|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2011 : 15:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
So what Kil is saying is humans are apes with chromosomes that mutated. The common ancestors of apes and humans did not have this mutation or they would have passed it down to both apes and humans. |
Correct. And I'm not saying it. That's what evolutionary scientists and molecular biologists are saying. You know... The experts.
justintime:
When you take chromosome counts apes and potatoes have the same 48 chromosome count. It should be more plausible apes and potatoes share a common ancestor. And yet we do not see evolutionist making that association.
But humans have 46 and apes have 48. So they could not possible have a common ancestor. And here we have both skeptics and evolutionist providing a mutation theory or a missing link theory to explain this anomalie. |
 |
Scientist have already group humans with apes collectively known as the Great Apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and humans. So it should be expected humans have the same set of chromosomes as apes. But Humans don't. They have instead 46 versus apes 48.
Evolutionist explain that the fused chromosomes in humans are essentially the same as apes but have mutated. If humans are already apes what was the need for such mutation and what benefit did this mutation bring to humans. No definable advantage or benefit has been associated either with the mutation or for having a pair short 23 versus apes 24. Natural selection should have provided some obvious clues.
Now to use this fused chromosome which is recognized as a mutation to somehow show humans are apes. When in fact the divergence is pointing to a different evolutionary path.
Chimpanzees and humans diverged some 6.3 million years ago which is about the time Human chromosomes mutated. So why is it evolutionist still maintain humans are apes when the trajectory points to a different evolutionary path for humans. Humans developed speech, larger brain, etc etc.
The association with apes should have been discarded when evidence pointed to mutations in humans which occurred 6 million years ago.
Humans have been in and out of the outgroup in taxa definition. It is time to move it out permanently in light of the new evidence.
How can scientist use what appears to be fused chromosome mutations which distance humans from apes and use it to prove how much closer we are to apes is preposterous. It is no different than heads I win tails you lose. |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 17:03:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Scientist have already group humans with apes collectively known as the Great Apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and humans. So it should be expected humans have the same set of chromosomes as apes. |
True, but that expectation does not follow deductively, but probabilistically. Otherwise, you would be saying that evolution expects no change at all, which is ... stupid.
| Evolutionist explain that the fused chromosomes in humans are essentially the same as apes but have mutated. If humans are already apes what was the need for such mutation and what benefit did this mutation bring to humans. No definable advantage or benefit has been associated either with the mutation or for having a pair short 23 versus apes 24. Natural selection should have provided some obvious clues. |
Why do you think that there would have to have been a selective advantage?
| Now to use this fused chromosome which is recognized as a mutation to somehow show humans are apes. When in fact the divergence is pointing to a different evolutionary path. |
Bollocks.
| Chimpanzees and humans diverged some 6.3 million years ago which is about the time Human chromosomes mutated. So why is it evolutionist still maintain humans are apes when the trajectory points to a different evolutionary path for humans. Humans developed speech, larger brain, etc etc. |
I'm I understanding you correctly? You're accepting that humans and chimps have a common ancestor but you don't think that humans should be called apes since we're different from apes? Perhaps, then, we shouldn't be called mammals since we're very different from rats.
| Humans have been in and out of the outgroup in taxa definition. It is time to move it out permanently in light of the new evidence. |
It's time for something. Like creationists and science-illiterate people to start learning something...
How can scientist use what appears to be fused chromosome mutations which distance humans from apes and use it to prove how much closer we are to apes is preposterous. It is no different than heads I win tails you lose.
|
No, it's simply looking at ALL the evidence. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 17:27:16 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Scientist have already group humans with apes collectively known as the Great Apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and humans. So it should be expected humans have the same set of chromosomes as apes. But Humans don't. They have instead 46 versus apes 48. |
This has been explained already. Sometimes, even within species there is a different chromosome count. Here, we aren’t talking about the same species. We are talking about the same family. Hominidae.
justintime:
Evolutionist explain that the fused chromosomes in humans are essentially the same as apes but have mutated. If humans are already apes what was the need for such mutation and what benefit did this mutation bring to humans. No definable advantage or benefit has been associated either with the mutation or for having a pair short 23 versus apes 24. Natural selection should have provided some obvious clues. |
There doesn't have to be need for it. It just happened. It’s a mutation. A mutation doesn’t need to confer any benefit at all. It can be completely neutral, in which case, natural selection doesn’t play a roll.
justintime:
Now to use this fused chromosome which is recognized as a mutation to somehow show humans are apes. When in fact the divergence is pointing to a different evolutionary path. |
It’s not used to show that humans are apes. You have it backwards. When the difference is pointed out by creationists and you, It’s simply pointed out that it matches up nicely with the ape chromosome at that location and so there is no reason to say that humans are not apes.
justintime:
Chimpanzees and humans diverged some 6.3 million years ago which is about the time Human chromosomes mutated. So why is it evolutionist still maintain humans are apes when the trajectory points to a different evolutionary path for humans. Humans developed speech, larger brain, etc etc. |
DNA. We are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas or orangutans.
justintime:
The association with apes should have been discarded when evidence pointed to mutations in humans which occurred 6 million years ago. |
There are genetic differences between all of the apes. Why should humans be singled out as NOT an ape?
justintime:
Humans have been in and out of the outgroup in taxa definition. It is time to move it out permanently in light of the new evidence. |
What new evidence?
justintime:
How can scientist use what appears to be fused chromosome mutations which distance humans from apes and use it to prove how much closer we are to apes is preposterous. It is no different than heads I win tails you lose. |
They don’t use it to prove that we are closer to apes. What they do is point out that the mutation is insignificant, it lines up perfectly with the ape chromosome, and is not evidence that we are not apes.
You are confused.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 03:25:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Scientist have already group humans with apes collectively known as the Great Apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and humans. So it should be expected humans have the same set of chromosomes as apes. But Humans don't. They have instead 46 versus apes 48. |
That depends on how you look at it. Humand _do_ have 24 pairs of chromosomes, the same as apes. But two of them has fused together. That's why you only get 23 pairs when you count them without looking at them closely enough to see how they are made up. But if you look att the DNA sequence of a chromosome: telomere-centromere-telomere, then we have 24 pairs just like apes.
It's like having 5 nuts and 5 bolts. 10 objects. Then you screw one nut onto one bolt. You still have 5 nuts and 5 bolts, but only 9 objects because you regard the fused nut-and-bolt as one object.
Evolutionist explain that the fused chromosomes in humans are essentially the same as apes but have mutated. If humans are already apes what was the need for such mutation |
There's no "need" for any mutation to bring it around to happen. They just do. Some provide benefits, most don't. Some become fixed in the population even without providing any benefits.
and what benefit did this mutation bring to humans. |
I don't know, and I am not aware of any research made into this. My guess is that cell replication becomes more stable as there is one chromosome less which has to go through the chromosomal replication initiation sequence.
No definable advantage or benefit has been associated either with the mutation or for having a pair short 23 versus apes 24. |
Why should there be? The fusion didn't happen in any coding area, but in the end of telomere-sequences.
| Natural selection should have provided some obvious clues. |
Yes, it should, had it affected any gene-coding sequences. But it didn't, so it does not necessarily have to provice obvious clues.
Now to use this fused chromosome which is recognized as a mutation to somehow show humans are apes. |
Who is doing that?
When in fact the divergence is pointing to a different evolutionary path. |
Of course it is a different evolutionary path! From our common ancestorn, we became humans, and "they" became chimps.
And when the chromosome fusion happened, we diverged from the line of human ancestors which didn't get the fused chromosome. A line which subsequently died out. There's no mystery here, just your ignorance of the subject.
Chimpanzees and humans diverged some 6.3 million years ago which is about the time Human chromosomes mutated. |
(emphasis mine)
I would love to examine your source for this number, because it differs from mine. My source, Dr. Barry Starr of Stanford University says ~1 million years ago.
So why is it evolutionist still maintain humans are apes when the trajectory points to a different evolutionary path for humans. Humans developed speech, larger brain, etc etc.
|
Because there are so little difference between our genomes, we do share so many physical traits, and we share a common ancestry.
The association with apes should have been discarded when evidence pointed to mutations in humans which occurred 6 million years ago. |
Why? We are still closer related to chimps than chimps are related to orangutans. If we put chimps in the same group as orangutans, why shouldn't we include humans too?
Humans have been in and out of the outgroup in taxa definition. It is time to move it out permanently in light of the new evidence. |
Which new evidence?
How can scientist use what appears to be fused chromosome mutations which distance humans from apes and use it to prove how much closer we are to apes is preposterous. It is no different than heads I win tails you lose.
|
A similar fused chromosome difference exists between wild horses and domesticated horses, but we still consider both being horse. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 06:04:13 [Permalink]
|
Here is a phylogeny of primates. You will notice the ancestral primate existed some 60 million years ago. From the Ancestral Primate branched Prosimians(55mya), new world monkeys(40mya), old world monkeys(38 mya), gibbons(35mya), orangutans(15mya), gorillas (8mya), chimpanzees(6 mya) and finally humans.
According to the phylogeny history our ancestral primates existed till the time of chimpanzees and humans branching which is about 6 million years ago. Remember apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Humans entered the scene 6 million years ago.
Now for our ancestral primates to have survived 55 million years. Starting out 60 million years ago and ending with humans. They existed alongside the prosimians, old and new world monkeys and even the apes. One would expect an abundance of evidence in fossil remains of these ancestral primates. One would also be hard press to explain how did they go extinct when other branches of their progeny survived the same millions of years. Yes how did they go suddenly extinct in the last 6 million years.
Why are scientist still unable to point to our common ancestor. It was Lucy, then Ida. What next? Where is that abundance of evidence for something that roamed around for 55 million years.
 |
| Edited by - justintime on 10/18/2011 06:08:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 06:35:33 [Permalink]
|
justintime, what evidence would you require to accept the modern theory of common descent?Originally posted by justintime
According to the phylogeny history our ancestral primates existed till the time of chimpanzees and humans branching... |
No, that's completely wrong.| One would expect an abundance of evidence in fossil remains of these ancestral primates. |
In your fantasy world, yes. Not in the real world.| Why are scientist still unable to point to our common ancestor. It was Lucy, then Ida. |
Those are common ancestors of different groups of living species. Do you even know what "common ancestor" means? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 07:02:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
...gorillas (8mya), chimpanzees(6 mya) and finally humans. |
Not according to the picture you posted below. I can clearly see from that picture that grillas and chimps divirged from humans before them selves split up.
You need to find more accurate pictures, and start dropping references to you info. For all I know, you could be getting most of your shit from irreputable sources like AIG or ICR.
According to the phylogeny history our ancestral primates existed till the time of chimpanzees and humans branching which is about 6 million years ago. Remember apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Humans entered the scene 6 million years ago. |
(emphasis mine) The human ancestral line... yes.
Now for our ancestral primates to have survived 55 million years. |
You got it wrong. Just as wrong as the creationists who insist on asking "If humans evolved from monkies, how come there are still monkies?"
Starting out 60 million years ago and ending with humans. |
A species is defined by its ability to procreate with other individuals of the same species. DNA is an important factor in this, but also behaviour. A species evolves, it changes both DNA and behaviour. Which means that a species is confined not only by these factors in the present, but also in the past. If you could bring forth a Neanderthal man, what would the chance be that a modern woman would start a family with it and rear offspring multiple generations? Our society won't allow Man to procreate with Bonobo. We don't even know it a Homo Sapien Sapien could reproduce with an Australupithecus Afarensis.
There are many many many intermediate separately classified species within the ancestral line tracing back as many years as 60 million.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 08:56:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
One would expect an abundance of evidence in fossil remains of these ancestral primates. |
Why would you expect this? Come on!
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 09:49:05 [Permalink]
|
Looking at the phylogeny of Primates. You can draw a line from the ancestral primate straight to humans. All other prosimians, monkeys and apes branched off the ancestral primate. Since Humans did not evolve from apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) but shared a common ancestor with them. 6 million years ago is where the ancestral primate line ended and the human form began. Why did those ancestral primates go extinct after humans entered the scene?
That is why the search for the missing link is critical to evolutionist. But scientist first claimed a fossil found 3.2 million years old provided the evidence (Lucy). The next claim is Ida a 47 million year old fossil . Margin of error about 44 million years. The max they can go is 60 million years back.
So all the scientist actually have is a pair of fused chromosomes to build their entire case. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 09:51:33 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
According to the phylogeny history our ancestral primates existed till the time of chimpanzees and humans branching which is about 6 million years ago. Remember apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Humans entered the scene 6 million years ago. |
Not humans. The line that lead to humans. Australopiticus was hardly human, but she’s in the line. (Note: There are many branches and dead ends in that line. At times there was more than one kind of hominid living at the same time. We know that the robust kind of australopithecines was a dead end. This is still being sorted out, but a pretty good idea of lineage is emerging.
justintime:
Now for our ancestral primates to have survived 55 million years. Starting out 60 million years ago and ending with humans. They existed alongside the prosimians, old and new world monkeys and even the apes. One would expect an abundance of evidence in fossil remains of these ancestral primates. |
Yeah. And there are still primates that are descendents of the early primates and they still exist. http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_2.htm
justintime:
One would also be hard press to explain how did they go extinct when other branches of their progeny survived the same millions of years. Yes how did they go suddenly extinct in the last 6 million years. |
They didn’t. See above. Of course, the prosimians living today have evolved from earlier prosimians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian
justintime
Why are scientist still unable to point to our common ancestor. It was Lucy, then Ida. What next? Where is that abundance of evidence for something that roamed around for 55 million years. |
Lucy was never considered a common ancestor of chimps and apes. She was pretty far away from the split. She’s around 4 to 3 million years ago. Ardi is closer, but no dice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
The actual animal that can be definitively considered the common ancestor is still being looked for and may never be found, accept by inference. It’s just a matter of time before a very good candidate is found.
We are dealing with very old and rare fossils. (All fossils are relatively rare given the special circumstances needed for there to be fossil remains, it’s amazing that we have such a rich resource of the fossils that we do have. As luck would have it, there are many hominid fossils covering many species.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 10:10:20 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Looking at the phylogeny of Primates. You can draw a line from the ancestral primate straight to humans. All other prosimians, monkeys and apes branched off the ancestral primate. Since Humans did not evolve from apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) but shared a common ancestor with them. 6 million years ago is where the ancestral primate line ended and the human form began. Why did those ancestral primates go extinct after humans entered the scene? |
Humans most certainly evolved from an ape. Just not a modern ape.
Why would you expect those ancestral species to still exist? It’s the lines that still exist which is what can be expected.
Also, the assumption that the common ancestor disappeared at the time of the split is not necessarily so. They just don’t exist today.
MOST species go extinct. 99.9% of all species that lived on earth are gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
There are many reasons why an animal would go extinct. For example, the lines that they produced successfully competed for resources and won. Hence the parent species is gone. But the lines still exist in modern apes and humans.
justintime:
So all the scientist actually have is a pair of fused chromosomes to build their entire case. |
Bullshit. This has all been explained to you. And there is no reason to answer your posts if you are going to ignore the replies.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 10:31:51 [Permalink]
|
I would expect those ancestral primates to still exist or have plenty of evidence they existed. Look at the phylogeny of Primates. There are gaps in the millions of years between tarsiers and new world monkeys abut 15 million years, between gibbons and orangutans about 20 million years, and between orangutans and gorillas, chimpanzees, humans another 5 million years. That adds up to 40 million years of ancestral primates roaming around and no fossil or evidence to fill those gaps.
It is like a Carl Sagan documentary. Every terrestrial event was a few million, billion light years away. For a guy who only lived for 62 years somehow could fathom such large galactic years. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 10:43:23 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
I would expect those ancestral primates to still exist… |
Why?
justintime:
…or have plenty of evidence they existed. |
There is good evidence that they existed. And sure, there are gaps. That's to be expected. Many of these creatures lived in rainforest or environments. Not really conducive for fossilization.
justintime:
Look at the phylogeny of Primates. There are gaps in the millions of years between tarsiers and new world monkeys abut 15 million years, between gibbons and orangutans about 20 million years, and between orangutans and gorillas, chimpanzees, humans another 5 million years. That adds up to 40 million years of ancestral primates roaming around and no fossil or evidence to fill those gaps. |
See above. And while rare, there are fossils in those time periods. Gap arguments make no sense. It's like saying that we found 1, 2 and 3, but 4 and 5 are still missing so maybe they don't exist. Much of science works by inference. So far you haven't presented a thing that challenges the prevailing view. Creationists love "gaps." They throw god in to them. Then when the piece of the gap is filled, that creates two gaps. One on either side. So they throw god into those gaps. And on it goes... It's a foolish argument.
Why don’t you look up the evidence before making an argument from ignorance or incredulity?
| It is like a Carl Sagan documentary. Every terrestrial event was a few million, billion light years away. For a guy who only lived for 62 years somehow could fathom such large galactic years. |
I can’t figure out what you’re saying here.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 10:49:18 [Permalink]
|
Mab:
It's like having 5 nuts and 5 bolts. 10 objects. Then you screw one nut onto one bolt. You still have 5 nuts and 5 bolts, but only 9 objects because you regard the fused nut-and-bolt as one object. |
Great! I wish I had thought of that as a metaphor for what happened! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution Questions
