It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
nixie_nox
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Actually, the hot hypothesis right now is that humans shed the fur coat in order to not carry fleas, lice parasites or other hitchhikers.
Though losing hair because It was hot and to sweat is the other one.
Hi brotherman, good observation on the age bracket and educational level in the demographics, which I think support your explanation. You can look at other statistics of education versus time and find that the percentage of people obtaining various types of degrees has increased over time so that's also a factor in the age-education relationship. Also, you wisely didn't attempt any explanation of the gender disparity, though that's interesting as well, as the gap is greater than the margin of error.
Brotherman
That the older generations are the ones with the higher disbelief margin then those who are young. I note this as educational opportunities
Arbitrageur
Hi brotherman, good observation on the age bracket and educational level in the demographics, which I think support your explanation. You can look at other statistics of education versus time and find that the percentage of people obtaining various types of degrees has increased over time so that's also a factor in the age-education relationship. Also, you wisely didn't attempt any explanation of the gender disparity, though that's interesting as well, as the gap is greater than the margin of error.
Brotherman
That the older generations are the ones with the higher disbelief margin then those who are young. I note this as educational opportunities
nixie_nox
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Actually, the hot hypothesis right now is that humans shed the fur coat in order to not carry fleas, lice parasites or other hitchhikers.
Though losing hair because It was hot and to sweat is the other one.
Arbitrageur
Hi brotherman, good observation on the age bracket and educational level in the demographics, which I think support your explanation. You can look at other statistics of education versus time and find that the percentage of people obtaining various types of degrees has increased over time so that's also a factor in the age-education relationship. Also, you wisely didn't attempt any explanation of the gender disparity, though that's interesting as well, as the gap is greater than the margin of error.
Brotherman
That the older generations are the ones with the higher disbelief margin then those who are young. I note this as educational opportunities
Rates of divergence
Nucleotide divergence rates were estimated using baseml with the REV model. Non-CpG rates were estimated from all sites that did not overlap a CG dinucleotide in either human or chimpanzee. KA and KS were estimated jointly for each orthologue using codeml with the F3x4 codon frequency model and no additional constraints, except for the comparison of divergent and polymorphic substitutions where KA/KS for both was estimated as (ΔA/NA)/(ΔS/NS), with NS/NA, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous sites, estimated as 0.36 from the orthologue alignments. Unless otherwise specified, KA/KS for a set of genes was calculated by summing the number of substitutions and the number of sites to obtain KA and KS for the concatenated set before taking the ratio. Hominid and murid pairwise rates were estimated independently from codons aligned across all four species. Human and chimpanzee lineage-specific KA and KS were estimated on an unrooted tree with both mouse and rat included. Lineage-specific rates were also estimated by parsimony, with essentially identical results (see Supplementary Information). KI was estimated from all interspersed repeats within 250 kb of the mid-point of each gene
...In 2011 Tomkins queried 40,000 chimpanzee genomic DNA sequences against four different versions of the human genome assembly using a wide variety of BLASTN algorithm parameters (Tomkins 2011c). For just the aligned regions, depending on the algorithm parameter combinations, an 86–89% DNA similarity was observed. However, less than 20% of the total chimp DNA sequence actually aligned under the most optimal algorithm conditions. The average length of the chimp query sequences in the Tomkins 2011 study were 740 bases. These results indicate that localized regions of human-chimp DNA similarity breaks down significantly at stretches of DNA 740 bases long or less on average. The question then arises as to what query sequence lengths would be more optimal for comparing the chimp genome against human.
For a recent review of the creationist literature on human-chimp DNA similarity, see Tomkins (2011c, pp. 234–236). For several recent reviews of the secular (evolutionary) literature on the subject of human-chimp DNA similarity, see Bergman and Tomkins (2012) and Tomkins and Bergman (2012)....
So you pick one of the most complicated topics ever in the history of human study and find it frustrating you don't understand it? Seems perfectly natural to me that only professional specialists in their fields can truly understand them in depth these days, and those are some involved reports. But I gleaned three pieces of information, I think. The Nature report says:
Brotherman
I thought about the male female rates but decided it was of little importance proving the point didn't require all of that. I am having a hell of a time trying to derive meaning from this to make a comparison to that There's a reason I chose the infantry and not genetics I don't even know where to begin at comparing the information it is so frustrating!!
while the answersingenesis report says:
Of ~7.2 million SNPs mapped to the human genome in the current public database, we could assign the alleles as ancestral or derived in 80% of the cases according to which allele agrees with the chimpanzee genome sequence
The first two pieces of information are the 80% versus the 76%, which is a discrepancy but I don't consider it huge. They are about in the same ballpark to me.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
SkepticOverlord
And so it appears a surprising number of ATS members refuse the science of evolution.
sad
FriedBabelBroccoli
SkepticOverlord
FriedBabelBroccoli
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful.
From a science standpoint, that's a silly question. A scientific theory is a group of one or more hypothesis that have been confirmed accurate or true via a repeatable series of tests and/or observations.
You don't expect not to fall off a building because gravity is "only a theory" do you?
LoL honestly this is the most lame response in response to this issue. There is a law which describes how fast I will fall with repeated results. You can describe it and predict how objects will act under its influence.
This is where the theory of evolution has many holes in it. The idea that it is proven without doubt is ridiculous until it is actually demonstrated. I have outlined many of the actual, physical aspects which have yet to be addressed in terms of physics or chemistry.
The cause of the denatured DNA/RNA which arises to the ability of continued replication of the mutation is severely lacking. The chemistry of which is also working to incorporate quantum theory which brings up several other issues as well as solving a few problems.
Right now these issues remain unresolved though they are the source from which your magical "survival of the fittest" model has yet to evolve out of.
There are hardly any models outlining what we think "fit" is or how much genetic variation actually differentiates one species from another.
Macro-evolution has not been confirmed through repeatable experiments, it is supported via modeling derived from fossil records. LoL it could turn out the scientific community was suffering from pareidolia.
Too bad eye-balling fossils has NOTHING to do with identifying the genetic mutations which would lead to such result.
It has become very clear that most people on this website have no clue about the scientific method or what a proper proof entails.
-FBB
I would still love a list of ANY other scientifically accepted theory which has no laws describing its action.
Brotherman
Peter U2U Sent, I am trying to start small I guess on the basics here of understanding this evidence, is there an easy way to explain CG Dinucleotide, Nucleotide Divergence, and codon frequency mode ( with CFM I get to a place that wants to explain codon frequency bias, is this different?) in regards to this section:
Rates of divergence
Nucleotide divergence rates were estimated using baseml with the REV model. Non-CpG rates were estimated from all sites that did not overlap a CG dinucleotide in either human or chimpanzee. KA and KS were estimated jointly for each orthologue using codeml with the F3x4 codon frequency model and no additional constraints, except for the comparison of divergent and polymorphic substitutions where KA/KS for both was estimated as (ΔA/NA)/(ΔS/NS), with NS/NA, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous sites, estimated as 0.36 from the orthologue alignments. Unless otherwise specified, KA/KS for a set of genes was calculated by summing the number of substitutions and the number of sites to obtain KA and KS for the concatenated set before taking the ratio. Hominid and murid pairwise rates were estimated independently from codons aligned across all four species. Human and chimpanzee lineage-specific KA and KS were estimated on an unrooted tree with both mouse and rat included. Lineage-specific rates were also estimated by parsimony, with essentially identical results (see Supplementary Information). KI was estimated from all interspersed repeats within 250 kb of the mid-point of each gene
When in the article in favor of creationism they refer to BLAST-N algorithm I am guessing this is it here and that is in reference to the Nucleotide divergence right???
its different but all related. A codon is a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides constituting the genetic code that determines the insertion of a specific amino acid in a polypeptide chain during protein synthesis or the signal to stop protein synthesis. Or in other words, not the entire genome but a small portion of it that contains enough genetic material to determine where amino acids are inserted and what it codes for.
The CG Dinucleotide or CpG and refers to regions of DNA where a cytosine nucleotide occurs next to a guanine nucleotide. Its a complicated way of saying that there is only one phosphate between the cytosine and guanine. Essentially this all refers to different arrangements of genetic sequences. In mammals, 70% to 80% of CpG cytosines are methylated. When cytosine is methylated it essentially shuts off that particular gene. It's all a part of epigenetics which unfortunately, is not my forte.
nixie_nox
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Actually, the hot hypothesis right now is that humans shed the fur coat in order to not carry fleas, lice parasites or other hitchhikers.
Though losing hair because It was hot and to sweat is the other one.
Brotherman
reply to post by tsingtao
I'm not exactly sure I know what is funny
BlueMoonJoe
Speaking of strawmen, I have never made this argument and never will.
A few guesses here and there? Good grief, man.
Yes, we discover new things all the time and one of the things we have discovered is that the fossil record does not support DE. That kind of counts, ya know.
Well, sure, except for the universal LAW of gravity. That is the point FBB has been making and it is no small point.