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.