Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[grannymh]

ID is half falsified. Irreducible complexity as mark of a Designer is true; ignorance of the Designer’s identity (whether true or feigned) is false - an insult to the Father of all creation.

Again, the word evidence draws instant attention… evidence consonant with the thread rules is rarely presented.We look forward to seeing the abundant evidence of species change… when the meaning of species is well-defined as a single universal definition, applicable to all life forms.
All should be aware of the 'species problem’

Species is a category within a classification system. That system has changed from Aristotle up to modern times. So the meaning has shifted historically.

Then we have 3 criteria for classifying: form, function and genotype. A species definition must resolve the present differences between these three.

To prove that there was microbe to man evolution demands a single species definition. Else, some unscrupulous evols may change the definition along the way to suit their ideology (it could happen). Then we would have an evolution of the meaning of species.

Even Mayr listed 5 interpretations of species. Then there were added 26 more species "concepts", as the attempt to define species was abandoned.

There was an attempt to classify a type of Pacific salmon as an endangered species. Why did it take ten(10) years to decide this in court? Because no one could agree on the definition of species , or sub-species…

Some relevant quotes, from evols all:
“… I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties” Darwin 1859

“No term is more difficult to define than “species,” and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word”. Nicholson (1872)

“Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized” Dobzhansky (1937)

“The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms” Haldane (1956)

“The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word ‘species’.” Hey (2001)

“First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence.” Pigliucci (2003)

“An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)” Bonde
Sophists may try to claim macro-evolution by picking a few of the 31 species concepts and passing them off as the definition of species.

Do not fear, reader! The thread police will protect you and enforce the rules of evidence until we - or the thread - dies.

AMDG

npatrol: = granny in disguise

Read your post, checked the links, liked the one that included chocolate on its “about” page. Most important, am coming to the conclusion that humans are their own species.

Question to you: How would you define the human species?

Would you use both natural kind and a biological classification to show its relationship to primates for example? What about form and function? My dictionary shows genotype as the genetic makeup of an organism or a group of organisms – would humans be an unique genotype because there are major differences between humans and the cousin chimps? Or what?

 

[grannymh]

Quote: from grannymh
…I am positive that there is good cause to consider the possibility that the current human species evolved separately from its cousin chimps or other shirttail animal cousins. To me, it would be a fun-type brain challenge to explore the differences between branches of the alleged family tree or trees.

We have considered the possibility of human evolution from other than human descendants, but have found it contradicts the faith, reason and the scientific method. What is the good cause that’s consistent with the rules of evidence here?

.

I have seen posts similar to what you describe and have rejected them in addition to rejecting any suggestion of polygenism. The good cause is two parents of the human race.

We also enjoy the brain challenge of a good mystery story or science-fiction. But this thread is about the challenge of truth - much more exciting. Let’s not confuse the two: speculation vs. validation.

I once used the idea of a good mystery story as the introduction to the Holy Eucharist–for our church bulletin. This is the beginning:

“The word mystery simply means ‘that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.’ The ending of a good ‘whodunit’ will have us wondering how we missed the clues that were there all along. Scientists also experience the same feelings of amazement when a ‘discovery’ is no longer mysterious.”

Truth about the Eucharist as well as the truth of Divine Revelation regarding our origin is indeed a brain challenge. It is our trust in God that allows us to enjoy this exciting challenge.

Regarding speculation vs. validation. I am allergic to the mutually exclusive “or”. The trouble with a lot of threads is that people remain in either/or ruts. What is wrong with speculation if it is labeled as such? Columbus did it. Is free (appropriate) speech here or not?

Quote: from grannymh
…there is still the evidence of wood stoves and air conditioners which have been brain-devised to compensate for slow mutations of the human genome.

Originally Posted by Alethios

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Is this ‘evidence’ a fanciful way of saying our mental capabilities to produce new technology…

Of course it is deliberately fanciful as an antidote to the idea that we are a mechanical evolving bucket of bolts. It is also a word play on adaptation. Do people really think about how we are different from the species who adapt to environments?

New technology? That which is proven scientifically to the point that we forget that we have mental capabilities to go beyond the physical world of our created universe to reach the ultimate reality of God, the Creator. The Catholic Eucharist is totally beyond the realm of sensory perception.

…exceed the pace of (beneficial) physical mutations of our genome?
If so, there are a few points:

Compensate is an open ended word. It works with exceeding the pace… It also invites examination of the principle of “mutation” which you did.

There are no beneficial gene mutations observed; only negative and at best neutral changes.

This is an interesting point about a new area for me.

Continued on post 363

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 362

The origin of our technical skills is found in Revelation. The command to multiply and fill the earth - made to Adam and Noah - implies that the Father will support population growth with developing technology. One farm can feed thousands of people; one textile factory can clothe the same. One construction crew can house hundreds of people.

This truth is well put.

Our self-centered pride in our engineering and technology accomplishments is misdirected; they are manifestations of the Father’s support for us and what He commands.
Matthew 6:8 … your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him.

Proper humility is truly needed.

The evolutionary puzzle needs to be reexamined not fought over. If a wood stove and an air conditioner can start the scientific creative juices flowing, then my writing was successful. If my vagueness invites inquiry, then science has a new chance at the mystery of life. In the meantime, I will continue to seek the path that goes back to Adam and Eve. I have no clue what kind of a path it is or how many curves will lead to mysteries. No matter. The point is to keep putting one foot in front of the other.

Blessings,
granny

All for the greater honor and glory of God.

 

[Alethios]

Personally, I lean to an evolutionary model which will take into account the observable differences between animals and humans. As I recall, observation is what Darwin did.

We lean to a creation model that takes into account the observable designed differences between animals and humans.

Observation is what scientists do. We observe that there are hundreds of annual extinctions, but no new arrivals.

We are in some respects more intelligent than most other species.

Define intelligence. Then: in what respects more intelligent ? In what other species?

… the logical evidence that current humans evolved separately from current chimps is the observable differences between them.

If there were no differences, how would you tell humans from chimps?
Whether humans evolved from the chimp line or another line, this would still be evolution.

This is not logical evidence, it’s a non sequitur…

How can intangibles such as intentionality, freedom and creativity can be scientifically related to a mass of matter?

Your correspondent is a materialist. As every reader (almost) already realizes.

Feel free to join in, speculate wildly and then label your fantasy as proof of evol.

Evolution can happen in fewer than ten years:
sciencedaily.com/releases…0610185526.htm

This is not speculation but fact: micro-evolution. We had in mind something wild that pushes the edge - like designer teen stars.

Then they have the article mistitled. If you’re right it should read “Guppy study supports anti-scientific YEC viewpoint.”

Guppy study supports micro-evolution is the truth, but would get a big yawn for a response.

AMDG

 

[Michaelo]

Alethios

Do you favor ID or creationism? Or something else?

 

[Alethios]

Original

: There are only two theories of life: creation/design and evolution. …
A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.

…I see logical fallacies have pervaded this debate as well–in your case false dichotomy. Please demonstrate why only two explanations can possibly exist.

…Regarding “A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.” I only got as far as evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive but rather both/and. I will wait for the demonstration.

… She/he doesn’t understand why there is no contradiction between these two terms

The official thread epistemology is the Bible and the Magisterium, who have said (three popes) that Biblical interpretation is primoliteral. So how does the book of Genesis read?

• that all kinds/baramin of life were created in the first six days, where the Hebrew yom means a 24 hour day, not megayears.
• that Adam, the first man, was formed from eretz, which means clay, not an existing life form
• that Eve, the first woman, was formed from Adam, not a different life form.
• that on the seventh day, God stopped creating everything, including new baramin. So important was this fact of resting, that it was stated three times (to emphasize that each Person stopped?) and made a day devoted to the Lord.

Since Day 7 God has maintained the baramin he created through His providence, by forming individuals of the various baramin types. There would be no more creation of new forms since then.

Evolution in the Darwinian sense of macro-evolution contradicts the time limit of creation in 6 days as divinely revealed. There is no compatibility between Genesis creation and neoDarwinism, no compromise that baptizes evol., no third option.

… just a simple misunderstanding of what “creation” means.

A saint should know what creation means.

The name of the author, the title of the article, the date it was published and the journal/website it was published in.

Dr. Josef Holzschuh, Dr. Jean de Pontcharra and Hugh Miller
La Teoria dell’ Evoluzione: Un Bilancio Critico
presented 2/23/2009
National Research Council

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

I was using the example of the kitchen scale to show in simple terms why using the C14 method to try to measure the age of anything much older than about 50,000 years is useless.

C14 dating is useless for inorganic material…Dino bones are organic.
9 out of 9 dinosaur bone samples tested <34 kyrs.

It’s all about the evidence using the scientific method, brothers and sisters. Think, evols, think!

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

The results of tests on an old object can be affected by contamination of the sample, improper preparation, residual carbon in the equipment and other things.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

A number will come out, but that number may be useless.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

The kitchen scales give you a number but that number bears no relation to your real weight.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

C14 will give you a number on an old dinosaur fossil, but that number will bear no relation to the actual age of the fossil.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

So, since you do not believe in creation by Vishnu, and there are only two theories, you must believe in evolution

Hear this O Israel! The Lord your God is the only God! There is no other!
The rules of evidence here are traditional faithful Catholic.

Go start a thread on VAF - the Vedic Answers Forum.

Then there are only four “kinds” in existence: bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses

Scripture specifies no limit to the number of barymin.

When I showed him the fact sheet on Catholic Transubstantiation and miracles, he made sure that it was clear that miracles were not opposed to science.

One obvious defect of science is that it cannot handle one-time events… like miracles.

AMDG

 

[grannymh]

We lean to a creation model that takes into account the observable designed differences between animals and humans.

That’s good. Do you place any designed difference at the top of the list?

Define intelligence. Then: in what respects more intelligent ? In what other species?

 

[grannymh]

If there were no differences, how would you tell humans from chimps?

This reminded me of a question in an earlier post – However, it is not really necessary to give an answer. Just thinking about it is all that is necessary. To rephrase that question: How does anyone define or explain or classify the human species?

 

[Michaelo]

Alethios

From a scientific perspective, invoking irreducible complexity to substantiate ID (or whatever it is you accept) relies on false dichotomy. If you wish to defend the scientific legitimacy of ID, then please do not appeal to the Bible.

 

[hecd2]

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Perhaps you missed this - or perhaps you ignored it since it rather inconveniently for you answers your question:

Dinosaur fossils such as hadrosaur and T rex lie below the K-T boundary - there is no instance of an articulated non-avian dinosaur fossil lying above the iridium anomaly and the change in biota that marks the K-T boundary (and that includes any dinosaur fossils that Hugh Miller has access to). Dinosaurs, along with many other clades of animals (including microscopic animals) and plants also went extinct, but other clades such as mammals and birds survived across the boundary. See, for example, MacLeod et al, The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition, Journal of the Geological Society 154 (2): 265–292 and Fastovsky and Sheehan, The Extinction of the Dinosaurs in North America,* GSA Today* 15, 4 - 10 and so on.

The date of the K-T boundary has been consistently found to be about 65 - 66 million years BP using a range of radiometric and astronomic dating methods applied in multitudes of locations all over the world. See for example:
Kuiper et al, Synchronizing Rock Clocks of Earth History, *Science *320, 500- 504 (2008), where the K-T boundary is found to be 65.95 million years BP using 40Ar-39Ar dating fine-calibrated by the Milankovitch 405k year astronomical cycle.

So dinosaurs became extinct at or before the K-T boundary and so are at least 65 million years old. Thus it is absurd, and a waste of time to attempt to date them with a technique that has a maximum scale of 100,000 years. You will only get spurious results.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

In addition, to my reply, post 348, I have a few questions about this paper. Did it mention or refer to research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota? www.mayoclinic.org/awake-brain-surgery/brain-mapping,html

Not so far as I know.

Were the patients being treated for a tumor or epileptic seizures? What was the age and sex of the patients? Were other details about the patients given in the paper? What kind of sedatives were given to the patients? The abstract describes which regions were stimulated–how long was the stimulation and how long was the questioning period?

“We used direct electrical stimulation (DES) in seven individuals with brain tumors located anteriorly (N = 4, PM1 to PM4) or posteriorly (N = 3, PP1 to PP3) to the central sulcus. Patients were operated under local anesthesia by using DES as a functional mapping technique in order to minimize the risk of postoperative sequelae (11). DES was delivered with a bipolar electrode using standard increasing intensities (2, 5, and 8 mA) and durations (1, 2, and 4 s). Up to four replications were performed for each stimulation site. Replications were delivered nonconsecutively to avoid provoking seizures. Throughout the experiment, electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected in the contralesional hemibody in 12 muscles covering the face, hand, wrist, elbow, knee, and foot”

"Patient PP1
Male, 42 years old.
Cavernoma in the right temporo-parietal region.
5 sites stimulated.

Patient PP2
Female, 41 years old.
Oligodendroglioma in the right posterior parietal region.
11 sites stimulated.

Patient PP3
Male, 76 years old.
Glioblastoma in the left fronto-temporo-parietal region.
9 sites stimulated.

Patient PM1
Male, 31 years old.
Melanoma in the right central sulcus.
3 sites stimulated.

Patient PM2
Female, 43 years old.
Nodular lesion consecutive to the treatment of a brain nocadia abscessus in the right
prefrontal region.
3 sites stimulated.

Patient PM3
Male, 52 years old.
Meningioma in the left lower frontal circonvolution.
17 sites stimulated.

Patient PM4
Female, 54 years old.
Oligodendroglioma in the right prefrontal region (tumoral recurrence).
9 sites stimulated.

Because the procedures of the surgeons are obviously different than the researches, I am curious how the researches made use of their opportunity. Was the entire brain mapping observed and recorded by the researchers?

Yes, as far as I can tell:
“A neuronavigation system was used for all patients. During
surgery, coordinates of the stimulation sites were recorded on individual high resolution MR
images, via the neuronavigation system (Fig. S1 below). Spatial normalisation of preoperative
MR images into the standard MNI space was performed using the dedicated non-linear
registration procedures provided by SPM5 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology,
London, UK; fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/). Lesion areas were manually defined from
preoperative MR images and masked to be excluded from the normalization transformation
(S12). Transformation from MNI to Talairach coordinates was performed using the icbm2tal
procedure (S13). Assignment of Brodmann area labels from Talairach coordinates was then
performed using the Talairach Client tool (talairach.org/) (S14). 3D surface
rendering images were generated from MR images using the Brainvisa software
(http://www.brainvisa.info/).”

Were the questions by the speech pathologist or the instructions given the neurologist plus the responses recorded by the researches?

yes but they are too extensive to reproduce here.

It still appears to me that the paper is basically concerned with the physical body and not something intangible like the concept of free will. However, since eventually I will propose that free will is one of the essential characteristics of humans – which leads to my position that humans may possibly have evolved separately – do you think that this would be the appropriate time to discuss it?

Well, I think the point is that “something intangible like the concept of free will” is a consequence and an emergent property of the physical body, not something that is separate and that stands above it. We can discuss your idea that humans evolved separately here if you like. As you probably know, my position is that that is not compatible with the molecular evidence. It is absolutely clear and incontrovertible that chimpanzees are the most closely related living species to humans and that we share a common ancestor who lived relatively recently (about 5 million years ago).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

Thank you, Alec.

I will be blending some of the general public information from Mayo Clinic website with this information. What I find absolutely amazing is that these tumors would normally be considered inoperable or extremely risky.

Quote: asked by grannymh
Were the questions by the speech pathologist or the instructions given the neurologist plus the responses recorded by the researches?

from Alec. yes but they are too extensive to reproduce here.

The fact that the questions and responses were extensive plus replications were delivered nonconsecutively gives a better picture of what was happening.

Quote: by grannymh
It still appears to me that the paper is basically concerned with the physical body and not something intangible like the concept of free will. However, since eventually I will propose that free will is one of the essential characteristics of humans – which leads to my position that humans may possibly have evolved separately – do you think that this would be the appropriate time to discuss it?

from Alec.
Well, I think the point is that “something intangible like the concept of free will” is a consequence and an emergent property of the physical body, not something that is separate and that stands above it. We can discuss your idea that humans evolved separately here if you like.

I would like the discussion regarding human evolution to have a variety of possibilities–speculations if you want to call them. It would be like writing a bunch of ideas, silly and serious possibilities, with or without evidence, on a blackboard.

from Alec. As you probably know, my position is that that [humans evolved separately] is not compatible with the molecular evidence. It is absolutely clear and incontrovertible that chimpanzees are the most closely related living species to humans and that we share a common ancestor who lived relatively recently (about 5 million years ago).

I also realize that such a relatively recent common ancestor would make it difficult for two parents to found the current human population. Reduced populations have also occurred in other species along with the founder effect and genetic drift.

Your position is scientifically based and I do respect that. My position is that somewhere along the line of evolutionary humanity, something differentiated the human lineage. In a sense, I am a wee bit like Darwin in that I can see what was happening in nature. The tough thing is to figure out how it happened.

In essence my position is to come up with all kinds of possibilities which would explain two and only two parents. For some possibilities, I have a fair idea where the evidence lies. For other possibilities, it is pure guessing. But I would like to put all these possibilities on the blackboard. My Irish Mother would say: there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The first possibility is that something made the human evolving different from other species. The ready evidence is that humans are currently different in kind from other species including chimps. Some of these differences have already been posted on other threads so all we have to do is bring them up again for review. At this point, I think it will be the culmination of differences which will result in humans as different in kind.

The paper we are discussing is a good place to look at the intangible concept of free will which may act as the keystone to my position. That is a pure guess, but I will leave it on the blackboard .

Right from the start, Alec, I see we have different thoughts about the concept of free will. My thought is nearly the exact opposite of it being “a consequence and an emergent property of the physical body, not something that is separate and that stands above it” quote from post 371. Please, if I put the wrong words in your mouth, correct the statement and believe me if you do such or misinterpret me, I will tell you so – with a smile.

One of the reasons for different ideas is the general misconceptions of free will which I have seen on other threads. Free will should not be considered separate from the physical body even though it is an intangible or spiritual quality. Both spiritual and physical aspects unite in the wholeness of the human being. When one or the other is missing, death occurs.

Alec, I can picture free will as something spiritual that stands above the body, if spiritual is what you meant above. However, I think that free will is more connected with the whole body than a lot of people realize. That is why I am very interested in the paper you offered. So let’s continue to examine what the paper is telling us and what it is not telling us. This may be just me; maybe I’m skeptical by nature, but I often look for what is missing in evidence or research.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[rossum]

that all kinds/baramin of life were created in the first six days, where the Hebrew yom means a 24 hour day, not megayears.

How many Baramins are there and how may we objectively recognise the boundaries between them? Is there an official list of the Baramins discovered to date available?

Dr. Josef Holzschuh, Dr. Jean de Pontcharra and Hugh Miller
La Teoria dell’ Evoluzione: Un Bilancio Critico
presented 2/23/2009
National Research Council

Thany you for the reference. I am afraid that Hugh Miller’s work is not very convincing. There is a paper on the problems with his results by Dr Lepper: Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones? (PDF).

To quote:CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History “by disguising the nature of the creationist science group” (Lafferty 1991:2B) and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. James King, Director of the Carnegie Museum, says Hugh Miller and his party identified themselves as chemists who wanted to do some analyses of the chemical composition of the fossils. King says that small “bits and pieces” which had spalled off the surfaces of various specimens were offered to Miller with the explicit warning that the fossil bones had been “covered heavily in shellac” and other “unknown preservatives.” Miller accepted the fragments and indicated that the coatings posed no problems for the analyses they were considering. Subsequently, several of the bone fragments were submitted to the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry for radiocarbon dating. CRSEF “also arranged the Arizona testing by not revealing its origins” (Lafferty 1991:2B). Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless.
Shellac is an organic compound which contains carbon. Such contamination will affect all C-14 testing on such contaminated samples. Hugh Miller’s results are not reliable.

rossum

 

[spankyg]

We didn’t come from a sack of cells which turned into a bug which turned into a lizard which turned into a dinosaur which turned into a bird which turned into a monkey which turned into a human.

Common sense is hard to find now days.

 

[rossum]

We didn’t come from a sack of cells which turned into a bug which turned into a lizard which turned into a dinosaur which turned into a bird which turned into a monkey which turned into a human.

Common sense is hard to find now days.

But we did come from a sack of cells inside our mother’s uterus. During its development that sack of cells in turn resembled a fish embryo, a lizard embryo and a monkey embryo.

Common knowledge is hard to find now days.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

But we did come from a sack of cells inside our mother’s uterus. During its development that sack of cells in turn resembled a fish embryo, a lizard embryo and a monkey embryo.

Common knowledge is hard to find now days.

rossum

That is not true. Haeckel’s drawings allegedly showing this were found to be fraudulent.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Gem9ndcAXb0J:medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/somsweb.nsf/resources/freeman01/%24file/haeckel.pdf+haeckels+embryo+forgery&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

This is similar to the published claim that “junk DNA” would contain the remnants of man’s evolutionary development. This also proved not to be the case. The junk, or non-coding regions, have been shown to be useful now, today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

That is not true.

You are incorrect. My statements are true.

Haeckel’s drawings allegedly showing this were found to be fraudulent.

That is also true.

Here is a fake picture of Jesus:



Does that picture mean that Jesus and Lenin never existed? No, it just means that that particular picture is a fake.

Haeckel’s pictures were inaccurate. My statements are not.

This is similar to the published claim that “junk DNA” would contain the remnants of man’s evolutionary development. This also proved not to be the case.

You are misinformed. Among other things the non-coding regions of DNA include our broken copy of the GULO gene, which is why we cannot make our own vitamin C.

The junk, or non-coding regions, have been shown to be useful now, today.

Parts of the non-coding region are known to be useful. Other parts have no known use. Around 4% of our genome codes for proteins. About the same amount again is the useful non-coding DNA. The rest, 92% or so, has no known use and includes rubbish like poly-A: AAAAAA … AAAAAAAA for hundreds of base pairs.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

That is not true. Haeckel’s drawings allegedly showing this were found to be fraudulent.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Gem9ndcAXb0J:medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/somsweb.nsf/resources/freeman01/%24file/haeckel.pdf+haeckels+embryo+forgery&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

This is similar to the published claim that “junk DNA” would contain the remnants of man’s evolutionary development. This also proved not to be the case. The junk, or non-coding regions, have been shown to be useful now, today.

Peace,
Ed

Rossum didn’t mention Haeckel. Why did you bring that up?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

But we did come from a sack of cells inside our mother’s uterus. During its development that sack of cells in turn resembled a fish embryo, a lizard embryo and a monkey embryo.

Common knowledge is hard to find now days.

rossum

You say this is true. Can you provide evidence it is, along with photographs of the development?

This may interest you: Interstitial telomeric sequences are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420924

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

This may interest you: Interstitial telomeric sequences are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420924

Peace,
Ed

This interests me. Thank you.

Clarifications needed, please.

What are "exact evolutionary breakpoints? inversions? signs of repair?

Does this have something to do with the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees?

Does it have something to do with determining, mathematically, how long it took to reach our current population according to genetics?

How do the cute Rhesus Macaque monkeys fit in? and where did the humans go after the common ancestor bit?

I’m not sure how to coordinate the following additional information –
percentages [with percentages for other comparisons between humans and others], base pairs, common ancestors, locations, and time frames.

From Wikipedia: Work on the genome of the Rhesus Macaque was completed in 2007,[3] making Rhesus Macaque the second non-human primate to have its genome sequenced. The study [4] shows that humans and macaques share about 93% of their DNA sequence and shared a common ancestor roughly 25 million years ago."

From post 372: “It is absolutely clear and incontrovertible that chimpanzees are the most closely related living species to humans and that we share a common ancestor who lived relatively recently (about 5 million years ago).”

From: Wikipedia: The species [Rhesus Macaque] is native to northern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan, southern China, and some neighboring areas.

From: Wikipedia: link common ancestor A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In modern biology, it is generally accepted that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[1]

From: Wikipedia: link genome Both the number of base pairs and the number of genes vary widely from one species to another, and there is little connection between the two (an observation known as the C-value paradox). At present, the highest known number of genes is around 60,000, for the protozoan causing trichomoniasis (see List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes), almost three times as many as in the human genome.

Thank you for your help.