Do Apes Shave?

[Airdude]

Why would we have an inactive gene for an ape hair keratin if we weren't related?

We humans are considered to be primates as are gorillas, chimps, and others. This is however where the relationship ends.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

We humans are considered to be primates as are gorillas, chimps, and others. This is however where the relationship ends.

I'm confused about this. What do you mean by 'this is however where the relationship ends"? The fact that we are primates means that we have a common ancestor with other primates...that's why we're all primates. Just the same as all mammals have a common ancestor. Do you dispute this? And if so, on what basis?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

We humans are considered to be primates as are gorillas, chimps, and others. This is however where the relationship ends.

Humans are part of the Great Ape clade. We just think we are greater than the other members of our clade. We are all part of the family hominidea. There are better know pseudogenes such as the one involved in vitamin C synthesis that we share with the other apes but the subject of this thread seems to be something to do with hair.

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

FB

 

[corvus_corax]

I keep wondering if LittleNipper is going to be honest enough to actually admit in this thread that he was wrong.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (gasp...wheeze)...HAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Dude, you should do standup comedy! That was funny

 

[Airdude]

Humans are part of the Great Ape clade. We just think we are greater than the other members of our clade. We are all part of the family hominidea. There are better know pseudogenes such as the one involved in vitamin C synthesis that we share with the other apes but the subject of this thread seems to be something to do with hair.

Yes, this thread does have something to do with hair. So, if we humans are indeed part of the Great Ape clade as you say then yes indeed, apes do shave.

 

[corvus_corax]

Why is it that apes and monkeys have no beards or mustaches.

Your argument-
"Apes dont have facial hair. Humans do. Therefore humans are not apes"

Ridiculous.

You may as well say- "Orangutans (which are apes) have orange-brown hair. Gorillas do not. Therefore Gorillas are not apes"


Absolutely absurd. Are the YEC's and biblical literalists TRULY sinking this low?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, this thread does have something to do with hair. So, if we humans are indeed part of the Great Ape clade as you say then yes indeed, apes do shave.

I hope you are just being sarcastic about how totally stupid this YEC claim is. I think this was already brought but my wife and daughter don't shave their faces. Does that mean they are not part of the "human clade"? Do you think that boys who haven't started to shave yet are not part of the "human clade'? Did we stop being apes when we hit puberty and had to start shaving?

The hair follicles are there on the faces of both humans and other members of the family hominidea. They also have hairs in them. The just don't grow out in every place under most circumstances and the growth patterns are differnt in different members of the ape clade. There are exception to the follicles not all growing hair, for example, in males of the Ramos-Gomez family. Here is a picture of Danny and Larry.

FB

 

[razzelflabben]

So if it does not exist, what do we do?

Unless you are a scientist, I don't know of anything you or I can do. If you are a scientist, you could test the information is question and get back to us.

It doesn't worry me or scare me. I just don't see why I should provide information that could very well be non-existant.

I just wanted to know if anyone with more access to scientific data could confirm or falsify the information presented. I wasn't aware that this would offend anyone, sorry. I thought it would be interesting information to look at. I'll try in the future to no be so scientifically minded around you. Please accept my appology for asking questions.

So, to lump this all together, I'm gonna make a counterclaim against Nipper here.

Counterclaim:
I haven't found evidence that the DNA of butterbeans is sequenced and subsequently compared with humans. The butterbean DNA has never been sequenced and so we can make no statements on that. The most likely assumption based on the evidence that we can find on the internet is that Littlenipper heard the claim that both butterbeans and humans have a substance that can bind to the same antibody, but that Littlenipper was incapable, due to his limited understanding of biology and chemistry demonstrated in multiple threads, of properly understanding this claim.

According to the source heard by Littlenipper, that both butterbeans and humans have a substance in their bodies that binds to the same antibody poses a problem to common ancestry. According to scientists, this is incorrect, because the similar (note, similar, not equal) results are caused by the beans containing a sugar that is also present in the glycoproteins of humans and apes. Glycoproteins are proteins with sugars attached to them, sugars are just that, sugars. The glycopoteins of chimps are identical or nearly identical to humans. Butterbeans do not have glycoproteins, but they do have sugars.

What now? Impasse, or resolved? And why?

So you are a scientist, how cool! can you do the testing for us?

Nope, not even in the slightest. A sugar is a very simple ring of carbon molecules. A protein containing sugars is a structure of aminoacids and sugars. Amino acids are carbon molecules containing both an amino group (NH2-) and an acid group (-COOH). So proteins and amino acids are very different structures.

DNA codes for amino acids, not for sugars. So the difference between sugars and an aminoacid is not 'only one genetic mutation away', it is 'a lot of mutations away'.

Missed the point, but cool, so how many mutations apart are sugars and proteins?

 

[razzelflabben]

Again, since Littlenipper and razzelflabben appear to want to shut their eyes to the fact that they've been gulled by this lying creationists wolves in pseudoscientific sheeps' clothing (so to speak)

Please explain this to me? I simply asked if there has been a study that compares the DNA of humans and the butter bean and so I have shown myself to be listening to the creationist wolves in pseudoscientific sheeps clothes. I get go confused when I come to this forum debate. On the one hand, we are told that if you don't know something you should listen and learn. But when we ask questions, to learn, we are labeled as creationist who don't understand anything about science and how science works, I appreciate you explaination above, but fail to see how my simple question, shows my bias or understanding and btw, maybe I don't understand genetics, but the question was DNA evidence and not mearly antigen a or b, so am I to assume that you don't know if the DNA tests were ever done?

The point here is that an investigation of the creationists own claims not ONLY shows them up to be either ignoramuses and/or frauds, but actually demonstrates how related we are to chimpanzees/other primates. Littlenipper and razzelflabben, you both really do need to pick up a REAL biology book rather than relying on creationists for your information because what they are hawking here is simply WRONG.

I have no idea what the creationist believe or are saying on the subject, in fact, it was the first time I had heard the claim and all I wanted was to know if the study had been done and if so what the results were! And for that I am a creationist that needs to pick up a biology book, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Science is about asking questions, not assuming to know it all and if I ask a question, I am being more like a scientist than a creationist, and I dare say you need to learn the difference.

 

[Tomk80]

Unless you are a scientist, I don't know of anything you or I can do. If you are a scientist, you could test the information is question and get back to us.

If scientists want to test this, they'll need funding first. As the hypothesis here is wholly unlikely, funding will be hard to find.

I just wanted to know if anyone with more access to scientific data could confirm or falsify the information presented. I wasn't aware that this would offend anyone, sorry. I thought it would be interesting information to look at. I'll try in the future to no be so scientifically minded around you. Please accept my appology for asking questions.

So you are a scientist, how cool! can you do the testing for us?

I'm a scientist, but not a geneticist. Although I have a basic in genetics and could possibly learn the testing methods involved, I have no funding to do the learning and the testing. We just have this information at the moment and with this information we need to draw our conclusions.

Can we conclude that at present, with the information we do have, it seems likely that humans are more closely related to chimps than they are to butterbeans and that most likely the genome will differ accordingly? Why/why not?

And can we conclude that it is very likely that Littlenippers first statement was incorrect and probably derived from a creationist claim that he did not understand fully?

Missed the point, but cool, so how many mutations apart are sugars and proteins?

Depends on the length of the protein. Let's approach this very simplisticly.

Sugars have no base sequence coding for them, so the length of the coding region for a sugar is 0. I couldn't find anything on the length of a glycoprotein quickly, but proteins are usually between 200 and 300 aminoacids in length. Let's say glycoproteins contain 200 aminoacids. Every aminoacids needs 3 bases in the genomic sequence to code for it. So we'd need 600 basepairs in the genome. So coding for the glycoproteins needs 600 more basepairs than coding for the sugar.

Now, not all these basepairs have to have come into the genome individually, but I'm pretty sure that it will be a lot of mutations that is needed.

 

[Nymphalidae]

If scientists want to test this, they'll need funding first. As the hypothesis here is wholly unlikely, funding will be hard to find.

I'm a scientist, but not a geneticist. Although I have a basic in genetics and could possibly learn the testing methods involved, I have no funding to do the learning and the testing. We just have this information at the moment and with this information we need to draw our conclusions.

Can we conclude that at present, with the information we do have, it seems likely that humans are more closely related to chimps than they are to butterbeans and that most likely the genome will differ accordingly? Why/why not?

And can we conclude that it is very likely that Littlenippers first statement was incorrect and probably derived from a creationist claim that he did not understand fully?

Depends on the length of the protein. Let's approach this very simplisticly.

Sugars have no base sequence coding for them, so the length of the coding region for a sugar is 0. I couldn't find anything on the length of a glycoprotein quickly, but proteins are usually between 200 and 300 aminoacids in length. Let's say glycoproteins contain 200 aminoacids. Every aminoacids needs 3 bases in the genomic sequence to code for it. So we'd need 600 basepairs in the genome. So coding for the glycoproteins needs 600 more basepairs than coding for the sugar.

Now, not all these basepairs have to have come into the genome individually, but I'm pretty sure that it will be a lot of mutations that is needed.

You're right, the question just isn't interesting enough to merit funding. Research is done to gather new data, and since we already know that plants are not as closely related to humans as we are to other primates, the project would be a big waste of time.

 

[razzelflabben]

If scientists want to test this, they'll need funding first. As the hypothesis here is wholly unlikely, funding will be hard to find.

I'm a scientist, but not a geneticist. Although I have a basic in genetics and could possibly learn the testing methods involved, I have no funding to do the learning and the testing. We just have this information at the moment and with this information we need to draw our conclusions.

Can we conclude that at present, with the information we do have, it seems likely that humans are more closely related to chimps than they are to butterbeans and that most likely the genome will differ accordingly? Why/why not?

And can we conclude that it is very likely that Littlenippers first statement was incorrect and probably derived from a creationist claim that he did not understand fully?

I kept out of this part of the debate you are in because right now I don't have the time to really get involved in the whole thing. In fact, I had a few extra minutes one day and looked to see what was going on, found this site, read about the butter beans, had never heard that before, thought it sounded interested and thought I'd pop in long enough to ask about it. That's all, you guys can go on with your discussion and the conclusions you can draw about the OP without me for the moment. I don't have time to be interested in that at the moment, maybe later.

Depends on the length of the protein. Let's approach this very simplisticly.

Sugars have no base sequence coding for them, so the length of the coding region for a sugar is 0. I couldn't find anything on the length of a glycoprotein quickly, but proteins are usually between 200 and 300 aminoacids in length. Let's say glycoproteins contain 200 aminoacids. Every aminoacids needs 3 bases in the genomic sequence to code for it. So we'd need 600 basepairs in the genome. So coding for the glycoproteins needs 600 more basepairs than coding for the sugar.

Now, not all these basepairs have to have come into the genome individually, but I'm pretty sure that it will be a lot of mutations that is needed.

Pretty sure I understand what you are saying here, isn't exactly what I meant, but what I meant isn't important for the moment, thanks for the lesson.

 

[Tomk80]

I kept out of this part of the debate you are in because right now I don't have the time to really get involved in the whole thing. In fact, I had a few extra minutes one day and looked to see what was going on, found this site, read about the butter beans, had never heard that before, thought it sounded interested and thought I'd pop in long enough to ask about it. That's all, you guys can go on with your discussion and the conclusions you can draw about the OP without me for the moment. I don't have time to be interested in that at the moment, maybe later.

Okay.

Pretty sure I understand what you are saying here, isn't exactly what I meant, but what I meant isn't important for the moment, thanks for the lesson.

Okay. I'm not entirely sure what you meant than, but maybe later.

 

[pi_dude]

i don't know what u mean either

 

[pi_dude]

 

[random_guy]

All of the great apes including humans have about the same number and density of hair follicles in the same body locations. Some of the follicle grow hair and some don't. Here is an interesting tidbit about hair. Keratins are major structural proteins in hair and skin. There is a hair keratin called phihHaA that is found in chimpanzee and gorilla hair. Humans have this gene but it has been inactivated. It is a pseudogene that was inactivated after humans and the other great apes split from their common ancestor. Here is an abstract on it from a paper on it.
. F.B.

I've often seen Creationists rebutt that scientists have found out that junk DNA isn't junk, it's used as a marker for enzymes to know where to transcribe. Do you know if this is accurate?

With pseudogenes, does the cell use it at all, or could we safely knock out the pseudogene and see no side effect. For example, I know both humans and guinea pigs have a pseudogene for making vitamin C. Since it might be unethical to knock out that gene in a human embryo, could we knock it out of a guinea pig to see if it would adversely affect it? Would it adversely affect it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've often seen Creationists rebutt that scientists have found out that junk DNA isn't junk, it's used as a marker for enzymes to know where to transcribe. Do you know if this is accurate?

Junk DNA is a hold over from the early days of molecular biology (ca. 1960's I believe). It is true that DNA directly upstream of genes do have regulatory functions, binding transcription factors, DNA and RNA polymerases, and other regulatory proteins. The definition of "gene" often includes this upstream region of non-transcribed (ie not made into mRNA) DNA.

With pseudogenes, does the cell use it at all, or could we safely knock out the pseudogene and see no side effect.

Much like the tailbone of humans, pseudogenes can be viewed as vestigial DNA. Just like it's anatomical counterparts, vestigial DNA may indeed have function but it is a rudiment of the function found in other species. The GLO gene (ie vitC gene) is a perfect example. It may have a minor role in regulating surrounding DNA, but no more than a random stretch of DNA might have. The actual sequence of the human/chimp GLO pseudogene tells us that it is over designed for filling such a minor role. That is, it is just one mutation away from producing a functional enzyme found in other species, a characteristic that is not common amongst DNA regulatory control regions. In other words, we know where that sequence of DNA came from, our common ancestor with chimps.

Since it might be unethical to knock out that gene in a human embryo, could we knock it out of a guinea pig to see if it would adversely affect it? Would it adversely affect it?

My prediction would be that if you replaced the human/chimp GLO pseudogene with an equal length random sequence it would not adversely affect the health of the individual. We could try it in guinea pigs, but functional studies of human cells might be more instructive.

 

[MidnightBlue]

Apes cannot grow beards...

 

[MidnightBlue]

Male primates don't shave.

Many male primates do shave -- for instance, I do.

Male primates don't shave. They never shaved. They do not grow beards. Male humans who never shave grow beards. Therefore humans and primates do not share a common ancestor.

If my nephew does not shave his face, he grows a beard.
My niece never shaves her face, and does not grow a beard.
Therefore, my nephew and my niece do not share a common ancestor.

 

[MidnightBlue]

except for the fact that it is a relationship with God not a religion.

"By decent minds is he abhorred
who makes a Babbit of the Lord."
(Thurber)