Re: Some evolution questions

On Apr 23, 3:05 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 23, 12:48 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 22, 8:15 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-22, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 22, 12:27 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 12:07 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
mate with?

Chris
If life seems jolly rotten
There's spmething you've forgotten
and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
each other let alone to closely related species.

As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
might claim it is what we would like to believe.

There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.

When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.

Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
or so.

Ron Okimoto

humans and chimps
get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
even close.

I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.

It's not "slanted towards" evolution. It's evolution.

No, it's exactly what I said.

No. What you said was deliberately trying to obfuscate what all rational
people accept. That you choose not to is an indication of your slant,
not anyone elses.

In fact, many of the articles claimed the actual percentage
differences in the DNA were far lower than they actually were,

There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes. The
variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in the
way that these numbers are measured.

And they were stacked to make it appear the percentage
differences of the dna portions they tested were far lower
than they actually are, and claimed it a stunning proof
of the evolutionary lines of descent.

No. They were reporting the numbers that were associated with the
measurements that they made. If you measured the genomes in the same
way that they did (and were honest) you would report similar numbers.

It appears since chimp and human DNA are of different
lengths, instead of lining up one end of the dna from the
chimp with one end of the human dna, they placed the dna
where there was the most similarities, and then started to
calculate the differences from that point.
the

And?

Since you've admitted that you don't even know the lengths of human
and chimp genomes, why should anyone take your discomfort with the
particular results of scientists seriously?

I don't think there is anything wrong with doing it that way
inherently (I don't object to it), I simply wanted to point out for
those following the thread the foundation of what was done so we can
proceed to analyze and discuss the portions they then compared.

But you admitted that you don't even know what was done.

Then how do you think they compared the dna strands?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some evolution questions
    ... relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)? ... The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1% ... Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not ... measurements that they made. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some evolution questions
    ... relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)? ... The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1% ... Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not ... measurements that they made. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some evolution questions
    ... relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)? ... The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1% ... Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not ... measurements that they made. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some evolution questions
    ... relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)? ... The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1% ... Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not ... measurements that they made. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some evolution questions
    ... relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)? ... The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1% ... Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not ... measurements that they made. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading