Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On May 8, 1:18 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
jet wrote:
On May 6, 12:13 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

backspace wrote:

On May 6, 3:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

backspace wrote:

You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).

This is your theory. You must tell me how this theory of yours has
been formally established in the same way that Kepler established the
laws of planetary motion.

We still don't know what you mean by "formally established". Kepler
didn't "formally establish" anything as far as I know. He determined
that his laws explained the existing observations more simply and
accurately than previous theories. Is that "formally established"?

Same thing for mutations.

Lets take the word "Mutation". What on earth do we mean by this? What
did Darwin mean by it and what does Lee Spetner mean by it? Spetner
relates "mutation" to copying errors in genes. But in Darwin's time
genes had not yet been discovered. Why was this word "mutation" used
in relation with genes? With genes we deal with language concepts
such as grammar, redundancy, Kolmogrov Complexity(refereing to
Berlinski's description of it in Black Mischief), palindromes etc.

First thing, you have to stop reading only creationist sources. They are
almost always seriously garbled in ways I can only begin to address.
Second, who cares what Darwin meant by "mutation"? I don't recall that
he used the word at all. He knew nothing of genes, much less DNA. We
have advanced since Darwin. However, Spetner is partially right. Many
mutations are copying errors. Others happen outside of DNA replication.
But they are all "mistakes". We use the word for historical reasons, but
the concept certainly applies, despite any gibberish you may have about
grammar, palindromes, etc.

You can check out both genomes, and compare them to each other, right here:http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html

Nope, sorry I won't. In the same way that you can't tell me to read
the entire treatise from Maxwell's lines of force and electromagnetic
theory. The people who deal with Maxwells equations can show the
interested people exactly where Maxwell established his equations. I
don't have to do any research. I just have to ask your for the
actually conclusion that everybody in evolutionary science formally
accepts as the conclusion and exactly where is this conclusion
formally published. In the same way that everybody in physics accepts
Fourier transforms - there are'nt endelss debates concerning it.

Still don't know what you mean by "establish". Maxwell's equations are
accepted because they describe diverse phenomena simply. Evolutionary
biology is not contained entirely in one publication. You have to read
the literature. My initial advice would be to read an undergraduate text
in molecular genetics or molecular evolution. The citations in either
one of those would be a good place to start in your search for evidence
on mutation.

Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?

It was established in hundreds of scientific publications over the past
150 years or so. The references on this page will give you a start:
http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

Nope, wrong again. I don't have to research this. You people do the
research, not dump a stack of books on my table using undefined terms
such as "evolve" and "natural selection". I am simply looking for
the formal conclusion, not the actually way you reached your
conclusion.

Still no idea what a "formal conclusion" is. You don't want evidence,
you don't want the data, you don't want anything to read. I'm at a loss
to determine what you want. Just in case, here is a very simply
explained bit of reasoning from the evidence showing that humans and
other African apes form a clear group:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Long ago in various classes we had to use taxonomy references to
classify specimens. Insects, fish, etc. This is likely the closest to
a formal definition of humans being primates. I don't recall the name
for these things.

Which things exactly? Are you talking about dichotomous keys?


Yes! That's it.


Now in fact every taxon is supposed to have a formal description,
listing its characteristics and the ways it can be distinguished from
related or similar taxa. The formal description of Primates would be
found in the 1758 edition of Systemae Naturae.

However, these days we realize that characters can be lost or
transformed as well as gained, so those descriptions don't always work,
or you need weasel words like "usually" attached to the characters.
Linnaeus realized that too, which is why snakes still count as reptiles,
even though reptiles are supposed to have legs.


Yes, you have to know the primitive traits in some cases, and an
poorly formed key can make it very difficult. Ultimately you have to
compare it to the formal description.



http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Primates/Facts/Primateness/default.cfm
lists unique characteristics, but these books basically did a binary
search of characteristics until you either identified the critter or
you realized you made a mistake (likely) or found an unidentified
species (not so likely).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Behe, common descent, and life on the edge
    ... accepts an old earth and common descent (I'm not sure if he goes so ... Evolution, as I understand it, is that natural selection and mutation ... already had genes for lips and livers and gills and puppy dog tails; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Behe, common descent, and life on the edge
    ... accepts an old earth and common descent (I'm not sure if he goes so ... Evolution, as I understand it, is that natural selection and mutation ... already had genes for lips and livers and gills and puppy dog tails; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... > and there's about twice that space on average between genes. ... accounted for by SNPs and how much by everything else. ... Well each new mutation occurs in only a single individual, ... has very little chance of going extinct so long as the population ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution of Language
    ... >> Matthew Huntbach wrote: ... > We were talking about human evolution, ... of whose genes get passed multigenerationally. ... > I guess a mutation which caused immunity to some disease which otherwise ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... gene pool of 'humans' as being the result of random mutations as opposed ... Genes get spread through the gene pool by sexual reproduction. ... classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)