The Coccyx

[Shemjaza]

So you are saying that you believe humans grew out of an earlier ape lineage some 14 mya and that there is actual evidence you can show me that indicates this event?

Do you have any justification for ignoring the pattern of genetic similarity and the chain of extinct fossil species?

 

[pshun2404]

Not knowing the precise identity of the shared common ancestor doesn't change the fact that there was a common ancestor which is ascertainable by the evidence we do have. We don't need to know the identity of the grandfather of two sets of cousins to know that they are cousins and share a common grandfather. Or would you suggest that if the grandfather's name isn't known then cousins aren't cousins? Because that would be ostriching.

-CryptoLutheran

No I am saying even if you know all your grands and uncles, and Tarzan's Cheetah's whole family for 1 million years there is no reason to infer you are cousins or that you came from the same source. Even if a whole range of Pongidae existed before chimps and humans, the former existing before the latter does not necessitate the former caused the latter. Likewise "Correlations" obtained by man made, programmed algorithms, as well as in statistical analysis, do not guarantee casual or causative relationship only similarity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No I am saying even if you know all your grands and uncles, and Tarzan's Cheetah's whole family for 1 million years there is no reason to infer you are cousins or that you came from the same source. Even if a whole range of Pongidae existed before chimps and humans, the former existing before the latter does not necessitate the former caused the latter. Likewise "Correlations" obtained by man made, programmed algorithms, as well as in statistical analysis, do not guarantee casual or causative relationship only similarity.

So genetics, as a field of study, is pretty worthless then?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pshun2404]

Do you have any justification for ignoring the pattern of genetic similarity and the chain of extinct fossil species?

As already presented many times, what science shows and what Scientists say or believe this means are often two different things.

 

[pshun2404]

So genetics, as a field of study, is pretty worthless then?

-CryptoLutheran

First you did not answer my question. And no, Genetics is a very important study it proves relationship (as to similarity and even some reasons for these), we can see variance and mutation giving rise to sepeciation (variety within a particular organism), we can benefit greatly in studying many illnesses and possibly cures, and much much more, but what it does not prove is that one creature came from earlier types of creatures (like fish into amphibians, or that man is an ape).

 

[ViaCrucis]

First you did not answer my question. And no, Genetics is a very important study it proves relationship (as to similarity and even some reasons for these), we can see variance and mutation giving rise to sepeciation (variety within a particular organism), we can benefit greatly in studying many illnesses and possibly cures, and much much more, but what it does not prove is that one creature came from earlier types of creatures (like fish into amphibians, or that man is an ape).

So using genetics to see the shared relationships between species is important, but it can't be used to show shared relationships between species?

Well okay then.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[pshun2404]

So using genetics to see the shared relationships between species is important, but it can't be used to show shared relationships between species?

Well okay then.

-CryptoLuthearn

Wow, either you missed the point entirely, or you purposely distorted it by equivocation, but either way your answer makes no sense...the term "relationship" can simply mean we share characteristics (genomic, anatomical, physiological, and so on) but does not necessitate LINEAGE. In fact the relationships they demonstrate prove similarity but as you know homology is not science it is a way of classifying!

First our genome shows physically we are all living things
Second that we are mammals
next PHYSICALLY primates
next we are all humans
Genetically we may be most similar to Chimps and Pigs
But none of that shows we came from them or either of them came from each other

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow, either you missed the point entirely, or you purposely distorted it, but either way your answer makes no sense...the term "relationship" can simply mean we share characteristics (genomic, anatomical, physiological, and so on) but does not necessitate LINEAGE.

First our genome shows physically we are all living things
Second that we are mammals
next PHYSICALLY primates
next we are all humans
Genetically we may be most similar to Chimps and Pigs
But none of that shows we came from them or either of them came from each other

And no one said we come from chimps. I said chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pshun2404]

And I never ever said that YOU said we came from Chimps. Where on earth did you get that? Because in the prior post you referred to lineages we are descended from (humans and chimps) and that we share a common ancestor (with Chimps) I asked

"So you are saying that you believe humans (and chimps if YOU wish) grew out of an earlier ape lineage some 14 mya, and that there is actual evidence you can show me that indicates this event?"

Please respond to the actual question?

 

[Shemjaza]

As already presented many times, what science shows and what Scientists say or believe this means are often two different things.

Feel free to demonstrate a mistake or lie on this matter.

 

[pshun2404]

Feel free to demonstrate a mistake or lie on this matter.

Why would I want to do that?

 

[Shemjaza]

Why would I want to do that?

Because otherwise you are just accusing people of a mistake or dishonesty without justification. That seems both unconvincing and impolite.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And I never ever said that YOU said we came from Chimps. Where on earth did you get that? Because in the prior post you referred to lineages we are descended from (humans and chimps) and that we share a common ancestor (with Chimps) I asked

"So you are saying that you believe humans (and chimps if YOU wish) grew out of an earlier ape lineage some 14 mya, and that there is actual evidence you can show me that indicates this event?"

Please respond to the actual question?

The genetic evidence for one indicates that chimps are our closest living relatives. The second to them we share genetic information with the rest of the great apes; this points to a shared common ancestor. That's the evidence. What you asked for was for me to identify this common ancestor, the ancestor is unknown; but that doesn't mean it did not exist; because all the available data points to a shared common ancestor. Which is why I used analogies involving relatives--my own family tree as well as hypothetical cousins sharing the same unknown grandfather.

It's not just that our genetics are so close, it's that there are places in our respective genomes that can only be explained by our being related and sharing an ancestor, shared ERV (endogenous retroviruses), that is viral DNA which was incorporated into our genes, and which coexist in our genetic structure--humans and chimpanzees share the same ERV signatures at the same points in our genome--meaning that the event when this happened occurred before the split between the human lineage and the chimp lineage became separate. The evidence is overwhelming here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pshun2404]

The genetic evidence for one indicates that chimps are our closest living relatives. The second to them we share genetic information with the rest of the great apes; this points to a shared common ancestor. That's the evidence. What you asked for was for me to identify this common ancestor, the ancestor is unknown; but that doesn't mean it did not exist; because all the available data points to a shared common ancestor. Which is why I used analogies involving relatives--my own family tree as well as hypothetical cousins sharing the same unknown grandfather.

It's not just that our genetics are so close, it's that there are places in our respective genomes that can only be explained by our being related and sharing an ancestor, shared ERV (endogenous retroviruses), that is viral DNA which was incorporated into our genes, and which coexist in our genetic structure--humans and chimpanzees share the same ERV signatures at the same points in our genome--meaning that the event when this happened occurred before the split between the human lineage and the chimp lineage became separate. The evidence is overwhelming here.

-CryptoLutheran

Or both separate communities of species were infected at the same early time period. Plus, the "Reproductive and Cardiovascular Disease Research Group" points out that if so many of these were actually caused by retro viruses we should see a much larger presentation of cell death which is seemingly absent in both species (http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/) and over 80% of the ERVs are NOT located in the exact place in the respected genomes but in similar locations. All this says then is that these retroviruses effected apes and humans. Plus some of the same retroviruses are found in pther seemingly unrelated organisms.

“The genetic evidence for one indicates that chimps are our closest living relatives. The second to them we share genetic information with the rest of the great apes”

No, it shows we share the most genetic similarity with them (that is the evidence), that being interpreted to mean we are relatives is the hypothesis based assumption. And yes we share genetic characteristics (as well as the information encoded therein) with all apes and we all have many genetic differences as well. Again this does not mean we are relatives.

 

[xianghua]

It's not just that our genetics are so close, it's that there are places in our respective genomes that can only be explained by our being related and sharing an ancestor, shared ERV (endogenous retroviruses), that is viral DNA which was incorporated into our genes, and which coexist in our genetic structure--humans and chimpanzees share the same ERV signatures at the same points in our genome--meaning that the event when this happened occurred before the split between the human lineage and the chimp lineage became separate. The evidence is overwhelming here.

not realy. first; we know that a lots of ervs are functional:

Retroviral promoters in the human genome | Bioinformatics | Oxford Academic

"ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale"

or:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6771/full/403785a0.html

"Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host"

we also arent sure if those ervs are a real viral insertions. we know for instance that viruses can "infected" by the host too.

 

[xianghua]

Humans do not have genes for feathers. That would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.

they are actually do :

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/

 

[tas8831]

Or both separate communities of species were infected at the same early time period. Plus, the "Reproductive and Cardiovascular Disease Research Group" points out that if so many of these were actually caused by retro viruses we should see a much larger presentation of cell death which is seemingly absent in both species (http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/) and over 80% of the ERVs are NOT located in the exact place in the respected genomes but in similar locations. All this says then is that these retroviruses effected apes and humans. Plus some of the same retroviruses are found in pther seemingly unrelated organisms.

Your link does not appear to work.

What do you suppose the frequency of the insertion sites is for retroviruses in a genome of a typical mammalian size?

“The genetic evidence for one indicates that chimps are our closest living relatives. The second to them we share genetic information with the rest of the great apes”

No, it shows we share the most genetic similarity with them (that is the evidence), that being interpreted to mean we are relatives is the hypothesis based assumption.

Do you accept the findings of paternity testing?

And yes we share genetic characteristics (as well as the information encoded therein) with all apes and we all have many genetic differences as well. Again this does not mean we are relatives.

The patterns of shared mutations, however, is more than mere similarity.

You are free to reject this field of science, but in this thread, anyway, I have seen no real rationale to do so beyond dismissing it all as assumption and the like. And you are free to believe this, as well, however, I do not believe that merely dismissing it all by claiming it is assumptions and hypotheses is going to much impress the folks that perform the analyses, understand the underlying data and so forth.

I do have to wonder if you find dismissals of your theology based on dismissing it all as mere assumption to be intellectually satisfying to you.

 

[tas8831]

they are actually do :

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/

From the link:

"They found that the instructions for making feathers got their start a long, long time before feathers themselves (see the tree at the bottom of the post or embiggen it here). The genes that establish the basic pattern of placodes already existed in the common ancestor of living fish and birds (and us)–in other words, about half a billion years ago. Even more feather genes evolved as our common ancestors climbed ashore and walked around on land 350 million years ago. Many switches for feather genes also emerged during this period, too."

"It may seem strange to consider the fact that you, as a mammal, have all the known genes required to pattern a feather, and yet you do not look like Big Bird. The reason for this discrepancy is that genes can do different jobs. Depending on where and when they make their proteins, they can build different kinds of anatomy."


It does not seem to me that you took the time to read the article for understanding.

 

[xianghua]

double post

 

[xianghua]

From the link:

"They found that the instructions for making feathers got their start a long, long time before feathers themselves (see the tree at the bottom of the post or embiggen it here). The genes that establish the basic pattern of placodes already existed in the common ancestor of living fish and birds (and us)–in other words, about half a billion years ago. Even more feather genes evolved as our common ancestors climbed ashore and walked around on land 350 million years ago. Many switches for feather genes also emerged during this period, too."

"It may seem strange to consider the fact that you, as a mammal, have all the known genes required to pattern a feather, and yet you do not look like Big Bird. The reason for this discrepancy is that genes can do different jobs. Depending on where and when they make their proteins, they can build different kinds of anatomy."


It does not seem to me that you took the time to read the article for understanding.

my claim was that humans have genes for feathers development in birds. this is a fact. now is see that usincognito changed it into "genes for feathers". so its was not my mystake.