doesn't make it so. If someone is going to be so hyper-sensitive as to take offense at a passing comment, then what is the sense of dialogue?

Especially when I showed reference to support my position. All the other side has shown so far is convoluted logic, ambiguous hearsay and flippant unsupported dismissal.

Might win an election for high political office, but hardly conducive to factual and logical debate.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Halleluyah, and Amen.


WTF? Where...EVER???...on this site have I denounced evolution??? What I have done consistently is challenge the gross dogmatic assumptions and perverted logic of evolutionists.

I have never defended creationism as a POV.


Good, because neither did I. A false accusation doesn't make it so. If someone is going to be so hyper-sensitive as to take offense at a passing comment, then what is the sense of dialogue?

Especially when I showed reference to support my position. All the other side has shown so far is convoluted logic, ambiguous hearsay and flippant unsupported dismissal.

Might win an election for high political office, but hardly conducive to factual and logical debate.

Human nature is to hang on to the last vestige, when all else is lost. For those that have nothing to begin with, that isn't much to hang on to.

And to infer that those who are otherwise quite educated, but with some sort of faith...less intelligent, well that simply shows the insecurity and fragileness of the beliefs they posess. imo

Which is fine, as long as s h i t isn't slung in the interim...

Unfortunately, that has begun to be the resort...

[Quahom1]

I see you comin' for miles T.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

However, if your goal is to silence me by the weight of your hissy fit, you have succeeded.

LL, was most certainly not my intent but whatever helps you at last make some sense works for me . I have time and time again strived to find common ground between us but when you set up a false argument and try to back it up with flawed logic what am I to do? I cannot help that you continue to view science as a religion, and theories as religious dogmas. I understand that they are not, as apparently do others. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of evolution theory understands speciation is a grey area and POO did a superb job a few posts back of explaining why this is wholly conducive to supporting the theory. But that is not good enough for you. You want to go on and on trying to point inconsistencies in how different disciplines approach species definition as though it is pivotal. You called science responsible for the genocidal madness of the Nazi's. You dug your own hole buddy. I have dug a few here myself in my time. Get used to it and when you get over your tantrum say hello


tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I see you comin' for miles T.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

LL, was most certainly not my intent but whatever helps you at last make some sense works for me . I have time and time again strived to find common ground between us but when you set up a false argument and try to back it up with flawed logic what am I to do? I cannot help that you continue to view science as a religion, and theories as religious dogmas. I understand that they are not, as apparently do others. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of evolution theory understands speciation is a grey area and POO did a superb job a few posts back of explaining why this is wholly conducive to supporting the theory. But that is not good enough for you. You want to go on and on trying to point inconsistencies in how different disciplines approach species definition as though it is pivotal. You called science responsible for the genocidal madness of the Nazi's. You dug your own hole buddy. I have dug a few here myself in my time. Get used to it and when you get over your tantrum say hello


tao

His makes perfect sense, as his comes from documented material. Yours does not, since dinosaurs could not provide proof or even circumstantial evidence.

We can't find one damn solid structure that gives accurate age or links to what you profess, yet we know there was someone, named Jesus, that rocked the world...

Pretty lame to try and tie god in with evolution...apples and oranges. right?

Please explain 24 vs 23 Chromosone pairs between all other primates, and "man"...I wait with bated breath. (sorry I double everything when it is pairs).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

His makes perfect sense, as his comes from documented material. Yours does not, since dinosaurs could not provide proof or even circumstantial evidence.

We can't find one damn solid structure that gives accurate age or links to what you profess, yet we know there was someone, named Jesus, that rocked the world...

Pretty lame to try and tie god in with evolution...apples and oranges. right?

Please explain 24 vs 23 Chromosone pairs between all other primates, and "man"...I wait with bated breath. (sorry I double everything when it is pairs).

Can't be done, because we are not the lemur nor the gorrilla. We are unique. Similar to primates but not of the same tree. The proof is in the numbers.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Please explain 24 vs 23 Chromosone pairs between all other primates, and "man"...I wait with bated breath. (sorry I double everything when it is pairs).

We had a common ancestor with the modern apes a long, long time ago (DNA evidence indicates 6-8 mil years ago the line of hominoids-apes split from hominids-human-like critters though there is debate and some camps believe the split was later, about 4 mil years ago). The branch that led to us would obviously have speciated from the this long distant ancestor, so our genetics would (of course) be different from all other modern apes. People always mistakenly think that we came from apes. That's not really true. What happened is that the modern apes and us have a common biological ancestor, which is not the same thing as saying the modern apes are just like us or are our ancestors. More like distant cousins.

The reason for having one fewer chromosome pair in humans is thought to be a fusion event.

This is a student exercise, but explains it briefly and well: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les3.pdf

Here's the visual, showing the matching banding:
Human / Ape chromosome differences

Here's a fun article, for balance:
What It Really Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee

Yeah, we're not lemurs nor gorillas. But we're a whole lot more like chimps and gorillas than we are like lemurs... and we're a whole lot more like lemurs than we are like dogs, horses, or cats...

That's biology for you- successfully smaller groupings lead you to one interbreeding group. Doesn't mean we're still not ancestrally part of a larger family. That's speciation at work. By definition, we are in the primate group. Primates are a diverse group, but we have all the characteristics other primates have. No biggie- we observed the similarities and created the concept. We're noticing similarity and difference, which becomes categorization of nature.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I always found that interesting about LLUMC too. I used to volunteer there in the ER when I was going to become a surgeon. I grew up in that area. I know lots of people who work there, but none of them are SDA.

I asked my dad about it because he's a retired big cheese in the SDA organization, and he said that they teach evolution as a mere formality, but I don't believe that. My experience is that there is a definite class structure within the organization where unenlightened dogma is shoveled at the ignorant at one end, and a sublime high wire act of intellectual compartmentalization occurs at the other end.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

There is very little "garbage" in the human genome, and biologists certainly have abandoned that idea decades ago. The sequences that do not code for proteins are not disposable. They are vital structural and regulatory sequences.

False.

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

My specialization is gene regulation.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Whomsoever told you that this is the model that biologists still use is woefully misinformed.

Francis Collins, Human Genome Mapping Project.

What exactly is a gene?
That's a good question. You ask 100 molecular biologists that and you'll get 110 answers. I have a pretty classic answer—a gene is a well-defined segment of DNA that encodes for a protein. Some genes also code for segments of proteins. The key thing is for a gene to have an exon [a stretch of DNA that transcribes into RNA]. There are also pseudo-genes that encode RNA but have no apparent function. They are holdovers.

The Discover Interview: Francis Collins | Genetics | DISCOVER Magazine

No apparent function...sounds like garbage to me.

Let's see...your word versus his...no contest.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

LL, was most certainly not my intent but whatever helps you at last make some sense works for me .

Spoken like a true zealot...maybe there's hope for you yet?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We had a common ancestor with the modern apes a long, long time ago (DNA evidence indicates 6-8 mil years ago the line of hominoids-apes split from hominids-human-like critters though there is debate and some camps believe the split was later, about 4 mil years ago). The branch that led to us would obviously have speciated from the this long distant ancestor, so our genetics would (of course) be different from all other modern apes. People always mistakenly think that we came from apes. That's not really true. What happened is that the modern apes and us have a common biological ancestor, which is not the same thing as saying the modern apes are just like us or are our ancestors. More like distant cousins.

See? That's the thing though, path...as recently as 1969 they were pushing the envelope by suggesting that humans went back even as far as 1 million years. Now every so often they just jumble the numbers...eh, what's a million here and a million there? In less than 40 years the numbers are now pushed back to 6-8 million years???

Originally Posted by path_of_one

What It Really Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee

More number jumbling. "They" can't seem to decide if we're 95%, 97%, 98% or 99% like bonobos. I have heard every one of these from so-called experts, they can't even get their own story straight.

Now, what is the similarity between Neandertal and modern human genomes? I bet it's less than 99%...and since Lapedo shows *potential for* interbreeding...where does that leave the potential for hybrid human/bonobo? Disgust and ethics aside...

[juantoo3]

Serre et. al. sequenced the HVR1 region of the mtDNA of the Vindija 33.16 sample in 2004, and Richard Green et al. sequenced 2414 bp of mtDNA sequence from this sample in the famous 2006 paper, “Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA.” Like the 2006 paper, 454 sequencing was used in the current paper because it doesn’t rely on cloning, and yet provides 34.9 fold coverage.
I won’t get into the nitty gritty details of the sequencing protocol, but here’s some of the conclusions of the mitochondrial genome analysis. Comparing the assembled 16,565 base pair Neandertal mtDNA sequence to the 16,568 base pair Cambridge reference mtDNA sequence (rCRS) showed that there are 206 differences, of which 195 are transitions and 11 are transversions).
To assess the evolutionary relationship between modern humans and this Neandertal, the authors compared this Neandertal mitochondrial genome to 53 different mtDNAs of extant humans as well as a bonobo and chimpanzee. They estimated the divergence time of the Neandertal mitochondrial genome by using the 6-8 million year old divergence time of chimpanzees. They estimate a 660,000 year old divergence time between humans and Neandertals, with a 95% credibility interval of 520,000–800,000 years ago.

The Complete Vindija 33.16 Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Announced in Cell « Anthropology.net

In 1997, a segment of the hypervariable control region of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Neanderthal type specimen found at Feldhofer was sequenced. Phylogenetic analysis showed that it falls outside the variation of contemporary humans and shares a common ancestor with mtDNAs of present-day humans approximately half a million years ago5, 6. Subsequently, mtDNA sequences have been retrieved from eleven additional Neanderthal specimens: Feldhofer 2 in Germany7, Mezmaiskaya in Russia8, Vindija 75, 77 and 80 in Croatia9, 10, Engis 2 in Belgium, La Chapelle-aux-Saints and Rochers de Villeneuve in France10, Scladina in Belgium11, Monte Lessini in Italy12, and El Sidron 441 in Spain13. Although some of these sequences are extremely short, they are all more closely related to one another than to modern human mtDNAs9, 11.
…both morphological evidence4, 15 and the variation in the modern human gene pool16 support the conclusion that if any genetic contribution of Neanderthals to modern human occurred, it was of limited magnitude.

Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA : Article : Nature

Analysis of the aDNA sequences showed two things. First, the DNA
recovered from the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal was very similar to the
Feldhofer Neanderthal and has subsequently been shown to be similar
to the Vindija Neanderthal. Therefore, it can be concluded with a high
degree of confidence that Neanderthal DNA has been recovered and
that this is not some kind of peculiar contamination. Second, the
Neanderthal DNA is significantly different from modern human
mtDNA, forming a distinct group.

These results indicate that Neanderthals contained a distinct type
of mtDNA.While it is not possible to know whether Neanderthals
and modern humans did interbreed, based on the Neanderthal and
modern humans analyzed to date, it is possible to conclude that
Neanderthals did not pass any of their mtDNA on into the modern
European mtDNA pool. Further analysis of Neanderthal DNA will
provide information on the molecular diversity of the Neanderthals.

http://www.promega.com/profiles/402/...DNA_402_09.pdf

The first comparison of human and Neanderthal DNA shows that the two lineages diverged about 400,000 years ago and that Neanderthals may have had more DNA in common with chimps than with modern humans.
There is ongoing debate over whether the Neanderthals were a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of Homo sapiens. The first Neanderthals are thought to have emerged about 350,000 years ago, so the new findings from this DNA analysis strongly favour the theory that modern humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestor but are not more closely related than that.

Neanderthal DNA illuminates split with humans - being-human - 11 October 2006 - New Scientist

The last two quotes were referred from:
Neanderthal DNA

In order to limit contaminating the Neandertal genome with human DNA, the scientists extracted the DNA from the bone in a cleanroom and generated the 454 libraries using a project-specific four-base key, also in a cleanroom (see In Sequence 9/11/2007).

These precautions were necessary because it turned out that about 10 percent of the first 454 library they sequenced, results from which they published in Nature in 2006 (see GenomeWeb Daily News 11/15/2006), was modern human DNA. They have now eliminated that dataset from the project.

However, the conclusions from that first publication still hold up, according to Egholm. “The only thing that this paper showed is that you can get genomic DNA from a Neandertal” and provide a first estimate for the time it took modern humans to diverge from Neandertals, he said.

In Sequence: Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Suggests Small Population; Sequencing Continues in ‘08

Hmmm, can’t seem to get a straight answer…guess I’ll just have to take it on faith…

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Spoken like a true zealot...maybe there's hope for you yet?

hallelujah brother!!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

See? That's the thing though, path...as recently as 1969 they were pushing the envelope by suggesting that humans went back even as far as 1 million years. Now every so often they just jumble the numbers...eh, what's a million here and a million there? In less than 40 years the numbers are now pushed back to 6-8 million years???

You know there is a fundamental difference between getting your knowledge from some dusty old tome written by the power mongers and despots of history and reading a science journal. Scientific knowledge evolves!! One piece of research leads to another and over time the original question has a body of independent and peer reviewed work from which a conclusion can emerge. The past 40 years has undergone a truly huge leap of insight into genetics. It would be very suspicious if our ideas on evolutionary dating had not changed in that time. So what is your point?

More number jumbling. "They" can't seem to decide if we're 95%, 97%, 98% or 99% like bonobos. I have heard every one of these from so-called experts, they can't even get their own story straight.

I have seen estimates go a lot lower, but so bleedin what? Evolution theory does not fall apart because of that.

Now, what is the similarity between Neandertal and modern human genomes? I bet it's less than 99%...and since Lapedo shows *potential for* interbreeding...where does that leave the potential for hybrid human/bonobo? Disgust and ethics aside...

And this is saying/asking what?

You know I have reached the conclusion you dont know what your 'point' is. I certainly do not.


tao