Common ancestor between chimps and humans

[whois]

Okay, I've read it and I'm incredibly underwhelmed.

It's 35 year old newspaper article defending punctured equilibrium with some very unclear language about stasis of species and transitional forms. In many places it's simply incorrect, transitional species between groups have been found, even 35 years ago.

????
eldredge, and especially his partner gould, happen to be experts at this stuff.
i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to say they are wrong.

You were implying that your mystery article would explain the hominid fossils in a better way then evolution. You presented an old article supporting evolution, which doesn't even deal with hominids.

and you tell me i misquote people?
here is what i said in the post where i uploaded the file:
here is some more reality in regards to fossils.
the article was written by an evolutionist, the interviewee none other than eldrege.
-post 40

 

[Shemjaza]

????
eldredge, and especially his partner gould, happen to be experts at this stuff.
i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to say they are wrong.

and you tell me i misquote people?
here is what i said in the post where i uploaded the file:
here is some more reality in regards to fossils.
the article was written by an evolutionist, the interviewee none other than eldrege.
-post 40

It's an article written in support of evolution, so what you are getting out of it i have no idea. The Journalist who wrote it obviously missed some points, because I am certain that Eldrege knew about the Archaeopteryx, a classic transitional fossil well established before the 80s.

Punctured equilibrium is evolution, it's a new patter but it functions on the same mechanisms of mutation and selection. It does nothing to support your HGT fancies.

I asked you to explain the existing transitional fossils... you respond with an ancient news article declaring why there are less then people who accepted exclusive gradualism expected. That isn't an answer.

I ask again: Archaeopteryx, Homo erectus, Tiktaalik roseae. Explain them. If you want to say "something HGT" or "Koonin said", then please provide a mechanism and evidence not an assertion.

 

[whois]

If you want to say "something HGT" . . .

the source for this is in post 54

. . . or "Koonin said", . . .

i never mentioned koonin.

BTW, i hardly call a 20 year old article "ancient" in regards to the fossil record.

 

[Shemjaza]

the source for this is in post 54

No. You asserted it.

Evidence, mechanism. You haven't provided these.

i never mentioned koonin.

You have a tendency.

 

[whois]

No. You asserted it.

actually i quoted it from the source, which i posted in post 54.
it's a free article.

edit:
here's the link in case your google is broken.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033532/

 

[Shemjaza]

actually i quoted it from the source, which i posted in post 54.
it's a free article.

edit:
here's the link in case your google is broken.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033532/

Thanks for that, very interesting. I appologise, there is in fact evidence for HGT in complex eukaryotes.

I had a look at some more work from the researcher you posted the paper from, for example Horizontal gene transfer from extinct and extant lineages: biological innovation and the coral of life and it seems that the leading researchers into HGT think that it is very important to the evolutionary history of life on Earth, but are still firmly convinced by evolution and in particular VGT clades as accurate descriptions of life.

How does that mesh with your skepticism?

 

[The Barbarian]

We're still waiting for something required by evolution that's ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

I believe we can set that one aside once more.

 

[AV1611VET]

We're still waiting for something required by evolution that's ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

DNA

It gets weaker every year.

 

[Shemjaza]

DNA

It gets weaker every year.

How do you measure the strength or weakness of DNA?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you measure the strength or weakness of DNA?

I would assume that weakening DNA would result in a rise of genetic deficiencies.

 

[Jimmy D]

I would assume that weakening DNA would result in a rise of genetic deficiencies.

Don't go assuming things AV, next it'll be suppositions and you'll be on a slippery slope to becoming an evilutionist.

 

[Loudmouth]

The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, We do not yet have its remains. Lol
-Smithsonian national museum

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

We don't need remains to know that we share a common ancestor with chimps. We have the DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

what genetic evidence might that be?
for example:
Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes. In addition, the discovery of both recent and ancient HGT events in all major eukaryotic groups suggests that HGT has been a regular occurrence throughout the history of eukaryotic evolution.
-Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes The weak-link model.htm

There is also no insurmountable barrier to vertical genetic transfer which is the evidence for shared ancestry. One of those pieces of evidence is the vertically inherited endogenous retroviruses that chimps and humans share at the same place in each genome.

as of 1995, less than 4% of the hominid fossil tree has been found.
eldredge himself, in post 40, does a fair job at explaining the "evidence"

Two new species have been found since then. What we have is several transitional hominid species. How is this not evidence for evolution?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Whats the name of the fossil for icing?
"We do not yet have its remains." -Smithsonian institute

Well whatever. It might be that the ape has the better deal. He doesn't have to work or pay taxes either. "Much Ado about Nothing", perhaps.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither. The point I'm trying to demonstrate is that thermodynamics is a massive and complex field, yet some people believe that their very limited (and very often quite wrong) understanding of it somehow means that they can overturn centuries of scientific study.

It only takes a general understanding of thermodynamics to understand that the massive amount of energy pumped into Earth's ecosystems by the Sun more than offsets any decrease in entropy seen in life. Nowhere in the 2nd law of thermodynamics does it state that entropy can not decrease in local systems. All it states is that the overall entropy of a system must decrease. Even simple things like the Earth's water cycle are decreases in entropy that is offset by the massive increase in entropy for the total Earth/Sun system.

No matter how many times we tell creationists this, they still think that local negative entropy is impossible.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would assume that weakening DNA would result in a rise of genetic deficiencies.

It's always fun to read the opinion of creationists on science.

 

[Loudmouth]

????
eldredge, and especially his partner gould, happen to be experts at this stuff.
i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to say they are wrong.

"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Loudmouth]

I would assume that weakening DNA would result in a rise of genetic deficiencies.

All DNA continues to have the same sugar phosphate backbone. It is as strong as ever.

 

[Loudmouth]

actually i quoted it from the source, which i posted in post 54.
it's a free article.

edit:
here's the link in case your google is broken.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033532/

All of which has nothing to do with humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. Their genomes have already been compared, and no significant HGT was found.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as a reminder, we are talking about chimp/human common ancestry. Here is a chart showing the occurrence of HGT in the Drosophila, C. elegans, and primate phylogenies. Humans are at the bottom.

http://www.genomebiology.com/2015/16/1/50

Since the common ancestor of primates, just three genes have been acquired by the human lineage. Just 3. Only 1 gene has been acquired by HGT since chimps and humans split. There are about 30,000 human and chimp genes that were acquired by vertical inheritance from a common ancestor.

Can anyone explain to me why HGT is such a hindrance for detecting common ancestry between humans and chimps, or even humans and all other primates?