Questions about origins of life timeline

[EternalDragon]

No, there is tons of evidence for it, we have so many transition fossils for that you could make one of those quick flip books and have it start out as the last common ancestor we had with chimpanzees and end up with humans with no significant gaps (so much so that you can almost know the time period for nearly ever change from those ape ancestors to the arp we are today and pick them out if you look closely enough). We are more genetically similar to chimpanzees than any other nonhuman species, and as it turns out, chimpanzees are more genetically similar to humans than any other non chimp species.

Similarities aren't evidence. They are simply similarities. We have things in common with a banana too. We are 50% similar to a banana. So I guess that means that a banana turned into a chimp that then turned into a man.

Fascinating fiction there! Maybe a frog can turn into a Prince?

 

[lasthero]

Similarities aren't evidence.

Yes, they are. If they weren't evidence, a DNA would be useless. DNA is used to determine heredity all the time, so clearly, similarities ARE evidence.

We are 50% similar to a banana. So I guess that means that a banana turned into a chimp that then turned into a man.

No, it would mean that we're very - VERY - distantly related. We share a common ancestor, in much the same way that you share a common ancestor with your cousins, if you have any. You didn't come from your cousins, did you?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, they are. If they weren't evidence, a DNA would be useless. DNA is used to determine heredity all the time, so clearly, similarities ARE evidence.

No, it would mean that we're very - VERY - distantly related. We share a common ancestor, in much the same way that you share a common ancestor with your cousins, if you have any. You didn't come from your cousins, did you?

A cousin could only have 12% similar DNA than you. So are you saying a banana is closer than a cousin???

May I quote you as claiming a banana is a humans cousin?

 

[lasthero]

A cousin could only have 12% similar DNA than you.

Could you repeat this with proper English?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Similarities aren't evidence. They are simply similarities. We have things in common with a banana too. We are 50% similar to a banana. So I guess that means that a banana turned into a chimp that then turned into a man.

Fascinating fiction there! Maybe a frog can turn into a Prince?

The fact that we are so genetically similar to bananas just goes to show that life has a common origin. We are more than 95% genetically similar to chimpanzees! heck all life on earth has some percentage of genetic similarity to each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A cousin could only have 12% similar DNA than you. So are you saying a banana is closer than a cousin???

May I quote you as claiming a banana is a humans cousin?

That 12% is taken from genetic mutations. A cousin has 12% of the same genetic mutations you do. This is very different than taking genes into consideration as a whole.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why change what works?

The only reason that humans reuse designs is because we have limited knowledge, time, and resources. For a being with unlimited time, knowledge, and resources, starting from scratch would be as easy as reusing designs.

So please, tell us, why not change what works?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is a human being.

I thought labels didn't prove anything?

Isn't that what you said?

 

[Kylie]

That is a human being.

This is an ape:

Correction. That is a chimpanzee. Both Humans and Chimps are species that fit into the broader category of "ape".

 

[dad]

Correction. That is a chimpanzee. Both Humans and Chimps are species that fit into the broader category of "ape".

So you feel that this beast is more or less a cousin to you, right? Family tree. Have a banana.

 

[Kylie]

So you feel that this beast is more or less a cousin to you, right? Family tree. Have a banana.

Argument from incredulity. Very convincing.

 

[dad]

Argument from incredulity. Very convincing.

False. I was not arguing AGAINST you feeling related to the foolish looking creature. I was pointing out that you do more or less feel it is like a cousin, or family. Fess up.

 

[EternalDragon]

Correction. That is a chimpanzee. Both Humans and Chimps are species that fit into the broader category of "ape".

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that humans are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Human being.

 

[Kylie]

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that humans are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Human being.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that chimpanzees are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Chimpanzee.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that sparrows are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Sparrow.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that earthworms are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Earthworm.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that jellyfish are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Jellyfish.

Get my point yet?

 

[Kylie]

False. I was not arguing AGAINST you feeling related to the foolish looking creature. I was pointing out that you do more or less feel it is like a cousin, or family. Fess up.

It's not a feeling. It is a conclusion based on evidence from reality.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that chimpanzees are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Chimpanzee.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that sparrows are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Sparrow.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that earthworms are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Earthworm.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the evidence suggests that jellyfish are unique and vastly different from any animal. They make up their own category: Jellyfish.

Get my point yet?

That all those listed categories are created kinds?

 

[Kylie]

That all those listed categories are created kinds?

Come back to me when you can give a clear definition of kind. Until then you have nothing.

 

[dad]

It's not a feeling. It is a conclusion based on evidence from reality.

Whatever reason you feel it might be doesn't matter, you consider the monkeys and chimps kinfolk. Cousins basically. (the only reasons are same state past based misinterpretations of processes and nature)

 

[biggles53]

Because primates are similar to us in design and the ERV's like to insert into certain regions that work best for them. They could be independent insertions.

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

New studies show that human genetics are 6% or more different than chimp genetics. Also 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans.

Here are some large-scale differences that get overlooked in the drive to assert our similarity. Our physiology differs from that of chimps. We do not get the same diseases, our brain development is different, even our reproductive processes are different. Our musculoskeletal systems are different, permitting us to run, to throw, to hold our heads erect. We have many more muscles in our hands and tongues that permit refined tool making and speech.

The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong - Evolution News & Views

Wrong again....but then, you make something of an art form out of that don't you...?

The common "regions" you speak of are like this...

Imagine you hide some objects in several homes within the US and my job is to find them. Now, to make my job a little easier, you narrow my search by telling me that the objects will be found in just 5 states...say, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Ohio and Connecticut.

However, this isn't much of a help is it? After all, I'm still faced with the task of sorting through MILLIONS of homes to find the location of those objects, despite the fact that you have placed them in "preferred regions" or "hotspots", if you prefer.

The likelihood of those ERV locations being identical in the various primate species coincidentally, is of the same order as me being able to nominate EXACTLY in which homes you have placed those objects...!

Try again....!

 

[EternalDragon]

Wrong again....but then, you make something of an art form out of that don't you...?

The common "regions" you speak of are like this...

Imagine you hide some objects in several homes within the US and my job is to find them. Now, to make my job a little easier, you narrow my search by telling me that the objects will be found in just 5 states...say, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Ohio and Connecticut.

However, this isn't much of a help is it? After all, I'm still faced with the task of sorting through MILLIONS of homes to find the location of those objects, despite the fact that you have placed them in "preferred regions" or "hotspots", if you prefer.

The likelihood of those ERV locations being identical in the various primate species coincidentally, is of the same order as me being able to nominate EXACTLY in which homes you have placed those objects...!

Try again....!

I never said coincidentally. You gave an incorrect example. The ERV's aren't hiding from you. They are exactly where they prefer to be. I don't think you'd be surprised to find ants on a sugar cube or flies on dung. Or are those examples coincidences to you as well?