Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

"According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals. "

That's about what we share with chimpanzees. I think a couple of my relatives have crossbred with some kind of ape, from the looks of their kids.

Not even close. I think we share about 95% of our genes with chimps. That means that we have about 1000 genes that chimps do not have. Then there's the fact that chimps have more chromosomes than us.

p.s. I did my calculations with the assumption that we've got 20 000 genes. We've actually got some thousands more. This means that the gap is even bigger IRL.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


"p.s. I did my calculations with the assumption that we've got 20 000 genes. We've actually got some thousands more. This means that the gap is IRL even bigger."

Coyne states we have about 30,000.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by rhinoceros
According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals.

This recent news article from the New York Times disagrees with you.

there is no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans. This confounds the speculation that modern humans could have interbred with Neanderthals

www.nytimes.com...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

No it doesn't.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Human Genome Project website says that so far 19,599 protein encoding genes have been identified. Estimates of total number of protein encoding genes are between 20000 and 25000. Of course not all genes are protein encoding..

Originally posted by Kiltedninja

Does anyone else find it ironic that evolution says that we're a series of genetic mutations, in other words, the human being, which is supposedly a series of genetic accidents has risen to dominance on our planet?

That's why I believe in neither evolution or Creation, because neither of them make sense to me.

That's not what theory says. Learn the theory before you make up your mind.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Human Genome Project website says that so far 19,599 protein encoding genes have been identified. Estimates of total number of protein encoding genes are between 20000 and 25000. Of course not all genes are protein encoding..

Coyne says we have about 2,000 dead-end genes.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I have no idea who Coyne is or what dead-end genes are.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I have no idea who Coyne is or what dead-end genes are.

Jerry A. Coyne, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago. The book is Why Evolution is True. He calls them "dead" genes, but I like "dead-end" better. They're genes that no longer have any use, but linger on. Like the one for an external tail. You have to wonder how "intelligently designed" we would be have genes for monkey tails.

reply to post by Jezus


*Ahem* You left out a definition, the very one that smacks you in the face friend, appeal to authority or argument by authority which is also known as what? Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Your statement's gist was that since members of the scientific community did not think something thusly it must be true, your attempts at dodging aside. Of course that is completely forgetting about certain bias and how certain individuals like to exile other individuals within the community for even mentioning anything that even sounds like spirituality in a positive light. But accepting such things like postulating we are nothing more than a computer simulation.

Oh and claiming to be a scientist is all well and good but that doesn't make you a scientist anymore than claiming to be a banana makes you a banana, as I pointed out to someone else earlier. This is not asking for proof but simply pointing out the obvious.

Originally posted by JPhish
i never suggested otherwise.

Yes you did. You said "i still consider them human none the less" neathderthals were not human. You suggested they were, they're not.

So you're wrong, accept it!

reply to post by Gawdzilla


No No No No ............C'mon man, give-me some concrete on how evolution is real. In the Drawinian sense- It doesn't make sense; is only theory, and a theory that is unprovable in a measurable experiment/scenario. Emotional evolution? Cultural evolution? these are only tempting situations for pro-evolutionists to rationalize their beloved theory.
Until its proven as a law, such as Newtons LAW of gravity.....I can't give more than a raised eyebrow of curiosity to this one

reply to post by KRISKALI777


Tell me how it's possible that natural selection and heredity would not lead to evolution?

Explain what happened in E. coli long-term evolution experiment if not evolution?

[edit on 25-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


I agree an this scale, but its a rather simplistic stab for trying to explain higher organisms. Yes one may say, "we all exist on a cellular level"; the complexity of mammals, marsupials and monotremes, I think you will agree, are a little more involved.

isn't creationism a bigger theory than evolution? if god created us then what created god? human created gods first then we converted ourselves into believeing god created us. earth is born billions years before god or modern humans were. really gods are just human like us who just posed themselves as god like figures. We had to go through millions of years of process of converting from apes to modern human. we've gone from using stones and sticks to highly advance techs, religions are only thousands of years old while the earth is billions of years old, you think it's possible for us to start from stone and sticks to highly advanced in just thousands of years later? i don't think so.

reply to post by roboboy


Not defending creationism, but not everything need be finite with a beginning and a end, what I am saying is nothing would need to create a being we would call a god.
But, we, being finite beings of a finite speices on a finite rock orbiting a finite star like to think everything must be finite.

Originally posted by roboboy
isn't creationism a bigger theory than evolution? if god created us then what created god? human created gods first then we converted ourselves into believeing god created us. earth is born billions years before god or modern humans were. really gods are just human like us who just posed themselves as god like figures. We had to go through millions of years of process of converting from apes to modern human. we've gone from using stones and sticks to highly advance techs, religions are only thousands of years old while the earth is billions of years old, you think it's possible for us to start from stone and sticks to highly advanced in just thousands of years later? i don't think so.

Creationism has to jump through more hoops than science, because it's being made up as they go along. Without a coherent grounding in science it must come up with new lies everything one of the old ones turns into a joke, as they all do.

A citizen of ancient Greece would have found the castle of Charles Martel interesting, and maybe even impressive, but there would have been little "magic" there. Today we can have a chat with someone on the other side of the planet and think nothing of it. Can you see Alcibiades looking at "Jurassic Park" and staying calm?

Man, I don't understand any of this crap, I'm just going on what you folks are saying. Isn't Natural selection the same thing as survival of the fittest? The best traits are the ones that survive? Then why don't we have any natural defenses? Claws or fangs or venom?

But on the other hand, I just can't wrap my head about the idea of a single supreme being or force. My understanding is that in any situation a series of actions and reactions causes almost everything.

But like I said, I don't understand much, which is why I'm here, to understand and learn.

reply to post by Kiltedninja


"an, I don't understand any of this crap, I'm just going on what you folks are saying. Isn't Natural selection the same thing as survival of the fittest? The best traits are the ones that survive? Then why don't we have any natural defenses? Claws or fangs or venom?"

Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest", is was another author that, IMHO, got over-enthusiastic while talking about natural selection.

In natural selection, if a mutation occurs that gives one being a slight edge over another, that being will tend to do better. It doesn't mean that the being will be in the M1A1 of all being, just that it has a slightly better chance to pass on its genes.

If you really want to do "survival of the fittest", a better way of saying it is "probable survival of the tiny bit fitter." Not nearly as sexy, however, so the dumbed down version is used.

reply to post by KRISKALI777


In this scale? Are you telling me that there's some force that limits the scale in which this phenomenon can occur?