Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?
- Thread starter pshun2404
- Start date
The platypus does not have a bird beak. They are very very different.
Platypus
Duck
That is not a shared feature. The lower jaw is even better since the bird's lower jaw is made up of multiple bones like other birds but the platypus lower jaw is made up of a single bone just like other mammals.
All birds have wings, as do insects, although not all birds fly.
Wing is the name of a function, not an anatomical structure. The wings of birds, insects, and bats are all different. Bat wings are not bird wings.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- then I guess you'd call bacteria "creeping things" too. That'd make the "kind" of "creeping things" so broad as to be useless for descriptive purposes. It doesn't even distinguish by cell type.
Upvote
0
Amen, but here's why creeping things are different. They were made by Jesus, which means they are subject to death. From dust they are made and from dust they shall return UNLESS they are born again Spiritually by the invisible God. Amen?
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Are you unaware that there are organisms which are functionally immortal and thus, barring being consumed or killed by disease, they don't die? For example, there is a species of jellyfish that cycles between being an adult and returning to it's equivalent of a child state. The Nepenthes I grow have no correlation between their age and death and the small species that don't vine could live indefinitely, as they will never grow to the point of being structurally unstable. Well, those, and ones grown in cultivation that are trimmed periodically.
Upvote
0
No flesh is functionally immortal since everything Jesus made (His kinds) are subject to death UNTIL death is destroyed at the end of the present 6th Day. Then, those who have put on immortality, will live longer than Nepenthes. God Bless you
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- the jellyfish is demonstrably functionally immortal. Functional immortality means that an organism's cells do not age after a point, or that the organism has a process by which to rejuvenate cells such that aging is reversed periodically. Anything that is functionally immortal will not die of old age.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Those are examples of genetic mutations having a deleterious effect on the brain, nothing more.
You seem to have missed the point that mutations in brain related genes have deleterious effects.
But you didn't do that, you keep referring to arguments you never made. Now there was some discussion of Hox genes which hardly account for the massive overhaul of brain related genes 2 mya.
The obvious fact here is we are not talking about a bladder. The human brain is developed by a large number of highly conserved genes. The effects of mutations on the human brain from mutations are always deleterious, when they actually have an effect.
There have been no such proofs, arguments or even a serious suggestion. It's called begging the question of proof.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Don't pretend that the mutations being present in and of themselves doesn't mean a person will have the disorder is irrelevant. It is extremely relevant; why would it matter if there are more detrimental mutations than benign ones if the detrimental effect doesn't consistently happen?
And you keep ignoring that brain related mutations don't always result in negative effects. It's not like we'd name the conditions that result from the benign ones. We just say some people are better at math, etc.
-_- the brain related genes we were discussion aren't HOX genes. Not all brain related genes are HOX genes, in fact, nearly all HOX genes are genes that guide the differentiation of organ tissues and body anatomy position. Where the brain goes, not how big it gets.
I literally Google searched this last time it came up and found out that brain related genes are some of the most mutation prone in our species. What source is telling you the opposite?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic-mutation-sleep-less/
The Transcriptional Repressor DEC2 Regulates Sleep Length in Mammals
Sources on the DEC2 gene mutation that, when present in humans, reduces the length of time needed to sleep. It has an effect, and it isn't detrimental or resulting in the loss of a function. This better be the last time I have to mention this.
Note that the purpose of the original study that found the mutation and its effect was to find genes that regulated sleep in humans. They noticed that all people that required less sleep to function normally had an unusual sequence, and were able to determine the function of the gene that way.
The DEC2 gene mutation has been demonstrated to exist, and its effect in humans has been known since 2009.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Don't pretend that's what we are talking about because you know better. We are talking about an effective cause for the three fold expansion of the human brain, and you don't have a single example of a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.
Never said they did although I've never seen a real example. The math tells us that the overwhelming, if not exclusive, effect of genetic mutations on brain related genes is deleterious. Examples to the contrary are nonexistent.
A cute statement, not related to adaptive evolution.
Well I do hope this is the last time you bring it up because the short term effects of brain related genes in mice doesn't interest me much.
A mutation that helps you sleep isn't exactly a viable means for 60 de novo genes. The example is at best anecdotal.
Upvote
0
What about the differences between the human and chimp genomes in those genes? Are all of those differences deleterious?
Upvote
0
Tanj
Redefined comfortable middle class
- Mar 31, 2017
- 7,682
- 8,316
- 59
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Same way you missed the 16 mutations in HAR1A that I posted that are not deleterious. Your constant repetition of the same proven falsehood over and over doesn't make it any more true.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I don't know why you feel the need to keep mentioning that there are mutations that result in detrimental effects on the brain. There are mutations for every organ that will mess it up to various extents.
BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY. ALL MUTATIONS IN BRAIN RELATED GENES DO NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS. So, what is the point of bringing this up all the time? I know plenty of mutations result in horrific mental defects. But not all of them do, and some are measurably benign.
I will hunt down the thread so help me. Nothing irks me more than being accused of being a liar. It wasn't even that long ago, the thread is within the first two pages of the subforum.
Which are not conserved in humans at all. Before, you specified the gene area for this, making it very easy to look up the fact that it was one of the most frequently mutating gene regions in humans.
So you are just going to ignore the multiple benign brain mutation examples people have given you, as well as the specific one I PROVIDED SOURCES FOR. Threads aren't fresh starts every time, you can't act as if I haven't provided sources within a currently active thread you are participating in. You can't pretend we haven't conversed on this matter before.
Genetic basis of human brain evolution overall about the genetics of human evolution, including the brain.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/garbled-dna-might-be-good-for-you/ how widespread significant mutations in somatic cells are in healthy people. 30% or more of your liver cells have an extra chromosome or are missing one, for example.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/gene-regulates-sleep-length DEC2 genetic mutation that allows for less sleep... again. The specific label for the mutant version of the gene being hDEC2. I will not stop mentioning this until you listen.
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Ok, great! Thrill me with your acumen!
You started out OK, then went pure Duane Gish. Phylogenetics is "Largely opinion" you say?
I suggest maybe reading Felsenstein's "Inferring Phylogenies" or Nei and Kumar's "Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics".
Speaking of rhetoric...
You do realize - given your claims of decades of reading and work in the relevant sciences - that molecular phylogenetics methods are TESTED? Their outputs are not 'opinions'. Due to the nature of molecular data there are certainly confounding phenomena that can, depending on the type and amount of data being used, produce inconsistent outputs and the like. But that no more invalidates molecular phylogenies than does the fact that there are Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationists and this invalidates the veracity of Scripture (there are other things than can do that).
Such projection is rarely seen in the public at large, but it is part of the anti-evolutionist's tool kit.
This is the crux of my 'challenge' that you eventually addressed here, but as is your usual fashion, you wrote much more than was needed to simply avoid actually addressing the issue.
The issue I brought up is that you seem to focus on the length of the sequences. I pointed out that it is very common to have differing lengths of sequence for the 'same gene' due to areas of interest, reference sequences, sequencing difficulties, etc., and wondered if you had or would look into that possibility rather than attributing it all to some nefarious conspiracy.
Your response was largely irrelevant, but the bottom line, in my estimation, was that yes - you focused solely on the length of the sequences, which, due to my knowledge of the techniques involved and the impetus for generating sequence data in the first place, was superficial at best. As seen here:
Seems that your decades of reading would have informed you that genes often acquire different functions (e.g., genes important during development often play rather mundane roles later on) and that genes can be copied/modified and end up performing other functions.
But I suppose all that amassed knowledge is all just 'speculation' and opinion, too, right?
Half-true, at best.
I do enjoy the substantial amount of projection that ensues:
You just described creationism to a T.
Actually, if I had only the shallow, cherry-picked information you provided, I might be skeptical.
Alas, when I chose to work in phylogenetics lab in grad school, I was exposed to REAMS of data, not just a couple of cherry-picked 'what-do-you-think-of-THIS!!!' poorly described examples.
When one looks at the totality of available evidence (or even a chunk of it), looks at the actual large-scale patterns as opposed to a couple of anomalies, it becomes not just intuitively correct, but empirically supported conclusion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
It is an amazing thing.
I found it difficult, using the normal sources (NCBI), to confirm the numbers supplied below (e.g., 87,092 bases for HDLBP). So, I just googled "Human Gene HDLBP" as written ...
... and darned if I did not find this:
at Yahoo Answers from 10 years ago.
The link provided then is dead, which may be why I cannot verify the numbers.
Isn't that an amazing un-cited coincidence????
I found it difficult, using the normal sources (NCBI), to confirm the numbers supplied below (e.g., 87,092 bases for HDLBP). So, I just googled "Human Gene HDLBP" as written ...
... and darned if I did not find this:
For example, Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) is a "High density lipoprotein-binding protein, also known as vigilin, is a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules and may function in the removal of excess cellular cholesterol." It is 87092 base pairs long.
In other species it is:
(Rat) Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) - 68238 base pairs - also performs a similiar function.
(Fly) D. melanogaster Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB) - 9119 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Roundworm) C. elegans Gene C08H9.2 (C08H9.2) - 3900 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Yeast) S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) - 3669 - where it is thought to be used in cell division
In other species it is:
(Rat) Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) - 68238 base pairs - also performs a similiar function.
(Fly) D. melanogaster Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB) - 9119 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Roundworm) C. elegans Gene C08H9.2 (C08H9.2) - 3900 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Yeast) S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) - 3669 - where it is thought to be used in cell division
at Yahoo Answers from 10 years ago.
The link provided then is dead, which may be why I cannot verify the numbers.
Isn't that an amazing un-cited coincidence????
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Because you think they are a vehicle for adaptive evolution, I know better.
All I'm finding is tumors, cysts, cancer and an array of neurological disorders. Now if you want to assume neutral or nearly neutral effects I suppose that's your prerogative but they are not going to result in adaptive evolution.
I don't think your lying, I think you've been taken in by this Darwinian mutations plus natural selection equals adaptive evolution. It never stands up to close scrutiny.
Which are not conserved in humans at all. Before, you specified the gene area for this, making it very easy to look up the fact that it was one of the most frequently mutating gene regions in humans.
I've pretended nothing of the sort, neutral effects are not an explanation for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes.
- Human brain volume in cm^3, 1129-1685
- Chimpanzee brain volumn, 230-415
- Gorilla, 400-565
- Orangatan 300-400
- Gibbon 70-152
- Old World Monkeys 33-205
- New World Monkeys 4-123
This anthropocentric notion is incomplete at best. First, the superior human brain is the result of progressive changes over a prolonged period of 60–70 million years in the lineage leading from ancestral primates to modern humans, although the rate of change has been particularly dramatic in the last few million years
Now that represents a burden of proof, based on genomic comparisons. Bruce Lahn, one of the authors of the paper you cited and linked had this to say about human brain evolution:
“For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said Lahn. “Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes—and even that is a conservative estimate.” (Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'. HHMI)
Bottom line:
For all these reasons, genome biologist Angelika Amon at MIT (and also a Howard Hughes scholar), whose research focuses on aneuploidy in cancer and aging, thinks that major genetic variation in healthy bodies has been overestimated. That’s in part because she thinks it is biologically implausible: Her studies shown that aneuploidy makes cells grow slowly and show signs of metabolic stress. “Everything we’ve studied about aneuploidy in yeast, mouse and humans shows us that having the wrong chromosome number is not a good thing,” she said. (Garbled DNA Might Be Good for You, Scientific American)
All very interesting but this one is a fairly normal protein coding gene. This mutation appears to be effecting normal circadian rhythm, not really effecting brain development or function.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- circadian rhythm is controlled by the brain. Sleep is a brain function. But no, says the guy that acted as if metabolic disorders were the result of brain gene mutations. You like to broaden your choices when it suits you, but when it does it, you sure like to narrow your perspective. Sleep is controlled by the brain, I will not stand for your suggestion that it is not relevant to brain function when it is controlled by the brain directly.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
