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

[VirOptimus]

its not a game and you have no answer. thanks.



its my tip to you actually.

I have already answered, and its not a game but you seem to think so. The truth is that the ToE is established science. Creationism is a minor quirk, but has no real impact in the real world.

Also, you have made so glaringly ignorant posts and mistakes that its very hard engaging you. You should at least educate yourself on the basics, knowledge is a good thing, not to be feared.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

first: they do talk about some convergent traits in that fossil.

Convergent traits isn't the same as convergent evolution. They are two completely different things.

second: so its not a scientific claim.

I really do not think that you're in a position to make that statement.

and thirdly: you are the one who asked for them.

I did yes, but you are still also to blame for bringing up the topic on this thread in the first place, a topic which has nothing to do with the topic of the OP.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

do you want that the designer will fix the gulo pseudogene in real time in front of our eyes?

No, I want you to stop tap-dancing and address the actual topic.

You came up with the analogy of Ferrari car designers. I pointed out how your own analogy supports the lack of an intelligent designer. As life is full of things that no human intelligent designer would put in there or leave in there. So, you need to explain why an all-powerful God would be incapable of designing life as competently as Ferrari engineers design cars.

You have been unable to address this, and simply reply with snarky non-sequiturs as you do above.

EDIT: Looking at the two posts immediately above mine, it appears that we all are having the same problem of Xinghua being unable to address the topic under discussion and then tap-dancing around.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually never said its a mainstream position.

I said you were implying it. If you recognized it as a wingnut position with little evidence supporting it, you wouldn't continue to bring it up as if it is a valid position.

actually in hebrew its a bit different and they called "קופי אדם" or "human monkeys". so or so, of course i refer to chimp, gorila and orangutan.

Wow, so even ancient Jews noticed that organisms such as chimpanzees were very similar to humans. So why do people get offended at humans being apes again?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Natural selection doesn't have much effect on the overall genome composition for species like humans, since ~90% of our genome is not under selective constraint. So mutational biases indeed do pretty much control genome composition -- but they in no way argue against common descent.

But, his claim was that the entire genome would become all T/A pairs, not just the non-coding regions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

some fish are actually closer to tetrapods then to other fish. so evolution is false now?

Even lungfish, which can go on land, do not have 4 legs. They use their fins; it is very easy to look at their skeletons and see that they are fins and not feet: http://www.pbmnh.org/museum-store/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lungfish.jpg

skeleton of another fish for comparison: https://www.sportfishingmag.com/sit...7/fish-skulls-12-snook-side.jpg?itok=MLWkAXV2

If you mean Tiktaalik, yes, some fish did have more tetrapod traits than others. But the defining feature of tetrapods is locomotion utilizing 4 feet/legs. If it doesn't have 4 feet/legs, it isn't a tetrapod. -_- and no, tetrapods do not stop being tetrapods if they lose a limb due to violent removal, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

like those once?:

(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

I'm awaiting you explaining this theory with impatience.

Or is it restricted to "it looks like x, so I'm gonna say it's x"?

 

[USincognito]

land tetrapods are considered to be evolved lobe-finned fish. Ray finned fish aren’t closely related to land tetrapods because they are on a different branch of evolved lobe fins. They both share that lobefin ancestry

Close. Both ray finned and lobe finned are descended from basal boney fish (as opposed to cartilaginous fish).

 

[USincognito]

. -_- and no, tetrapods do not stop being tetrapods if they lose a limb due to violent removal, etc.

Or if a mutation to Shh/Hand2 causes them to lose a pair (cetaceans) or all four (snakes, caecilians) limbs, or if they're no longer terrestrial (sea turtles, mosasaurs).

 

[Brightmoon]

Tetrapods have 4 limbs or their ancestors had 4 limbs . Quadrupeds walk on 4 limbs . Snakes, humans, and birds are tetrapods but they aren’t quadrupeds

 

[hecd2]

actually the creation model predict it too. this is because of the fact that we already knew that human and chimp share about 98%. therefore if human lack 2 chromosomes we can predict that they stil exist in the genome. no evolution required here.

Ah, no. First of all there is, as others have pointed out, no creation model. Second of all, if you acknowledge that human and chimp share about 98%, you have the problem of explaining why that would be if humans and chimps are unrelated and are both the results of separate special creations. And third of all, and most relevant to this argument, is that there is no reason whatsoever in a creation scenario to expect humans and chimps (which are unrelated according to creationism) to have the same number of chromosomes (never mind the same genes in the same syntenic loci on the same chromosomes). On creationism, we would not expect or predict any relationship between the chromosome count in humans and chimps.

So whereas the human chromosome 2 fusion is predicted and expected under the evolutionary model, it is no predicted on creationism.

no problem. but lets first deal with your first argument about ervs and chromosomal fusion. by the way as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there.

Waiting for your explanation of GULO and ERVs.

 

[hecd2]

see here:

Paleovirology of ‘syncytins’, retroviral env genes exapted for a role in placentation

Yes, thanks, someone else gave me that.

its not consistent with evolution at all, since evolution cant explain how the creature survived before it get this erv.

The protein did not become an obligate feature for the lineage until after it was co-opted. You will see that syncytins are mainly expressed in utero and are therefore not obligate until the evolution of placental mammals. Is your claim really that the designer actively stuffed a retroviral sequence into the same place of the genomes of multiple species at the moment of their special creation? Really??

I note that the paper you cite supports my position and not yours.

 

[hecd2]

not according to those scientists:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."

Yes, but that conclusion is rejected almost 100% buy other systematicists.

 

[hecd2]

Humans aren’t missing those chromosomes. The two Non-human ape chromosomes are joined together in humans. That’s why we’ve got 23 pair and they’ve got 24

Which is just what we'd expect if humans and non-human apes were closely related through a common ancestor.

 

[hecd2]

Human beings are not just more developed. Our brains are better organised, have new areas, denser numbers of neurons and work in ways we cannot yet quantify to give unparalleled intelligence, Self, Other Nature and God consciousness and spirituality unique to us

Could you give us references for your assertions that human brains are:

• Better organised
• Have new areas
• Have denser neuronal structure

than what? Presumably any other primate, or any other animal? The current thinking, as far as I know, is that the human brain is a scaled up primate brain: Heculano-Houzel, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 10661 - 10668 The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost

 

[hecd2]

explaining on the basis of reductionist or merely naturalistic assumptions, we reject or qualify based on our own eyewitness testimony of the events you are guessing about.

It can't be said too often or too strongly that only natural explanaions are allowed in science. Once you admit supernatural explanations, it's no longer science. As for eyewitness testimony of the evolution of tetrapods, say? Good luck with that.

 

[hecd2]

first: other scientists basically agree with this position too base on some genetic evidence.

Such as?

second: you dont think that an ape is more similar to other ape then to human?

No I don't, certainly not genetically.

 

[hecd2]

this definition fit well with evolution too: whatever you find in nature you can say :"evolution evolved it that way".

Nope. Couldn't explain the crocoduck under evolution. Nor the elephano-pine tree.

 

[hecd2]

ok. are you saying that it cant be the result of parallel loss?

In hundreds of species across the tarsiers, old world and new world monkeys, and the apes including humans, all broken in the same way? No it can't be the result of parallel loss.

 

[hecd2]

again: what is the problem? they were made with a functional gulo and then they got a mutations on it. how it have any connection to a bad design?



its not the same since we are talking about the same model\creature here and not about new once.

The problem is that a tightly related group of animals (including humans) all have a broken GULO gene, broken in the same way. The Haplorhini are all hypoascorbemic in the same way. And the only way to explain that is that they all had a common anestor in which the mutation was present - ie, that they are a clade.