You can't argue with DNA

[Hespera]

Wow. So even when I explicitly say a comment isn't specifically about Mark, Mark makes it specifically about Mark... Nice.

If there is a reset button a good time to push it would be now.

After reset nobody gets to post except on the topic.

 

[Gracchus]

You can't tell the dentist you've been flossing when you really haven't. He's going to call you a liar.

I doubt it. He might think it, but dentists are good businessmen. Your bad hygiene fills his wallet. He'll just keep his mouth shut, and rake in the dough.

And Hespera, there is no sense in trying to stay on topic.

 

[Hespera]

True true. What is the topic but what people want to talk about. The tone was starting to get a bit hysterical but that is its own kind of fun.

 

[gaara4158]

I doubt it. He might think it, but dentists are good businessmen. Your bad hygiene fills his wallet. He'll just keep his mouth shut, and rake in the dough.

And Hespera, there is no sense in trying to stay on topic.

Well, I've been called out on an "I've been flossing" lie before. Pretty embarrassing.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm amazed at the evoltion
I'm amazed at the lack of faith
I'm amazed at love we are rejected
I'm amazed that we accepted this place
Like the middle of the earth and the middle of the ages
Like a river I get disrupted
(My Morning Jacket I'm Amazed)

We have plenty of evidence of "complex" organs evolving from simpler organs. Some of this evidence includes looking at the organs from different creatures. Take the eye for example:
All of the above eyes not only show how the eye evolved but are still in existence because we can find organisms today that still have them!

IC, you take a developmental series of stages in development and equivicate that with evidence of descent with modification.

Wrong. Researchers say they may have found the missing link to this change in a strand of DNA. Specifically, it is a mutation in a gene that controls muscle development. The mutation just may have caused ancestral jaws to become smaller and weaker over time, eventually making room for a bigger, more complex brain.

I am familar with the simple logic but what about something that requires something other then a random mutation. Something so highly conserved it allowed only two substitutions in 310 million years ago and then 2 mya it allowed 18.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans​

Though the lack of this gene did not cause our cranial capacity to grow it did reduce the temporalis muscle size and allowed our brains to grow and our skulls to enlarge because of it.

Which leaves the fundamental question of how highly conserved genes undergo a massive overhaul.

What? We found chimpanzee fossils in 2005. Most of the fossils are classified as hominids because they show human characteristics such as a parabolic jaw shape and reduced canine/tooth size.

Taung was classified as a chimpanzee for a long time. With the demise of Piltdown it suddenly and permenantly became one of our 'transitional' ancestors.

While some behavior can be shown through fossils (diet, etc.) we can gather environmental data from fossils. Human history is actually becoming more clear as we delve into not only the fossil record but other fields such as embryology and genetics which all independently converge on... evolution.

Embryology is useless, the fossil record is piecemeal and subject to profoundly biased interpretations and genetics makes a weak case for a chimpanzee/human common ancestor.

Sorry but I don't subscribe to that joke of a law. If it were true, disease would still be caused by spirits because that is simpler an explanation than saying all these different species and strains of bacteria, viruses, and even genetic diseases are the cause.

It helps weed out the false assumptions by not allowing endless rationalizations.

Wrong. We've witnessed an lot of genes that is responsible for human development. We don't have tails because the gene for tale development is (usually) switched off and apoptosis reduces the tail that did develop.
We have the gene for tail growth, as is found in all mammals! In fact, the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified (the Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes). It is now known that down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene induces apoptosis of tail cells during mouse development, and similar effects are observed in humans. Additionally, researchers have identified a mutant mouse that does not develop a tail, and this phenotype is due to a regulatory mutation that decreases the Wnt-3a gene dosage. Thus, current evidence indicates that the genetic cause of tail loss in the evolution of apes was likely a simple regulatory mutation that slightly decreased Wnt-3a gene dosage. Isn't it funny that God would give us a gene that we don't need?

You had me going until I looked up the two genes and found that they are genes that we do need.

The WNT gene family consists of structurally related genes which encode secreted signaling proteins. These proteins have been implicated in oncogenesis and in several developmental processes, including regulation of cell fate and patterning during embryogenesis. WNT3A​

This gene is a member of the caudal-related homeobox transcription factor gene family. The encoded DNA-binding protein regulates intestine-specific gene expression and enterocyte differentiation. It has been shown to induce expression of the intestinal alkaline phosphatase gene, and inhibit beta-catenin/T-cell factor transcriptional activityCDX1​

Though we've found nearly complete skulls that show an increase in cranial capacity from the 400cc of australopithecines to the average of 1100 in modern Homo sapiens.

Sure, if you take every skull and make it a human ancestor you just arrange them according to size.


Here you go:

Researchers identify genes involved in evolution of brain development

[FONT=verdana, geneva][SIZE=-1]By Catherine Gianaro [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=verdana, geneva]Medical Center Public Affairs[/FONT][/SIZE]
Researchers have identified two genes implicated in the dramatic expansion of the human cerebral cortex—a development considered to be one of the hallmarks of human evolution.
The researchers, led by Bruce Lahn, Assistant Professor in Human Genetics, presented evidence that the pressure of natural selection has led to dramatic evolutionary changes in a gene called Microcephalin and another gene called ASPM. Both are known to control brain size during development in humans.
The researchers decided to explore Microcephalin and ASPM because mutant forms of these genes cause primary microcephaly, a developmental defect that affects humans. This disorder is marked by a severe reduction in the size of the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex—the part of the brain responsible for planning, abstract reasoning and other higher brain functions. The brains of people with primary microcephaly are otherwise normal, and other structures of the body seem unaffected.
The researchers traced the evolution of Microcephalin and ASPM by comparing the genes’ sequences in a range of primates, including humans, as well as non-primate mammals. Specifically, the researchers sequenced the human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, colobus monkey, squirrel monkey and lemur forms of the genes.
“We chose these species because they were progressively more closely related to humans,” said Lahn. “For example, the closest relatives to humans are chimpanzees, the next closest are gorillas, and the rest go down the ladder to the most primitive.”
The sequence of primates from human to lemur generally represents a progression from the most advanced to the more primitive. Chimpanzees are the closest, living genetic relative of humans, and the lemur represents the most primitive primate, having branched from the primate tree before the evolution of monkeys, apes and humans. To study the evolution of the genes in other mammals, the researchers also sequenced these genes from the dog, cat, cow, sheep, rat and mouse.
For each species, the researchers identified changes in both the Microcephalin and the ASPM genes that altered the structure of the resulting proteins, as well as those that did not affect protein structure. Only those genetic changes that alter protein structure are likely to be subject to evolutionary pressure, Lahn said. Changes in the gene that do not alter the protein indicate the overall mutation rate—the background of random mutations from which evolutionary changes arise. Thus, the ratio of the two types of changes gives a measure of the evolution of the gene under the pressure of natural selection.
The researchers are continuing their studies to determine the biological function of the two genes, to better understand how their mutation could have led to the characteristic enlargement of the human brain. “We want to know when was the last time that the lightning of evolution struck either one of these genes during human evolution,” said Lahn. “Was it 100,000 years ago, or a million years ago or half a million years ago? That would be fascinating to know from the viewpoint of understanding the history of evolution of the human brain.”

Researchers identify genes involved in evolution of brain development

Since all you did is quote the article, right back at you:

"Human evolution is, in fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of mutations in a large number of genes." He gasps, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits." He adds, "We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate". Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event

First of all, why did chimpanzee ancestors have larger cranial compacities than chimpanzees do today? Is it a result of the fall? Maybe chimpanzees are Cain's descendants since their ancestor Homo habilis was capable of making stone tools and they cannot.

Maybe the Homo habilis skulls are ape ancestors and the stone age apeman myth is contrived.

Most scientists do not think Homo rudolfensis was an ancestor of modern Homo sapiens.

That makes them either a dead end or an ape ancestor. Your point?

Try again. This is fun!

Yea I'm having fun with it to.

I will take the jaw and pelivis development genes a lot more seriously when the more highly conserved brain related genes are given their weight. Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and note the effects of mutations on brain related genes. Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

What you will find is things like:

• Epilepsy
  [*]Childhood Brain Cancer
• Brain cysts

 

[LightHorseman]

IC, you take a developmental series of stages in development and equivicate that with evidence of descent with modification.

You forgot the fossil record also clearly shows a sequence of descent with modification.

 

[Hespera]

Equivicate?

perhaps equivocate?

efinitions of equivocate on the Web:

• beat around the bush: be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information
• To use words of equivocal or doubtful signification; to express one's opinions in terms which admit of different senses, with intent to deceive ...
• equivocation - evasion: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
• equivocation - intentionally vague or ambiguous
• Equivocation is a technique by which a magician appears to have intended a particular outcome, when in actuality the outcome is one of several alternative outcomes.
• Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
• equivocation - A logical fallacy resulting from the use of multiple meanings of a single expression; The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, possibly intentionally and with the aim of misleading
• equivocation - A form of FALLACY where an ambiguity arises because a term or phrase has been used in two different senses within the one argument. Eg The college has a special scholarship designed for poor students. ...
• equivocation - An argument which turns on the use of a term in two distinct senses, but treats the term as if it had a single meaning. ...
• equivocation - is the complete change in meaning of the descriptor and is an informal fallacy.

[SIZE=-1]What DOES he mean

[/SIZE]

 

[BananaSlug]

IC, you take a developmental series of stages in development and equivicate that with evidence of descent with modification.

No, it shows that we can see how the eye evolved by looking at organisms that have simpler eyes.

I am familar with the simple logic but what about something that requires something other then a random mutation. Something so highly conserved it allowed only two substitutions in 310 million years ago and then 2 mya it allowed 18.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans
​

Which leaves the fundamental question of how highly conserved genes undergo a massive overhaul.

There is this little enzyme called DNA polymerase travels along an "unzipped" DNA strand and helps add nucleotides to the newly forming DNA. However, the enzyme is not perfect and sometimes makes mistakes. Most of these mistakes are neutral and do not affect the offspring (the most important mutations occur in germ cells), some are harmful, some are helpful.
Even if only 1 positive mutation happened per generation there are still 7 million years worth of generations for it to act upon.

Taung was classified as a chimpanzee for a long time. With the demise of Piltdown it suddenly and permenantly became one of our 'transitional' ancestors.

Source please? Taung child was never classified as a chimpanzee, and this also contradicts your claim that "To date none of the skulls dug up in Africa are identified as Chimpanzee ancestors even though they about the same size, except that some of them are larger."


Dart recognized distinctly human features in the fossil and proposed the classification of a new genus and species Australopithecus africanus -- "Man/Ape of southern Africa". These features included a flatter, less projecting face than in apes, a rounded head with a lack of browridges, and a lightly built mandible that did not have a diastema (a space between the lower canine teeth and the first premolars), which is seen in apes. The natural endocast gave a cranial capacity of 405cc with a projected adult measurement of 440cc, somewhat larger than in modern apes.
Dart's publication on the "Taung Child," as it was being called, met with immediate criticism from an established community for the most part committed to Piltdown Man. Much of the criticism centered on the fact that this was the fossil of a child. Many of the features listed above are known in modern apes prior to maturity, and the fact that the first molars of the Taung Child had only just started to erupt indicated that the individual was a juvenile. Sir Arthur Keith, anatomist and prominent supporter of Piltdown, argued that this was an immature chimpanzee. However, there was one additional feature to the Taung Child that was not easily explained away as a characteristic of an immature ape. The position of the foramen magnum, or the hole through which the spinal chord connects with the brain, was positioned well to the front of the skull, an adaptation of a bipedal creature whose head would rest atop the neck in a relatively balanced position. Conversely, a quadrupedal ape whose head would rest in front of the neck, would need a foramen magnum positioned to the rear of the head to keep its eyes facing forward, and not down, as it moved. If this truly was a chimpanzee, and not an early human, why the forward positioning of the foramen magnum?

Embryology is useless, the fossil record is piecemeal and subject to profoundly biased interpretations and genetics makes a weak case for a chimpanzee/human common ancestor.

Tell me how embryology is useless? Tell me why echinoderms' and chordates' blastula have radial, indeterminate development and why other animals have spiral, determinate development? The animals that share more similar development are also more genetically related.

You had me going until I looked up the two genes and found that they are genes that we do need.

The WNT gene family consists of structurally related genes which encode secreted signaling proteins. These proteins have been implicated in oncogenesis and in several developmental processes, including regulation of cell fate and patterning during embryogenesis. WNT3A
​

This gene is a member of the caudal-related homeobox transcription factor gene family. The encoded DNA-binding protein regulates intestine-specific gene expression and enterocyte differentiation. It has been shown to induce expression of the intestinal alkaline phosphatase gene, and inhibit beta-catenin/T-cell factor transcriptional activityCDX1
​

Yes, the WNT gene family does do all of that, but the specific Wnt-3a regulates the development of the tail. The mutant mouse that did not develop a tail, and due to a regulatory mutation that decreased the Wnt-3a gene dosage. And if you understood any biological lingo, "caudal" in "caudal-related homeobox" genes refers to the tail.

Sure, if you take every skull and make it a human ancestor you just arrange them according to size.

Then why are skulls with smaller cranial capacities found in older strata than skulls with larger capacities?

Since all you did is quote the article, right back at you:


"Human evolution is, in fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of mutations in a large number of genes." He gasps, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits." He adds, "We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate". Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event

What does this have to do with anything? It's the same study I used just from a different website!

 

[BananaSlug]

Did all that stuff I worked so hard on get erased!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[mark kennedy]

Did all that stuff I worked so hard on get erased!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't know but it seems like the thread was a lot longer. Very puzzling

 

[Hespera]

I don't know but it seems like the thread was a lot longer. Very puzzling

It was way longer.

Basically the argument was between Bible says this, and, evidence says that.

 

[Darw1n]

Your comment on the fact that chimps (Which are actually members of the great Ape family NOT monkeys) are similar to humans because the blueprints are similar is completely valid. However, the analogy that houses will look similar because of the same architect is faulty because the reasons houses look similar are for many different reasons. For one, there are building codes and standards which prohibit certain structural designs and hence limit certain aspects of building.

For example, All external walls must have studs no more than 16" apart and 24" for internal walls (for residential codes in AZ). Not much room for difference other than the choice of flooring, texture, stucco pattern which may or may not be decided by the architect. It could be decided by the builder or even the customer.

So the reason houses look similar is only because of the fact that there is a right way to build a house and a wrong way. If its done right, they'll look the same (Given they are the same design) If not they'll look different.

 

[AV1611VET]

humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genes! the process of replication is the same in chimpanzees, both the act itself and what occurs in the cells.

humans and chimpanzees are related. This is not opinion or conjecture or a guess, it is a FACT.

QV please: 1

 

[Tree of Life]

In the same way and for the same reasons that DNA is incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two people are related it is also incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two species are related. Similarities in DNA are derived through inheritence. This is a FACT of NATURE!!!

humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genes! the process of replication is the same in chimpanzees, both the act itself and what occurs in the cells.

humans and chimpanzees are related. This is not opinion or conjecture or a guess, it is a FACT.

Well it could also be because God made their DNA similar. Your guess is as good as mine it seems.

(Capital letters, underlining, and exclamation points don't help in defending a claim.)

 

[HitchSlap]

Well it could also be because God made their DNA similar. Your guess is as good as mine it seems.

(Capital letters, underlining, and exclamation points don't help in defending a claim.)

Unless of course, it could be demonstrated through erv's and nested hierarchies that common ancestry is more likely than a god.

 

[Tree of Life]

Unless of course, it could be demonstrated through erv's and nested hierarchies that common ancestry is more likely than a god.

Could you demonstrate something like that?

 

[HitchSlap]

Could you demonstrate something like that?

Of course. Have a look. This is known as solid scientific evidence, unlike holy books, so I have my doubts as to how serious you'll consider the links I've posted.


Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies
Nested Hierarchy - EvoWiki


Could you demonstrate the existence of a god?

 

[Tree of Life]

Of course. Have a look. This is known as solid scientific evidence, unlike holy books, so I have my doubts as to how serious you'll consider the links I've posted.


Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies
Nested Hierarchy - EvoWiki

Ok I get it. Some helpful definitions of the term "nested hierarchy". Certain creatures have many things in common with other creatures, etc...

How does this amount to something like common ancestry?

Could you demonstrate the existence of a god?

No better than you can demonstrate common ancestry, it seems.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well it could also be because God made their DNA similar. Your guess is as good as mine it seems.

(Capital letters, underlining, and exclamation points don't help in defending a claim.)

Except for the famous example of human Chromosome 2. Which has two telomeric tips smack in the middle of the chromosome - exactly where you would not expect them to be. They are there because the two halves of Chromosome 2 are separate chromosomes in other species of apes. At some point in the distant past, they became fused together in humans.

The trouble with creationists is that they think, if God did not snap his fingers, and have human beings instantaneously come into the existence, then he could have nothing to do with their creation. The fallacy in that ought to be obvious to anybody.

 

[Tree of Life]

Here's my favorite line from the wiki article:

This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable).

Why would nested hierarchy be "unexpected" in the case of special creation?