Ancient Ancestors Had More DNA Than We Do Now: Have we Devolved?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP
What does the number of chromosomes have to do with evolution?

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

Just find it funny that a jumper ant can have one pair for a male, and a certain butterfly has over 250, the highest count found. It is all over the place, kind of like how things would be if they were created instead of a steady loss of genetic material over long evolutionary periods.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It is all over the place, kind of like how things would be if they were created instead of a steady loss of genetic material over long evolutionary periods.

You know that the article in the OP is not about chromosome counts, right?
Where, in evolutionary theory, is it put forth that there is a steady loss of genetic material over long periods?
Or is that just another creationist strawman?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It is all over the place, kind of like how things would be if they were created instead of a steady loss of genetic material over long evolutionary periods.

You know that the article in the OP is not about chromosome counts, right?
Where, in evolutionary theory, is it put forth that there is a steady loss of genetic material over long periods?
Or is that just another creationist strawman?

It is the Monkey to man ratio.....48 to 46. It was a short jump in evolutionary time which shows a reduction in pairs.

Then you have goldfish to toucan increasing the chromosome count.

BTW the protozoa you linked was not a multicellular plant or animal, but yeah them nanochromosome counts are through the roof. By the time multicellular life emerges the counts are down exponentially but it is comparing apples to oranges. The monkey to man are next door to each other on the evolutionary tree, so was the chromosome reduction a crap shoot? Could it have gone higher instead of lower with the same results?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It is the Monkey to man ratio.....48 to 46. It was a short jump in evolutionary time which shows a reduction in pairs.

No. Not "monkey to man". Once again, a creationist strawman.

Then you have goldfish to toucan increasing the chromosome count.

Goldfish to toucan? Seriously? You are claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It is the Monkey to man ratio.....48 to 46. It was a short jump in evolutionary time which shows a reduction in pairs.

No. Not "monkey to man". Once again, a creationist strawman.

Then you have goldfish to toucan increasing the chromosome count.

Goldfish to toucan? Seriously? You are claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

Are you claiming birds came before fish in evolution, I always read the fish came first, being closest to the primordial soup and all.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Are you claiming birds came before fish in evolution

No. Are you claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

Are you claiming that humans evolved from monkeys?

Do all fish have the same number of chromosomes?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Are you claiming birds came before fish in evolution

No. Are you claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

Are you claiming that humans evolved from monkeys?

Do all fish have the same number of chromosomes?

Oh excuse me, chimp not monkey, whatever same thing they came before man and monkey can generically cover them all as a term. Now what about a bird having more chromosomes than most fish?

A mouse has 50 and there is a rat with a little over a hundred. That is odd.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh excuse me, chimp not monkey, whatever same thing they came before man and monkey can generically cover them all as a term.

Still haven't gotten the concept of common ancestor, have you? It's sort of the basic idea. No wonder you're confused.

A mouse has 50 and there is a rat with a little over a hundred. That is odd.

Why?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh excuse me, chimp not monkey, whatever same thing they came before man and monkey can generically cover them all as a term.

Still haven't gotten the concept of common ancestor, have you? It's sort of the basic idea. No wonder you're confused.

A mouse has 50 and there is a rat with a little over a hundred. That is odd.

Why?

I'd give you medal for perseverance if I could ! My patience for ignorance on this site has plummeted recently. Flat earthers !!! holy cr.p, mysterious tidal locking of the moon !!! , soooo many rocks on Mars that are really creatures, tombs and cities and here we have total ignorance about how evolution works. I mean even if you are a creationist it would help their argument if they knew what evolution means.

Here's the towel , I'm throwing it in. One thing is for sure a good proportion of ATS has significantly devolved since I joined 10 years ago ! OK I take that back the folks from 10 years ago liked a good discussion. Recent members have clearly migrated from every obscure wacky backy website to here.

a reply to: FamCore

i think you understand genetics a little more than you might think....

a reply to: TinfoilTP

ahhh. entropy. dividing by 2 for eternity..... but you still never reach 0 now do you?

I've never really understood the Evolution theory, because to my knowledge there's nothing else that lives beside what it evolved from. Doesn't make much sense.

More DNA does not automatically translate to more evolved. An unwritten rule of nature is 'less is generally better than more.'

In this case I'd say it's more about the efficiency of the genetic material and transcription processes.

How many of those base pairs were intron 'junk DNA' or retroviral DNA that infected our ancestors which were then weeded out over multiple generations?

Onions have more DNA than humans. DNA is not a yardstick for evolutionary complexity. Also, "devolved" is not a scientific term.

Exactly what I was thinking. a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
According to the theory of evolution that the public school taught me, anything that stands in the way of reproduction is considered disease. So in light of evolution, what does that say about homosexuality?

It says absolutely nothing as homosexual people are not infertile and many if not most of them reproduce.

Regarding the OP: more doesn't necessarily means better, in fact achieving more tasks with less DNA shows we have definitely evolved, not the other way around.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Are you claiming birds came before fish in evolution

No. Are you claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

Are you claiming that humans evolved from monkeys?

Do all fish have the same number of chromosomes?

So the common ancestor.
Chimp 48
man 46
negative 2

Goldfish 94
Toucan 106
positive 12

Then there this certain the ant with one male chromosome. Fully functional with only one......

Common ancestor may ass.

A universal common ancestor would possess all genetic possibility, yet reality is anything but.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
A universal common ancestor would possess all genetic possibility, yet reality is anything but.

Think about what you just said, and try to understand how utterly ridiculous it is.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Are you claiming birds came before fish in evolution

No. Are you claiming that toucans evolved from goldfish?

Are you claiming that humans evolved from monkeys?

Do all fish have the same number of chromosomes?

well I hit the wrong post to respond to, it should have been your next one, anyway my fault.

So the common ancestor.
Chimp 48
man 46
negative 2

Goldfish 94
Toucan 106
positive 12

Then there this certain the ant with one male chromosome. Fully functional with only one......

Common ancestor may ass.

A universal common ancestor would possess all genetic possibility, yet reality is anything but.

a reply to: gspat

Yeah we were never really chimpanzees. Nice fairytale though.