You gave permission, you know....

(Points to above post.)

And why waste a perfectly good genetic code if it works? Well... why not stick to the top-of-the-line model then?

The fused chromosomes have clearly been shown to be two exact pairs from the chimp/gorilla genome. I mean, they can visually LOOK at the thing, and compare it to the two sets from the chimps/gorillas.

With the exception of the abovementioned 2-3% discrepency, an exact match.

And believing something doesn't necessarily make it real for all... only for the believer. In his or her own head.

Which is why science is such a stickler for PROOF. HARD FACTS. EVIDENCE, REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE. Then the theory can be truth for all.

[ 08-23-2002 05:30 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

I'm saying, quite frankly, that because there are similarities (98 percent) between ape and human genes this DOES NOT PROVE that humans evolved from apes. There can be OTHER REASONS for the similarity. There as been NO HARD PROOF to say that A (ape gene) caused B (human gene). When it could have been C (something that caused the similarity in both of them or C and D (two completely different reasons for the similarity)

And that will be the last post in this thread from the village idiot.

[ 08-23-2002 05:43 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Mara1Jade ]

--------------------

In other words, somewhere along in the dim and distant past, in one (or maybe more) of the common ancestor we shared with gorillas and chimps and so on, spontaneous mutation occurred which fused two of the chromosomes together. (Spontaneous mutations occur all the time folks, nothing to get all in a toot about. It's due to the fact that our wonderful sun gives off full-spectrum radiation... those shorter wavelengths will get ya every time. It's why bacteria become resistent to antibiotics: they have shorter generations, and can go through hundreds of thousands in the lifespan of a single human; all these spontaneous mutations compile over that time until you end up with a resistant strain. It's just that occasionally one or two will mutate to where it is resistant quite naturally, then a few generations on down perhaps another one will, and all the time the offspring from the first mutated resistant one has been happily passing his genetic code on down to successive generations, and so on.) The spontaneous mutation of the chromosomes, where two became one, may be where man began to diverge from the gorilla and chimp in the evolutionary lineage we share. Studies are currently underway with the genes of more and more remote ancestral links (descendants therefrom) in order to further verify this. But geneticists are NOT just speculating about this fusion. The "top" half of the human Chromosome 2 is definitely Chromosome Number (I don't know the actual number) in chimps/gorillas/orangutans, and the "bottom" half of 2 is definitely Chromosome Number (don't know the actual number) in chimps/gorillas/orangutans. THIS is proven. They once were two, now they are one... er, "Two," (Chromosome #2, bad joke....)

Another way of saying this is simply this: TWO primate genes fused together... and the resulting primate was less like a chimp or gorilla or orangutan, and later became known as Man, who continued to breed and live right alongside his chimp/gorilla/orangutan cousins. (Chimps and gorillas and orangutans are COUSINS, by the way; they with Man are grouped into the Primate Family.)

Of course the SIMPLE way to prove this close a commonality would be to interbreed, but who the heck wants to do that? Refrains from any comment, and warns others out there reading this to do likewise, hehehe! Lions and tigers are farther apart genetically, and they produce offspring. So are and so do horses and zebras.

[ 08-23-2002 06:20 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

And I've been in plenty of research methods classes that will teach you correlation does not indicate a cause of any sort, only some sort of association. The cause of the association must be determined by experimentation. I am reading the posts, I understand the CORRELATIONS and LIKENESSES. But I do NOT believe that simply because half of a certain chromosome matches with gorillas and half matches with chimps that this nessarily proof we evolved from a common ancestor. There are still things not yet accounted for, such as irrefutable proof of the causes for these similarities.

Just thought I should clarify. I respect your science, and I'm not uninformed. I'm a college grad; I've taken the classes on theory and logic and anatomy and phisiology and on research. And I'm not even saying that there is no correlation and that what science has found isn't true.

I'm simply saying that the causes for these similarities have not been proven, but rather have been speculated.

[ 08-23-2002 07:58 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Mara1Jade ]

--------------------

anyway, now back to the subject at hand. I believe that we are indeed apes. But, to say this, does that mean that wolves are chimps best friend? if dogs are our best friends, and chimps are our cusins, and wolves are dogs cusins...does that make the bond? and how come we didnt get a tail? i mean, jeez, evelotion sucked in that manor, we need a cool tail...and if god created us that way, well, Im gonna send in a complaint... *try's to evolve to a being that has a tail*

--------------------

I completely agree with Graysith.

--------------------

--------------------

You're living on it!!!

And just because I love to keep beating a dead horse (it's the ape in me, heh)....

Uh, I think the fact that one of our chromosomes is the same as two chimp/gorilla/orangutan ones combined together is purty solid evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor, especially when you add to that that 98% of our ENTIRE genome is a dead on match for that of chimps, and 97% matches with the other apes. It's not merely a coincidence. Animals which share common ancestry share common genes; THIS IS PROVEN. NOT SPECULATION. It used to be said that Man differed from the apes because he had one less chromosome; now we know that it's just the combination of two.

It's understanding how heredity works, what genetics is, and how to trace ancestry which has opened the door and with the mapping of the human genome has allowed us to finally "discover" the "missing link." How appropriate, for that "extra" chromosome (link) would indeed "appear" to be missing in man, ey? And all along it's been hiding, piggybacked atop another.

And now to toss out another lil eye-opener: did you know that all DNA is made up of the same bases and codons? ALL DNA. Hehehe... The DNA in our cells is the same as in a tree, or in a butterfly, or a horse. It's just the arrangement that differs.

Don't think of DNA as a blueprint. Think of it as a book, with many chapters, and the words in the chapters are made from only four different letters in various arrangements. It's how they are arranged that makes a tree different from a flower from a human being.

And in the case of chimps and people, the arrangement is 98% identical. That's just the way it is, folks!

Oh yeah, and sorry about the tail. Apes don't have them. (Ever see a tail on a chimp or gorilla or orangutan???) Old World monkeys do, however. These guys are primates, but waaaaaay further back from us, taxonomically speaking. Which brings me back to the Primate Family. Hmmmm... I think I goofed. I think "Primate" is a larger umbrella; perhaps order??? I'd have to look it up!

[ 08-24-2002 01:27 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

--------------------

Think of the human genome (entire genetic code) as a recipe book. The chromosomes are different chapters. Codons are the words in the chapters, and the four bases are the letters making up the words. Genomes are recipe books on "how to make a living thing."

Some living things are not very complex, and have itty-bitty, very short recipe books (or instruction manuals, if you wish to think of it that way). A human being, a whale, a mouse: these are very complex organisms, and have BIG instruction manuals, or recipe books.

Now, here's the fun part: the bases are the four amino acids cytosine (C), quinine (G), adenine (A) and thymine (T). They like to link together only in specific ways: C-G and A-T. (When you think of the linkage, think rungs of a ladder, with a "C" on one end of the rung, and the "G" on the other end. This is one itty-bitty base pair on the double-helix that is the DNA molecule; essentially, chromosomes are LOOOOOONG DNA molecules, all coiled up tight. The double-helix curls up.)

Now, these letters can only form 3-letter words, called codons. Each codon is a specific direction for "how to make a protein." Example: on one side of the ladder there would be C-T-A; the corresponding parts would be G-A-T (on the other end of those three particular rungs).

OK, now every protein is the SAME in trees and birds and anemones and squid and monkeys and slime molds and people. Each codon makes the same protein, and each protein has a specific function in a living organism. Assume C-T-A means "this makes a protein to catalyze urea" (I have no idea, I'm using this for an example). All mammals catalzye urea. All mammals have this particular protein to do the job, therefore the DNA of all mammals has the C-T-A codon on it. We all share that particular bit of our genomes with each other.

Codons hook together to create genes, and it is the genes that end up telling the developing organism what physical traits it is going to have. This we know because G-C base pairs show up as dark bands in chromosomal maps, and A-T base pairs show up as light. We learn by studying the genetic maps of "error" organisms: by comparing the chromosomes of, say, a person with sickle cell anemia with that of a person who does not have this syndrome, we can pinpoint the specific gene which is lacking -- thus at fault -- by "comparative-banding-differences." (There are chemical means utilized, but these are too complex to go into here.) IE: we see the gene in the "normal" person, and not in the one with sickle-cell anemia. Thus by careful comparison, we can say "we have found the gene to create normal red blood cells."

Here then is the link to understanding that THIS particular gene makes THIS particular thing occur. The more traits animals share, the closer they are genetically. The closer organisms are together on the evolutionary tree, the more codons/genes they have in common. We share 98% commonality with chimps; 97% with gorillas/orangutans. And we have found the "missing" chromosome linking us even more strongly with the other apes.

[ 08-24-2002 01:36 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

From what I understand, they believe the hominid line diverged from the ape line I THINK 6 million years ago. Modern man appears to have been evolved thereafter through a series of hominids and alongside some cousins who died out along the way. Occasionally new hominid species are found which get us PHYSICALLY closer to the "Missing Link" our very own genetic code tells us existed somewhere back in time.

And here's an interesting fact: recent developments in DNA reconstitution have enabled us to suggest modern man was as genetically close to Neanderthal, closer even, than some current races of Man are to each other.

I think that's highly interesting, since evidence is showing a tendency toward the fact that Neanderthal Man himself was a branch from yet another earlier common ancestor, and then Modern Man wiped him out. MAYBE. Scientists are still debating whether we were concurrent branches, or truly evolved from Neanderthal. The most current evidence seems to suggest the former, at this time.

They also know Neanderthal man tended to have rickets, which would not make the species viable in the long haul. So naturally he'd die off.

--------------------

Now this idea is something I dont believe, but I have heard. God is still existent, but he created the first organism, or the first patch of beings which evolved. This conception here could possibly be right, but I dont believe in it actually. Also it could also be an idea that the place was all one, but when a flood happened it seperated the lands. This would also come to be another reason why they are bones seperated across countries. This also could back up the religious belief.

An also those old things could have just been another species, and not ours. I mean no one ever looks at it religiously, but always want it scientifically because it was discovered scientifically. It could very well been another creature that didn't survive over the years and died for unknown reason.

Thats how I see it.....so bah!

--------------------

This is just how I feel about the discussion becasue it really shouldn't be in General Discussion, I just believe that scientifical Discussion Forum should be placed up, because it takes up alot of the General Discussion, and Scientifical Discussions could sometimes offend Biblical Talk.

Or at least say "Offending" somewhere at the top of the topic so someone may grasp that they shouldn't read it, because it may offend them and a whole anger streak will pour out.

--------------------

I don't know how to put it more clearly. Anakin and I have written several times that we do not wish to offend anyone. What we are putting up here are basic facts as discovered and proven by science, and the tools by which prove our hypotheses to be true, exciting facts which we would like to discuss.

Genetics IS, and WORKS, and THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. Plate tectonics IS... and IS WORKING NOW... and that's how "bones get spread across the continents" and across the oceans. They were separated as rifting occurred and tectonic plates moved apart, carrying their continents with them. Physics DOES explain the universe in a means that is reproducible and thus provable by more than one guy. I have even mentioned (albeit in other threads) the biologic connection between our emotions and our thought centers (they are both controlled by the limbic system in the brain).

What amazes me is how IT APPEARS that people of faith tend to automatically discard or overlook or ignore or try to "what if--?" facts, simply because those facts do not support their personal beliefs. On the other side of the coin, I suppose I should say that I am more than happy to consider the truths of others (hey, I used to have the strongest faith of anyone around... key words being "used to have." Then I got curious and started reading more and more, on a wider variety of subjects.) -- anyway, I'll happily reconsider if you give me some proof here. Hard evidence.

And please don't point me to stories written by people and gathered together.

Biblical floods, you say? Hmmm.... much evidence indicates glacial damming of rivers. You dam a river by a blob of ice about a mile thick, and a LOT of water builds up behind it. REALLY DEEP. Eventually deep enough that the ice damming it begins to float a bit (ice is less dense than water, right?) and VOILA! Sudden catastrophic failure of the dam, releasing hundreds of millions of cubic tons of water to scour the land. Hey, it happened here in the United States! (Glacial Lake Missoula, in eastern Washington/western Montana. Sent a wall of water 2,000 feet high crashing out to sea when that dam went, a couple million years ago, I believe.)

The latest evidence I heard about "The Flood" was that it was possibly something of this nature. A large, catastrophic but localized failure of sorts. Traces of it left in the rock. Gigantic fossil ripples. Great scouring potholes. Things of this nature. Old lake terraces. And so on. These are all found in the Middle East in the region where "The Flood" occurred. So yes, there was an epic flood THERE. But was it global? Evidence in the rock record would indicate otherwise.

Back to "...and those old things could be another species...." Ummm... yes, they were another species. But still the same genus as us. Physical remains and now DNA evidence has pretty much made this conclusive. We were still cousins, and still evolved along the same path, sometimes diverging, and sometimes not but simply evolving into a higher and higher form.

Hmmm... maybe not necessarily a "higher" form at that...!

--------------------

Lumbia, what good is it to put up a topic everyone will happily nod their heads and agree with? Where is the "discussion" in that? Where the growth? Where the learning? Where the mental challenge?

Easy it is to nod one's head and just say, "Isn't this lovely? We're all in perfect agreement here!" But then what usually follows on the heels of that is stagnation.

And one LAST TIME: it was stated at the very beginning that this conversation might be offensive, so we'd try to keep from bashing. So far it has succeeded in not bashing anyone in writing. What is going on inside the heads of the reader is another matter, and sometimes heated remarks slip back onto the boards.

Like I said... limbic system!

--------------------

Going back to the initial post by Anakin, I just want to ask why the parents passing the leaflets and putting up posters against the school's teaching evolution are so afraid to let their kids learn of it. I mean, the parents and their churches can teach the one view, the schools can teach the other (separation of Church and state, supposedly, yeah that's right) and then the kids can choose their own path. Isn't that what being a parent is all about? Protecting your offspring, feeding and clothing him or her and so on, hopefully instilling morality in him or her, presenting him or her with a wealth of views about things (the more the info, the broader the database by which to make a decision) and then stepping back and letting the kid test his or her own wings? Isn't a "forcing of viewpoints" kinda like being a little Hitler? (This is the "only" way to be, because I say it is....)

Again, not meaning to offend. Just asking simple questions.

--------------------

I think the whole teenage "revolt against the parants" is a natural thing, that is implanted within our brains, to prevent this whole thing, because we have the NEED to deffy our parants, we end up learning, and growing, therin making knowledge evolve with the world.

anyway, this might not be fully what was intended by everythign said, but those are my takes!

--------------------

All THAT to say, simply because I believe in God, this does NOT mean I'm not a seeker of knowledge and NOT a quite educated person. It just simply means that I still believe in a Higher Power.

And, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, I don't see a thing wrong with parents who believe in God allowing their children to learn about evolution. I know quite a bit about it, and quite frankly, I see holes in the theory. Does this mean that suddenly I'm "brainwashed" or "not informed" or "don't understand the Universe"? No. And after all, who in this world DOES understand everything about the Universe?

--------------------

I see the facts of evolution, I have no understanding of someone who doesn't understand it, or believe in it. You see the facts, just like I do, because Graysith has done us good by presenting them. I really would like to know what you find wrong about it. I want to know where the holes you see are, because I really don't see them. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can tell me what that is. Or, maybe you're missing something, or think there is a hole, and we can explain it to you so that that hole is no longer a hole.

Please, help me out here.

--------------------

And nobody EVER responded to that point. Not really.

And you might not UNDERSTAND me, but respecting what I believe and me as the person who believes it might be nice.

--------------------

Where is the hole?

--------------------

Just to clarify...

--------------------