Milken

That's wrong.

 

Just in the last five seconds' date=' in your pinky finger, many things have happened that have a probability of less than 10 to the 50th power.

 

Or, here:

 

032594239802355431028975302548631053150987568032537

 

What is the probability that I would pick this exact string of numbers to type out? 1e-51. Did I type out this exact string of numbers? Yes. So the above statement is clearly wrong.[/quote']

 

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Another classic post!

The Neanderthals did come out of africa, in the form of Erectus. But they did not evolve into neanderthals until in Europe. Thus, Neanderthals are not from Africa. And of course they look like human bones, they are[/i'] human.

We've established that they were African is possible. I'm saying peripherial speciation is possible.

GOOD! They are human, the main reason I responded was I thought there was an undertone of this sub-human non-sense.

A wide nose does not mean a large nasal cavity. You are looking at the exterior and assuming the interior. Thats a poor way to do scientific analysis. Im sure if you do some research you will find that indeed the nasal cavity in a neanderthal was larger and unique (more evidence they were not diseased humans) compared to sapien sapiens.

We agree that wider noses is prevalent among people of African descent. It's not illogical' date=' the outside is intuitive of the inside(most of the time). The bones of Neanderthal man have a shape that suggests their size.

I quote this from an article on the stanford uni website:

 

"Several explanations have been advanced for the Neanderthal mid-facial architecture:

 

1.An adaptation for warming inhaled frigid air as it passed through the enlarged nasal cavities; a mean of condensing and conserving moisture in exhaled breath; and a secondary consequence in the facial region of severe chewing pressures centered at the front of the jaw..."

He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard, the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters.

Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified.

Read this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html

Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism.

That statement means nothing more than an assumption' date=' baseless granted that all neanderthal bones are quite similar, contrary to a population that would have had many healthy individuals survive into fossilhood. [/quote']

 

It's not baseless, so I'll repost it:

 

The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases.

 

I agree there were some healthy individuals but the unhealthy ones were uses to say they were sub-human. Since we agree they were human, the odd shaped bodies demand an explanation. Francis Ivanhoe says this in an older issue of Nature called "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?"

 

Virchow had reported that the eanderthal man’s ape-like appearance was due to a disease known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction and deficient calcification of bone tissue. It causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied thus far apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels.

 

Cauasions really do not get rickets. An adults with the disease(goes by different name) have some widening of the bone and some curvature issues but it's not fatal.

 

Another idea is Pagets disease which is hereditary. An obviously localized population like Neanderthal (pygmies all short, Masaii all tall, etc.) would have a small gene sample and a hereditary disease would easily had widespread affect. Generally, Pagets disease can cause bones to become shorter and larger and mostly affects the skull, hip, pelvis, legs, and back.

 

Thank you for keeping your psuedobabble out of this forum. In my opinion the only head messed with is someone who believes in that. BTW what are you implying (sorry I should not be getting into this but I cant help it).

 

Actually' date=' I wasn't serious but if I wanted to justify it and answer all your why questions I could, but I think it's pointless.

 

Another assumption. And pray tell, why dont we see a rickets explosion in the cold climate populations today? Or in any period of european history since the dawn of writing? Maybe my history is a big foggy...

 

If you looked into it, England had rickets problems with dark people living in the area. A dark skinned person can possible eat enough to survive just fine but living in those conditions not get any Vitamin D from the sun. The more melanin you have the more sun you need to absorb Vitamin D.

 

 

Please refer to the post I posted before this one. It explains quite well how the results of the "DNA evidence" you mention have been skewed.

 

I could pull out another issue of Nature that basically says were distinct and not related. Most the DNA studies say we're either not related' date=' or maybe a drop. There's also articles suggesting they're not related to modern caucasions at all.

 

Who said they were subhuman? The modern concensus among scientists today is that neanderthals were completely homo sapien. I agree. Most classify them now as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis.

 

Good, we agree.

 

And you are right about neanderthalic technology' date=' they have alot of good development, but nothing like the invading african cousins who had much more sophisticated equipment and hunting techniques. [/quote']

 

Definitely believable, one group of humans wasn't as skilled as another group.

 

I am not the best debater in the planet' date=' and I am sure my arguments contain some logical fallacies. I apologize for that, but please bring forth more substantiated evidence when presenting your claims.[/quote']

 

Who cares about logical fallacies? I hate when people post a logical fallacy. I can have a logical fallacy and still be right!

Certainly, I don’t contradict the fact that sometimes homology is due to genes, just that, as I pointed out the example of the mammalian/squid eye is not an example of homology.

I agree it's not homology that's why earlier I was pointing out the difference to someone else, the gene is similar.

The homeobox genes are involved in “patterning” the development of organisms not in the development of specific functions' date=' features or tissues.[/quote']

 

What's the difference between "patterning" and development of specific functions, features, or tissues? What does the later? Basically I'll have to look into, definitely worth learning about.

 

I doubt that this is he only gene involved.

 

Well' date=' I don't know if Jonathan Wells is incompetent or not.

 

The same gene co-opting different tissues and circuitry etc. facilitating the evolution of novel optical structures that are used for similar function does not suggest an overall blueprint IMHO, but suggests a complex flexible interaction of processes with no pre determined goal, just as one would expect from evolutionary processes.

 

In other words, the gene isn't soley responsible for similarity like some Neo-Dist postualated.

 

I was just comparing the pro for evolution with a con for an alternative - design. If there is an alternative explanation for DNA other than evolution I would prefer an explanation that actually explains someting' date=' design just does not provide an explanation IMHO. You do not seem to be offering any alternative explanation.[/quote']

 

I thought the explanation is that it looks designed as opposed to it looks like we came from a bacteria. I don't see one being that much stronger, but really I'm looking at pro/con evolution.

 

Post #9. I just rate the squid's eye as a good example myself.

 

My point was that the squid is not a good example of the inverted part of the eye. The invertation causes a blind spot in animals with two eyes but they don't overlap and the inverted part allows more oxygen which is neccessary for the vertabrate eye. Squids aren't vertabrates and they only have one eye so the way the look(almost said design lol) makes sense. Thus' date=' it is a bad example.

 

The point is that they did have a distant common ancestor, shown by the similarities of those homeobox genes

 

Stop, the similarity proves they're similar, not that they had a common ancestor. It proves the gene has always been around or is old though.

 

and their DNA in general, however these particular genes do not account for the similarity of the eyes as they do not have a common ancestor with a common structure for the eye, the eyes evolved independently.

In this case it is the fact that the DNA has similarities, but that these similarities do not cause homology that refutes your argument this is what I was getting at.

 

It's not me that says similarity is in the genes. It's Neo-Darwist. They're arguement is refuted. It also seems evident similarity does not prove common descent because some physicaly similiarites count(cladists) and some genetic similiarities don't count. I need to regroup and flesh this outlol.

 

As for the designer/materials comment. It's resonable for a designer to use the same thing to produce something different. Look at the materials of different kinds of anything, like buildings, a dog house to skyscraper. Anyway, not really the point of the thread. . .

 

You've made some interesting points I think we may be using different definitions on some terms, similarity and homology.

You don't bother me at all. Blutness is sometimes neccessary.

Sorry to be so rude and blunt' date=' but do some research before posting that parroted waste of text.

 

First off, Neanderthal bones were not found in Africa, they were found in the middle east and Europe. [/quote']

 

What was I thinking, traveling humans, it's preposterous. The human race did come from Africa in waves. Not only that, but some of the neanderthal bones look VERY human.

 

Secondly' date=' the nasal cavity of neanderthals would be considerably larger than any african today or ever, due to the adaptation for the cold, allowing more air to be heated in the cavity before entering the lungs, the opposite is true of modern africans. [/quote']

 

This is false. Look at the picture of neanderthal man, there are plenty of people from tropical climates with wide noses and nasal cavities. It's not an advantage in a cold region. A wide nasal cavity is better suited for a hot area . No science background neccessary it's a feature more commonly found in people descendand from hot climates.

 

Thirdly' date=' what bones are you speaking of? None are "curved" they are the shape they are supposed to be. Vitamin D deficiency? What are you saying? That africans cant live in cold climates? What about whites who wish to live in the tropics? And I dont even understand your last two sentences, but than again i'm not too bright.

 

If I may point you in the direction of this article, you may enlighten yourself:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

 

Learn and enjoy, then comment.[/quote']

 

The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases.

 

The last two statements were not meant to be clear. I was going to insert the Tower of Babel as another reason they were in Europe but I didn't want to mess with anyones head like that.

 

Taken from your source.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

 

Compare here:

http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/hypercalU/opmal2.html

When the newly formed bone of the growth plate does not mineralize, the growth plate becomes thick, wide and irregular. This results in the clinical diagnosis of rickets, and is seen only in children because adults no longer have growth plates. When the remodeled bone does not mineralize, osteomalacia occurs, and this happens in all ages. Most of the hereditary causes of osteomalacia appear during childhood and cause rickets.

 

Note the disease can make bones widen or it's just a large race of humans. We have pygmies in Africa, we have the Massai tribe where the average man is 6'4 or 6'5 and these groups haven't mixed with any other groups.

 

In addition adults with rickets(osteomalacia) may not even have symptoms until they're older, and other diseases are prevalent with vitamin D deficiency.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

 

This is irrlevant since DNA evidence has shown Neanderthals are not ancestors of modern humans, but an extinct group of humans. The dates do not match up at all. They possibly died of the diseases brought about from vitamin D deficiency. The N-man sample is also very small.

 

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030512/neanderthal.html

Alan Cooper(evolutionary molecular biologist) at Oxford University, says there is a slim possibility that Neandertals are ancestors of modern humans and may have contributed mtDNA to modern human populations which was lost during human population bottlenecks at the end of the ice age.

 

 

I also contend they were too human to be sub human. They had our walk, larger than average brain and size. Cuivier (sp), one of the greatest of his time had a brain size of 1800 or something, and he's human, right. Neanderthals were thought to have brains a little smaller.

 

From Lucy to Language page 99 says Neaderthals could sew with a picture of a needle that looks like one in use today.

 

In conclusion, they made on-pitch flutes! Thank you peon for the challenge. . . . and I agree with you on women. . . .

The holocaust didn't happen? Yeah, that's some racist, ignorant, bigot, repugnant . . . . you know . . . fecies

Camels have water in there humps.

The United States is fighting a War on Terroism. . . oops . . . wrong forum

I feel like you are tackling a bunch of issues so I'm breaking this up into points:

 

1) Homology is when a specific trait is structurally similar in different organisms due to descent from a common ancestor' date=' right? So, yes, by definition, homology is evidence that evolution occurred. In mutation accumulation experiments, it is possible to verify in "real-time" that homologous traits do occur. [/quote']

 

Yes, I disagree with something scientifically being true by definition. Like saying "Because I said so". The real definition is "homology- the science of similarity", especially since homology was invented by a non Darwinist, with the intent of showing common design.

 

2) Is homology the only evidence for evolution? Of course not! But I'm pretty sure you already knew that' date=' so I'm wondering why you bothered to ask that question. If you really didn't know that, then I suggest you do a google search for the various kinds of evidence that support evolution. I've already mentioned one (mutation accumulation experiments).[/quote']

 

I've heard of other evidence, everyone kept taking about the samething.

 

3) I believe your conclusion that' date='

 

is logically incorrect.

 

Similar genes are homologous if they are derived from a common ancestor. There are many mechanisms that "cause" homology in DNA sequences: divergent natural selection of different organisms, gene duplication events coupled with mutation accumulation, mutations that change the coding in areas that don't affect function, genetic drift, etc. Likewise, developmental pathways are homologous if they derive from a common ancestor. [/quote']

 

How does two genes being similar prove they came from a common ancestor? It's an inference.

 

 

But it's illogical to say that developmental pathways and similar genes cause homology. Because' date=' as Halucigenia said, they could be similar because of convergent evolution, not because they are homologous. (Convergent traits are "analogous".) Does that make sense? [/quote']

 

Well, evolutionists definitely have different views, so some have illogical views. The article was mentioning similarity not specifically homology. There's a difference. Convergent evolution is another way of saying they're similar and it's a coincidence. The examples have similar/interchangeable genes, and different look/method of function.

 

4) Now' date=' if your question is, why are sequences assumed to be homologous if we don't have direct evidence? That's an interesting question. As stated before, we have physical real-time evidence that all the "mechanisms" of evolution occur - i.e. mutations, migration, natural selection and genetic drift. We also have physical evidence that homology occurs.

 

So, we use the information derived from the physical evidence to make assumptions about how evolution is occuring. For example, we could say that every single type of change that could occur will occur with equal frequency (e.g. point mutations, transversions, transitions etc.) Alternatively, we could say that certain changes occur more frequently than others (e.g. G tends to be mistaken for C more often then A). Then we make a model that fits the assumptions. Then we compare our sequences using that model.[/quote']

 

The physical evidence shows slight anatomical change, that, with fossils involved is extrapolated into timing when traits evolved via molecular clock, This also being done on the assumption that it happened in the first place.

 

I'm not going to get into all the different ways you can model evolutionary history and thereby answer the question' date=' is the trait homologous? If you're interested, I suggest you look up "parsimony" and "maximum-likelihood" to start you off. [/quote']

 

I know, it's intricate. I will.

 

5) My last point is that I don't think that anyone ever says' date=' "this tree is proof that these organisms are homologous". What they say is, "this tree shows poor/strong evidence that these organisms are derived from the same ancestor. Moreover, other evidence supports this hypothesis as well, blah blah blah.[/quote']

 

NO! I don't think anyone is THAT stupid!lol

I don't think this question is worth any place in a scientific forum as DNA can not support anything else than evolution if we speak of science.

 

At the moment you put the word "god"' date=' "design" or whatever of the sort, you do not speak of science (no more you are speaking of intelligence if you speak of religion).

 

Your question is DEEPLY BAD as DNA is a molecule and does not support or infers anything.

 

But it is used in evolutionary processes if it is what you wanted to know. Now your question is: Are the changes made to DNA supporting evolution? YES.

 

Plate some pure, DNA-sequenced bacterias on an agar plate with antibiotics and look at evolution happening with the emergence of resistant bacterias. Now take their DNA, sequence it, figure out what was the mutation and understand how it affected the proteins so that they no more die of the antibiotics. Wanna test evolution further more? Sequence the DNA of all those ones who did not survive: you end up with an enormous amount of loosers with all different mutations that did not work!

 

Please think rational with everything in its proper position: DNA has no will.[/quote']

 

The name of the thread has to do with Evolution, not Design, God, Creationism. That's your issue, not mine. It's agreed that the immune system is very adaptable and can react quickly, thus keeping us alive from all kinds of little knick knacks. The way it can make anitbodies of things it has never experienced is truly amazing. With your extensive background, I'm sure you're aware that kind of change is not prevalent through the anatomical genome.

The development of eyes could be controlled by the same type of gene that is present in many different lines of organisms without the resulting structures being homologous.

Not the same type, basically the exact same type. Part of Neo-Darwinism suggests homology is due to the genes. Your statement seems to contradict this, help me out.

The point is that these genes control development of the different types of eyes by co-opting different types of tissue in those different organisms. This demonstrates that the eye evolved many different times over the history of life on Earth.

The statement says the same gene not genes (maybe a mistake). This co-opting involves more than just tissue right. So' date=' the same gene co-opts different eye structures in different animals. How does that "prove" the eye evolved? If your statement is true, it proves that the a single gene does not have autonomy over a trait. Which suggests DNA has an overall blueprint already in mind, that makes the tissue form properly.

I think that this would be very difficult to explain from the design perspective, why would a designer, use the same processes on different types of tissue, rather than using the same types each time.

It's difficult to detect the exact motives of a designer, I never met'em. In everyday life the same 'general' process is often used to make different things via different materials. Not a big deal to me. . .

The mammalian eye and the octopus/squid eye are great examples of this (why does the squid not count? ). This convergent evolution shows how a very similar result can be obtained from different anatomical tissues and communicate with the brain using completely different circuitry' date=' but be controlled by an ancient conserved process - the homeobox DNA sequence.

 

The fact that the resulting structure is similar is not an homology as the organisms in question do not have a common ancestor with a common structure for the eye, but it shows that the different types eyes converged towards a similar structure, giving similar functionality, independently.[/quote']

 

Did I say the octopus didn't count? Convergent evolution, the eyes are only similar in that they see, and controlled by the same interchangeable gene, doesn't show much change.

 

Since they don't have a common ancestor the genes shouldn't be so similar, unless genes do not necc account for similarity.

The main thing wrong with evolution is the biased, compartmentalized, in the public everything is fact, in private we just don't know, and the teaching of our young intelects who think because it's in a textbook it's a fact. The theory of Evolution has been inherited by many as a fact without scrutinizing the theory to see any of its inadequecies.

Actually, you're talking about a homeobox gene. That doesn't specifically code for a mammalian eye. It simply codes for the further development of optical tissue. Which would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a design standpoint.

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept.

TO EVERYONE:

The basic topic, the causes of similarity:

"A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues.

I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.

In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution)

That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry.

Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways?

What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are.

Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

Actually, you're talking about a homeobox gene. That doesn't specifically code for a mammalian eye. It simply codes for the further development of optical tissue. Which would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a design standpoint.

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept.

TO EVERYONE:

The basic topic, the causes of similarity:

"A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues.

I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.

In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution)

That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry.

Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways?

What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are.

Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

Neanderthal, at least many of the bones found were Africans. People with wide noses have wide nasal cavities which is a common feature among Africans (as Peon mentioned but thought it wasn't an African feature). Also, many of the bones are curved in Neanderthal man, why, vitamin D deficiency causing rickets. The samething happened to Africans living in England. This is actually very contradictory to the discussion and also the overall assumption. I don't think anyone wants to get outside of the compartmentalized way of thinking.

If I can find the source, how would it affect your current thinking?

I never asked if we were two different species. If you stuck a bunch of whites in africa and let them evolve out for a couple thousand years would they start becoming black? If you took a bunch of blacks and let them live in greenland or upper canada for thousands of years, would they start to turn white? Are there any white african tribes? Are there any black Eskamos....im sure I spelt that wrong.

No, we'd never completely turn into an opposite shade of color. Just like other genes there's limits to it. Characteristics aren't simply inherited from the environment, it's genetic. Oddly enough(highly improbable), it's possible for two dark people to have a light child, but not the other way around. Remember, technically we're all different shades of melanin.

I'm not sure what you mean by' date=' "did you actually disagree?". DNA does provide evidence for evolution. The differences between chimps and humans are caused by differences at the nucleotide level. I'm not a chimp/human expert, but here's part of an article I read that is pretty clear:

 

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

 

 

 

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. 35 million DNA base pairs is a lot of leeway. Especially when you consider that sometimes a protein's function can change from just one amino acid difference (which is coded by 3 nucleotides) or even one nucleotide difference.

 

For example, remember when I was talking about "opsins" in the fossil thread? Those are proteins that sense light in the eye. Well, one amino acid change can cause an opsin to change from sensing ultraviolet light to violet light (we don't have these opsins but birds do). As birds use UV or violet light to choose mates or find food, these small changes can have huge implications.

 

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Could you find the article and post a link to it? Also, what is C and E?[/quote']

 

Bascule, no response, anyway?

C - Creation E - Evolution

 

Sorry, I was purposely too general in the 2nd paragraph. What I'm saying is, the exact same gene can give you different results. For example the eye, in mice, an octopus, and a fruit fly. The gene is so similar it can be exchanged between the three and the animals develop there eye as usual. Without going into detail, the three animals have very different look/type/funtioning eyes. In relationship to human/primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones responsible for making us different.

Is homology the main "support" for evolution?

Oprah had a good show when she first came out. She admitted she had a drug problem (either coke or crack) on the show. Now a whole show may be about her shoe closet. I don't watch it, but a little while back Christopher Darden (from OJ trail) was on the show, pretty interesting.

I give her respect for the Angel Network.

PS Hopefully she's not reading this. She may shut the forum down with a bad recommendation like she did beef in Texas.

Milken, the problem with the "God used the same design" argument is the molecular clock: we see random drift over time which is perfectly explicable by an evolutionary argument but makes no sense from a design perspective.

Please give me an extremely bias evolutionary source for the molecular clock. I haven't seen anything on it that makes me feel good about it as a "real scientific clock". The "clock" as of now disturbs me because so far it's admittedly not accurate and has to be cross referenced with the fossil record(right?). Could you explain how much drift you mean?

You might also wonder why we have an appendix' date=' why our retinas are on backwards when squid and so forth have them on "correctly" (so they don't easily detach/rip and there's no blind spot), why birds can pass air continuously through their lungs while we're stuck with a lousy inhale/exhale cycle, etc.[/quote']

 

Design isn't neccessary for me if Evolution is true it won't really affect me (to clear things up). Appendix - we weren't originally meat eaters retina - it's inverted to allow the oxygen needs of the vertebrate eye, give me another animal, our blind spots don't mean anything, we have two eyes, I'll need a better example than a squid it doesn't count. Birds need the high energy production for there lifestyle, may I add, very short life.

 

 

If your really asking if DNA evidence is "pro or con" for evolution it's overwhelmingly pro. I'd like to challenge you to give one example where DNA evidence counters an evolutionary argument. So far all your arguments seem to be "Well that evidence can used for either an evolutionist or creationist argument!"

 

It's not really intended to be an arguement, just an observation. It's not an argument for either side, personally, unless you prove "how". How does homology prove common descent? I agree it infers it just as much as it infers common design.

 

On to the challenge (quite a good one) are you asking me to make a common design arguement to directly counter common descent? Is the evolution arguement for DNA more than homology?

Peak Oli Man,

you're right, I accidentaly pressed send. A post boo boo if you will.

You know what's odd, primates (chimps I believe) have dark skin on the sunexposed areas but under their skin it's fair. Hmmmmmmmm. . . .

I got kicked out of a classroom for thinking black people are black because of the warm climate and that they are still evolving out of it. I made a polar bear and brown bear reference and it really pissed the teacher off. I'm wondering' date=' am I wrong and there just happen to be black and white and everything inbetween people, or is it really because of the climate?

 

Please don't mistake this as racist, for any of you extremely easily offended. I've never read anything about it but I think I did hear on discovery once "dark skin to help fight the heat" or something to that affect. If we all started living in spaceships in outerspace and the blacks kept mating with the blacks and the whites kept mating with the whites, would we all end up being really pale thousands and thousands of years later?[/quote']

 

1) There's only one race, the human race. All our differences are negligible on a genetic scale

 

2) All humans have melanin, it's what gives us our skin tone, the more you have the darker you're allowed to get. Technically we're all shades of the same color, melanin.

 

3) Who want's skin cancer, and to visibly age quicker? The more melanin you have the slower you absorb vitamin D, the less you have the faster you absorb it. If you have alot of melanin and live in a sunless environment you can get vitamin D defi, the other way around you're more at risk for skin cancer. In other words we're fit for our original environment.

 

4) Everyone agrees the man originated in Africa, we're all still evolving.

 

5) We're all adapted to our ethnic region. No amount of time would make anyone, totally abandon there genetically determined skin tone. That would be like a giraffe's neck getting longer because it keeps reaching higher to eat, it's been disproven around 100 years ago.

I think your statement "the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different" is either misleading or wrong.

We have genes that code for the same FUNCTION' date=' but the nucleotide sequence (GGATTCGGGTT etc) of those genes are different. For example, every eukaryotic organism has ribosomes, which translate protein, but the nucleotide sequence is different in each organism.

 

I'm sure you know that genes have alleles -- different forms of those genes. Sometimes the different forms allow the gene to do the same job in different environments. I've used this example before, but different forms of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase in fish work at different temperatures. Fish that live in cold waters have enzymes that work best in cold temperatures and vice versa.

 

My point: chimps and humans have a lot of similar genes in that they have the same function, but the nucleotide sequences are slightly different and the genes may work optimally in different environments (environment could also mean the internal environment of the body).

 

Sorry, editing for one last point: Bascule, that was a really good thread you linked to.[/quote']

 

Did you actually disagree? Are you saying the 98-99 percent of our genes in common are only in function and the slightly different nuc seq account for all the differeneces in apes/humans?

 

I've read about experiments where scientists exchanging similar genes in organisms that typically produce very different kinds(i guess alleles) of the same thing. When they exchange the genes the animals produce they're normal function, not the other animals. It seems contradictory, but I'm honestly not well versed in genetics as I am in other fields.

 

It's odd because before I knew anything about C or E (ID wasn't really "out" yet) or the theological implications. People would mention how animals are so similar and I never saw how it "proved" common descent anymore than it "proves" we're made from the same stuff. That's something I have never really seen through.

 

I believe the articel, which was VERY interesting and provided great visuals.

The article basically shows how similiar our chromosome bandings and Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERV) are located in the exact same place of the genome, odds 1/6billion, fascinating how similar we're designed. = )

One issue I wonder about is how similarity can take such an important role when the exact same gene can produce different results. For example, in man and primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different. It doesn't really seem to make a definitive statement for either side.

How is the case any stronger either way for similarity? One side says they're similiar because they have the same ancestor the other says they're similiar because they're built from similar parts.

How can two fossils show common descent?

The other method is the molecular "clock", which I. . . nevermind.

Do the workings of DNA support Evolution? Explain