NationStates Jolt Archive

Aren't we all humans? I know what I am talking about you baboons. I make a mistake, guess what? I never said I was god all I am doing is simply proving that evolution was, is and always will be a fairy tale made for humans to destroy god.

1) Calling all who disagree with you "baboons" won't get you any respect.
2) If God is omnipotent, how can he be destroyed? Evolution does not say there is no God.

Anyways, if evolution is true, then answer me these questions; how did all the molecules in the universe fit into a infinite decimal region? (Infinite decimal region [tecimal maybe, I am pretty sure it is decimal] is a dot in Greek translations)

The word you were looking for here was "infinitesimal" it's all one word, and means "infinetly small". The short answer to your question is we don't know because we haven't been able to penetrate back beyond the Planck Era yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_era

How did all of it just happen to come together and explode?
It was already together. Where it came from we don't know.

How did rain just happen to appear and rain on rocks?
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/past/earths_primordial_ocean.html&edu=high

How did the rocks somehow turn into a living organism?

Rocks didn't. Self-replicating molecules did.

Sorry, but the theory of evolution sounds so ridiculous that I wouldn't even teach it to my children let alone profess it as a science.

1) you do realize that most of your questions have nothing to do with evolution, don't you?
2) I couldn't care less what you teach your kids, but you won't teach it to mine.


Science:

sci•ence (sns) Pronunciation Key
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science )

Evolution isn't watch able or testable (experimental), however it is a theoretical explanation of how we came to be (our origins).

Thank you for the definition. I would never have known that if not for you. :rolleyes:

The same goes for Creationism.

Evolution is observable, as others on this thread have explained. Tell me how a literal interpretation of Genesis is.

Creationism has some 'proof' and the evolutionist will say they got proof, however, what the evolutionist wont admit is that their 'theory' is actually a religion now.

I wasn't aware there was a Church of Evolution.

Furthermore the big bang theory is not demonstrateable so that does not fit as science either.

What does the Big Bang have to do with Evolution?

The element of chance is actually quite important. So important for natural selection, that it is no wonder that we have so much difficulty in predicting the outcome of natural selection. To put it mildly, life is very complex.

One wonders, then, (just to bring this back to the original point made in the opening post) how anyone could *confidently* claim that humans are descended from apes.

In this case, like in many other areas, predicting the future is substantially more difficult than determining what has already happened in the past.


The evidence is supposed to be the high level of similarity between the genomes.

Actually, the theory of evolution was developed back before there was any real understanding of genetics. The idea that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes likewise predates modern genetics.

Evidence for evolution of humans from an ape ancestor does indeed include phylogenetics, but we also have evidence from many other fields. Believe me, the molecular biologists get PISSED when people act like evolutionary theory is all about the geneticists.


It is generally accepted that the similarity is high, but similarity, even high similarity, does not always mean common ancestry, of course.

It depends on what kind of similarity you are talking about.


What is not so often mentioned is that the differences between similarity within the coding regions and that outside of the coding regions is quite critical. We should expect high levels of similarity within the coding regions, and much less outside of them. High levels of homology within the coding regions would not necessarily be evidence for common ancestry, since it could also be due to the function (homologous functions, convergent evolution, etc.) of the gene. High levels of similarity outside of the coding regions would make a far more convincing case, providing we could demonstrate that those regions have not played any role in natural selection.

Yes, we expect to see that coding regions will be more conserved, because of the pressures of natural selection. Mutations in coding regions are far more likely to directly impact the individual animal's survival as compared to mutations in non-coding regions, so mutations in these regions will be "weeded out" more quickly if they don't pass muster. Mutations in non-coding regions can accumulate to a greater degree because the presence of these changes doesn't necessarily have any (known) impact on the individual's survival ability. Introns and pseudo-genes, in general, mutate at a faster rate than the coding portions of a gene.


But I thought I would ask you, Bottle, since you claim to be a scientist, what you know of the differences between the introns and extrons in the DNA between modern chimps and humans.
Yes, because all scientists study genetics, and any scientist who doesn't is no scientist at all.

However, since I'm a really nice person who also happens to read a lot in fields other than my own, I'll play along for a bit.

What do I know about genetic differences/similarities between chimps and humans? Buddy, if you knew the least thing about genetics you would know that you've gotta narrow that question down a whole helluva lot. That's like asking me what I know about the state of Wisconsin compared to the state of California. I'm not about to write a goddam book for you on this forum. :D

In this case, like in many other areas, predicting the future is substantially more difficult than determining what has already happened in the past.

I would have thought that a substantial part of reconstructing the past involves the ability to predict the future from an imagined past perspective.


Actually, the theory of evolution was developed back before there was any real understanding of genetics. The idea that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes likewise predates modern genetics.

But it was based on homology, wasn't it? Anatomical homology?


Evidence for evolution of humans from an ape ancestor does indeed include phylogenetics, but we also have evidence from many other fields. Believe me, the molecular biologists get PISSED when people act like evolutionary theory is all about the geneticists.

Now I am curious. What sort of molecular level biology provides evidence for common ancestry other than genomics? Do you mean metabolomics, proteomics, etc.? But according to modern theory, that is all encoded by the genes, so I suppose it ought to all come back to the information written in the genes.



Yes, we expect to see that coding regions will be more conserved, because of the pressures of natural selection. Mutations in coding regions are far more likely to directly impact the individual animal's survival as compared to mutations in non-coding regions, so mutations in these regions will be "weeded out" more quickly if they don't pass muster. Mutations in non-coding regions can accumulate to a greater degree because the presence of these changes doesn't necessarily have any (known) impact on the individual's survival ability. Introns and pseudo-genes, in general, mutate at a faster rate than the coding portions of a gene.


Yes, this is what I was referring to, except that sometimes what we think are introns, pseudo-genes, junk DNA, etc. can sometimes turn out to be things like non-coding RNA which can be absolutely essential to gene regulation. In such a case, we would really need to look at DNA that we could demonstrate to be non-essential.


Yes, because all scientists study genetics, and any scientist who doesn't is no scientist at all.

That was never my assertion. You are the one asserting that common ancestry between apes and humans is not necessarily based on genetics. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if there is any other significant evidence, perhaps you could hint at it.


However, since I'm a really nice person who also happens to read a lot in fields other than my own, I'll play along for a bit.

Good.


What do I know about genetic differences/similarities between chimps and humans? Buddy, if you knew the least thing about genetics you would know that you've gotta narrow that question down a whole helluva lot. That's like asking me what I know about the state of Wisconsin compared to the state of California. I'm not about to write a goddam book for you on this forum. :D

OK.

Similarities between coding regions.
Similarity between non-coding regions.
Is there a difference?
If so, is it what we would expect?
How do we know what to expect?

Or is that still Wisconsin and California?

Gawd, I get so weary of people just spontaneously shouting "I don't believe in/I don't understand evolutionary theory, so you have to prove it to me!" How else do you account for the many, many scientists who've dedicated years to learning the scientific method of theorising, testing, and interpreting the evidence to arrive at the understanding they reach? Between the DNA evidence, the geological evidence, and all the other marerial evidence that supports the theory that we evolved our way up from earlier forms of life.

But conversely, the arguments of the science-minded crowd often becomes just as dogmatic and devolves to a level of denial that's just as simplistic as the hardcore mysticists. Because eventually evolutionary theory works itself back to a point where the biological had to arise from something pre-biological. The complexity of the organic had to come from some earlier state, and while I hesitate to attribute it to the 'god' of any religion or another, there had to be something mysterious-- even if you call that mystery 'random chance' or 'probability'-- that the theist-bashers can't seem to acknowledge in their zeal to stand up for the absolute infallibility of science.

There's a point where what was once mysterious, and attributed to some arcane or divine power, came to be sufficiently understood as to become 'science,' but even the foremost cosmologists cannot say with absolute, 100% certainty that they *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt how or why the Big Bang took place. So there's a point where science, by contrast, becomes inadequate and gives way to something arcane.

So while I'm heavily inclined towards science, I think it's unfounded hubris to point at the theists and end the conversation with "you're naive and stupid."

I find the silliest thing about the evolution vs creation debate is that evolution has nothing to do with how life was created.

I find the silliest thing about the evolution vs creation debate is that evolution has nothing to do with how life was created.
That's because life wasn't created.

Life is a form of energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but, it can be changed.

Energy has always existed, but, it may have been weaker or stronger.

Evolution is a myth. we were created by the great noodley appendage. He spend seven minutes on high, creating us from mere noddles.

Ramen.

That's because life wasn't created.
Highly debatable.

Life is a form of energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but, it can be changed.
Hmmm, interesting. *ponders*

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

lol! Good ole Fundamentalist Christians spewing their bs. Life would be boring without them that's for sure. Oh and to answer your question from a Christian perspective, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges human evolution and has supported it since it's inception as long as it never treads on the Church's belief of humans having a soul...

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

So there you go Mr Fundie. A christian perception on the topic. Of course, I expect you to make the claim that "Catholics aren't Christians" opinion that most fundamentalists hold. But that's another debate in a different thread and frankly I am tired of having to repeat myself over and over since you idiots keep bringing the evolution subject matter up.

I would have thought that a substantial part of reconstructing the past involves the ability to predict the future from an imagined past perspective.

I think I see what you're saying, but I also think that's sort of a backwards way to look at it. Reconstructing the past is about determining what has already happened; you can also note the many other possible ways things could have ended up, but when you get right down to it you are interested in what DID happen.


Yes, this is what I was referring to, except that sometimes what we think are introns, pseudo-genes, junk DNA, etc. can sometimes turn out to be things like non-coding RNA which can be absolutely essential to gene regulation. In such a case, we would really need to look at DNA that we could demonstrate to be non-essential.

Yeah, that's why I said "in general."

The funny thing is, when we're talking about humans and chimps, the non-gene areas of DNA may actually be more important! I'll get into this more below, but the answer to "what makes humans human, and chimps chimps?" is believed to lie in the sections of the genome that direct the activity of the genes, rather than the actual genes themselves.


That was never my assertion. You are the one asserting that common ancestry between apes and humans is not necessarily based on genetics.

No, I am the one asserting that common ancestry between apes and humans was theorized long before modern genetics. Quite obviously, this theory CANNOT be predicated exclusively on genetic evidence, since it predates such evidence entirely!


I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if there is any other significant evidence, perhaps you could hint at it.

I recommend that you read The Origin Of Species to get yourself started. It's a bit dry, but surprisingly accessable. It can give you a sense of the evidence that the original theories were based upon.


Similarities between coding regions.
Similarity between non-coding regions.
Is there a difference?
If so, is it what we would expect?
How do we know what to expect?

Or is that still Wisconsin and California?
It's still a pretty huge area to cover, but here's some of the basics. Now, do keep in mind, I am NOT an expert in this field, so if we've got any genetics-minded folks lurking around then I encourage them to speak up and correct me if I get something wrong:

At the protein level, I believe that it's something like one third of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans.

In terms of sequence, there are about 35 million base pair differences between the shared portions of the chimp and human genomes. (Each genome contains something like 3 billion base pairs.) There are also several million other sites that are different because there as been insertion or deletion in one of the sequences. Most of the differences lie in areas of DNA that are believed to have little or no function, but something like 2-4 million of the differences may be found in functional areas of the genome (including protein-coding genes).

It's important to keep going back to the basics here. Genes give instructions for making proteins, right? Well, the proteins themselves seem to be very similar in humans and chimps. It appears that a lot of the key differences are in where, when, and in what amounts the proteins are made.

This kind of puts a whole new spin on using coding vs. non-coding regions to determine relatedness. When it comes to comparing two closely-related species, I think you sort of have to look in different places if you want to find the key differences and similarities.

The funny thing is, when we're talking about humans and chimps, the non-gene areas of DNA may actually be more important! I'll get into this more below, but the answer to "what makes humans human, and chimps chimps?" is believed to lie in the sections of the genome that direct the activity of the genes, rather than the actual genes themselves.


So, differences in gene expression levels rather than differences in DNA sequences? Hmmmm, possibly, but I suspect that both are rather important, and that it is mere speculation at this stage to say that one is more important than the other.


No, I am the one asserting that common ancestry between apes and humans was theorized long before modern genetics. Quite obviously, this theory CANNOT be predicated exclusively on genetic evidence, since it predates such evidence entirely!


OK, but my impression was that many of the similarities and differences between apes and humans that were determined prior to the discovery of DNA were superficial or at least no longer considered as good evidence for common ancestry--which is why I'm surprised that you are referring to them. For example, some people think that orangutans are closer to humans in gross morphology, despite chimps having more genetic similarities, and some chimps (pygmies?) that are not so similar to humans show greater tendency to walk upright than do those apes that show higher genetic similarities.




I recommend that you read The Origin Of Species to get yourself started. It's a bit dry, but surprisingly accessable. It can give you a sense of the evidence that the original theories were based upon.


OK. I have been meaning to read it through one day. Have you?


At the protein level, I believe that it's something like one third of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans.


But what would we *expect* in 6 million years? It seems to me that unless we know what to expect, we cannot draw any conclusions from this similarity. It simply wouldn't be scientific to conclude that we are thus related to the apes, or that we are a type of ape.


In terms of sequence, there are about 35 million base pair differences between the shared portions of the chimp and human genomes. (Each genome contains something like 3 billion base pairs.) There are also several million other sites that are different because there as been insertion or deletion in one of the sequences. Most of the differences lie in areas of DNA that are believed to have little or no function, but something like 2-4 million of the differences may be found in functional areas of the genome (including protein-coding genes).


OK. That is useful information.
But the question remains, then, as to whether the similarity came about because of the physical requirements and limitations of the mammalian body, or if the similarities caused them .....if you know what I mean. How can we distinguish cause from effect? It seems to me that we need to be able to do this in order to calculate some expectations, and then to see if the data fits with this.


It's important to keep going back to the basics here. Genes give instructions for making proteins, right? Well, the proteins themselves seem to be very similar in humans and chimps. It appears that a lot of the key differences are in where, when, and in what amounts the proteins are made.


Yes, no doubt the developmental biologists would love to make such a claim. They may have a point, but I would say that it is unnecessary to emphasis differences in the amounts of protein at the expense to differences in the amino acid sequence. Both are likely to be important, and at this stage, it is far too complicated to say, as far as I have read.


This kind of puts a whole new spin on using coding vs. non-coding regions to determine relatedness. When it comes to comparing two closely-related species, I think you sort of have to look in different places if you want to find the key differences and similarities.

Yeah, I would agree with you there. Science is full of the unexpected.

What is rather disappointing for me is that none of the publications regarding the genetic similarities between chimps and humans seem to distinguish between similarities of the coding vs. non-coding differences. For example, when the quote a figure such as 96% similarity, they should specify how they arrive at that number, otherwise it could be quite misleading.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned, unless there is some indication of what we would expect, it is hard to see how anyone can draw conclusions from the data. It's like they come up with a number, and then claim that this supports their theory, while failing to demonstrate *why* it supports their theory. Or maybe I still haven't read up on the subject enough. It certainly is not my area, just curious. They couldn't be that sloppy, surely.

De-evolution, on the other hand, is an observable fact. Just look at the next US Congress :p

"They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails.
I say it's all
Just wind in sails.
Are we not men?
We are devo!"
--Devo, "Jocko Homo"

More seriously: I read a news article the other day about venomous fish that referred to an analysis of their DNA that was used to predict the number of species within a certain family (order?) that should be venomous. The known number was something like 20, but the DNA analysis led to a prediction of 50-60 (IIRC). The predicted number was found to be accurate.

The prediction was grounded in a model that includes evolution of the fish from common ancestors.

Evidence for evolution? I would say yes.

Reference: "Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: A Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms", William Leo Smith, and Ward C. Wheeler, Journal of Heredity (2006), 97(3):206-217

Basics of Evolution in Kindergarten Terms (http://rants.lackofoxygen.net/evolution.html) (minus the safety scissors)

Basics of Evolution in Kindergarten Terms (http://rants.lackofoxygen.net/evolution.html) (minus the safety scissors)

Thank you :fluffle:

Thank you :fluffle:

I quite like this one Evidence for evolution (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution) posted earlier. Its pretty comprehensive, without being condesending.Though I can see the attraction of the condesending version :)

Yeah, I have a problem with being too condescending sometimes, but when I wrote that, I had just gotten off of a three-month run of daily arguing with people who didn't even know what the definition of evolution was. I had to ban myself from the forums for a few months because my blood pressure was getting out of control. I'm sure I'll add more to it soon since someone had posted (in the same forum) that 3.3 billion years "wasn't enough time" for life to evolve.

Sometimes I wish I had followed my mother's wishes and gone into history instead of paleontology...

Sometimes I wish I had followed my mother's wishes and gone into history instead of paleontology...

But then you'd run into asshats whom like to twist history into what they want the fuzzybunnyhappyhappyjoyjoy crap they want the side they agree with, and the other side as evilbabyeatingblooddrinkingrapistsandmurderers. Go to Texas and ask anyone about the Alamo, the Texas Revolution, and the Mexican American War to find out why. There are idiots in all fields, trust me. About the only one where there isn't is math, I would suppose. And that's just boring.

About the only one where there isn't is math, I would suppose. And that's just boring.

Math is the career-choice of people who don't want to interact with other people.

Biology's the way to go.

There's plenty of evidence of evolution, if you're willing to accept scientific discoveries over the years. If you're not willing to accept things like archaeology, paleontology, and carbon dating, stop reading now.
First, let's start with fossils of human ancestors. No fossils of human beings have been found earlier than 160,000 years ago. An article on the earliest <i>homo sapiens</i> fossils can be found here... http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...ckground.shtml
Any fossils dated earlier than that are some sort of pre-human creature, somewhere between ape and man. The famous "Lucy" and the newly discovered "Lucy's baby" are good examples of these types of finds...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...geographic.com
Elsewhere in nature, and occasionally in humans, we can find vestigial bones and organs. These bodily structures once had a purpose, but organisms have evolved beyond their use. The appendix and tailbone are two of the more well-known human vestigial structures. I refer you to the following for more information and resources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
As a final, somewhat more lighthearted example, I offer the following comic strip, which covers the idea of evolution vs. creationism...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nesbury_lg.gif

There's plenty of evidence of evolution, if you're willing to accept scientific discoveries over the years. If you're not willing to accept things like archaeology, paleontology, and carbon dating, stop reading now.
First, let's start with fossils of human ancestors. No fossils of human beings have been found earlier than 160,000 years ago. An article on the earliest <i>homo sapiens</i> fossils can be found here... http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...ckground.shtml
Any fossils dated earlier than that are some sort of pre-human creature, somewhere between ape and man. The famous "Lucy" and the newly discovered "Lucy's baby" are good examples of these types of finds...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...geographic.com
Elsewhere in nature, and occasionally in humans, we can find vestigial bones and organs. These bodily structures once had a purpose, but organisms have evolved beyond their use. The appendix and tailbone are two of the more well-known human vestigial structures. I refer you to the following for more information and resources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
As a final, somewhat more lighthearted example, I offer the following comic strip, which covers the idea of evolution vs. creationism...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nesbury_lg.gif

More seriously: I read a news article the other day about venomous fish that referred to an analysis of their DNA that was used to predict the number of species within a certain family (order?) that should be venomous. The known number was something like 20, but the DNA analysis led to a prediction of 50-60 (IIRC). The predicted number was found to be accurate.

The previous estimate was more like 200 venomous fishes, and the findings suggest that, ''based on ~1.1 million aligned base pairs, suggest that, in contrast to previous estimates of 200 venomous fishes, >1,200 fishes in 12 clades should be presumed venomous.''



The prediction was grounded in a model that includes evolution of the fish from common ancestors.


Predictive phylogeny is based on similarity in structures and DNA sequences. Whether one assumes that the similarity is because of common ancestry (evolution) or because of a common designer (limited evolution at the species and sub-species level and design) need not affect the overall outcome.


Evidence for evolution? I would say yes.


I would say no. They simply used similarities to make a prediction, something that anyone could do, IDers included.


Reference: "Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: A Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms", William Leo Smith, and Ward C. Wheeler, Journal of Heredity (2006), 97(3):206-217

I could only read the abstract, since they (Journal of Heredity) want money for the whole paper, unfortunately.

So, differences in gene expression levels rather than differences in DNA sequences?

Not exactly. The DNA sequence, in areas that don't code specifically for proteins, is involved in determining gene expression levels.


Hmmmm, possibly, but I suspect that both are rather important, and that it is mere speculation at this stage to say that one is more important than the other.
Yeah, I think I must have been unclear about that. I'm not saying that the DNA sequence is less important than the gene expression; I'm saying DNA sequence in regions outside of the protein-coding sections is largely responsible for gene expression, so the "non-gene" areas of DNA are actually more important than people used to think.


OK, but my impression was that many of the similarities and differences between apes and humans that were determined prior to the discovery of DNA were superficial or at least no longer considered as good evidence for common ancestry--which is why I'm surprised that you are referring to them.

Some are, for sure, but many aren't. For instance, the bone structure differences are still considered quite sound and valid areas of research.


For example, some people think that orangutans are closer to humans in gross morphology, despite chimps having more genetic similarities, and some chimps (pygmies?) that are not so similar to humans show greater tendency to walk upright than do those apes that show higher genetic similarities.

This is quite true, but it doesn't really pose any problem for evolutionary theory.


OK. I have been meaning to read it through one day. Have you?

Yes, but I will admit I only did so because it was required for a course I took. If it hadn't been, I probably would not have read it.


But what would we *expect* in 6 million years? It seems to me that unless we know what to expect, we cannot draw any conclusions from this similarity.

I don't know how you reach that conclusion.

In 6 million years, I could "expect" at least a gazillion different outcomes. The one that we are currently experiencing is definitely a possible outcome of 6 million years of evolution from a particular common ancestor on this planet.

We aren't going to be able to know what to expect. Period. There are just too many variables in trying to predict across that kind of time span. What we can do is generate some sound and reasonable hypotheses, and then gather data to see if we can exclude hypotheses and refine our "expectations." That's how science works, and that's how evolutionary biology works.


It simply wouldn't be scientific to conclude that we are thus related to the apes, or that we are a type of ape.

I don't know what you mean by "scientific" in this context. The theory that we share a common ancestor with modern apes is a scientific one, generated using the scientific method, tested using scientific principles.

Whether or not it's CORRECT is still unanswered, because we've still got a long way to go in testing this massive hypothesis. But there is no question whatsoever that it is scientific.


OK. That is useful information.
But the question remains, then, as to whether the similarity came about because of the physical requirements and limitations of the mammalian body, or if the similarities caused them .....if you know what I mean. How can we distinguish cause from effect?

I'd say it's a bit of both.

Let's say we're looking at some early ape species. This species is limited by the form it already has, and by the needs of that form. It is also being shaped by the continual force of selection in its environment.

Another ape species, existing at the same time but in a different environment, will be facing different selective pressures. This different species will also have at least a few differences in form and needs.

The similarities between the two species may lead them to generate similar "solutions" to various situations, while their differences may enable one species to come up with a solution that is not available to the other.

It's bloody complicated, is what it is.


It seems to me that we need to be able to do this in order to calculate some expectations, and then to see if the data fits with this.

You know, something I have often bitched about with other researchers is how easily people over look the importance of a descriptive foundation for a research program. People refer to a project as being "merely" descriptive, as if this were of small importance next to the oh-so-critical experimental work.

But really, you've got to start with observation of your system, and you should start out with no expectations at all. Your first step should be to observe what is, and do so without letting your personal expectations get involved at all.


Yes, no doubt the developmental biologists would love to make such a claim. They may have a point, but I would say that it is unnecessary to emphasis differences in the amounts of protein at the expense to differences in the amino acid sequence. Both are likely to be important, and at this stage, it is far too complicated to say, as far as I have read.

I (hopefully) addressed this above. The sequence determines both the type of protein and strongly influences the expression of the protein.


Yeah, I would agree with you there. Science is full of the unexpected.

What is rather disappointing for me is that none of the publications regarding the genetic similarities between chimps and humans seem to distinguish between similarities of the coding vs. non-coding differences. For example, when the quote a figure such as 96% similarity, they should specify how they arrive at that number, otherwise it could be quite misleading.

I don't mean to sound snooty here, but mainstream publications are usually crap when it comes to reporting science. I'd strongly recommend that you try checking out scientific journals if you want to get more interesting updates on this sort of topic. Journals like Science and Nature are a good place for educated laypeople to start. They're going to have a lot more meat to them than your average publication, but they are not as full of technical information and jargon as some of the more specialized journals.


Furthermore, as I have mentioned, unless there is some indication of what we would expect, it is hard to see how anyone can draw conclusions from the data. It's like they come up with a number, and then claim that this supports their theory, while failing to demonstrate *why* it supports their theory. Or maybe I still haven't read up on the subject enough. It certainly is not my area, just curious. They couldn't be that sloppy, surely.
I guess maybe I'm just misunderstanding you here. The theory of evolution is a broad area of study, and there are piles of hypotheses that exist under that umbrella. These are all predictions based on existing evidence which can then be tested; people say, "this is what we expect, now let's see if it is the case."

Pretty much every published paper in every legitimate scientific journal has to pass this fundamental test before it can get anywhere...believe me, the worst criticism you can get from a reviewer is, "This work is not hypothesis-driven."

Not exactly. The DNA sequence, in areas that don't code specifically for proteins, is involved in determining gene expression levels.

I suppose you mean things like promoters and ribosome binding regions, e.g. regulatory DNA. No doubt this is quite important, and might explain some of the differences between apes and humans. My impression is that regulatory DNA is by far the minority of the DNA sequence in the genome, and yet given that it could play a major role in the overall morphological differences between apes and humans, such differences in regulatory DNA might be underestimated, simply because it is so much less than coding DNA. Is that what you mean?


Yeah, I think I must have been unclear about that. I'm not saying that the DNA sequence is less important than the gene expression; I'm saying DNA sequence in regions outside of the protein-coding sections is largely responsible for gene expression, so the "non-gene" areas of DNA are actually more important than people used to think.


OK, but then that does depend on which people you are referring to. Anyone who works in the area of gene expression and regulation would know how important it is to look at the regulatory DNA, surely.


Some are, for sure, but many aren't. For instance, the bone structure differences are still considered quite sound and valid areas of research.


This is quite true, but it doesn't really pose any problem for evolutionary theory.


Wait, you are saying that while there are some morphological features of the human and apes bodies that are still considered good evidence for evolution, and yet when the differences are not as expected, this doesn't pose any problem for evolutionary theory.

''Evolutionary theory predicts that if organisms are related then the anatomy of organisms that are closely related will be closer to one another than organisms that are less closely related even if they live in a more similar environment.''
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution

You may or may not agree with this statement, but if you do, then this would appear to be a contradiction, would it not?


I don't know how you reach that conclusion.

In 6 million years, I could "expect" at least a gazillion different outcomes. The one that we are currently experiencing is definitely a possible outcome of 6 million years of evolution from a particular common ancestor on this planet.

We aren't going to be able to know what to expect. Period. There are just too many variables in trying to predict across that kind of time span. What we can do is generate some sound and reasonable hypotheses, and then gather data to see if we can exclude hypotheses and refine our "expectations." That's how science works, and that's how evolutionary biology works.


My point was that if there are no expectations, then we cannot match our findings with those expectations, and then we cannot make conclusions.

And by 'expectations', I don't mean beliefs or personal expectations, but simply a workable hypothesis.

There might be many different outcomes in 6 million years of evolution scenario, but given what we know about DNA and heritance, what would we expect? If, as you say, we cannot know what to expect, then the conclusion that 'we humans are related to apes because of an X degree of similarity' does not make any logical sense. It would look more like a conclusion based on the belief than any comparison of expected versus observed.


I don't know what you mean by "scientific" in this context. The theory that we share a common ancestor with modern apes is a scientific one, generated using the scientific method, tested using scientific principles.

Whether or not it's CORRECT is still unanswered, because we've still got a long way to go in testing this massive hypothesis. But there is no question whatsoever that it is scientific.


I'm not personally convinced that it is a scientific theory. Sure, it is a hypothesis, but the way that it is considered by many as fact (i.e. lack of objectivity), and the lack of a suitable experiment to test this hypothesis, and even the apparent lack of the necessary 'expected versus observed comparisons' means that, for me, this conclusion in not a scientific one. It might be correct, or it might not be, but who would be unscientific enough to actually *believe* it to be true?

Apparently, some people do. For example, Dr Wildman (Wayne State University, School of Medicine, Detroit, US), said: "You could say that humans and chimps are as similar to one another as say horses and donkeys.'' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm

But isn't that a wild thing to say? Most people would probably know that donkeys and horses can breed to produce mules. Is he suggesting that chimps and humans could also produce sterile offspring? Or does he think that we have the completed genomes of horses and donkeys and is thus able to make such a comparison? I call him a believer, and think that he should be ashamed of making such an unscientific statement. But here is an example of a leading researcher saying unscientific things but being really confident about his beliefs. No wonder people are confused about science.


Let's say we're looking at some early ape species. This species is limited by the form it already has, and by the needs of that form. It is also being shaped by the continual force of selection in its environment.

Another ape species, existing at the same time but in a different environment, will be facing different selective pressures. This different species will also have at least a few differences in form and needs.

The similarities between the two species may lead them to generate similar "solutions" to various situations, while their differences may enable one species to come up with a solution that is not available to the other.

It's bloody complicated, is what it is.


Sure, it is complicated. Which makes it all the more important that leading researchers don't get all cocky and make big claims about what they believe and try to pass it off as a scientific conclusion. Makes me sick.


You know, something I have often bitched about with other researchers is how easily people over look the importance of a descriptive foundation for a research program. People refer to a project as being "merely" descriptive, as if this were of small importance next to the oh-so-critical experimental work.


Right. That's like mixing up research goals with technical details.




But really, you've got to start with observation of your system, and you should start out with no expectations at all. Your first step should be to observe what is, and do so without letting your personal expectations get involved at all.


It depends on what you mean by expectations. Personal expectations are going to be involved, despite what it is that humans attempt. That's because we cannot work independently from our humanity. The next best thing is peer review, but that also is not infallible. Scientists should strive for objectivity, but realize that they will never have it.

But wouldn't it be more reasonable to begin with the expectations, even before the observations? For example, if we begin to look at DNA similarity between chimps and humans without knowing that we could expect to find some similarity, that would not make sense. I suppose one could argue that the expectation that humans and chimps are related comes from the observation of morphological similarities in the body forms, and thus that observation came before the expectation. But then again, wasn't there already an unwritten expectation that physical similarities generally indicate a common source. And wasn't there an expectation that our eyes do not deceive us? I reckon it makes more sense to recognise that expectations always come first, whether we realize them or not.



I don't mean to sound snooty here, but mainstream publications are usually crap when it comes to reporting science. I'd strongly recommend that you try checking out scientific journals if you want to get more interesting updates on this sort of topic. Journals like Science and Nature are a good place for educated laypeople to start. They're going to have a lot more meat to them than your average publication, but they are not as full of technical information and jargon as some of the more specialized journals.


Sure, that makes sense.


I guess maybe I'm just misunderstanding you here. The theory of evolution is a broad area of study, and there are piles of hypotheses that exist under that umbrella. These are all predictions based on existing evidence which can then be tested; people say, "this is what we expect, now let's see if it is the case."

Pretty much every published paper in every legitimate scientific journal has to pass this fundamental test before it can get anywhere...believe me, the worst criticism you can get from a reviewer is, "This work is not hypothesis-driven."

Yes, this is the process that I expect to see in science. "This is what we expect, now let's see if it is the case'' scenarios are the basis of progress in science. The conclusions are derived from this comparison.

I sometimes wonder, though, if there really is any experiment that where we could really test the theory of evolution. Probably not, because if there were, I probably would have read about them by now. Many people believe it is a theory, when really, it should be only a hypothesis until such time as we can test the basic assumptions of the theory themselves. That the theory seems to contain much explaining power and intellectually satisfies many people is not sufficient grounds for elevating it to the status of ''theory'' . Not until the basic underlying assumptions themselves can be put to the test. In the meanwhile, as you said, the best we can do is make predictions based on the theory and put those predictions to the test. Of course, some predictions do succeed, and some don't. When they don't, we call the physical world complicated and confusing and look for an alternative, and when they do, we conclude that the theory of evolution must be true.

However, in my opinion, real scientists wouldn't believe the theory to be true, only that it is possibly the best way of explaining origins within a given set of assumptions about the nature of the physical world.

Furthermore, such a theory cannot exclude alternative ways of explaining origins, if those set of assumptions are altered.

I found this article that some of the creationists on here might want to read...

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre.htm

I found this article that some of the creationists on here might want to read...

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre.htm

Lots of interesting things there, thanks! I especially liked the summary of the book Wizard in a Waistcoat that describes the masonic, demonic, Satanist upbringing Darwin had. The line about his "unhealthy interest in the rural English countryside, with its druidic rock carvings" was particularly precious.