Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well, the classification system initially was incredibly arbitrary...but now with modern genetics and a greater understanding and massive expansion of the fossil record there are people hard at work trying to fix the mistakes in it.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


The common misconception about evolution...

Nobody is claiming that modern apes are our ancestors. They're cousins. We're related to them but we're not their descendants.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Sequences of non-coded DNA near transcription factors typically act as gene regulators, simply by being there. (Its easier to translate every few letters rather than every single one, so you can check yourself.)

If the proteins generated from the region that surrounds the HARs contributes differentially to reproductive fitness, there will be accelerated evolution, because those are the people reproducing the most. Fast evolving regions are common, and invoke no need of alien manipulation.

I suggest reading that actual academic paper rather than some pseudo-scientific interpretation

www.plosgenetics.org...

There is more than one academic paper in the reading and no pseudo-science.
You must be looking at someone elses link.
And nobody said anything about alien intervention except you.
If you had looked over the material you might understand about HAR1 and that 18 separate incidences of accelerated evolution are highly unlikely.
These mutations have nothing at all to do with reproductive fitness and so the confusion and as far as gene regulators, how do you explain the millions of years where our ancestors underwent little to no consequential evolutionary progress, mutation or change?

Ah this is an easy one...

Wayne Rooney !!!

Nuff said.

Cosmic...

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
I'm not sure if the question "Are humans and chimps related" is even debatable at this point, it's almost a given.
However I think the real question is "What separates me from you?". Why is we look the same and sound the same but I can still never prove that you see things the same as I do.

Agreed.
This is a far more relevant and useful question than what separates us from our animal friends.

reply to post by newcovenant


Not all that much. Increased cranial capacity and obligate bipedal locomotion? We know that there were other animals (and we are animals) around that had these same features that died off.



That's a great video about human species. Long, but a great resource.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


Interesting Youtube video. I've never considered it from that angle. That's a rational explanation for the origin of the White Race; however that in itself does not make it necessarily true.

The Nation of Islam teaches that the origin of the White Race is due to selective-breeding. Although I don't think that the Nation of Islam teachings were taken literally by their author(s) (see the writings of Amir Fatir).

And I believe that Godfrey Higgins implied in his writings that the White Race literally came about via selective breeding.

According to the Gnostics, the first individuals of the Polar First Root Race (who were also Civilized) were of the Black Race. Most contemporary Africans and the dark-skinned Hindustanis and Arabs (all of whom are considered to be of the Black Race) are said to be remnants of the Lemurians and Atlanteans, some of whom do have Aryan blood though. Who exactly the Aryans originally were, is somewhat of a mystery. The typical Nazi belief in regard to the Aryans is a false belief though; we know that much.

And also according to the Gnostics, the White Race first appeared during the Second Root Race, the latter of whom are the Hyperboreans. As to how the White Race Hyperboreans first came into existence is open to speculation, and is likely found within the Akashic Records only; or perhaps also within the occult libraries of some secret societies.

The Black people of the Polar First Root Race are said to still exist with pure blood; however, most contemporary Black people would have a mixture of two or more of the following blood: Hyperborean, Lemurian, Atlantean, and Aryan.

Anyway, more in regard to this can be found in the quotes & links of which are found within the link that I've posted in this post; where this would be more on-topic.

reply to post by newcovenant
There were no academic papers at any of the links you provided. I apologize for the alien reference, I get some of the ID drivel mixed up sometimes

Again, I suggest you read the actual paper where scientists first deciphered HAR regions, and not some pseudo-scientific interpretation. The results are actually quite elementary, and is something you learn in a genetics 101 class. HAR genes are associated with recombinant events that are driven by clusters and often associated with isochoric genetic properties (GCGCGC, essentially, DONT READ ME DON'T READ ME). Which would result in more sequences that say DONT READ ME. In turn, acting by proxy as gene regulators, and canalizing the encompassing genes.

It just so happens this sequence is part of the HAR complex, which is HAR because there is positive selection. For example, genes for increased cranial capacity, neurodevelopment, opposable thumbs, sweat efficacy, etc...

All of which obviously contribute to our reproductive fitness.

In the genetic world, phrases such as "far more than expected" only mean they didn't anticipate the individuals with these regions to have so much sex, or more than what is considered normal in a population that more or less reproduces with a random mate from varying regions of the gene pool.

Doesn't mean some supernatural being stepped in and said "let there be another version of hominidae with an ill-engineered laryngeal nerve and a useless appendix who has back problems and insufficient feet, yet HAR DNA WITH FORESIGHT!!!!"

So...If I throw out all other evidence or discussion, and just go by the pictures and what "looks right" to me, I think as follows.

The first thing is that jumps out at me is that the side views really make an impression. H is my liine there. If you look at the front view then there are problems. E looks like it should be below the line and closer to to N than M.

There is no doubt that A looks "ape-ish" to me and N "human" I seems out of order and could be put above the line. Just my two cents for whatever it's worth.

reply to post by uva3021


No, but it does mean these favorable genes were activated almost all at once.
Rather suddenly in evolutionary time judging how fast these changes (didn't) took place in the past. Why the long periods with little to no change?
And forgive my persistence but are you saying the genetic receptors for opposable thumbs and large craniums were there all along, just not activated?

reply to post by newcovenant


They can be. Or they could be something that is a result of a duplication error (literally extra genetic information) or something else. I'm not a geneticist myself, so I'm sketchy on the specifics. But like it or not, the genetic information still points to evolution.

reply to post by amazing


Well, A is a chimp. And yeah, this is really just a discussion that's being sparked, we can bring in other evidence. Skulls on their own don't constitute a winning argument.

reply to post by newcovenant
Its not as easy as one gene one protein, that's not how it works. Its a sophisticated environment of intragenomic communication. We associate genes with traits because it appears on some occasions manipulating gene x corresponds to a change in trait x, though gene x isn't a one to one mapping of trait x.

Genes are often exapted. One single nucleotide mutation to a whole region can change genes XYZ to genes ABC, because they now interact differently. Certainly this is more likely in genes that are neutral, or haven't been canalized over time (just to clarify, examples of canalized genes are the placement of head, bilateral symmetry, opposable thumbs, etc...)

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 118 base pairs all came about at once, unless its from a skyhook interpretation of the evidence. (aka wishful thinking)

Humans are apes. Apes are divided into two groups, lesser apes (tailed monkeys and things like baboons) and great apes (Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutangs, and Humans).

Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

The bedroom.

reply to post by SG-17


Good info. Just an addition, great apes have been further subdivided due to some drastic differences between orangutans and the rest of the apes. They get their own sub-family now.

I have a huge problem accepting that we evolved from apes and that is .............apes are still here.
Think about it

Originally posted by tpg65
I have a huge problem accepting that we evolved from apes and that is .............apes are still here.
Think about it

Modern apes (including humans) evolved from earlier apes. Humans and chimps (as well as the other great apes) share a very recent common ancestor. Do you have a problem accepting that birds evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs are still here?*

* Birds are scientifically classified as Avian Dinosaurs, non-avian dinosaurs are the ones who went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, birds thus are the last living clade of dinosaurs. By your logic birds couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs!

reply to post by SG-17


Ponginae, that was it! Nice chart, saving that.

Another good response would be: "Well, a lot of Americans come from Europeans...so why are there still Europeans?"

reply to post by iterationzero


You are right of course, I do need to check my sources more carefully. Thanks for setting me straight

Peace