View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #411
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Warren and Barrington, R.I.
    Last Seen
    05-24-10 @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,877

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

    Whats your opinions?
    Personally I don't believe in anything but God made us BUT according to the way some here act i'm starting to wonder that they may have come from 'MONKEYS'.
    Mommy I am only 10 years old and I was surprised to kick the ass of that Pussy. Son that Pussy didn't listen to S.S.1

  2. #412
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I have demonstrated many times that each evolutionist has his own version of evolution. Only this fact is sufficient to prove that evolution is a religion, a personal phylosophy.
    This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.

    Just because there are competing theories, doesn't make it false. My version and his version still follows the concepts within evolution itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  3. #413
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    And that's because the environment changed first. The monkey didn't start shedding hair, getting taller, and running to the savannah where it could do marathons, no. The changed environment forced the selection of a new species.
    I think the bolded is where we are having the misunderstanding.

    The way I see it, if the environment changes, the level of competition between species also changes. The competition itself is the catalyst for change/adaptation. The environment is auxiliary, though a factor nonetheless.


    As a side note, let's not play the "I am smarter than you in Evolution" game. Arrogance is unneeded.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  4. #414
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    To be fair, I was only pointing out that the 96% number is often cited but the more accurate number for genetic similarity is actually closer to 70%, which would include ERV DNA in it.
    If species were seperate from each other they would have a completely different ERV DNA sequence since ERV's infuse their DNA randomly at about 1 trillion different available places. This is not we find.

    Here is a nice video about ERV's and its got some nice scientific references after.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA"]YouTube - Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    96%-70%. Science is a self-correcting mechanism. It is possible that it is not either that number. If you show me a hedgehog has got more similiar DNA to us than a chimpanzee, that would grab my attention.

    My argument was that there is often an over-portrayal, or flawed portrayal of the significance of certain data, not that the theory is false, per se.

    Saying 96% shared DNA between humans and chimps is disingenuous because those numbers don't really mean anything regarding the gene variance, which is based more on genetic alignment than the code as a whole.
    Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I also was saying that the conclusions that are reached are extrapolated from these data in such a way that it doesn't necessarily follow with the data as it exists.

    For example, your examples from hybridization and such don't fit with the concept of random mutation and natural selection.
    Natural Selection is only a part of Evolution, a big part, but not the whole.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    All they really show is that 1. Our definition of species requires revising because fertile offspring can come to exist with inter-species mating. 2. That new species can come into existence under certain conditions that do NOT include classical natural selection. These new species come to exist suddenly without any real environmental or competitive cause. It's not "selection" at all. They are produced because the parents have the capabilities to produce such a creature when placed together. That means they are not entirely random. These species can only come into existence under certain conditions that are very far from random.
    1. No, speciation can occur from allopolyploidy, autopolyploid and hybrdisation, especially in plants, this has been documents for decades.

    2. Yes, not all speciation needs natural selection, sexual selection also plays apart and the above processes in number 1.

    Again Natural selection is only a part of Evolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data. In fact, in the hybridization case, we can clearly see that two species have come together to make a third species. If we assume that the parent species came from a common ancestor, the evolutionary "branch" is actually a loop where two branches split off and then rejoin! Fascinating stuff, but it doesn't support random selection at all.
    I agree it doesn't support any selection process, it supports speciation through hybridization.

    Most people when they think of evolution, think of animals, leaving out plants all together. Granted this type of speciation is extremely rare in animals, but not in plants. This hybrid is fertile and cannot mate with its parents sucessfully in the wild. A species is a group of indivuals that can only mate with each other to produce fertile and viable offsrping. Senecio Eborensis fits this description.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It actually gives evidence that speciation is not simply due to random selection or beneficial mutations.
    Yes, not always.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The reason why I have issue with that is that observable data is showing us that the common beliefs may indeed be flawed. Random selection may not be the driving force behind evolution.
    Natural selection is not random. Very little selection in nature is random, it is usuall a response to an event.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The evidence you've cited should, at the very least, give pause. Speciation is not happening as the theory predicted it would. This means that there is at some point along the line, a flaw in the theory.
    No speciation through hybridisation as been incorporated into the Theory of Evolution for some time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What we know for sure is that there are striking similarities in Human and Chimpanzee DNA. We also know that speciation can occur under certain not-entirely-random, but not exclusively non-random, circumstances.

    What we don't know is what any of this means exactly. All we have is conjecture until more data can be collected. We must be willing to say that our conjectures are flat out wrong when the data fails to support them.
    Of course, the more data the better. Like I said if you found that a hedgehog is more genetically related to us than a chimpanzee, it would turn the theory of evolution on its head.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's the main point in my philosophy vs. science debate. Evolutionary theory is more philosophical than scientific because it seeks to explain something based on logic, not pure, raw evidence being supported over and over again through experimentation.

    Most scientific theories are more philosophy than science. Science is the data collection and experimentation phase, while philosophy is the "thinking" phase.
    Is Germ theory philosophical? Gravity? Atoms? A round earth? Are these all "philosophical?
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  5. #415
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau View Post
    We evolved from a common ancestor to apes. We share 98% similarities in DNA, there is one pair of Chromosomes that separate us and a successful blood transfusion can be performed using ape blood.

    If creationist nonsense is snuck into public education what is next? Flat earth theory, stork theory of reproduction? Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence and a fossil record, intelligent design is not, and therefore cannot be taught alongside an actual scientific theory.
    You're talking a lot of **** for a guy who believes in maximum liberty.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #416
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Speaking English they look similar to your eye. I established long time ago that evolution exists only in the eye of the beholder.
    Oh did you? And you are the authority of such matters justone?
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Proposed is not established or observed. I quoted the proposition. However the experiment/experiment did not result in establishment of the status of the Yorker as the son of the proposed parents.
    How so? Come on justone explain your rejections. Or are you authority of such matters lol? Whatt you say is 100% correct and we should take it faith you are?



    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Do you understand what does preliminary mean? This the end of the question. But, but, just for you OK let’s say it is not prelimenary. It does not mean that they do not contain a significant portion of the genomes of any other Senecios, when it is clear that ALL Senecios must have proportions of genomes of Senecios. It does not mean that the authors make a positive statement that they do not.
    They do genetic tests of maternal and paternal relationships. The same method they use in the court of law.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    RAPD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This makes the method popular for comparing the DNA of biological systems that have not had the attention of the scientific community, or in a system in which relatively few DNA sequences are compared (it is not suitable for forming a DNA databank).
    Its resolving power is much lower than targeted, species specific DNA comparison methods, such as short tandem repeats. In recent years, RAPD has been used to characterize, and trace, the phylogeny of diverse plant and animal species.
    Limitations of RAPD
    • Nearly all RAPD markers are dominant, i.e. it is not possible to distinguish whether a DNA segment is amplified from a locus that is heterozygous (1 copy) or homozygous (2 copies). Co-dominant RAPD markers, observed as different-sized DNA segments amplified from the same locus, are detected only rarely.
    • PCR is an enzymatic reaction, therefore the quality and concentration of template DNA, concentrations of PCR components, and the PCR cycling conditions may greatly influence the outcome.
    • Mismatches between the primer and the template may result in the total absence of PCR product as well as in a merely decreased amount of the product. Thus, the RAPD results can be difficult to interpret.


    In short RAPD is good for prelimanary estimates. It provides an indication that A1 and A2 either both or one may be be parents of A0, it provides no positive conclusion.

    The bottom line is – the experiment. The experiment did not allow to observe that they were the parents and the son does not cross with them. Experiment is the key word of science.
    Really well you better get all the convicted murderers and rapists out the prision then. As well as the finanicial relief for fathers. This is the test they use in the court of law.

    And even with these limitations RAPD is still pretty damn accurate.

    And I noticed you conviently didn't mention ISSR.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Evolutionists cannot understand a simple question – is it a likely consequence or it is the consequence?
    No scientist on a paper will ever say 100% definitely A is related to B, that is because science doesn't prove anything, just gathers evidence in favour of a theory. Proof is a mathematical term, not a scientific one.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, [ I guess they have searched ALL the wild] and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

    1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.
    Search all the wild? It only occurs around York. 0.13%? Oh yeah that sucess rate could pull S. erborensis back towards its parent. Rememeber your mule stat? Except in this case S. erborensis is fertile with itself. It is a species.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Common. Please.18.3 % is recorded. In science it does not mean that S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris do not cross. In science it means that they do cross. 1.46% does not mean that they do not cross, it means that they do cross. It is either recorded as I have been stating from the beginning or it is not as you keep on trying… I don’t know what you are trying…

    ‘’It was concluded that strong breeding barriers exist between the new hybrid species and its two parents.’’

    Sure they do exist, I pointed to them.
    Can 1.46% blend S. eborensis back together with its parent S. vulgaris? Meanwhile the 98.34% are mating which other and getting more genetically distant from its parent. Simple, it is a new species.
    is lying
    One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

    Any you were wrong in all 7 of them, congrats.

    And you have yet to say are why we cheat and lie!! You strangely keep avoiding that question, I wonder why? Oh yeah your a conspiracy theorist. The whole scientific community is lying to the whole world for reasons justone refuses to tell or can't.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post

    I DO WANT Ikari TO HEAR THAT!!!!. There is no measurable in evolution. This is what a biologist says.

    Biology exercised by Christian Creationists scientists has plenty of math in it starting from the papers of the Christian Creationists scientist Gregor Mendel, a trained mathematician and physicist. I am not surprised that Darwin couldn’t comprehend the text of Mendel. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics. I am not surprised that you do not realize that your statement Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time is a mathematical expression (written wrong, it should be Macroevolution = Microevolution *Time.) I am not surprised that you have no clue that random events are a subject of mathematics.
    Oh yeah from Christain creationists I'm sure do lots of math in biology. About odds isn't it? Of course they have to assume evolution is random, which its not. If mathematics can predict biology lol, then it should have no problem predicting the weather 50-100 years into the future. Creationists are the most dishonest people, even churches and their fellow christains turn their back on them.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post

    I quoted YOUR authors. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality. How many more times you are going to come with the same stuff? You posted the link. I pointed to a number of problems, false statements. You keep on bringing Exactly the same problems the same false statements over and over again. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality.
    Evidence is right there, a new species was created in the wild that cannot breed sucessfully in the wild with its parents. There is no genetic information exchanged between them, therefore they cannot be the same species and they are destined to drift from each other genetically until they won't be able to breed in the lab.

    And still you won't say why we are lying. You are a dishonest creationist justone with an agenda of your own.

    You persist in waving good scientific data away with a wave of the wrist.
    You don't give a facts to back up your claims, you have only rhetoric.
    You don't have any empirical evidence.
    You won't even try to repeat these experiments to disprove them.
    You are say scientists lie, yet you give no proof, yet you give no reason why we do so! You are a slanderer justone.

    Its like trying to convince a 9/11 truther than Islamic terrorists did it.
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-08-09 at 09:27 AM.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  7. #417
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    What species can? What Lord?
    S. eborensis. The lord of common sense lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Exactly, - the process can go backwards. In evolution it does not. But anyway, how do you know it the Senecio eboracensis does become exactly like Senecio vulgaris, I guess it is a guess again?
    Yes it can go backwards. S. eborensis could undergo a mutation of a dominat allele which will make it reproduce at the same time of year as its parent S. vulgaris and they blend back together.

    It is more likely due to very low crossover rate in the wild between the two ~1% that they will "go their own ways" genetically.

    Once again it evolution is not a mathematic model, life is so unpredictable like the weather that is hard to make prediction of sorts.


    But we do know that in the here and now, S. erorensis is a species in itself due to massive reproductive barriers between it and its parents.


    Science does not know ‘’only’’, “good’’. S. eborcensis and its parent S.vulgaris DO reproduce and it is not established that S.vulgaris is a parent.
    They do reproduce. Contrarily to the impression your link and you try to make. In spite of the obvious barriers.
    I have provided sufficent genetic evidence that they are related. If you want to challenge that, I suggest you get down to your local lab and get experimenting.

    Thats how you challenge a theory. Through experimentation. Until then its just hot air your giving me.

    You will probably say to be "your experiments are not proper science", but then you will turn the theory of evolution on its head so much more easily right?


    The evidence of you cheating is given to the audience. When you say ”only”, ‘’good’’ in application to counting it is just an example of cheating. When you say that they are parents when no positive identification was made and experiments did not confirm it is another example. Let the audience decide.
    You imply that words mean I'm cheating. Surely the only cheating can be done in the experiments. The genetic evidence is there for everyone to see, yes let them decide.


    Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. But let’s say it cannot and I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids.
    Most hybrids created are sterile and therefore not species.

    Our ancestors were experimenting with hybridization for thousands of years. Lysenko and Mychurin, did too. Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And in spite of the propaganda one shouldn’t deny that they all achieved impressive results. In all of all Lysenko was a pretty good scientist.
    Yes, I have heard of Lysenko. And I read the blurbs of the books you linked too. And I will say, yes, scientists have made mistakes, and have seen things in the results that were not there. But a few instances of this, does not discredit a whole theory has yet to have evidence to be put against it by other scientists, and now creationists.

    Species used in evolutionary “’theory”’ have to have evolutionary meaning. That is such and so that I wouldn’t have an opinion. If evolution, then an emerging specie has to have a new amount of (DNA) information not available in his parents and in order not to observe devolution it has to gain more information than his parents have, or to be more complex.
    No it doesn't have to gain DNA just a change of it. The organism with the most DNA is the Ameoba which has 10 times the genome of a human. Hardly the most complex creature ever.


    As far as evolution is concerned all Senecios are the same specie, - with all different forms of it and all possible hybrids which are known to be a dead end.
    No Senecios are a genus, not a species. If you above statement is correct, then all cats in the world are the same species, all bears are the same species, etc.

    So speaking evolution we rather have different forms of the same specie and hybrids when the latter are not more but rather less complex and have a lesser content of information (which is absolutely obvious). It is obvious, that asking the question I and everyone else were looking for speciation in evolutionary meaning but not for all possible meanings, not for a plant and manipulation with the definition of speciation. In microbiology they call it strains, you can use forms or something.
    It is not a manipulation of the def of speciation, allopolyploidy, autopolyploidy and hyrbidisation can be legimate speciation events. In fact wheat was created this way.


    It is the first one as wiki hints used as an example of evolution. You have ignored a whole list of more important facts. It is not the 1st one occurring as I stated and state. You are cheating again.
    Oh sorry, I actually misunderstood you. I have ignored nothing.


    Quoting 1. and 2. you reply to 2. only and ignore 1. It is cheating. You are using nature frivolously. You should say in the wild.
    No I wasn't. S. eborensis and S. vulgaris cannot mate sucessfully in the wild because they cannot sustain a population or genetic drift towards the parent species.



    What would make one suggest that if they can reproduce in lab they cannot reproduce in the wild I don’t know. What is the meaning of the experiment where I wouldn’t know
    The plants were artificially synthesized and forced from the start. Following your logic I have to say that it is also an undeniable proof that S. squalidus’’and S. vulgaris are not parents in the wild, but only in the lab when forced.
    Speciation can only happen in the wild. We can artifically breed them but thats not part of evolution or nature, thats us making **** happen.

    Again genetic tests of RAPD and ISSR confirm the parents are those two, I can't believe you won't accept a scientific method that is used by the court of law today.

    ’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, - [I guess they have searched ALL the wild I want to see how] - and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’
    Random sampling is the best one we have got. If a big batch of S. eborensis X S. squalis comes up the science will be self-corrected if the data suggests it should. Science is self-correcting after all. Until that S. eborensis (though the lab results of S. eborensis X S. squalis show very little probabiltiy of that happening due to very very low sucessful corssovers in a lab) is a new species.


    ’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low ‘’ BUT RECORDED!!!
    Yes again I say, the crossover in the wild between S. eborensis and s. vulagris is so low it cannot maintain a genetic drift back towards the parents species. They are destined to drift away from each other if anything. Therefore it can only be classed as a seperate species.



    Even if they did it does not mean that they are life and life evolves. They may be food for life and thus consist of amino acids etc familiar to life digestion system, but it does not mean that life and plants turn not each other, there is no such an observation made. (As well it does not mean that ALL 3 bacteria are life as there no observation of bacteria turning into life).
    All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species.

    You said speciation did not occur, I have showed otherwise.



    Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Mathematics deals with chaos from the day one. Actually it is the main goal of mathematics since the day one - to deal with chaos.
    Until it can predict the weather, I will take interest in mathematics predicting evolutionary theory.




    The Supposition that our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination of a creationist. You can think that God made our 2nd chromosome of 2 ape chromosomes, but I want to see it occurring.
    If were not once apes how can we have two ape chromosomes fused together. In fact if we are made in the image of God, why does God have two ape chromosomes fused together? And why would he put two ape chromosomes fused together in the first place in a human? Does he have a sense of humour

    I want to see your version of creation occuring. But I don't see it do I?

    You berate evolution for that hardly having any observational evidence, yet you subscribe to an idea with NO observational evidence at all. lol lol. Wow, just wow.


    all those transitional fossils are Fantasies.
    Yeah of course they are, the half reptile - half bird fossil is a fantasy, the fish with limbs fossil is a fantasy as well I take it? And you have the nerve to call scientists dishonest?
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-08-09 at 10:26 AM.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  8. #418
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    If species were seperate from each other they would have a completely different ERV DNA sequence since ERV's infuse their DNA randomly at about 1 trillion different available places. This is not we find.
    I'm not arguing that the species didn't separate at some point along the historical timeline or that chimps and humans are "separate". I'm pointing out that there is a disconnect on the information that is being given, and what it means exactly.

    ERV DNA is strong support for evolution, IMO. But it isn't necessarily "proof" of the current theories of evolution.



    Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.
    Technically "similarity" is the wrong word.

    If you look at the genome as a whole, it is 96% similar. But if you look at genetic alignment, the way the genes separate and such, the variation is closer to 76%

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project]Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    "Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not aligned with the human genome. "

    Here's the full article: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

    My point is that even though there is a 96% similarity in the actual genome when viewed in it's entirety, there is only a 76% similarity in genetic alignment.

    We aren't fully aware of what this means exactly. I am not arguing that humans and chimps did not split from a common ancestor at some point. To me that is the most reasonable explanation of these data.

    I'm not arguing against that.

    BUT, and this is the crux of my point, the way that science is supposed to work is that we perform the studies, make the comparisons, and then our conclusions should not be subjective. They should simply state the data. We can then speculate as to what it means. That's what evolution is. A speculation. It's not a conclusion. The scientific conclusion sis that humans and chimps have a 96% similarity across the genome with a 76% similarity in gene alignment.

    The way that such a study should be performed is that you start with a hypothesis based on a theory. i.e. Humans and chimps will have a strong genetic similarity.

    Then the observational experiment will be performed.

    Then the data will be analyzed.

    Then the hypothesis is confirmed or denied by the data.

    That's it. Nothing more. After the hypothesis is confirmed or denied, then it delves into the realm of philosophy where speculations are made as to why this similarity exists, what triggered the similarities is untestable, thus unscientific.

    That doesn't negate the theory that triggered the hypothesis. It can support it in an inductive way. It can make it the most logical conclusion based on the data, but logic is not science, it's philosophy. Albeit, a scientific philosophy, vs. teh many other variations of philosophy that exist.

    And that's the main point I'm trying to make.

    Natural Selection is only a part of Evolution, a big part, but not the whole.
    What I find interesting is that there is evidence that the authors put this into their paper:

    "There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans"

    I'm not convinced natural selection is a big a factor as has been stated. They aren't arguing against evolution. They are doing what should be done. The data doesn't jibe with the speculations, so we adjust the speculations.

    I haven't seen conclusive evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. That could be because I'm limited in what I have read, but it could also be because ti isn't the driving force behind evolution.

    We should not be married to a speculation simply becaus ewe think it is the most logical speculation.

    1. No, speciation can occur from allopolyploidy, autopolyploid and hybrdisation, especially in plants, this has been documents for decades.
    I wasn't implying that this didn't happen. These are the speciations we are fully aware of, but they follow certain mechanisms.


    2. Yes, not all speciation needs natural selection, sexual selection also plays apart and the above processes in number 1.
    Agreed. Although, I'm not convinced that ANY speciation needs natural selection. I think most of the data that I have seen, from scientific journals, suggests that it isn't involved in speciation so much as it is a factor in variance across a single species.

    That being said, logically, it makes sense to me that it is a part of speciation. I don't actually doubt it as a factor in it. I just cannot bring myself to call it a definitive factor until I see strong evidence to suggest that it is. So far, all I've seen is evidence that suggests it possibly, or even probably, is a factor.


    Most people when they think of evolution, think of animals, leaving out plants all together. Granted this type of speciation is extremely rare in animals, but not in plants. This hybrid is fertile and cannot mate with its parents sucessfully in the wild. A species is a group of indivuals that can only mate with each other to produce fertile and viable offsrping. Senecio Eborensis fits this description.

    I agree. Although I must add the definition of species is tossed on it's ear by the very existence of a fertile hybrid like Senecio eborensis. It's definiteive proof that two separate species mated to produce fertile and viable offspring. That kills the "only mate with each other" aspect of the definition.


    Natural selection is not random. Very little selection in nature is random, it is usuall a response to an event.
    Good point. The variation must exist before the event in order for selection to occur. That means that the mutation itself is not what triggers speciation. It would have to be repeated variations and multiple events.


    No speciation through hybridisation as been incorporated into the Theory of Evolution for some time.
    But why isn't this triggering more quetioning of the older views?


    Of course, the more data the better. Like I said if you found that a hedgehog is more genetically related to us than a chimpanzee, it would turn the theory of evolution on its head.
    I'm not talking about evolution so much as the mechanisms hypothesised as the methods of how it happens. I believe in evolution. I'm not interested in disproving evolution. I'm interested in challenging the **** out of commonly held views that are not supported by the data.

    That's something that gets lost in the whole debate. Since there is a certain segment that wants to disprove evolution altogether, anyone who is willing to challenge the current thoughts around evolution is assumed to be an opponent to evolution.

    To me, evolution is in it's ptolemeic state. It is still using epicycles to describe the evidence, instead of changing it's perspective, throwing away the old way of thinking and relooking at the new data with freesh eyes.

    Is Germ theory philosophical? Gravity? Atoms? A round earth? Are these all "philosophical?
    When they were first thought up? Of course, most were philosophy.

    Democritus, the greek philosopher, thought up the atom way back in 250 BC.

    When the first person thought of a round Earth, they did so out of pure speculation.

    Just because something is thought up using philosophy does not mean it will not eventually be supported science and proven empirically to be true.

  9. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.


    This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Just because there are competing theories, doesn't make it false.
    I don’t claim that it makes it false, do I? To the extend of your logic and evidence known or believed by you to exist It may be false, it may be true. In either case it proves it not be science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    My version and his version still follows the concepts within evolution itself.
    The quite universal version “Evolution= Microevolution*Time’’ has been disproved. As to other competing versions they do not constitute a consistent theory a body one would be checking out, - there is no meaning in checking out all the versions existed, existing and coming to existence, as there are no rules for them which would prevent them from coming and adding more and more to the pile of the existing garbage. Scientists are not garbage men, evolutionists are.

  10. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.

    Says the guy who then posts an explicit propagandist video made by evolutionists and previously rebuked as garbage on DP.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057924374

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057877166

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057878226

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057924508

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057928654


    And then he tries to say that he is not cheating.

Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •