Jump to content
Radical Edward

Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

Recommended Posts

On 4/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Justatruthseeker said:

man has become like one of us, KNOWING good and bad

I always found this line interesting.  According to the bible God created people to be stupid.  You know, like horse or aardvark stupid.  When we became intelligent he got pissed off!  

The goal apparently was to make morons that wandered around in a garden.  Well that didn't work out as planned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I always found this line interesting.  According to the bible God created people to be stupid.  You know, like horse or aardvark stupid.  When we became intelligent he got pissed off!  

The goal apparently was to make morons that wandered around in a garden.  Well that didn't work out as planned...

And so it may be with our robots in the future. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I always found this line interesting.  According to the bible God created people to be stupid.  You know, like horse or aardvark stupid.  When we became intelligent he got pissed off!  

The goal apparently was to make morons that wandered around in a garden.  Well that didn't work out as planned...

And what is this us he speaks of? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

This discussion is in the evolution section. Kindly leave religion out of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Justatruthseeker said:

Neither.

”the man has become like one of us, KNOWING good and bad.

people get confused on what that “image” was...

Those bacteria that can now live solely on citrus have lost their ability to survive in other environments. They paid a heavy price by scavenging information from other areas to survive. Now it’s the only place they can survive...

and the two billion year old bacteria we found was no less primitive than the bacteria today...

Whis is this us you speak of? 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

And what is this us he speaks of? 

 

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I always found this line interesting.  According to the bible God created people to be stupid.  You know, like horse or aardvark stupid.  When we became intelligent he got pissed off!  

The goal apparently was to make morons that wandered around in a garden.  Well that didn't work out as planned...

Sorry I quoted the wrong person! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So where is all that overwhelming scientific evidence for fish lineage of man? How can it be fact-checked against what actually happened since it is a historical truth claim? History only happens once? Isn't the claim overstated?

Edited by dimmesdale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, dimmesdale said:

So where is all that scientific evidence for fish lineage of man? How can it be fact-checked against what actually happened since it is a historical truth claim?

The evidence is in the fossil record and the genetic record. What we call complex life started less than one billion years ago.  Here is a link to explain the basic domains of life. The further back in time you go the simpler organisms get and the more they resemble each other until you get to the point of a single celled organism. Beyond eukaryotes in the past evolution as we see it in complex life breaks down due to gene sharing and identifying the bacteria that is the UCA  becomes impossible. 

One thing to remember is that what we call simple life (ie bacteria) are not really simple. Bacteria are extremely complex and bear little resemblance to what is thought to have been the first living cells. 

I would be careful using the assertion of "historical truth" Science does not look for truth. Methodological naturalism is based on evidence but that evidence can never be complete "truth" due to deep time. All we can do is find the most likely path evolution took. 

If you are truly curious I can direct you to some really great videos explaining this in detail but in a nutshell "absolute truth" cannot always be found and the further back in time you go the less absolute things become.  

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dimmesdale said:

So where is all that overwhelming scientific evidence for fish lineage of man? How can it be fact-checked against what actually happened since it is a historical truth claim? History only happens once? Isn't the claim overstated?

Here is a recent article on that matter........

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/863/nasa-study-reproduces-origins-of-life-on-ocean-floor/

NASA Study Reproduces Origins of Life on Ocean Floor:

 

Scientists have reproduced in the lab how the ingredients for life could have formed deep in the ocean 4 billion years ago. The results of the new study offer clues to how life started on Earth and where else in the cosmos we might find it.

A time-lapse video of a miniature hydrothermal chimney forming in the lab, as it would in early Earth's ocean. Natural vents can continue to form for thousands of years and grow to tens of yards (meters) in height. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Flores

Astrobiologist Laurie Barge and her team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are working to recognize life on other planets by studying the origins of life here on Earth. Their research focuses on how the building blocks of life form in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

To re-create hydrothermal vents in the lab, the team made their own miniature seafloors by filling beakers with mixtures that mimic Earth's primordial ocean. These lab-based oceans act as nurseries for amino acids, organic compounds that are essential for life as we know it. Like Lego blocks, amino acids build on one another to form proteins, which make up all living things.

more at link.....

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dimmesdale said:

So where is all that overwhelming scientific evidence for fish lineage of man? 

!

Moderator Note

I don’t know what “fish lineage of man” means, but read the thread if you want to read about evidence of human common ancestry.

In this thread, however, the assumption is that the prevailing theory is correct. Challenges to it, in this thread, are off-topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, dimmesdale said:

History only happens once? Isn't the claim overstated?

No, when has history ever happened twice?

It's like trying to walk over the same river twice; at some point it didn't/doesn't have a bridge... ;)

Or water.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2005 at 7:40 AM, Radical Edward said:

I see there are a few creationist posters here from time to time. So here is a very small amount of the evidence for common ancestry with the rest of the apes:

 

(1) Chromosome Banding Patterns

 

Here is Human Chromosome 2, alongside Chimp, Gorilla and Orang-Utan 2p,2q

 

hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

 

you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same. one major difference of course if that the other apes have 2 chromosomes there, whereas humans only have 1. However when we examine the human chromosome in more detail (which you can't from those diagrams) you find that in the centre of the human chromosome we have telomere like structures, which normally exist only at the ends of chromosomes. telomeres are a bit like the cellular lifetime counter, and a bit is lost on each cellular reproduction (with the exception of sex cells and cancer, which repair their telomeres) so if a telomere is '=' and a centromere is '8' (that is the bit of the chromosome containing the genes and so on) then the chimp, gorilla and orang utan 2p and q would look like ===888=== and ===888=== but the human 2 looks like ===888====888=== and you can still see this now in humans.

 

Telomeres are highly conserved sequences, which are primarily the same between all organisms in a group, for example all vertebrates have TTAGGG repeating over and over. In primates, between 300-5000 times. Ajacent to these regions are other regions of repeats called pre-telometric regions, which are highly variable, and vary significantly even within a species, but can be recognised between members of a species and closely related species.

 

In Humans, further evidence for a chromosome fusion, the order of these sequences (in the middle of the chromosome between the two centromere sections)

 

pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence. so even these features are conserved.

 

note that only the 2p centromere functions now. the centromere of 2q, while remaining very clear that it was a functioning centromere, is no longer the point where the two chromatids join dusing cellular reproduction.

 

 

This sort of analysis is not limited to chromosome 2, but can be applied to the entire karyotype:

 

YunisFig2.GIF

 

The above image is just of humans and chimps.

 

 

 

(2) Endogenous Retroviral Sequences.

 

Retroviruses are a class of viruses that have their genetic material in the form of RNA and consist of groups such as the oncoviruses (e.g. HTLV-1) and lentiviruses (e.g. HIV). Normally DNA is transcribed into RNA before being read in order to produce proteins, however retroviruses use Reverse Transcriptase in order to take their own RNA and integrate it into the organisms own DNA. Like all genetic processes however, there is a risk of inaccuracy, and sometimes a retrovirus may become crippled by a mutation during reverse transcription, and hence may not be able to reproduce itself as a normal virus would.

 

Endogenous retroviruses may embed themselves into any cell in the body, and this includes the sex cells (gametes) as well as the normal body (or somatic) cells. If an ERV occurs in a sex cell that goes on to fertilise an egg (or be fertilised by a sperm) then the ERV will be present in every single cell of the new organism, including it's sex cells (well since it will be in one chromosome, initially it will only be in 50% of the sex cells).

 

Now one of the most important theories within evolution is that of random genetic drift, and this is an element of evolution that was only understood after the discovery of DNA. Genetic drift is a stochastic (statistical definition) process in which a particular allele (version of a gene), or bit of the DNA, will randomly increase and decrease in presence in the population, provided there is no selection pressure on that particlar allele or section of the DNA, and eventually it may become fixed within the population i.e. when it is present in all members of the population. This may happen to an ERV which became embedded within one particular individual; via random genetic drift it may become embedded in the whole breeding population. This occurs more rapidly in smaller breeding groups than large breeding groups.

 

The next step is the consideration of ancestry. If we have a group A, all of whose members have a particular ERV, we will call this ERV 'E1', and this group splits into 2 new groups, B and C, perhaps by a river forming in the middle of the group across which none of the organisms can cross, now both groups B and C will still have this ERV in all members. Now let us say that a new ERV is introduced into a member of group B and becomes fixed in group B. all members of group B will have this new ERV, which we will call 'E2'. now when we look at populations B and C, we see that B has both E1 and E2, and C has only E1. this means that E2 was introduced to the population B after B and C became separated. If B furter splits into Bi and Bii and Bii has a new ERV 'E3' fixed within its poulation, we find that Bi has E1 and E2, Bii has E1 E2 and E3 and population C still only has E1, so we can build up a tree of what order these different groups broke apart. An important point to note, is that we should never find a retrovirus shared between, for example, Bii and C alone, since the common ancestral group between Bii and C is the same common ancestral group with Bi: if an ERV becomes fixed in A, then all of its ancestors should have the ERV.

 

By examining ERVs, we can look at ancestral links between these populations. if we look at the presence of retroviruses within a population we can find when a particular group broke away from a different group due to the presence of the retroviruses within the group.

 

here is a chart of ERV distributions in the primates, and the phylogenetic tree constructed from it

 

retrovirus.gif

 

the above diagram is from the following paper:

 

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

 

also we have

 

gkg496f3.gif

 

fig 3: Results of the 12 chimeric retrogenes insertional polymorphism study. The chimeras’ integration times were estimated according to the presence/ absence of the inserts in genomic DNAs of different primate species.

 

Note that u3-L1;Ap004289 is a polymorphism within the human species -- it integrated since the LCA of humans.

 

Ref: Buzdin A, et al. The human genome contains many types of chimeric retrogenes generated through in vivo RNA recombination. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Aug 1;31(15):4385-90.

 

 

A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded, however there are multiple problems with this hypothesis.

 

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

 

Secondly, there is no good reason as to why this would form the phylogenetic tree that it does. Even if there was a virus that was simultaneously capable of infecting every kind of primate from new world monkeys through to humans, there is no reason to think that this virus would actually infect every available primate and become fixed in every single population. we might well expect several to be missed i.e. we might see spider monkeys, bonobos, chimps and humans infected, but not gorillas or Orang Utan. we do not find these spurious distributions of ERVs.

 

Thirdly, we just do not find these sorts of retroviruses that have such a wide species affinity. and again, even if we did, there is no reason that the retroviruses would form the phylogenies that they do.

 

Fourthly, the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses. the retroviruses that we see in different species are crippled in the same way. If the retroviruses are the result of multiple infections, then there is no reason to expect the retroviruses to be crippled in the same way in different species.

 

Finally, additional alterations have been made to the ERV sequences over time. Since the ERVs themselves are not selected for or against, they themselves may be altered due to the same kind of genetic drift that caused them to be embedded within the population. we see inheritance of these changes too, that also match the phylogenetic tree of the presence of different ERVs.

 

Other Phylogenetic trees can be constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA)

 

(3) Transposons.

I will be brief with transposons since most of what needs to be said has already been said in the ERV section. Transposons are a form of internuclear parasite; they are sections of the genome that can copy and paste themselves around the rest of the genome. Again these transposons may become fixed within the population, and form the same sorts of phylogenetic profiles as ERVs. transposons are however completely independent from ERVs and function with a different mechanism (i.e. they do not use reverse transcriptase, they do not have viral coat proteins and they cannot cross cellular boundaries). The only possible mechanism of infection of another organism is via germ line cells - you may infect your children in other words, but nobody else. In this case there is absolutely no possibility for multiple insertions. The same phylogenetic trees can be constructed from independent analysis of transposons. It is these transposons which are responsible for much of the intergenic DNA and are also used in DNA fingerprinting, since cutting of certain chunks of DNA results in the same patterns for a given individual.

Well that is mighty interesting, however humans and dogs share 84 percent of the same dna, so did humans decend from dogs or did dogs decend from humans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Well that is mighty interesting, however humans and dogs share 84 percent of the same dna, so did humans decend from dogs or did dogs decend from humans.  

Neither but both do at some point have a common ancestor, probably back in the triassic or jurassic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Neither but both do at some point have a common ancestor, probably back in the triassic or jurassic 

How come a peterbilt 18 wheel semi has cylinders just like a smart car.  Are they decended from a common ancestor or did their creators just use the most logical best working parts.

 

Face it  mammals are machines just like cars, only they were designed to reproduce and better themselves without further help from the builder.

 

There is zero possibility of hundreds of thousands of dna lines happening in the mud randomely to form the simplest protozoan

 

Why do people believe in mathematical impossibility

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Polinski said:

How come a peterbilt 18 wheel semi has cylinders just like a smart car.  Are they decended from a common ancestor 

Yes!!! :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Why do people believe in mathematical impossibility

aha! - that's your conceptual error... incredibly low probability does not equal zero probability... especially when talking about timeframes of many billions of years - that's a very long time.

 

38 minutes ago, Polinski said:

There is zero possibility of hundreds of thousands of dna lines happening in the mud randomely to form the simplest protozoan

That isn't evolution of modern animals from a common ancestor though - that is closer to abiogenisis I think. There are speculations as to how it could have happened (of course no one can know as they were not there and it isn't really observable)... all  require a very long time to happen. Hundreds of millions of years...  which in the time frame of many billions, is obviously long enough as it clearly happened somehow or we would not be here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polinski said:

There is zero possibility of hundreds of thousands of dna lines happening in the mud randomely to form the simplest protozoan

The evidence would suggest it only happened once, or at least it was whittled down to one, much like the evolution of the internal combustion engine.

1 hour ago, Polinski said:

Why do people believe in mathematical impossibility

In context, it's because they read a book about evolution (and we are here); you should try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polinski said:

There is zero possibility of hundreds of thousands of dna lines happening in the mud randomely to form the simplest protozoan

Do you have evidence or calculations to support that, or is it just something you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Polinski said:

How come a peterbilt 18 wheel semi has cylinders just like a smart car.  Are they decended from a common ancestor or did their creators just use the most logical best working parts.

Technological machines like trucks do not reproduce with variation. They do not descend from anything... 

Quote

Face it  mammals are machines just like cars, only they were designed to reproduce and better themselves without further help from the builder.

You face it, the idea that life forms are machines is just an analogy and like all analogies it breaks down if you take it too far... 

Quote

There is zero possibility of hundreds of thousands of dna lines happening in the mud randomely to form the simplest protozoan

The first life forms are gone, we have no examples of them, protists are not comparable to the first life forms. Protists are vastly more complex than bacteria and bacteria are extremely complex as well. I'm going to risk a neg vote here and post this for you. Watch it and get back to me when you have a minimal clue about how evolution and abiogenesis works.. 

#3 is the one about abiogenesis:
 

 

I would like for you to show evolution is a mathematical impossibility, in fact recent calculations indicate that life is an inevitable result of the laws of physics. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Quote

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

 

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Technological machines like trucks do not reproduce with variation. They do not descend from anything.

Mitsubishi would strongly disagree. 

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.