Jump to content

i need a help about understanding evolution

james bond
 Share

Recommended Posts

james bond

james bond

Posted
Posted

what books can learn about A B .. evolution ?

what websites give clear information about evolution ?? .. an active websites .. (talkorigin) is some kind old :wacko:

..

i have random questions

Are the similarities between humans and chimpanzees 98% ؟

 

What has been compared is selected areas selected by hand and adopted on a similarity For

(In addition to the mechanism of comparison only relied on the comparison of coding regions (exons
Which does not represent only a very small region of the genome does not exceed 5% of its size, ignoring the non-encoded regions (splicing
And also ignored the region surrounding chains non-encoded gene exons within itself
The belief that those areas are just a scrap genome
Does not have any value and functionality, but recent studies have come to prove that it is nearly 93% of the genome active and functionally
And it clearly shows the lack of validity of previous comparisons obvious bias
Recent studies have expanded and came on larger areas of the genome to prove the opposite claim for less Alchapha ratio to approximately 86% and
A maximum of similarity between man and Cambanzy difference continues to grow and expand as scientists incursion in careful study
Also attached to studies

 

Study says that "23% of our genome," contrasted with the standard between man and ape from Oxford University

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2266.full.pdf+html

 

 

Article by Dr. Richard tingling under chimpanzees address? He says that the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees up to 70%

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9851

http://www.refdag.nl/70_chimp_1_295967

 

 

In another article I found in the December issue of the famous SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine Darwinism 2009, what makes us human WHAT MAKES US HUMAN? The researcher writer article examining succession DNA in a gene called HAR1 and has studied this gene in both human and chimpanzee, chicken, and discovered that the sequence of DNA between chimpanzees and chickens differ only at two out of 118 base while the difference between man up and chimpanzees to 18 Base. This calls into question the significance DNA and its ability to distinguish between different organisms and that it is nothing more than just a series of rules nitrogen does not mean that the size of the human shoe closer to the size of shoe crocodile of size shoe elephant we crocodiles out one these superficial research and quackery in the name of science.

I10-74-HAR1.jpg

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human

 

 

Similarity between human and chicken more than half of the genes ???

http://www.genome.gov/12514316

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208230523.htm

If we share half our DNA with bananas, does that make us half banana?

http://diggingupthefuture.com/2014/01/16/huffington-post-did-first-placental-mammal-live-alongside-dinosaurs-scientists-cant-agree-a-response/

Rights and fruit flies are similar in more than 60% of the genome ؟؟؟
About 70% of the common genes between humans and sponges !!!
The proportion of the genetic similarity between human and mouse 99% !!

 

 

 

In a paper for DURRETT R, SCHMIDT D, which was published in 2007 in the journal Genetics in order to reach conclusions about the theory of the average time required to install the mutations within the total population of the kind of neighborhoods through calculations and computer simulation models.

DURRETT, SCHMIDT found that the period of time necessary to install only a single mutation in the ancestral primate is six million years. And getting only two mutations Thbytha through Darwinian evolution "for humans is 100 million years old."

 

This paper from Los Genetics

IT’S ONE THING TO EXPLAIN AWAY BIOGEOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS OR CLAIM THAT ANATOMICAL SIMILARITIES REFLECT A NON-EVOLUTIONARY “DESIGN” PATTERN – BUT ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY WHY HUMANS (AND OTHER PLACENTAL MAMMALS) HAVE(((((( A DEFECTIVE GENE ((((FOR MAKING EGG YOLK IN THE EXACT SPOT IN OUR GENOMES WHERE CHICKENS HAVE THE FUNCTIONAL VERSION OF THIS GENE, AND THAT HUMANS AND CHIMPANZEES )))))SHARE A LARGE NUMBER OF MUTATIONS ((((((IN COMMON IN OUR TWO INACTIVATED COPIES.

 

IN FACT THERE ARE MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND CHIMP GENOMES. DIFFERENCES THAT MAY “ACTUALLY AFFECT OUR FORMS.” A 2011 PAPER OUT OF CHINA AND CANADA, FOR EXAMPLE, FOUND 60 PROTEIN-CODING GENES IN HUMANS THAT ARE NOT IN THE CHIMP. AND THAT WAS AN EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE. THEY ACTUALLY FOUND EVIDENCE FOR FAR MORE SUCH GENES, BUT USED CONSERVATIVE FILTERS TO ARRIVE AT 60 UNIQUE GENES. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE RESEARCH ALSO FOUND EVIDENCE OF FUNCTION, FOR THESE GENES, THAT MAY BE UNIQUE TO HUMANS.
IF THE PROTEINS ENCODED BY THESE GENES ARE ANYTHING LIKE MOST PROTEINS, THEN THIS FINDING WOULD BE ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. ASIDE FROM REBUKING THE EVOLUTIONIST’S VIEW THAT THE HUMAN-CHIMP GENOME DIFFERENCES MUST BE MINOR, 6 MILLION YEARS SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TIME TO EVOLVE THESE GENES.
IN FACT, 6 BILLION YEARS WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TIME. THE EVOLUTION OF A SINGLE NEW PROTEIN, EVEN BY EVOLUTIONISTS’ INCREDIBLY OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTIONS, IS ASTRONOMICALLY UNLIKELY, EVEN GIVEN THE ENTIRE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE TO WORK ON THE PROBLEM.
UNFORTUNATELY NONE OF THIS WILL INFLUENCE THE EVOLUTIONIST BECAUSE FOR EVOLUTIONISTS THIS NEVER WAS ABOUT SCIENCE

 

 

 

Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor in the College of Northwest Ohio, completed and his team recently

Doing research on DNA sequences that emphasize seriously questioning the validity of the fusion model and non-occurrence of the foundation
As research facility
Finally

Here the differences and reached 90%

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

 

 

 

I intend to search in evolution .. but .. i want to know if what i quote is false or true .. is it just claims ??

is there websites answer it ?? .. i hope someone explain what i quote and sorry about weak english

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strange

Strange

Posted
Posted

what websites give clear information about evolution ?? .. an active websites .. (talkorigin) is some kind old

 

The website may not be actively updated any more (I don't know) but all the information is still relevant.

 

But there are plenty of good popular books on evolution out there (I read The Blind Watchmaker years ago and it was pretty good).

 

Your questions on genetics cover some quite advanced stuff (well, beyond me, anyway) - I would get an understanding of the basics first. I imagine the difference in the figures quoted is mainly due to them measuring different things. In other words, what does "similarities between humans and chimpanzees" mean? There are many ways this could be measured and they will give different results. But, not surprisingly, they are all consistent with evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
james bond

james bond

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

The website may not be actively updated any more (I don't know) but all the information is still relevant.

 

But there are plenty of good popular books on evolution out there (I read The Blind Watchmaker years ago and it was pretty good).

 

Your questions on genetics cover some quite advanced stuff (well, beyond me, anyway) - I would get an understanding of the basics first. I imagine the difference in the figures quoted is mainly due to them measuring different things. In other words, what does "similarities between humans and chimpanzees" mean? There are many ways this could be measured and they will give different results. But, not surprisingly, they are all consistent with evolution.

is there no specialist in biology in the forum ... i have questions about Complexity reductionist

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Essay

Essay

Posted
Posted

i have random questions

Are the similarities between humans and chimpanzees 98% ؟

 

I intend to search in evolution .. but .. i want to know if what i quote is false or true .. is it just claims ??

is there websites answer it ?? .. i hope someone explain what i quote and sorry about weak english

 

Without going to any link, most of your links sound very reliable (except for the two posted with the 'red' quote) ...based on the IP addresses. Usually the .gov (and .edu) sites are very reliable, and most 'journal' sites are reliable, with the 'news' sites ranked fourth behind those three, imho. I've never looked at the 'genesis' site, but it is either very good or one of the worst, I'd bet. Probably wikipedia could explain that, and a lot else as well.

But if you ever find something specific that is confusing, or that seems contradictory, you can probably find a good explanation here. If you want to completely figure it out for yourself, you'll need to learn most of the basics of biology in general, and also specifically for genetics.

===

 

Of these examples you posted, they could all be correct; depending on what perspective the statistics are viewed from. Between those examples, much of the similarity (higher percentage) exists because the basic cellular machinery, for all “complex” (or multi-cellular) life, is mostly the same.

 

Because it seems all of your examples evolved from a single common ancestor, it would be surprising if those similarities were missing. Plants and animals are much more closely (and recently) related to a common ancestor than are many different types of bacteria. Or in other words, many types of bacteria evolved to be more different (from each other), than plants and animals are different from each other. So finding similarities even between plants and animals shouldn’t be too surprising either.

 

Also, our genes might be 90% or 95% or 98% “the same” as another species, but those same genes can be arranged and activated in ways that are very different from how those genes are used in other species. Two science-fiction novels could use 95% of the same words; but depending on how the words were arranged and modified, the plots and settings would be very different.

~

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg H.

Greg H.

Posted
Posted

I am by no means an expert on biology or evolution, but I can tell you that anything you read on answersingenesis should be considered to be biased to the point of being garbage. The mission statement of their organization pretty much says it all:

 

 

 

Mission
  • We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
  • We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
  • We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

 

They're not looking for scientific truth, they're defending the Christian faith from it.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phi for All

Phi for All

Posted
Posted

Phi for All

thanks for the link .. i hope you help me getting answers for the quotes above

is there any new good websites like talkorigin ?

 

Why do you want a newer website? TalkOrigins has everything you're asking for. I consider it to be the best resource for questions from laymen on the evolutionary process, and how science has debunked creationist misinformation.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phi for All

Phi for All

Posted
Posted

Phi for All

talkorigins stoped updating..

there is new arguments and claims ..ect

i hope you help me to get answers for the quotes up here

 

There are no new creationist claims. The information at TalkOrigins hasn't been updated because nothing has changed with reality. Evolution still works, we see it every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strange

Strange

Posted
Posted

Phi for All

talkorigins stoped updating..

there is new arguments and claims ..ect

i hope you help me to get answers for the quotes up here

 

Talk Origins is still a good source to learn about evolution. You need to understand the basics before you try and understand advanced biology and genetics.

 

If you want something explained from your quotes then you will need to ask more specific questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg H.

Greg H.

Posted
Posted

Phi for All

that is a funny fact :)

 

Greg H.

i cant understand what you have just saied

What part was confusing? You seemed to be implying that you were aware of new claims or discoveries in the field of evolution (or were interested in such). I told you where to find it. Scientific research is published regularly, usually once a month or once a quarter, in journals. For example, the Annals of Physics is one such journal that concerns the field of physics.

 

If you want up to date discoveries and research in a particular field (such as evolution) you need to read the journals covering that field. Hunting around on the interwebs will only get you stuff that's been digested and rebroadcast, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strange

Strange

Posted
Posted

Strange

i thought my quotes is clear to understandn what i mean

 

Not really.

 

Are you asking why they have different numbers for the amount of difference between humans and other apes?

 

If so then the answer is that they are all measuring different things.

 

If someone asked "How much difference is there between America and Britain?" you could answer in terms of the area of the countries or the population (very different) or the language (very similar) or the number of dogs or ...

 

"Difference between human and apes" is equally vague and can be measured in different ways to get different answers.

 

However, whatever measure you use, you will find that the similarity between the DNA is related to how closely related the animals are. So the DNA can be used to recreate the "family tree" of animals. This shows how they are descended from earlier animals. Which is the same as we see by looking at living animals and fossils.

 

Evolution is an indisputable fact. The theory of evolution just explains how it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
james bond

james bond

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Strange

i understand what u r saying

i want to know

how can the 99% similarity humans and monkey.prove evolution

but there is another way make humen and rats 99% similar

i hope you explain the way they used to measur the similarity with rats, sponge.. ect

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strange

Strange

Posted
Posted (edited)

how can the 99% similarity humans and monkey.prove evolution

 

It doesn't. We know evolution happens, we see it all around us. That is just a fact.

 

This (and all the other scientific evidence does) explains how it works.

 

 

i hope you explain the way they used to measur the similarity with rats, sponge.. ect

 

Sorry, I don't know enough about genetics to answer that.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phi for All

Phi for All

Posted
Posted

i want to know

how can the 99% similarity humans and monkey.prove evolution

but there is another way make humen and rats 99% similar

i hope you explain the way they used to measur the similarity with rats, sponge.. ect

 

Have you understood the links to other literature about DNA and evolution? Because what you ask here has already been answered.

 

We're most closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, our DNA differs from theirs by only 1.2 - 1.3%, compared to about a 1.6% difference between humans and gorillas. Now imagine about 6 or 7 million years ago, there was a common ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. That ancestor species split off, some staying in the trees, some venturing out onto the plains. Some of our ancestors on the plains discovered that walking upright freed their hands up for tool use, and they also discovered the uses of fire. Meanwhile, the ancestors that stayed in the trees felt different survival pressures, and developed in other ways.

 

Eventually, the ancestor species died off, leaving multiple, slightly different versions of itself in different climates and environments, some developing into chimpanzees, some into bonobos, and some into the genus homo, the first humans. There were several species within the homo genus, but they also died off, leaving a single dominant species, homo sapiens sapiens, modern humans. DNA shows us how much we have in common with all other vertebrates, and more specifically with all other mammals, even more specifically with all primates, and the most specifically with chimpanzees and bonobos. The differences in the DNA sequences shows us how closely we're related to other species. We're at least 92% similar to every other mammal, but we only share about 44% of the genes insects have. We even share an 18% similarity with plants, which are hugely different, but some of the genes we use are identical to a tree's.

 

This is a really simplified version, I hope that's what you needed.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Essay

Essay

Posted
Posted

I intend to search in evolution .. but .. i want to know if what i quote is false or true .. is it just claims ??

 

Study says that "23% of our genome," contrasted with the standard between man and ape from Oxford University” from this link:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2266.full.pdf

 

This was an interesting link, which I briefly browsed. There seem to be amazing new insights, now that we can look at and compare fully sequenced genomes. ;)

 

“In the present study, we have reanalyzed a data set of 23,210 alignments of human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and rhesus DNA sequences from randomly chosen regions of the human genome….”

 

“…it seems mandatory to consider that a number of phenotypic characteristics nowadays judged as human-specific inventions (apomorphies) existed de facto already in the ancestral species of humans and chimpanzees. It is only because the corresponding genetic lineages were lost in our next relatives that these characters became confined to humans.”

 

“We infer that for about 23% of our data set chimpanzees are not the closest genetic relatives to humans. This figure is substantially smaller than previous estimates in the range of 40% based on far smaller data sets and where the varying extents of phylogenetic information in the data was not taken into account (Satta et al. 2000; Chen and Li 2001). However, it lies well in the range of the 18–29% as suggested by Patterson et al. (2006), who used a maximum parsimony approach to analyze the data.”

 

“…reveals that considerably little has changed in the demographic history of chimpanzees and gorillas. In contrast, about a 5-fold reduced effective population size is observed for extant humans and bonobos. This adds a further line of evidence that humans—as must have bonobos—experienced a severe demographic bottleneck in their recent evolutionary history.”

 

 

"This adds a further line of evidence that humans—as must have bonobos—experienced a severe demographic bottleneck in their recent evolutionary history."

Wow, neat!

===

 

I was surprised by: "This figure [23%] is substantially smaller than previous estimates in the range of 40%...."

 

But an explanation for your question about the different ways that science can define "similarity" might be found in their point:

"...because the corresponding genetic lineages were lost in our next relatives that these characters became confined to humans"

 

This paper is looking at how various mutations (or modifications) of the "same" gene or genome can indicate something about how different lineages may have evolved. Over time, the "same gene" will mutate or be modified differently, so maybe they shouldn't call it the "same" gene anymore. But to better see how things relate, when science talks about how the "same gene" is used by different species, that is based on the origin or evolution of the gene, even if the gene has mutated or is used differently between different species.

 

...Though often the genes stay exactly the same ...among cousins, etc. ...plus this paper is looking at "random sections" of the whole genome. I haven't explained that very well, but hope you can see how it depends on understanding the specific perspective and context, about any claim, if you want to understand why some claim should be considered as true (or false).

===

 

The numbers in this paper, such as 23% and 40%, define a different type of change, which the researchers are studying about that overall ~98% similarity in the genes. But that still might not make sense as a general answer, so if you have any question about a specific sentence or graph or paragraph or conclusion or point of any sort, please keep asking questions.

 

Remember that even though the genes might be about 98% similar, in different species; those same genes are arranged and modified differently ...on a different number of chromosomes, in different species.

 

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strange

Strange

Posted
Posted

If I understand, this is the difference between:

 

1. How much of our genetic material is common (about 98%) - i.e. how different the whole genome is.

 

2. Where genes vary, how much difference there is between a specific gene in humans and the equivalent gene in other apes (40%) - i.e. how different an individual gene is.

 

Is that roughly it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.