Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What are you talking about? Man has not been on the Earth for 100,000 generations. And please, don't tell me that you were making the error of comparing man, a creature that reproduces sexually, with E. coli, a creature that reproduces by fission. That would be a HUGE error.The problem is that over 100,000 generations and nothing indicates such morphological change!
The middle analogy is not even analogous so I am going to skip right over that.
As for your last point you are insisting that I need to prove a negative when the alleged positive (which is the claim) has not been substantiated (hence Mayr's reference to the actual unresolvable gap that requires a historical narrative).
What are you talking about? Man has not been on the Earth for 100,000 generations. And please, don't tell me that you were making the error of comparing man, a creature that reproduces sexually, with E. coli, a creature that reproduces by fission. That would be a HUGE error.
I'm not conceding anything. You misunderstand me. What I mean by potential integration sites, is that we observe that retroviruses insert themselves in any of millions of different locations when the organism becomes infected. The idea that they just happened to insert themselves in orthologous locations in humans and chimps 200,000 times is utterly absurd.
Which is demonstrably false.
We share plenty of markers with other animals. And the distribution of those markers is exactly as expected in context of an evolutionary past.
No familial markers...no ape like daddys or mommys...!!! Some of our "who's the daddy" familial markers are the same markers for who's the monkey's daddy (which will always be a monkey) and the who's the daddy markers fro a bear (which will always be a bear not a whale or vice versa)...but it is not about this or that marker its about them all (and even this is limited because we use to only use 12 and actually many unrelated people could still have had them though occurrence was rare) and I use to run these tests many times so I am not "ignorant of the science" (not that you said that but I have got that response). Now a common quick analysis uses 16 markers and a more complete one (more exact) many more...at these levels there is no mistake only interpretation...no ape daddy indications at this level...
Hypothetically, if apes and humans share a common lineage, is it not reasonable to conclude that there may be markers in our DNA which could verify that?
Interesting h
Interesting how you posted the answer and then re-asked the question!?! Plus the key word, though very small, carries a huge percentage of unknown possibilities (IF). Re-read the answer...now let me make it clearer for you...
Using the standard Police approach of matching 15 markers (this being only with other humans) with a 97.5% positive match, this means that out of 8.5 MILLION possible male donors there are 221,000 plus possible sources. Taking into account the female source this number is halved or less but still, though 100,000 out of 8.5 million is actually highly unlikely, it is also highly plausible to be mistaken, depending on how one "interprets" the data.
A good defense attorney KNOWS this and that is why this test alone only INDICATES parental lineage but does not really prove it, and therefore additional evidential factors must coincide. Thus a different INTERPRETATION, or alternate possibility is NOT wrong or incorrect just different and yet equally POSSIBLE. (my CAPS are for emphasis not emotion).
So factually, when we do human/chimp comparison of these same 15 markers (which we both have because we are similar in form and function as an organism)...
we actually DO get exactly what we would expect (though contrary to the hypothesis based conclusion)...and that is evidence we are NOT related in a lineal sense...
SO...IF the only evidence here says "We are not related" (which it does), we would get exactly what we really find...good science now must reshape the previously held hypothesis or toss it out but it cannot be said to be "confirmed" or "established" based on this...as this evidence disputes the hypothesis.
Similarity? Yes! Lineage? No! Now try to not jump to somewhere else in the program (though from experience I know your mind already has) and resolve just this one point.
The answer is it does not demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothesis it refutes it...now begin your deprogramming here, by stating out loud three to seven times (even better if you say it and write it down as you say it) "the parental markers refute a lineal relationship"...and then we can address any other area you choose to discuss.
The answer is it does not demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothesis it refutes it...now begin your deprogramming here, by stating out loud three to seven times (even better if you say it and write it down as you say it) "the parental markers refute a lineal relationship"...and then we can address any other area you choose to discuss.
I was speaking hypothetically as in the case if Australo was really an actual ancestor....for man to have an average reproduction cycle (a new generation) of about every 15 years 80,000 generations would equal about 1.2 million years. If we include Australo 3 millions years is not a strain to imagine 100,000 generations is it?
You didn't answer my question. Of course we cannot use PATERNITY tests (or maternal) to establish a link between humans and chimps. That is not what I asked.
I asked if it was reasonable to conclude that if humans and chimps are related by lineage, it may be possible to find markers which could verify this?
You do realize there are other tests we can perform, using different markers, which can show relationships not limited to the paternal line (or maternal), yes?
Interestingly, according to the timeline below, the individual species of Australopithecus appear to have lasted for a maximum of about 900,000 years, or about 60,000 generations for a generation time of 15 years. This casts doubt on your assertion that there has been no morphological change for 100,000 generations.
View attachment 200786
You are t
You are the one that brought up paternity tests as an example...and so why would jump to some other area. If there was an ancient paternal link with some earlier ape or apelike creature such markers should show up in this area far back. IF you say "Well we cannot it was too long ago" this is admission it is purely conjectural. That you cannot demonstrate it and are asking we accept it on that basis.
IF it were true that humans and chimps are related by LINEAGE, THEN we should see many FAMILIAL markers (but we do not)...because some of these genes are shared between different organisms does not mean they are actually identical, nor even that they serve the same purpose.
Sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes”, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk” or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is not full of "leftovers" but are quite active and play an important role in the life of each and every creature. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in different creatures.
You are the one that brought up paternity tests as an example...and so why would jump to some other area. If there was an ancient paternal link with some earlier ape or apelike creature such markers should show up in this area far back. IF you say "Well we cannot it was too long ago" this is admission it is purely conjectural. That you cannot demonstrate it and are asking we accept it on that basis.
IF it were true that humans and chimps are related by LINEAGE, THEN we should see many FAMILIAL markers (but we do not)...because some of these genes are shared between different organisms does not mean they are actually identical, nor even that they serve the same purpose.
Sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes”, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk” or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is not full of "leftovers" but are quite active and play an important role in the life of each and every creature. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in different creatures.
Now we hear the term “relationship” being repeated over and over, but when we see what we see (similarities in genetic materials, arrangement, and purpose) the question is “What does this really mean?” All it ACTUALLY is, is similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.
If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted preconceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...
Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long
Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.
The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.
Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric to imply lineal relationship in some remote UNKNOWN common ancestor.
This statement is just wrong because the resolution of Ychromosomal or mitochondrial DNA testing are not sufficient. We cannot establish relationships using these methods that far back, with these tests.
Why can't you just answer the question?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?