Do Apes Shave?

[Nathan Poe]

http://www.christianforums.com/t732451-10

Here's another gem:
http://www.christianforums.com/t728200

MY EYES! MY EYES! WHY OH WHY DID I CLICK ON THOSE LINKS!

 

[funyun]

MY EYES! MY EYES! WHY OH WHY DID I CLICK ON THOSE LINKS!

I suppose I should have put up a disclaimer first.

 

[MSBS]

http://www.christianforums.com/t732451-10

Here's another gem:
http://www.christianforums.com/t728200

I'll stick with my original proposition. I found those two threads to be entertaining, this one is just lame.

 

[Tomk80]

I know you don't like to think about such things, but think for a moment what this would mean..
I have considered that the information may not be available, or that it may not exist. They are two different possibilities which is why I ask people who had greater access to the infomration.

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

Well first, littlenipper claimed that he heard that the DNA of the butter bean is similar to that of humans, not that it was. So be careful in your claims. Secondly, if we use the DNA similarities to suggest uca, then, if the butter bean has more shared DNA, then the butter bean would be a closer relative or our assumptions would need to be revised.

Just asking if it exists and if it does what it actually says, why does that seem to scare you. As scientists, (lay) we should want to look at all the possible evidence not just the evidence that might evidence our claims.

It is a good way to either make the claim of common DNA with apes evidence for uca stronger or weaker. It is a question that science should be interested in. A question I am interested in as well. No worries what the evidence says, only finding out wha it says.

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.

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?

But the difference between the sugar and the protein is only one genetic mutation away is it not?

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'.

 

[gladiatrix]

Butterbeans must contain antigen "A"...

I feared this response to my question. When somthing is presented that might evidence or falsify the claims made by evolutionists, arguements are presented that require us to ignore the possibility of what is or is not. I have no interest in where littlenipper got his information or if the information was based on fact or fiction, I am interested however in somone who has access to the evidence, comparing the DNA of humans to the DNA of the butter bean. It would be interesting information to share. We can discuss what that evidence means when we have it.

The antigen in question is found on RED BLOOD CELLS. Butterbeans don't have blood cells that display this antigen. The claim is based on a MISINTERPRETATION of the what antibody cross reactivity means. Allow me to expose this kind of thing for the misinterpretation or, at worst, the deception that it is.

Creationists are claiming that because antibodies to the blood cell antigen A (a glycoprotein) cross reacts with with a glycoprotein from butterbeans, then butterbeans must be closely related to humans. Glycoproteins are proteins that have had carbohydrates (usually sugars groups) attached to them and many species including both humans and beans produce them (Also see this excellent article). Many of these glycoproteins have a similiar structure and composition. Below is a diagram of the blood antigens A and B:

STRUCTURE OF BLOOD ANTIGENS A AND B-Notice that the difference between Antigen A and Antigen be is the presence of a different sugar group. For a fuller explanation of these antigens see The ABO Blood System


The antibodies in question cross reacted with the carbohydrate groups on both the human and butterbean glycoproteins, but ONLY if the butterbean glycoprotein was in high concentration. The fact that a high concentration of the butterbean glycoprotein was required means that the reaction was not very specific and is actually a demonstration of how LITTLE the glycoproteins themselves have in common. All that has to happen for this type of cross reactivity is that the two substance have a structure that is similar in shape (see below). For this reason it is not that uncommon for antibodies to a substance in one species to react with a substance from a distantly related one.

From HERE

SPECIFICITY AND CROSS REACTIVITY

A. Specificity - Specificity refers to the ability of an individual antibody combining site to react with only one antigenic determinant or the ability of a population of antibody molecules to react with only one antigen. In general, there is a high degree of specificity in Ag-Ab reactions. Antibodies can distinguish differences in 1) the primary structure of an antigen, 2) isomeric forms of an antigen, and 3) secondary and tertiary structure of an antigen.

B. Cross reactivity - Cross reactivity refers to the ability of an individual antibody combining site to react with more than one antigenic determinant or the ability of a population of antibody molecules to react with more than one antigen. Figure 5 illustrates how cross reactions can arise.

FIGURE 5

Cross reactions arise because the cross reacting antigen shares an epitope in common with the immunizing antigen or because it has an epitope which is structurally similar to one on the immunizing antigen (multispecificity).

Notice that with Ag C (Antigen C), the epitope (the structure that the antibody binds to) is far less specific for the antibody, but it has roughly the same kind of shape as that of the epitope the antibody was originally generated against. The butterbean glycoprotein is analogous Ag C in Fig. 5. The antibodies against blood antigen A (analogous to Ag A in Fig. 5)reacted weakly with the plant glycoprotein because it was far less of a "match". That is why one needed to have a lot of the butterbean glycoprotein to get a reaction, i.e., it was far less of a "fit" for the antibody that originally was raised against the blood antigen A (also a glycoprotein), that was a much better "fit". One still got a reaction, but this is something that one can expect given that most glycoproteins have structures in common. All that is needed to engender a cross reaction is to have some structure common to both antigens react with the binding site of the antibody.

A classic example of this kind of cross reactivity can be seen in cases of autoimmunity in humans in which antibodies against a pathogenic bacteria ALSO has the unfortunate property of cross reacting with human body cells. As a result, the cells are killed and the organ is damaged, not by the bacteria but by the body's own immune system that is now directed against the human host. Here is an explanation of a common case:

From HERE

The Ability to Induce Autoimmune Responses

Autoimmunity is when the body's immune defenses mistakenly attack the body and sometimes certain bacteria can serve as a trigger for this response.

One way bacteria can do this is by inducing the production of cross-reacting antibodies (def) and possibly auto-reactive cytotoxic T-lymphocytes or CTLs (def). These are antibodies and CTLs made in response to bacterial antigens (def) that accidently cross react with epitopes (def) on host cells.
As a result, the antibodies and CTLs wind up destroying the host cells to which they have bound. Furthermore, when the antibodies activate the classical complement pathway (def), this further stimulates the inflammatory response resulting in more tissue damage. Rheumatic fever triggered by rheumatogenic strains of Streptococcus pyogenes (inf) is an example. Antibodies and CTLs stimulated by antigens of S. pyogenes cross-react with heart and joint tissues damaging the heart and joints.

In the above scenario (well documented), an antibody against a bacterium, S. pyogenes, also cross reacts with human cells......

Now according to the creationists "model" (using antibody cross reactivity as a measure of genetic relatedness), humans should be most closely related to the bacterium S. pyogenes! That is quite ridiculous and shows the depths of ignorance of the creationists who flog this kind of nonsense (the kindest explanation). A darker motive may be that they really know that this kind of analysis is garbage and simply don't care as long as they use the "appearance" of having a scientific case to gull their followers into believing they actually have a scientific case (what I call the "lying for Jesus" brigade). IOW, the ends (keeping the faithful in line) justifies the means (shoddy pseudoscientific bunk like what has been come to be known as the "Bullfrog Affair")

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)

From A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that "Support" Creation by Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites

"Scientific" creationists insist that scientific data demand creation. Yet very few creationist writings contain any data at all. Their "evidence" usually consists of quoting questions raised by scientists (but not the answers), redefining terms to suit their own purposes, misstating evolutionary theory, and implying their own omniscience by saying that evolution is impossible because they cannot imagine how it could happen.

Sometimes, however, creationists interpret data published by scientists without actually presenting the data for the reader to see. They apparently have good reason for withholding this information. One good example relates to the biochemical data that scientists claim agree with morphological, developmental chromosomal, and genetic evidence in showing that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all shared a recent common ancestor. Of course, creationists disagree, and some almost infer that evolutionists are involved in some sort of collusion. They say that evolutionists have to search for the rare "right" molecules that seem to support their case, because most biochemical data actually refute the theory of evolution (Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of Life, Creation-Life Publishers, 1980; also Homology, Embryology, and Vestigial Organs: Common Ancestor or Common Plan? Institute for Creation Research).

In order to support this argument, ICR creationists list several molecules which they say show that humans seem to be more closely related to quite different organisms than the apes. Here are the relationships they claim:

Molecule Nearest Relative to Human

Fetal hemoglobin=========>Horse
Tear enzymes============> Chicken
Albumin=================>Bullfrog
Blood antigen A========>Butterbean
Cholesterol level==========>Garter snake
Milk chemistry============> Donkey

These data certainly would contradict the main prediction of evolution.

How did such an important conclusion slip past the authors of the papers referenced in the creationist books on the subject? When we read those and related papers, here is what we found.

Fetal hemoglobin. Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged around a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Humans have several different hemoglobins. Fetal hemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins, each with 146 amino acids. Horses don't have gamma globins. Chimpanzees do, and it is identical to that of humans (W. De Jong, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 251:217-226). From these data, creationists conclude that a molecule that doesn't exist is more similar to a human molecule than is an identical chimpanzee molecule.

Tear enzymes. The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Variants exist in tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Prager and Wilson showed that chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by fifty-one out of 130 amino acids (in E. F. Osserman, Lysozyme, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 127-141). Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. It is apparent that the creationists either had not bothered to look at this paper when they made their claims or they believe that fifty-one is less than zero.

Albumin. Human and chimpanzee albumin differ by six out of 580 amino acids. Human and bullfrog albumins differ so much that they don't cross-react in immunological tests. They are too different to allow this method to be used for estimating the number of amino acid differences (Wallace and Wilson, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2, 1972). The supposed evidence for creation is contradicted again by reality.

Blood antigen A. This is one of the molecules that determine blood types. They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high concentration (Gottschalk, Glycoproteins, 1972). Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical or nearly identical to those of humans (J. Ruffie, "Immunogenetics of Primates" in Perspectives in Primate Biology edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217). Butterbeans, having no blood, obviously have no blood antigens.

Cholesterol level. Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.

Milk chemistry. We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry. R. E. Sloan, et al., showed that human milk proteins (whey and casein) were much more like macaque milk than donkey milk (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1961, 4:47-62). Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. Even this limited comparison disproves the creationist claim that the donkey is our nearest relative based on milk chemistry.

NOTE: Please read the rest of this article that exposes these creationist tactics as the pseuodscience that it is

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.

 

[gladiatrix]

I want you to show me that humans have a closer DNA relationship to Orangutans then they do with chimps. Put up or shut up.

I want you to actually interact with evidence that is presented contrary to your opinion, both scientific and scriptural, instead of ignoring it out of hand.

Why orangutangs? They certain aren't the only primates with potentially shavable facial hair. If facial hair does the relationship make (according to you) then here's "evidence" that humans are indeed primates:

GORILLA

BONOBOS
:

CHIMPANZEES

HUMAN

There's even evidence for our relateness to other primates in our ankle bones:

From HERE

Modern primates possess a variety of anatomical adaptations for moving through their environment--usually the trunks and branches of trees in tropical and subtropical forests. Many prosimians are renowned for their ability to leap and cling to vertical tree trunks, while monkeys tend to walk on all fours on the tops of branches.

The anatomy of the fossilized ankle bones of Eosimias show that this animal
already preferred walking quadrupedally on the tops of branches like living monkeys.

In addition to verifying that Eosimias is an early higher primate, the new fossils help settle a longstanding debate about where the anthropoid lineage arose on the primate family tree.

Now what I want you to do is show where the evidence for human evolution is flawed or even simplier, why not take Scigirl's chromosome challenge? My case for human evolution is there, where's your's because this shaving/facial hair "argument" is really laughable.

 

[primate]

Eosimias bears a striking resemblance to the Cheshire Cat.

Is this an example of convergent evolution?

*****​

The use of Freud's picture to demonstrate that humans are primates is a reasonable intellectual choice, but I think this picture is even better prima facie evidence that humans are indeed primates.

 

[FSTDT]

Another one for that 'Fundies say the darndest things' list.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've added the quote to the database

The site can be found at FSTDT.com

If there are any more gems like that, feel free to add them to the site

 

[caravelair]

Why is it that apes and monkeys have no beards or mustaches. Apes do not seen to be into body art or body piercing either. This is just an observation. Beards have been around seemingly since Adam and yet I see no connection with primates. Come to think of it, I've seen no ape sporting the "Tarzan" look. After supposed "millions" of years of cavemen hanging around with apes, apes still are not into sporting clothing. In fact, they (unlike us) do not even seem to understand the idea of modesty. It would seem that apart from a few similarities in form, that is where the similarities end. They are animals-----we are humans.

this is going in my 'stupidest things i've ever heard' file.

 

[pi_dude]

you might say its stupid, but have YOU ever seen an ape shave?

 

[Self Improvement]

you might say its stupid, but have YOU ever seen an ape shave?

I shaved a few days ago.

 

[Tomk80]

you might say its stupid, but have YOU ever seen an ape shave?

Every morning when I'm looking in the mirror.

 

[L'Anatra]

you might say its stupid, but have YOU ever seen an ape shave?

Yeah, there's a reason for that. Non-human apes neither have razors nor the ability to craft them.

 

[pi_dude]

*sarcastically* i love the enthusiasm

 

[Smilin]

Apes and humans are two different species. We did not come from them and they didn't come from us.

Don't let the people fool you here, for they are fools themselves.

and according to scripture you are in danger of hell fire!

Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[Self Improvement]

I shaved again this morning!

 

[Electric Sceptic]

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

 

[Self Improvement]

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

You're such a dreamer!

 

[L'Anatra]

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

No chance. The stereotypical creationist never admits to anything at all; you know that.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.
.

Winter H, Langbein L, Krawczak M, Cooper DN, Jave-Suarez LF, Rogers MA, Praetzel S, Heidt PJ, Schweizer J, Human type I hair keratin pseudogene phihHaA has functional orthologs in the chimpanzee and gorilla: evidence for recent inactivation of the human gene after the Pan-Homo divergence. Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;108(1):37-42.

In addition to nine functional genes, the human type I hair keratin gene cluster contains a pseudogene, phihHaA (KRTHAP1), which is thought to have been inactivated by a single base-pair substitution that introduced a premature TGA termination codon into exon 4. Large-scale genotyping of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla DNAs revealed the homozygous presence of the phihHaA nonsense mutation in humans of different ethnic backgrounds, but its absence in the functional orthologous chimpanzee (cHaA) and gorilla (gHaA) genes. Expression analyses of the encoded cHaA and gHaA hair keratins served to highlight dramatic differences between the hair keratin phenotypes of contemporary humans and the great apes. The relative numbers of synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions in the phihHaA and cHaA genes, as inferred by using the gHaA gene as an outgroup, suggest that the human hHaA gene was inactivated only recently, viz., less than 240,000 years ago. This implies that the hair keratin phenotype of hominids prior to this date, and after the Pan-Homo divergence some 5.5 million years ago, could have been identical to that of the great apes. In addition, the homozygous presence of the phihHaA exon 4 nonsense mutation in some of the earliest branching lineages among extant human populations lends strong support to the "single African origin" hypothesis of modern humans.

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

F.B.