Re: how to reply to this fool?
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 01:24:12 GMT
Steven J. wrote:
On May 1, 12:45 pm, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 1, 1:37 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:52 am, Throwback <throwba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
brainwashed by it.
You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
case they never did).
Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
human, chimp , and some monkey:
First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
85%.
You don't cite your source for this.
I have already posted it. Stop trolling me.
I missed it. Would it be so much trouble to repost it?
Every source I have examined
puts the sequence similarity between humans and chimps between 95% and
99%, depending on how one counts the differences.
This refers to 3 species. Stop trolling me.
You seem to miss my point. You claim to have a source that shows that
humans, chimps, and macaques are all equally similar at the genetic
level. Every other source I have seen contradicts that claim.
His source is a press release for a new paper. The press release does
indeed make that claim. The paper it's based on shows that the claim is
false. I.e. the press release contains an error inserted by some
clueless science journalist. And that's all he's got.
Secondly, I found this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420153635.htm
"In addition to tallying positively selected genes, Zhang's group also
looked at which genes in humans and chimps were under positive
selection. Again, the results were a surprise. It's been suggested
that genes expressed in the brain underwent rapid evolution by
positive selection in humans. "But we didn't see that," Zhang said. In
fact, the researchers found no discernable trends in where within the
body positively selected genes were expressed.
That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
No, it definitely does not mean that. Zhang thinks that changes in a
very few genes can account for that tripling in size
Speculative conjecture. The DNA does not account for
how the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain.
That it is speculative conjecture only shows that Zhang cannot yet
explain how the genetic differences between humans and chimps explain
the differences in brain size and function between the species. It
does not at all show that no one can, even in principle, explain how
the genetic differences account for the mental differences between the
species.
What this means is that we do not yet know what
changes in DNA correspond to the changes between a chimp (or gorilla
or orangutan) brain and a human brain. This is why geneticists keep
asking for more research grants.
-- Steven J.
.
- References:
- Re: how to reply to this fool?
- From: Throwback
- Re: how to reply to this fool?
- Prev by Date: Re: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
- Next by Date: Re: So how many people are on each side?
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: how to reply to this fool?
- Next by thread: Re: how to reply to this fool?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
