The 98% Myth - Humans and Chimps

Snarl
Evolution and adaptation are two entirely different things. If evolution is possible (and I don't see why not ... though I've seen no evidence of it ... and neither has anyone else) then de-evolution is just as likely an answer to the OP's question.

You mean like sea creatures coming out of the ocean and adapting to land, then de-evolving the land traits (like hind legs) so they can go back in the water?

That's what happened to whales right? There is LOTS of discussion about whale evolution, so if you missed it you weren't looking very hard. There are even museum exhibits about this:

Whales evolution

neoholographic

It's like putting gas in a car. It's a pre-determined sequence that was put in place by intelligence that allows a car to run.

People often compare evolution to man made things like cars and clocks. When you look at a car, it's clear that it was designed and built by something with intelligence. We can all agree on that. And then an analogy is made with biology. How could cells and DNA just "happen"? They must be designed. Right?

The truth is, man made things and biology are different is some fundamental ways. First, biology happens by self assembly. When a car comes off the assembly line, it's done. It's all grown up and knows how to do car stuff. But, biological entities grow; from a seed, spore, egg, etc. If you put a bunch of clock parts into a bag and shake it, you don't get a clock. But if you put some basic chemicals in a flask and add some energy you get organic stuff. It just happens. Amino acids self assemble. Nucleotides self assemble. Lipids self assemble which then self assemble into cell membranes. And you don't need the whole ocean or millions of years; it happens pretty fast under the right conditions. Now, that's not life, but it's a start. Throw in those huge oceans and millions of years and a lot can happen.

Second, biology reproduces itself; cars and clocks don't. If you want a new clock, you don't breed two clocks to produce a new one; someone has to build that new clock.

So you see, it's really not a fair analogy.

Another concept people often miss is the fact the our Universe (and biology) compute. If you use a random process to assemble a bunch of information you will get, well, random information. But, if you load a computer with random commands you may very will get some interesting patterns. For example, the code to compute and output all of the positive integers, in order, is a very short program. The chances of this short piece of code being randomly generated is many orders of magnitude higher than for even the first 100 integers to come from a random process.

So, you combine all these self assembled organic parts with a computational Universe and, IMHO, life happens. Does this toss God out? Not for me. I may not understand how it all works, but learning from the experience of Galileo Galilee, I don't put God in a box; not an Earth centered one or a "poof" creation one.

Knowledge, even that which may unsettle us, is surely preferred to ignorance.
-James D. Watson

reply to post by neoholographic


The Fact of the matter is , Darwins Theory of Natural Selection Never Applied to Homo Sapians for the Simple Fact that the FOXP2 Gene found in Human DNA is not found in any other Species on Planet Earth including Apes .

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by neoholographic

 

The Fact of the matter is , Darwins Theory of Natural Selection Never Applied to Homo Sapians for the Simple Fact that the FOXP2 Gene found in Human DNA is not found in any other Species on Planet Earth including Apes .

fact checked? wait.. no!

"In humans, mutations of FOXP2 cause a severe speech and language disorder.[1][5] Versions of FOXP2 exist in similar forms in distantly related vertebrates; functional studies of the gene in mice[6] and in songbirds[7] indicate that it is important for modulating plasticity of neural circuits.[8] Outside the brain FOXP2 has also been implicated in development of other tissues such as the lung and gut.[9] FOXP2 directly regulates a large number of downstream target genes.[10][11"

thats from nothing less that a wiki.
if the most annoyingly useless resource on earth has it, surely you could have foudn this yourself before making such a bold statement?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


That is a weak argument for establishing a "fact". If scientist discovered a gene in an animal or plant the occurred no where else would that mean that this species would also not fall under the theory of evolution?

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by neoholographic

 

The Fact of the matter is , Darwins Theory of Natural Selection Never Applied to Homo Sapians for the Simple Fact that the FOXP2 Gene found in Human DNA is not found in any other Species on Planet Earth including Apes .

Kinda sorta true but not quite. See there are orthologues of this gene in all mammals.

ortholog (plural orthologs) (genetics) either of two or more homologous gene sequences found in different species related by linear descent

It's that pesky buy about linear descent that makes you so entirely wrong about Darwin or any other version/proponent of Evolution or natural selection and their pertinence to such.

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by neoholographic

 

The Fact of the matter is , Darwins Theory of Natural Selection Never Applied to Homo Sapians for the Simple Fact that the FOXP2 Gene found in Human DNA is not found in any other Species on Planet Earth including Apes .

I...what...I don't even...

A FOXP2 gene that codes for forkhead box protein P2 (Foxp2) exists in mice, rats, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, macaques, frogs, zebra finches, piranhas...the list goes on. Do you even know what an ortholog is?

neoholographic
It's all about belief.

Yes, in your case it is all about belief in over 2K year old book that has been proven many times over being wrong, from geocentric cosmos that we all now know its not true, to this little thing called evolution.

neoholographic
There's DNA inserted in regions of human DNA that's not found in chimps. How did this DNA evolve in Humans when it was never present in chimps?

The only thing you can do is assume that there's was a common ancestor that shared the traits of humans and chimps. This common ancestor is like Bigfoot or a Purple Dragon. People just make this magic assumption because it's what they believe.

Only if chimps were our ancestor, most of genetic code should be the same. But they are not - thus we are only related, not direct descendants from today's chimps. Some of new genetic code can be introduced with inter-species breeding that we now know occurred and is possible in case of humans and Neanderthals. Other parts are evolution due to mutation or adaptations. It takes many generations to evolve... not possible in 6.5 K years as otherwise suggested by religious people.

neoholographic
A natural interpretation of evolution is impossible. We share a Common Design or Common Sequence but different gene regulation. We have different programs that regulate the common sequence. So the question is how did humans evolve into Mozart from Marry Had a Little Lamb. This had to have guidance from Intelligence.

Here we go again. Process of evolution does not require God, nor would you have Mozart if one of our predecessors broke his neck while jumping between trees.

For all of those that doubt our close relationship with chimps, please watch Chimpanzee - movie made by Disney for those that are unaware how human-like is society of our close relative. And while you are there, ask your self, how would chimp explain thunder, rain, earth shaking from time to time, volcano, dangers of jungle etc... all unknown... you might get somewhere...

I 'm about 98% cat actually. Just today I was cleaning myself in the driveway and my wife almost ran over me.

Snarl
Evolution and adaptation are two entirely different things.

No they aren't. Adaptation is at the heart of evolution.

de-evolution is just as likely an answer to the OP's question.

"De-evolution" doesn't really mean anything. If a complex entity evolves into a less complex one, then this is still evolution. Evolution does not have a direction.

Why is this ALWAYS a point such discussions fail to address? Why does the religion of science always point towards progress?

It most certainly doesn't. In fact evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolution is a non-teleological process, in that it has no end goals. There is no "progress" in evolution, merely adaptation over time.

Before you attempt to trash a idea, it's probably best to make an effort to understand that idea first - otherwise you will sound ignorant.

FatherLukeDuke

Snarl
Evolution and adaptation are two entirely different things.

No they aren't. Adaptation is at the heart of evolution.

de-evolution is just as likely an answer to the OP's question.

"De-evolution" doesn't really mean anything. If a complex entity evolves into a less complex one, then this is still evolution. Evolution does not have a direction.

Why is this ALWAYS a point such discussions fail to address? Why does the religion of science always point towards progress?

It most certainly doesn't. In fact evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolution is a non-teleological process, in that it has no end goals. There is no "progress" in evolution, merely adaptation over time.

Before you attempt to trash a idea, it's probably best to make an effort to understand that idea first - otherwise you will sound ignorant.

LOL ... Are you really a priest?

If adaptation is at the heart ... YOU are ignorant of the 'fact' that mutation is the ultimate foundation.

Evolution does not meet the criteria for a "theory." It was awarded such status by consensus and until consensus is removed from 'science' ... science can be defined as faith. We could argue this until the cows come home.

Lemme give you a little perspective. Let's go way back in time, shall we? Ever heard of 'the great dying?' After that event ... where ... do you suppose all of the speciation came from? Let's take a few great leaps forward. Look at all the colors of people and how they are geographically located. What was it 'science' attributed that to? Don't try and BS me, man.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not getting pulled down to your level and beaten with experience. That's all your scientific faith is good for. When you can show me scientifically repeatable proof of evolution, bring your silly-assed argument back to the thread. Until then, sit on the porch with the little dogs and bark at passing traffic.

Ignorant? Yeah ... right.

Science proves that there is no such thing as evolution.

For example, science proves that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Science proves that the human genome has 6 billion diploid cell base pairs, and mitochondria contain tens of thousands more. ghr.nlm.nih.gov... www.edinformatics.com...
Everyone knows that the average human life span from birth to first reproduction is at least 12 years.

Now, let's add it up:
For a human to exist, evolution would have to create and successfully replicate one to two useful/functional DNA base pairs each year. Therefore, an unbroken string of successful reproduction of useful/functional DNA base pairs must be created 24 times in each new baby in order to create an unbroken string from non-life to human life in 4.5 billion years.

However, science also proves that life did not emerge on Earth for at least .8 billion years. www2.glos.ac.uk...

Other than the problem of how life can replicate, we are faced with the impossible production of DNA in too short a time span.

Hence, evolution cannot exist. Scientific facts prove it.

you already know the answer

... the aliens did it

reply to post by neoholographic


Seriously, I am not even a page into this thread and already I am thinking: "OMG, how many times is he going to use that same argument over and over again about gene regulation and stuff almost verbatim? It's like he read something and that's all he can say about it."

If you're wondering, this snippet is an example:

"When these DNA letters are inserted they produce specific gene regulation and expression. The only thing that random and evolves is the process of insertion and deletion based on the environment not the gene regulation and expression that occurs when these DNA letters are inserted."

Sorry, couldn't help it. Had to insert this, despite whether you know what you are talking about:

I wonder how many more times he says it until the last page...

edit on 3-11-2013 by AsherahoftheSea because: (no reason given)