Jump to content
Radical Edward

Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

Recommended Posts

Clarification,this post is posting to the first, original post.

 

of course the chromosomes bands are going to look similar, almost every feature of man, or ape, is mirrored in ape, or man.

we have 2 legs 2 feet 2 arms 2 hands; they have 2 legs 2 arm 2 feet 2 hands.

if their bands did not look like ours they would not have features similar to ours.

 

much like programing if you want something that looks similar but is different you apply the same code but edit it appropriately.

this doesn't mean that the program,creature, is from a common ancestor; it simply means 1 bit of code only has 1 function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarification,this post is posting to the first, original post.

 

of course the chromosomes bands are going to look similar, almost every feature of man, or ape, is mirrored in ape, or man.

we have 2 legs 2 feet 2 arms 2 hands; they have 2 legs 2 arm 2 feet 2 hands.

if their bands did not look like ours they would not have features similar to ours.

 

much like programing if you want something that looks similar but is different you apply the same code but edit it appropriately.

this doesn't mean that the program,creature, is from a common ancestor; it simply means 1 bit of code only has 1 function.

 

What are you talking about? Thats not even close to an accurate description of what you are trying to answer. The bauplan as you talk about has evolutionary significance!

 

Read up on evolutionary developmental biology or here is a nifty link to give you a rough idea along with more links.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauplan

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent 2008 paper, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," in the journal Bioinformatics (Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008)) discusses the fact that "Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes. However, the extent to which retroviral sequences initiate transcription within the human genome is currently unknown." The article thus "analyzed genome sequence and high-throughput expression data to systematically evaluate the presence of retroviral promoters in the human genome."

 

The results were striking:

 

We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).

 

[…]

 

Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale.

 

(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 2008)

 

From this it is obvious that the theory that ERVs represent 'junk DNA' and are residues left by unknown viral infections, is pure nonsense.

 

If the ERVs have such extensive functions, then it is clear that they must have been there from the beginning - otherwise transcription and translation would have been seriously impaired, and in all likelihood could not take place. Species extinction would have followed in short order, and the human species demolished. This leaves the common descent from some proto-human-chimpanzee theory high and very dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From this it is obvious that the theory that ERVs represent 'junk DNA' and are residues left by unknown viral infections, is pure nonsense.

 

If the ERVs have such extensive functions, then it is clear that they must have been there from the beginning

 

Yes, from well before we were human. This is why the same pattern is seen in other species, as unlikely as that would be to happen were they not modified copies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, from well before we were human. This is why the same pattern is seen in other species, as unlikely as that would be to happen were they not modified copies.

 

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various DNA similarities can only be explained by having the creatures be modified copies, unless you are a believer in absurdly unlikely coincidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The genomic similarities between, within, and among eukaryotes, eubacteria, and arachaebacteria cannot be understood without the correct theoretical framework. As deduced from Unity, the genetic matter that composes DNA (deoxynucleotides) is a singularity in a gyre (a theoretical deoxyon) - the contents of the gyre being the cells themselves (cellulogyre). The thermodynamic repulsive force exerted by the deoxyon singularity is the fundamental theoretical explanation for the cell cycle. The deoxyon "pushes" the cellulogyre into an excited state (2N haploid organisms, 4N diploid), whereupon the gyre reaches its carrying capacity and falls to its ground state (1N haploid, 2N diploid).

 

The attractive force of the deoxyon on the matter in the cellulogyre is manifest in the engulfing of other genomes (phagocytosis, endosymbiosis, transfection, transformation, phage or viral DNA insertion, etc.) that leads to the transmission, reception, interpretation, breakdown, storage, and plasticity of genomes from organism to organism over evolutionary history.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The genomic similarities between, within, and among eukaryotes, eubacteria, and arachaebacteria cannot be understood without the correct theoretical framework. As deduced from Unity, the genetic matter that composes DNA (deoxynucleotides) is a singularity in a gyre (a theoretical deoxyon) - the contents of the gyre being the cells themselves (cellulogyre). The thermodynamic repulsive force exerted by the deoxyon singularity is the fundamental theoretical explanation for the cell cycle. The deoxyon "pushes" the cellulogyre into an excited state (2N haploid organisms, 4N diploid), whereupon the gyre reaches its carrying capacity and falls to its ground state (1N haploid, 2N diploid).

 

The attractive force of the deoxyon on the matter in the cellulogyre is manifest in the engulfing of other genomes (phagocytosis, endosymbiosis, transfection, transformation, phage or viral DNA insertion, etc.) that leads to the transmission, reception, interpretation, breakdown, storage, and plasticity of genomes from organism to organism over evolutionary history.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

 

This is awesome. Where did you come up with this? I'm requesting more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

radical edward,,,thats an impressive little post,however just showing gene sequences doesnt prove anything,please explain to us in detail just how,on the molecular level,random mutations can cause new species to emerge,when none have ever been observed,even with massive effort on the part of molecular biologists to do so.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

radical edward,,,thats an impressive little post,however just showing gene sequences doesnt prove anything,please explain to us in detail just how,on the molecular level,random mutations can cause new species to emerge,when none have ever been observed,even with massive effort on the part of molecular biologists to do so.

 

What biologists believe that a single mutation can cause speciation? And what effort has been but forth to cause such a mutation? If a single mutation did cause a random species to be formed that species would not have anything to mate with and its genetic line would be moot.

 

You may want to look at this

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would seem that you agree that there are some who believe in creation and evolution?

 

Creation is not the same as creationism. Creationism is this weird mix of science and the religious concept of creation, not distinguishing the different characteristics of both realms. Creation however is, generally speaking, the concept that we are here for a reason (and purpose). It stems from a human experience, this sensing that there is more to us than just being carbon robots. We want to create meaning (most if not all of us do so) - but this is not a materialistic requirement of course (matter doesn't imply 'meaning'). It is a human thing to create meaning, and this 'creativity' is behind the idea of creation, and also behind the monotheistic concept of an ultimate creator. Yet, I know at least 2 atheist friends who believe in a creator (they do not associate 'him' or 'it' with the god of monotheism of course, but still). So the picture is quite diverse, certainly not monolithic. Creation is a broader concept.

 

Evolution conflicts with creationism / ID but not necessarily with the idea of creation. Eevolution explains the 'wiring' of things including us, but it doesn't dictate us to stop hoping, believing, or loving in a way that is not identical to having sex, and all that stuff - this is what it means to be human, for many if not all of us. I believe in a creator of some kind even while I'm not sure about it, nor do I know exactly what 'kind' of God we have here. The God-idea certainly doesn't exclude science, as science was not designed to say anything about gods or God, nor to deny it - it isn't in the scope of the scientific discipline at all. Cookery isn't about God either - it's about preparing food. All things have a place.

 

But creationism is weird. If I want to understand something about science, I read a good science book, not creationist. To learn something about religion, I don't read Dawkins either, I read a good book from someone who studied religion, or - also - someone who approaches religion as a scientist (but not as an atheist - because that's something like a creationist telling us what to do with science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I like this. I just finished attending evolution lectures and have seen that the proves of human evolution during the pleiocene was as a result of descent with modification.

Thumbs up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I you study on livings you can notice that human and other livings have lots of genetic code they share but this is not an enough evidence of human common ancestry.

 

Creation is not the same as creationism. Creationism is this weird mix of science and the religious concept of creation, not distinguishing the different characteristics of both realms. Creation however is, generally speaking, the concept that we are here for a reason (and purpose). It stems from a human experience, this sensing that there is more to us than just being carbon robots. We want to create meaning (most if not all of us do so) - but this is not a materialistic requirement of course (matter doesn't imply 'meaning'). It is a human thing to create meaning, and this 'creativity' is behind the idea of creation, and also behind the monotheistic concept of an ultimate creator. Yet, I know at least 2 atheist friends who believe in a creator (they do not associate 'him' or 'it' with the god of monotheism of course, but still). So the picture is quite diverse, certainly not monolithic. Creation is a broader concept.

 

Evolution conflicts with creationism / ID but not necessarily with the idea of creation. Eevolution explains the 'wiring' of things including us, but it doesn't dictate us to stop hoping, believing, or loving in a way that is not identical to having sex, and all that stuff - this is what it means to be human, for many if not all of us. I believe in a creator of some kind even while I'm not sure about it, nor do I know exactly what 'kind' of God we have here. The God-idea certainly doesn't exclude science, as science was not designed to say anything about gods or God, nor to deny it - it isn't in the scope of the scientific discipline at all. Cookery isn't about God either - it's about preparing food. All things have a place.

 

But creationism is weird. If I want to understand something about science, I read a good science book, not creationist. To learn something about religion, I don't read Dawkins either, I read a good book from someone who studied religion, or - also - someone who approaches religion as a scientist (but not as an atheist - because that's something like a creationist telling us what to do with science).

 

i disagree. If you belive in god you must belive that god designed all science and religion. Thus we can say that two creation of God, religion and science, must have relationship.

Edited by Teorisyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i disagree. If you belive in god you must belive that god designed all science and religion. Thus we can say that two creation of God, religion and science, must have relationship.

 

!

Moderator Note

Religion debates should be made in the religion forum. However, telling people what they must or must not believe is probably not going to fly. Please make sure you are familiar with the board rules. No need to respond to this note.

 

 

I you study on livings you can notice that human and other livings have lots of genetic code they share but this is not an enough evidence of human common ancestry.

 

I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but evidence for common ancestry. The debate has to be about whether it is "enough" and genetics is not the only evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hay just wondering where one can find the most accurate genetic mutation rate graph kinda? like extrapolating back in time? also do yous have a graph you feel is the most accurate for whatever reason just for population going back in time? wikipedia has one but pre like 1950 it says is an estimate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hay just wondering where one can find the most accurate genetic mutation rate graph kinda?

 

Of what creature? Any rate you get would be an estimate...

 

like extrapolating back in time? also do yous have a graph you feel is the most accurate for whatever reason just for population going back in time? wikipedia has one but pre like 1950 it says is an estimate.....

 

 

you'll have to post the link but I'll have a look and see what i can get from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of what creature? Any rate you get would be an estimate...

 

in human beings, im looking now but i just thought someone might know...

 

 

 

 

you'll have to post the link but I'll have a look and see what i can get from it.

 

yah just saying the wiki one says its an estimate , so maybe there for whatever reason isnt much data or census data or whatever pre 1950 but i will keep looking...thanks moontanaman

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in human beings, im looking now but i just thought someone might know...

 

 

 

 

 

 

yah just saying the wiki one says its an estimate , so maybe there for whatever reason isnt much data or census data or whatever pre 1950 but i will keep looking...thanks moontanaman

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

 

 

This paper is interesting

 

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

 

It would appear that there is on average 175 mutations per person in each generation. I've read lower and higher estimates, most quote a rate of about 130 per generation if i remember it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This paper is interesting

 

http://www.genetics..../156/1/297.full

 

It would appear that there is on average 175 mutations per person in each generation. I've read lower and higher estimates, most quote a rate of about 130 per generation if i remember it correctly.

 

hay thanks good link damn we are all mutant as lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hay thanks good link damn we are all mutant as lmao

 

 

Don't worry boogie boy, we're all Devo....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys arguing about religion? I thought this was Science Forums! Religion hasn't a blessed thing to do with Science!!! Take you ridiculous arguments somewhere else, please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys arguing about religion? I thought this was Science Forums! Religion hasn't a blessed thing to do with Science!!! Take you ridiculous arguments somewhere else, please!

 

 

How about you read the rules you agreed to when you joined....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys arguing about religion? I thought this was Science Forums! Religion hasn't a blessed thing to do with Science!!! Take you ridiculous arguments somewhere else, please!

Do you find that this style of social interaction works well for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a paper from a Creation Ministries website that is of interest because it appears to be a scientific critique of research in evolutionary biology.: Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated

The authors' conclusion is that "The humanchimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact."

8342643102_abf030628a_n.jpg
Not so closely related after all.

Edited by Bill Angel

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.