Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[tas8831]

My point is the small percentage of difference in DNA makeup must be significant to account for those differences between human and the other apes. Or that there is more than simply difference in DNA makeup to account for the differences between human and the other apes, considering none of those other apes build high-rise, make spacecraft, invent missiles, plant gardens, design landscape, etc.

I am curious - why are creationists so terrified of the prospect that they might not be "special creations"?

 

[tas8831]

Considering there are more similarities between the other apes from each other, while human stands out from the rest of the apes, it wouldn't be a good fit to put human in the same family.

Perhaps, being an expert taxonomist, you can lay out your objective rationale for your classification scheme.

 

[tas8831]

Creationism is not bad logic , evolution is disproven by mutations simple as that .

You're a funny guy!

Thanks for the morning joke.

 

[Tom 1]

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about gods or anything supernatural. At best (or worse, depending how you look at it), god(s) and the supernatural are simply irrelevant.

As for your "evolution 2.0" link.... I'll go ahead and advice you to look up information using proper science sources. If evolution is what you wish to learn about, that is.

My basic assumption is that evolutionary theory is accurate as far as it goes, as far as I know it represents the best explanation of available data, and rather than ploughing through a lot of info just to verify that I’m mainly interested in whether or not alternative views might have some validity also. I’m not directly questioning whether or not evolutionary assertions about mankind are accurate or not - as far as I know and accept, they are. I’m curious though about the validity of alternative views. If you have time to read or listen to it this discussion at the Royal Society in the UK seems like more than just a radical fringe meeting, so I’d be interested to know what you think about any of the points raised:
Stephen Meyer Debates Perry Marshall - Intelligent Design vs. Evolution 2.0

 

[xianghua]

Okay.

Now explain ERV's.

no problem. lets start with the notion that ervs are the product of viral insertions. we actually have evidence that ervs parts can evolve from a genome parts (for instance the src gene get into the virus genome from the host genome). another evidence which support this claim is the fact that some creatures cant survive without those ervs. again: its make sense if the original genome always had those ervs but make no sense under evolutionery model since the creature could not survive before it get those viral insertions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no problem. lets start with the notion that ervs are the product of viral insertions.

That's not a "notion". That's a fact.

we actually have evidence that ervs parts can evolve from a genome parts (for instance the src gene get into the virus genome from the host genome). another evidence which support this claim is the fact that some creatures cant survive without those ervs. again: its make sense if the original genome always had those ervs but make no sense under evolutionery model since the creature could not survive before it get those viral insertions.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My basic assumption is that evolutionary theory is accurate as far as it goes, as far as I know it represents the best explanation of available data, and rather than ploughing through a lot of info just to verify that I’m mainly interested in whether or not alternative views might have some validity also. I’m not directly questioning whether or not evolutionary assertions about mankind are accurate or not - as far as I know and accept, they are. I’m curious though about the validity of alternative views. If you have time to read or listen to it this discussion at the Royal Society in the UK seems like more than just a radical fringe meeting, so I’d be interested to know what you think about any of the points raised:
Stephen Meyer Debates Perry Marshall - Intelligent Design vs. Evolution 2.0

I know the points they raised. I'm familiar with the intellectually dishonest approach of the discovery institute.

Their arguments are religiously motivated.
That's the only reason they talk about "design". Because they have an a priori belief that a "designer" exists. Their particular religious beliefs, demand that this "designer" was responsible for the 'creation' of humans (and other living things).

So it's not that they have scientific reasons that push them towards "design", or away from mainstream evolution theory. It's religious belief that demands this of them. Any argument they might give, is just an attempt at rationalization of that a priori belief. They don't have any scientific underpinnings.

 

[xianghua]

Now we need an explanation why, in the creationist model, humans had DNA so incredibly similar to chimps before the chromosomal fusion.

what is the problem actually? why those cars are so similar to each other?:

this is because a common designer- ferrari company in this case. so a common similarity can point to a common designer.

(image from Ferrari Auto: Official Site - Ferrari.com)

 

[Speedwell]

My basic assumption is that evolutionary theory is accurate as far as it goes, as far as I know it represents the best explanation of available data, and rather than ploughing through a lot of info just to verify that I’m mainly interested in whether or not alternative views might have some validity also. I’m not directly questioning whether or not evolutionary assertions about mankind are accurate or not - as far as I know and accept, they are. I’m curious though about the validity of alternative views. If you have time to read or listen to it this discussion at the Royal Society in the UK seems like more than just a radical fringe meeting, so I’d be interested to know what you think about any of the points raised:
Stephen Meyer Debates Perry Marshall - Intelligent Design vs. Evolution 2.0

Nothing new here. Evolution 2.0 is not the repudiation of evolutionary biology that creationists would like it to be and ID is still a fraud concocted by a radical right-wing organization.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is because a common designer- ferrari company in this case. so a common similarity can point to a common designer.

Only in living things, it doesn't concern a "common similarity", it rather concerns a "nested hierarchy". A family tree.

 

[xianghua]

That's not a "notion". That's a fact.

its not and i explained why. but you are welcome to ignore that explanation.

That doesn't make any sense.

indeed. under the evolutionery model it doesnt make any sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its not and i explained why

You did not. You just made a statement. The equivalent of "na-hu!"
And your statement was nonsense.

but you are welcome to ignore that explanation.

There's nothing there to ignore, except yet another whopper of a statement.

indeed. under the evolutionery model it doesnt make any sense.

It's your "explanation" that didn't make any sense, off course.

 

[xianghua]

You did not. You just made a statement. The equivalent of "na-hu!"
And your statement was nonsense.



There's nothing there to ignore, except yet another whopper of a statement.



It's your "explanation" that didn't make any sense, off course.

i will let others to judge...

 

[DogmaHunter]

i will let others to judge...

They already did in the past. Many, many times.

Honestly, your ideas and views on matters of biology, have become quite a joke around these parts.

 

[tas8831]

What makes us human? Unique brain area linked to higher cognitive powers

Great.

"Overall, they were very similar with 11 of the 12 areas being found in both species and being connected up to other brain areas in very similar ways.

However, one area of the human ventrolateral frontal cortex had no equivalent in the macaque -- an area called the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex.

'We have established an area in human frontal cortex which does not seem to have an equivalent in the monkey at all,' says first author Franz-Xaver Neubert of Oxford University. 'This area has been identified with strategic planning and decision making as well as "multi-tasking." '"


11 out of 12... in a macaque. And it is all about connectivity.



You ran away from my question.

You have no answer, just slogans and and your "one big thing."

Boring and predictable.

 

[hecd2]

no. its just means that human get a chromosomal fusion in the past, as you can see in this figure:

Yes, I see that, but that's not the point. Let me spell it out.

According to the Theory of Evolution, humans and the great apes have a common ancestor. However, the chromosome count of humans is 46 and that of the great apes is 48. So we make a hypothesis that there has been a fusion of two of the ancestral chromosomes in the human lineage, some time after the divergence of the lineages leading to chimpanzees and humans. When we were able to test that hypothesis, by developing the technology of genome sequencing, we find there is indeed such a fused chromosome in the human lineage: human chromosome 2 is an end to end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which very closely matches the separate chromosomes 2p and 2q of chimps. The prediction consistent with the Theory of Evolution and the proposition that the great apes and humans share a common ancestor pans out. The fact of the fusion is entirely consistent and supportive of common ancestry. Now, of course you can explain any observation by positing a supernatural event, but such explanations are not just superfluous and lacking in parsimony, but fall outside the remit of science. As Bertrand Russell said: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Now what about the broken GULO gene in simians including humans?

 

[hecd2]

If a classification system defines a class based only on a number - the percentage of DNA, perhaps you can say that. The only thing is, a number does not mean much though, considering humans stand out from the rest of the other apes, while the other apes are more similar to each other.

The scientific conclusion is that humans and both species of chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than chimpanzees are to gorillas or orangutans, so your assertion that humans stand out is wrong. The scientific conclusion is reached through a formal process of comparing a wide range of characteristics including anatomy, physiology and biochemistry using the techniques of systematic phylogenetics. More recently that conclusion has been confirmed by a formal comparison of the human and chimp genomes.

 

[sfs]

The fact of the fusion is entirely consistent and supportive of common ancestry. Now, of course you can explain any observation by positing a supernatural event, but such explanations are not just superfluous and lacking in parsimony, but fall outside the remit of science.

You don't need to posit a supernatural event, just a fusion that occurred early in the history of humans, after their creation. This is one of many areas where creationism makes no prediction, while common descent makes a prediction that turns out to be correct.

 

[tas8831]

If a classification system defines a class based only on a number - the percentage of DNA, perhaps you can say that. The only thing is, a number does not mean much though, considering humans stand out from the rest of the other apes, while the other apes are more similar to each other.

Any living thing 'stands out' from others when you look at them specifically. If they did NOT stand out, they would be the same thing!

 

[hecd2]

another evidence which support this claim is the fact that some creatures cant survive without those ervs. again: its make sense if the original genome always had those ervs but make no sense under evolutionery model since the creature could not survive before it get those viral insertions.

Don't you have a cap key? What you are describing (without supporting citations) is the finding that certain long-present ERVs have been co-opted to perform a function primarily associated with host immunity. See for example Chuong et al, Science 351, 1083-7 "Regulatory evolution of innate immunity through co-option of endogenous retroviruses". There is also some evidence that LTRs associated with ERVs act as promoters or suppressors of various genes. However, I am not aware of any case in which an ERV has been co-opted to provide a fuction which is essential to the survival of the host - perhaps you could cite such a case?

Anyway, the fact that some ERVs are co-opted to provide a fuction is entirely consistent with evolutioary biology, and in no way implies that "the original genome always had those ervs", which is a nonsensical notion.