Jump to content
Radical Edward

Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

Recommended Posts

But it would seem that you agree that there are some who believe in creation and[/b'] evolution?

 

of course. I have not said anything to the contrary, and it is not the primary issue of this thread, which is addressing those who claim there is no evidence of common ancestry between humans and the other primates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course. I have not said anything to the contrary, and it is not the primary issue of this thread, which is addressing those who claim there is no evidence of common ancestry between humans and the other primates.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that you did say anything to the contrary.

 

It is just that when I asked if your OP was to refute creationists who took a literal reading of Genisis as fact, or if you intended to refute all creationists in general, I was set upon by some of the readers here as having asked a question that was off topic and I was told that a creationist was a person who believed in Genisis and only a person who believed in the literal reading of Genisis.

 

I have been trying ever since to clarify that point with limited success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radical Edward

 

Firstly, I must say that I enjoyed your post. For me as a devout evolutionist I find it at times complex and above my understanding with certain aspects. I used your post as a source for a forum debate. And I would be interested in your opinion on comments made against it.

 

I’d say you’r on the wright track comparing chromosones. On the wright track but not completely there. Our genetic information is stored in our DNA, these strings are then wound around cromosones. If you really want to compare human DNA to ape DNA, compare the DNA itself not the chromosones on wich they are wound. Comparing cromosones to proove relativness is just like comparing a human cell to an animal cell, they both show simularitys (both have a double membrane, a nucleidcore containing these cromosones and so on...) but that doesn’t mean their DNA shows simularitys. So what you did was not comparing DNA but comparing chromosones to show simularity’s in DNA. That would be like comparing two panoramic pictures of two diffrent houses to proove that the bricks underneath the paint are in fact the same.

 

As a second argument against this “proof” one could say your reasoning is flawned, because even if the DNA has simularitys that doesn’t mean one origenated from another. If two houses are simular in desing, build out of the same material, in the same style and shape, that doesn’t mean that one house is the descendant of another. In fact it would seem more logical to assume that both are simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings. Tell me why do you assume that for creationism to work, a creator created all creatures in totaly difrent ways? If it’s not broken why fix it?

 

First of all you have two agdmit that you made 2 assumptions. First of all you asume that the proces of proviral integration is random. It could very well be that this integration is only possible at a certain loci, either determined by the structure of the virus or by the structure of the DNA. Do not forget the importance of 3dimensional structures when studying processes at this level. Such an inhibition by a virus in DNA is not likely to be coincedental, but rather a result of it’s characteristics.

 

Second of all you asume that even though genetic drift is random, it is possible for a whole population to carry the endogenous virus due to a single proviral integration. Not only is this very unlickely to have happened, it is also the only alternative to assuming multiple viri infiltrated the DNA with multiple hosts at the same loci.

 

Lets take a look at those last phrases again. Basicly we have the factor of “luck” being faveroble for both sides. You could say it’s unlikely for multiple viri to inhibit the same loci, while I can say it’s very unlikely that a whole population inhereted this from a single source. The only diffrence between my unlikely theory and your unlikely theory is that I have arguments to take take the chance factor down (being the inability of the virus to integrate another loci). I think this shows how it’s very biased to dismiss the posibility that both apes and humans to have aquired this endogenous virus in simular ways rather then from heritage.

 

Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage.

 

It’s not just a matter of where hot spots are situated as you commmented. When looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this magnitude a simple cis-trans isomere can make a world of diffrence. To claim that there’s an absent of ERV’s that don’t match the phylogenetic tree as an argument against hotspots is again assuming it’s coincedential nature. And also neglecting the fact that we have only mapped human DNA a couple years ago and still haven’t searched all primate DNA with a fine-thooth-comb.

 

The second problem that it’s strange that some viruses have infected every single primate rather then skipping one is again biased on the 2 assumptions.

1. That it’s likely for a whole population to carry this from a single source.

2. That it’s unlickly to happen more then once on the same loci at different species

If one would assume the opposite, by reasons I mentioned above, you would see that for this ERV to become present in a whole population it must by nature be a virus that was widely spread and that integrates the DNA sequence easily. So then it doesn’t seem far fetched for this virus to have spread interspecial and to have integrated all these species. Also, the absence of a retrovirus that is compatible with all those species at current time, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Our knowledge on ancient viri isn’t that big seeing our only source of information is those ERV, so that argument is completely backwards.

 

To assume the crippledness of the virus is also a factor against multiple integrations is again overestimating the randomness of the proces. It’s very likely to have happened in a specific way due to specific reasons. These things don’t just happen out of the blue in total randomness, there’s fysical laws, and chemical characteristics to take in account. These so called changes that would have been made to the ERV later on way very well be due to the proces of integration.

 

Now moving on to your thirth argument, Phylogenetic.

I think I have a pretty good idea why your friend Radical Edward failed to give you much information to go along with this argument. Simply because there is none. As I said before, we haven’d mapped primate DNA, so a heritigal study cannot be made. Secondly this is, as you said unique for a single family rather then a whole population, so it’s merely impossible to study this, even if in fact man evolved from monkey, it would still be hard to find wich human family carries proof of wich ape familly

 

I know it's long. But I am interested in your opinion and others here.

 

Many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

though i didnt write any part of that long proof i would like to say something in respect to the reponse that the 2nd guy gave.

 

First of all saying "simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings" when explaining the similarties between Chromosones and DNA isn't a very intelligent response. From what i know ( and correct me if i am wrong) Dna and chromosones show similarties in TRAITS and APPEARANCEs.

 

DNA is kinda like a history of the family line, not only do you look like you parents and grandparents..etc, but you also hold an pass genetic information. This is were dominant and recessive traits come into place ( like the 6 finger dominant trait, that is passed via DNA more specifically family).

 

What has this to do with what that guy said? Well think about it, if there are that many similarties not only in DNA and genetic appearance but also lifestyles, ( i heard a debate by a previous harvard proffesor at Lead America talking about how monkey family styles in general are strikly similar to that of humans. In some species like spiders you have the mother killing and eating the father, in monkey family style you had the female eventually learn to keep the father monkey with the family through Jealously...which in many cases is very much similar to human family lifestyles) then it is hard to say that a creator created humans and apes very similarly. The much more logical and quite frankly obvious right answer has to be that of the evolution of apes to man.

 

The similarties are just to accurate and similar, period. If they were that similar why would a creator creat beings who was so closely similar to other created beings, that they would start questioning that they were created by that creator, and not evole instead, from the the other beings? A god would not want his creations to think that they evolved from something else rather then be created by him when he actually created them. Thats like someone inventing something but not getting credit for it.....Whats the point?

 

Another interesting fact ( and which i have heard about ) is that in the bible God made humans in IMAGE of himself. They were to be like him in many ways inculding appearance. They were to be unique and far superior to the animals. They were supposed to be above those who were not human. They in a way were supposed to control those who were not human 100% ( aka animals ). If their is that much similarties then it would question the fact of humans being the supperior and highest beings on earth. It flat out wouldn't make sense if their was that much similarties between them and yet God says they are UNIQUE and far above all other beings on earth.

 

Plus on a humors note to what i said in the last par. if humans were made and had similar apperances to God and apes are similar to human then that would mean that god looks kinda like an ape :D ( just kidding by the way people ).

 

Basically what i am trying to say is that the STRIKING similarties between apes and man in so many ways can BEST (doesn't mean its the only answer) be described by evolution.

 

Well i hope you enjoed reading that :cool: and i hope i didn't offend anyone by calling god a monkey. Peace out all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’d say you’r on the wright track comparing chromosones. On the wright track but not completely there. Our genetic information is stored in our DNA, these strings are then wound around cromosones. If you really want to compare human DNA to ape DNA, compare the DNA itself not the chromosones on wich they are wound. Comparing cromosones to proove relativness is just like comparing a human cell to an animal cell, they both show simularitys (both have a double membrane, a nucleidcore containing these cromosones and so on...) but that doesn’t mean their DNA shows simularitys. So what you did was not comparing DNA but comparing chromosones to show simularity’s in DNA. That would be like comparing two panoramic pictures of two diffrent houses to proove that the bricks underneath the paint are in fact the same.

Chromosomes are not like boxes that store goods. The chromosomes are not a separate component from the DNA. The chromosomes are the DNA that is wraped around proteins called histones. The chromosomes just refer to a state that the DNA exists in when it is tightly condensed, in distinct units, and associated with certain proteins.

 

Each species has a unique karotype that can be used to identify it. The amount of chromosomes and the banding pattern of each chromosome are specific for each species. Comparing chromosomes is a valid tool for identification of a species and determining the relationship between two organisms. Chromosomal comparison is just one of many independent forms conformation that establishes the common descent of life.

 

As a second argument against this “proof” one could say your reasoning is flawned, because even if the DNA has simularitys that doesn’t mean one origenated from another. If two houses are simular in desing, build out of the same material, in the same style and shape, that doesn’t mean that one house is the descendant of another. In fact it would seem more logical to assume that both are simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings. Tell me why do you assume that for creationism to work, a creator created all creatures in totaly difrent ways? If it’s not broken why fix it?

It may not be broken, but why create a common flaw? Endogenous Retroviral Sequences are errors where a virus inserted some of its DNA into a host gamete. I think I would fire a builder who was so careless in his designs.

 

First of all you have two agdmit that you made 2 assumptions. First of all you asume that the proces of proviral integration is random. It could very well be that this integration is only possible at a certain loci, either determined by the structure of the virus or by the structure of the DNA. Do not forget the importance of 3dimensional structures when studying processes at this level. Such an inhibition by a virus in DNA is not likely to be coincedental, but rather a result of it’s characteristics

Thousands of locations in the humane genome contain Endogenous Retroviral Sequences. It is almost unthinkable to imagine a virus inserting itself into exactly the same spot in an entire population of a species while simultaneously inserting itself into the exact same locale in entire populations of many other species.

 

Second of all you asume that even though genetic drift is random, it is possible for a whole population to carry the endogenous virus due to a single proviral integration. Not only is this very unlickely to have happened, it is also the only alternative to assuming multiple viri infiltrated the DNA with multiple hosts at the same loci.

You have not thought this argument through. Why do "all" Asians have jet black hair? Why do they "all" have brown eyes? The answer is simple. A small population of individuals separated from the rest of man and made his home in Asia. This group had these traits, either all of the members had these traits or the majority did and the other traits were lost by selection or drift. The event that you are calling "very unlickely" has already occurred many times. A very similar occurrence produced a population that all have the same endogenous retroviral sequences.

 

There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.

 

Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage

Misinterpretation of the chart.

 

It’s not just a matter of where hot spots are situated as you commmented. When looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this magnitude a simple cis-trans isomere can make a world of diffrence. .

DNA all has the same handedness.

 

To claim that there’s an absent of ERV’s that don’t match the phylogenetic tree as an argument against hotspots is again assuming it’s coincedential nature. And also neglecting the fact that we have only mapped human DNA a couple years ago and still haven’t searched all primate DNA with a fine-thooth-comb

Finding the ERV's does not require searching the DNA with a fine-tooth-comb.

 

Also, the absence of a retrovirus that is compatible with all those species at current time, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Our knowledge on ancient viri isn’t that big seeing our only source of information is those ERV, so that argument is completely backwards

Trying to imagine an ancient virus completely different than today's is a little farfetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohh man i was just going to comment on the rest of the replys, but anyway good job on answering them. :rolleyes:

 

I think for the most part, some parts of those replys really showed lack of knowedge from those people. I am only a junior in high school and have only taken one genetics class so far ( its all my school offers for gen.) but most of what they said seems to show they don't fully understand genetics and some parts of cell bio.

 

(Quote:

Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage )

 

humm from what i seem to understand about human evolution we didnt evolve from present day Apes but more or less their annestors. I was watching the history channel "From Ape to Man" and their description of human evolution is that present day apes and man came from the same "family line" and one of the first annestors for both was more ape and primative.

 

A link with similar information can be found at http://www.biology-online.org/tutorials/9_evolution_origins.htm though i must say it is not as detailed as the actually documantary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread, and I am currently engaged into a debate over it's findings. Lack of knowledge is a real issue so scuse me if this is a dumb question.

 

Are the insertions not random, and by this I mean that both Chimp & Human share the insertions but the insertions are not random. Meaning that the same virus inserts it's junk at the same place with both species!

 

The reply I am trying to deal with is:

 

But I already replyed to that remember, so why did you repeat yourself? You assume here that the insertion is random, whereas I replyed to that these processes aren’t likely to be random, as reactions on this micro level usually follow a strict causality. 3-dimensional structures are very important wwhen looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this big a size

 

Regards

 

Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMPRESSIVE THREAD!! I have never took a single biology course but I understand abit of what you guys are talking about. Most of this posts were intend to discuss about Darwin's theory of evolution, isn't it? Well I'm a Catholic, and "they" usually believe that God make those hamo sapiens in the first place. But to me, science kinda empowers over my religious beliefs. I do believe that over time the chorosomes of the hamo sapiens have been adjusted slightly and changed into the modern humans today. (Who knows what we will look like in the future??!!) I mean there has to be some scienific proof, because in the bible, in the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve were the first humans on the Earth, right? As the image of them since Earth's birth look very similiar to the modern humans today seem unreal. I don't know how the exact form of humans would live through the trillions of years through the Ice Age, Prehistoric Period, and so on....

 

Anyway the point is that the posted theory seem more apporiately to me. :)

Once again, nice thread by Radical Edward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't forsee humans changing much with time. There just don't seem to be many selection pressures which affect you before you can reproduce driving our development in a direction radically different from our current form.

 

If our bodies are going to evolve at all, it will be through technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen bascule, I'm talking about trillions of millions of years, and you don't think there are many "selection pressures" that can affect our genes? Get the avian flu for instance. Orginally Spanish flu appeared in 1918, and then stowed for several centuries, then it popped in 2005 in a slight different form. I mentioned my theory of "stowing' in other thread, but that is what happened. I mean DNAs don't stay the same for trillions of millions of years, because I'm sure the DNAs would eliminate some teeny tiny bit of proteins and overtime it can eliminate a signifcant physical property.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, assuming there are no global catastrophes that plunge us back into a pre-technological age, we're probably nearing the point where our control over ourselves at the genetic level will override any potential for further evolution. Anymore significant changes to the human form, if they occur, will probably be intentional and controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bascule and Xyph, you guys are obessive with the Technogolical Age (modern) where I do agree with your implies that we have control over our geneic level. I won't be surprised if we still look the same in millions of years in the future, because there are too many humans on Earth right now to converse. But from the start, I was talking the period when Earth formed in the Prehistoric period, where there are no technology advances or any single things like we have today. Also there are fewer population of hamo sapiens, therefore the evolution race can happen without a problem. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is our lack of knowledge of what the future holds. Clearly we will have the *capacity* to consciously alter our own DNA (as a species if not as individuals), but will we use it at all, or if so, how? How will this affect evolution? Is it even fair to call it evolution? Since we got this by evolving big brains, it could be argued that even genetic engineering is a highly derived type of evolution. Alternatively, because it's so different and under conscious control, it could be claimed to be totally different. Half the battle is terminology.

 

I have little doubt that human form and genetics will change over time (just look at how many people are unsatified with theirs), but the question is *how* such changes will occur, and how this applies to evolution.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetic engineering is memetic evolution turned genetic evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've only mapped chimps, humans, rats and mice right? Among the mammals? So besides them, it's really impossible to tell anything mroe than a percent for those two rodents, and even our relative relation to them can be questioned unless we can get a general idea of relation between a much wider sample of varied species. I'm just brain-storming here, but does that make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, now that you mention it, I was wondering... How far away are we genically from non-ape mammals? :D

 

From what I hear we have about 52% of the same [acr=Deoxyribonucleic acid]DNA[/acr] that a bannana(sp?) has!

 

Thats pretty nuts when you think about it - hey mom, I'm half bannana!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is our lack of knowledge of what the future holds. Clearly we will have the *capacity* to consciously alter our own DNA (as a species if not as individuals)' date=' but will we use it at all, or if so, how? How will this affect evolution? Is it even fair to call it evolution? Since we got this by evolving big brains, it could be argued that even genetic engineering is a highly derived type of evolution. Alternatively, because it's so different and under conscious control, it could be claimed to be totally different. Half the battle is terminology.

 

I have little doubt that human form and genetics will change over time (just look at how many people are unsatified with theirs), but the question is *how* such changes will occur, and how this applies to evolution.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Thank you Mokele. That's what I have been trying to tell them. I said, "Who knows what we will look like in the future?" in my previous post. But I agree slightly that our past is rather in the gray clouds, but doesn't Darwin's theory sounds more readily than Lawkin's theory? For those who don't know Lawkin's theory, it classified that physical will affect the offsprings. Using the example of girafee, Lawkin believe that girafee used to have short neck, and over time the girafees stretch their necks by reaching for leaves on the trees. Therefore Lawkin declare that the offsprings will have long neck too. (I apologize for spelling Lawkin wrong). Anyhow, I heard stories from both sides in university in the class of antropology. (A friend of mine from university told me).

 

Genetic Engineering is going off like a rocket. Who knows if humans would be smarter, faster, stronger, or ? But it's good thing I won't live THAT long to find out. I'm satisfy where I am now. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetic Engineering is going off like a rocket. Who knows if humans would be smarter' date=' faster, stronger, or ? But it's good thing I won't live THAT long to find out. I'm satisfy where I am now. :cool:[/quote']

 

HeHeHe, super-humans!

 

It has one huge advantage though - the ability to fix genetic problem at or before birth and this could save a lot of lives. Maybe even help prevent cancer and help to cure it too.

 

Loads of uses for genetic engineering as long as those annoying "do-gooders" and "mooral idiots" keep their annoying protests away from it... They have a habbit of ruining the good ideas that can save lives like stem cell research another interesting field today and let us not forger about GM modified foold... could solve world hunger but no its immoral because we'r acting like god...

 

Ah well they can't protest forever :D

 

I wonder when the first GM human will be born - anyone care to bet on a date?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on how people look at it. My perspective is rather different than you Ryan Jones, because you are not thinking thoroughly. If we have the ability to cure gene even before birth, it can have its disadvantages. If everybody is born perfect then there will be too many people on the planet. We succinctly need thousands of people to be dead every day. I don't want to sound like a devil but it's a way to reduce our exponentially population boom. We are running out of resources and natural needies. UNLESS, we create morbid space station out in the space? Anyway right now it's not a good idea to converse sicken babies into perfects.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.