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.
No he is right,It's a rare birth defect. It's not vestigial. Source.
People have read it, so did I and it doesn't say humans once had a tail and lost it as the title says that's what people are pointing out.I can see I'm talkin' with people who apparently can't read the quote in the OP!(?)
Not relevant to the OP timframe of 25mya:Then there's ghost DNA, unknown hominin from long ago, human origin is very complex.
The scientists think the interbreeding happened about 50,000 years ago, ..
Yes I agree the title isn't relevant with the links posted. Because there is unknown human DNA which means more to the story of human origin.Not relevant to the OP timframe of 25mya:
Yes I agree the title isn't relevant with the links posted. Because there is unknown human DNA which means more to the story of human origin.
The links have no idea if humans came from tailed beings. They don't even know what precursor so it's all speculation. Especially to think it was 50,000 years ago.
Certainly humans don't share 50% of their DNA with a banana because of inbreeding.
BeyondET said:Human share 80% of dna with a mouse, there is no way scientists can track human orgin. What they see in genes of species just might be another mouse or banana.
The lack of a tail is one thing that separates apes — including humans — from other primates.
...
Tails are a common feature in the animal kingdom, and all mammals have a tail at some point during embryonic development. In humans, the tail disappears at the end of the embryonic phase — approximately eight weeks in utero — although internal parts remain in the form of the tailbone.
And humans have gills during embryonic development does that mean fish are human ancestors, indeed everything returns to the dirt but humans don't know which grain went where.Coming back to the tail issue in humans, from the Konkel/Casanova paper:
The term junk DNA was not coined by creationists but by geneticists. The wikipedia article covers this and provides appropriate links on the matter.What creationists call "Junk DNA" is known by scientists as "non-coding DNA." Some of it, like our broken vitamin C gene, is junk. But a lot of it has other functions.
Last time I looked, they were still calling it "junk DNA."
No, junk DNA is noncoding DNA (almost always, anyway), but there's lots of functional noncoding DNA as well. Junk DNA only refers to the parts that don't have function.What creationists call "Junk DNA" is known by scientists as "non-coding DNA." Some of it, like our broken vitamin C gene, is junk. But a lot of it has other functions.
Yes. The intronic DNA in question, prior to the Alu insertion, was (as far as I known) indeed nonfunctional. The insertion was a gain-of-function mutation that created a new splice site for that gene. So now it's functional but it wasn't before.On a more serious note the article states: "Interestingly, these elements reside in introns, sections of DNA flanking exons that were traditionally deemed non-functional "dark matter."
Does this count as what has been referred to as junk DNA?
I think they're all dead now, so if they're regretting it, they're doing so out of sight. But why should they regret it? Most human DNA is nonfunctional, and 'junk' is a fine word to describe DNA that doesn't do anything useful.A term that those who introduced it are likely now regretting.
The impression I have is that a proportion, all be it small, of what was said to be junk has subsequently proved to be functional. Thus its description as junk, in those cases, was premature.I think they're all dead now, so if they're regretting it, they're doing so out of sight. But why should they regret it? Most human DNA is nonfunctional, and 'junk' is a fine word to describe DNA that doesn't do anything useful.
Sure. In a similar way, a proportion of what were thought to be genes have subsequently turned out not to be. Exactly what sequence belongs in what category is always subject to revision with more information, but the categories themselves are still useful. (That's true even though both 'gene' and 'junk DNA' have fuzzy boundaries as categories.)The impression I have is that a proportion, all be it small, of what was said to be junk has subsequently proved to be functional. Thus its description as junk, in those cases, was premature.
Re: (the underlined) .. which was a 'post-diction' based on the study's lab-based testing on (mammalian) mice.So now it's functional but it wasn't before.
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?