herpguy Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I was surfing the web when I found this: http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/cytochrome_c/HTML/huri.html It shows that human DNA is 77.885% the same as rice. Is this more evidence of evolution, and that we all descended from one organism? Or is it just another random similarity? Please reply (I'm trying to convince my family that evolution is real). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyncod Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, it's only the cytochrome c gene. The fact that it is 22% different is actually more 'evidence' for evolution than the fact that it is 78% the same. If it was designed, it would presumably be more similar between human/rice than it is, since it's a mitochondrial gene and does exactly the same thing in humans and rice (although the signal sequence would probably be different). But it's had almost a billion years to change between humans and rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeyboy Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 THere are these weird yet pretty funny things called fainting goats http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17316&highlight=fainting+goats and they might just hold the awnswer... They apprently have developed a totally useless, and if they were wild, fairly fatal ability to fall over whenever something exciting happens. Perhaps this is evidence of to contradict that great anti-evolutionary angle of there never being anything in nature half completed. It could be just that intermediary step that nature takes before the next step that might make something useful and change the species for the better. If your parents don't go with it, at least they'll have a good laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Is this more evidence of evolution, and that we all descended from one organism? Or is it just another random similarity? Please reply (I'm trying to convince my family that evolution is real). in the most simplest terms possible, it's just like looking back at you're direct ancestors. Your parents will have more in common with you than your grandparents, your grandparents are closer to you than your great grandparents and so on and so forth. This is a similar concept. The farther back a species split from the group being compared to (people in this case) the farther away it will be. In mammals, the mouse will be closer to us than the more distant deer, likewise, any mammal will be closer to us than birds, reptiles closer than fish, fish closer than starfish, because the longer we've been apart, teh longer we've had to pick up and discard genes over the eons. So yes, it's clear evidence of the "chain of evolution" --Edit-- Regarding to that second part; G'luck buddy, you might need it. Hope for a miracle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 THere are these weird yet pretty funny things called fainting goats Fainting goats were bread from an initial population of 3. They didn't naturally evolve to be that way. For more info, see this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17316 (Ed: I guess you did already) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathbySmite Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard somewhere that we are actually a fairly large percentage- oh, I think it was... 99% JUNK DNA!!! Believe it or not, ALOT of what builds you may be useless! We are FAR from knowing what every gene does, don't get me wrong but still, there is ALOT of confirmed junk. How that came to be is beyond my realm of pseudo-expertise, but I do believe that since we have a common ancestor with rice (no matter how ancient). it is probably feasible that we share a good deal of junk, not to mention that in my opinion, there may be a good deal of genes ESSENTIAL for life, like genes that regulate cell reproduction and the formation of structures within cells that no matter what your shape, all life will evolve on it's own. I ramble... I ramble... I should really stick to dinosaurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 The actual role of "junk DNA" isn't really understood, and shouldn't so flippantly be deemed "useless" quite yet. It may be, but there's still alot we don't know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 even if it is 'junk', it at least plays a role in as much as it makes it unlikely that any damage that targets dna (such as retroviruses) hits any vital coding dna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I find it weird that we would pass on a bunch of meaningless DNA but I guess it could be possible. Seems depressing that only 1% of our code is important if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I find it weird that we would pass on a bunch of meaningless DNA but I guess it could be possible. Seems depressing that only 1% of our code is important if true. Makes a pretty damn compelling argument against design, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathbySmite Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Wait. I said something usefull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milken Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Similarity (homology) is not an arguement for ID or Evolution, because it doesn't prove a mechanism. It cuts both ways an ID or a person can use similar tools/resources to create unrelated things, but the similiar tools/resources suggest the same Designer was involved. It's between 95-97% of DNA is non coding(humans). The little we know about the non coding region is that there are introns that prevent other parts from activating until the proper time. I guess like packaging, but a lot of it, we just don't know the real purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpenrose Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Makes a pretty damn compelling argument against design, doesn't it? Nope. Because ID is not testable, it is no argument at all. ID's response: God put the DNA there for a reason we do not understand yet. Dangerous Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airmid Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 To convince your parents, I'd use arguments from Darwin's On the Origin of Species. After all, Darwin wrote in a time when ID was the norm, and yet the book did a pretty good job in convincing people that evolution is real. He builds a real good case for natural selection, and once you've accepted that, speciation and all the rest comes naturally. Airmid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I am living proof that ID can not be posable. I have had a cronic dislocated shoulder over the last 6 years (it keeps on dislocating even though I have had 5 opperations to stabilise it). Shoulder joints could be better designed by a human, and if the IDers are correct then the creator is far more intellegent than humans. Evolution has equiped us woth a shoulder joint that is good enough to not reduce our survival chances, but it not perfect (ie prone to dislocations). Can any IDer explain why an intellegent designer would equip us with sub par shoulders when any competent engineer could have designed a better one in a few weeks that performed as good if not better than the one we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milken Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Just to keep things going, I'll say, we're not suppose to be perfect. Here one: Why are we only smarter than the other animals, we're not big, tall, fast, or strong compared to the best living animals? Naturally one of these should have been selected also, especially before intelligence arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Here one: Why are we only smarter than the other animals, we're not big, tall, fast, or strong compared to the best living animals? Naturally one of these should have been selected also, especially before intelligence arrived. Simple answer: Because it was not evolutionarily advantagious for us to evolve those traits. More complex answer: Our ansestor did, but as they did not evolve the intellegence to question this they are not questioning this. They are different spiecies. Gorillas are far stronger than a human, other primates have evolved other traits, and if they evolved intelegence too, they might be asking "Why are we so much stronger and intellegent than other animals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milken Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 That's pretty much what I figured not only that but natural selection isn't suppose to be goal oriented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now