The originative part of evolution Theory is a religion as no one was there to observe it and no one has ever seen a big bang or live from non living material occurring.
You could call it a myth or fairy-tail rather than a religion
The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus.etc.
. I see Because Humans and chimpanzee have the same genetic makeup, you ASUME that they share the same ancestor.
Evolution is a religion that allowed you be your own god without accountability to God or other peoples. Convenient bud dangerous for society- do some study sometimes about what Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton gut up to.. Shocking! Why should anyone choose to warship Darwin and his dump ideology?
@aurelama1 How can you call evolution a religion? There is no faith, only facts. If we look at the transitional forms from our most distant common ancestors and follow it up right to the homosapiens - we see the stepping stones and slight changes throughout these examples that would suggest that we evolved. The gradual changes in bone structure are a perfect example of how one species and another are directly related.
@aurelama1 How can you be so damn ignorant? Evolution is NOT saying humans evolved from chimpanzee or apes, only that humans and chimpanzee and apes evolved from the same ancestor. SIGHT! God and religion have nothing to do with evolution. Creationism is part of religion, and evolution is part of science. Are you so damn insecure in your beliefs that you have to act like a damn fool like this? I feel sorry for you, I really do. It's actually sad and some what pathetic...
there is no darvinian evolution and it has never been proven!!
there are no in between species. and had never been found. no fossils whatsoever.
ever now and then they say wuhu we found the missing link, but some years later ups oh wait we faked it or sth. else. species change from 1 species to another without anything in between.
they were never able to create any new species through mutation, but wait shouldn't this be the way evolution works.
Look up *evolution* in wikipedia if you know this little about evolution. Evolution is fact, nobody in sciences denies that. Scientifically illiterate people may believe there is a debate or controversy about evolution being true in science, but there isn't. Creationism is pure religion/superstition and has nothing to do with science. That's why it is being kept out of school curriculums even in "the bible belt" of America.: )
@winterstellar have i written that an all known god created all some 6000 years ago
no i wrote facts. if i write crap then well disprove me by facts not by statements like "looku up evolution in wikipedia" and saying that other people so called scientists claim it's fact regardless to what they found.
@pupspepper If you want to learn about science, like biology, you need to read proper modern textbooks or encyclopedias, like for instance wiki. (Ancient fairy-tales written by primitives are of very little use or relevance today.) Read science and see the evidence and the proof for yourself: )
If you are intelligent you are a winner, you like intelligence, that's why you know the truth. Let me invite you to watch this video: Stem Cells & the Nephilim - Chuck Missler - 1 6.avi. Winners are few.
what is it worth for a monkey to read if it has no the capacity to read?, in the same way what is it worth for an evolutionist to read books, and investigate if he has not understanding? He himself is a self-contradiction, what he defines by truth today is wrong tomorrow, bks everything evolves, even he is evolving, so we can never take seriously his claims. Serious claims are from something stable. Intelligence. Creation comes from a Designer.
who can argue with people who believe that no-intelligence created all these things? no-body, and what is ironical is that they call us idiots, to us who believe in the intelligence as Designer of all, 99 percent of all scientists in human history has been God believers, and we have their contributions, now it seems impossible to remove these "evolutionist"-parasites from the labs. We are against the zombie "science".
@xchris1800 lolololol what a dick. you're against science as you use the internet to type that idiotic comment. evolution science is held to the same standard as every other science. but since it conflicts with your preconceived ideas (via indoctrination, which somehow IS your evidence), then it's bullshit? let go man. a cartoony existence is no way to live. i've been there. i much prefer no hope than false hope.
Fused chromosome is just speculation. There are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. If that much insertions occured is another speculation. Chimp protein is just around 29% identical to human protein.
@daogdaog Thank you for showcasing your staggering ignorance.
"Fused chromosome is just speculation" - except for the fused chromosome within our DNA. The one with the telomeres in the middle.
"150,000 base pairs" All life on Earth has exactly 4 base pairs (CTGA). If you're talking about genes, you're still way off base, as the whole human genome is made up of 60,000 genes.
And I can't even tell what your last sentence wanted to mean.
@StrikaAmaru read about chimp genome project so that you will know what I meant by 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. You are a shame to all evolutionists who would probably think that you are a creationist in disguise pretending to be a dumb evolutionist.
@daogdaog Well, thank you for attacking me and ignoring all my points. If you wish to convince me that I'm an idiot, how about you prove it to me, instead of just saying it? Because so far, I am not convinced.
Lastly, I'll urge you to read the rest of the Wiki article from which you took the "150,000 base pairs difference" quote; you will find it supports the exact opposite to what you claim. Quote mining *is* one of the reasons we keep saying creationists are all dishonest bastards, after all.
@StrikaAmaru I dont need to prove that you are an idiot. Your "All life on Earth has exactly 4 base pairs" is just a dumb statement in response to 150,000 base pairs difference. Show me a real fused chromosomes, not something with speculative base pairs insertions. Had there been a loss of 150,000 base pairs you would probably say those pairs were deleted in time. What if fused chromosomes did not happen at all? Better yet, show me some fossil evidence of a human-chimp common ancestor.
@daogdaog Best0fScience showed you the real fused chromosome, right here in this video, but you just stuck your fingers in your ears and started singing hallelujah.
150,000 base pairs: I will confess to a little confusion on my behalf. I got cleared up when I read the wiki article on it (the one I told you to read in its entirety; did you?) This is well within what's expected of genetic drift. Chromosome 2 has 242,751,149 base pairs total. Replication causes 128 errors on average. Do the math.
@StrikaAmaru Again, show me a real fused chromosomes, not something with speculative base pairs insertions due to speculative genetic drift. If mtDNA evidence showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, orangutans or gorillas, it is likely that humans did not evolve from any apelike common ancestor at all. Unless of course you could show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor.
@daogdaog If you're going to claim that genetic drift is speculative when it can be observed between generations, and then tell me that humans should have evolved from current animals which obviously they can't be our ancestors, I don't think there's anything I can do for you.
You willfully ignore evidence presented, without any reason, you make up ridiculous "criterias which would prove evo", which would both disprove evolution and require a time machine were they to happen.. good bye.
@StrikaAmaru For the third time, show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor. Provide me this tangible and solid fossil evidence. Enough for fused and drift speculations.
@CreativeVisionary92 I dont think you are creative or visionary in any way. Have you not noticed that some museums exhibited the so called LUCY having human feet? The reality is that LUCY was excavated without facial or feet bones.
@daogdaog Booo it's a giant conspiracy!!!! The museums are trying to deceive you. God, seriously! You're like a small kid! The "Lucy" fossil is not the only. There are dozens of other remnants of ancient relatives. Aside from that, if you're looking for a conclusive proof that humans are primates and that other great apes are our closest living relatives, look up the hundreds of publications that show remarkable similarity in genes and proteins between us and the other primates.
@CreativeVisionary92 remarkable similarity in genes does not prove anything. A type of worm has 75 percent similar DNA to human DNA. Can you say that such a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human? Chimp protein is just around 29 percent similar to human protein.
"Have you not noticed that some museums exhibited the so called LUCY having human feet? The reality is that LUCY was excavated without facial or feet bones."
a). we can identify what parts of the anatomy are missing using the parts of the anatomy that have been found
b). Lucy was simply THE FIRST fossil find of australopithecus afarensis and we now have several (that confirmed the anatomy)
" For the third time, show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor"
why? you dont need either of those things to confirm it existed, you can just as easily do that through genetics or comparative anatomy using modern humans and chimps
Also i dont think you understand what a common ancestor is in terms of
A hundred years from now, this will probably be common knowledge to college freshmen. There will probably still be creationists frantically scrambling to defend their cherished myths also.
@ndrthrdr1 it's already happening, depending where you live. In Western Canada, if you mention any concept of creationism at public science class, people will laugh at you.
Its amazing what a fucking troll you are. I can randomly select a video regarding evolution and there you are spewing more of your troll vomit bullshit. Your intellect (lack of) has been pwned beyond embarrassment. Monumental IDiot...proven time after time. You've no fucking clue regarding facts, science or reality.
Don't feed this troll, it only encourages him to vomit more verbal feces.
well from 6:09 the 3rd band, we clearly see that the 47 chromosomes are more than the 46. So by comparison their population should be more than the humans or at least noticeable. If one says they were Extinct, then there should be a proof of that & an explanation why no such DNA's weren't found in any of thousand & thousand of the fossils discovered. Evolution is a powerful idea. But still there are some gaps in it.
@Johnf85 ahh,you question is reasonable :) i read an article about "Ancient DNA" and it seems i didn't understand it correctly. The aDNA was mainly extracted from mummies not fossils. However, the first part of the question still holds. The 47 chromosomes how did they extinct and why was it only them not the 46 humans or the 48 chimps?
@lonlyrain How many Apes need to be checked to give a statistically significant result ?
1 % , 5 % , 10 % ??? Suppose the first 1 checked has only 47 chromosomes How many more need to be checked for a statistically significant survey ? Do You have any idea How many Great Apes are alive today ?
@mironyuk .The definition of Inbreeding is the breeding of closely related species over long periods of time. When a population of any animal including humans remains isolated inbreeding will occur. Whether You accept it or not inbreeding does occur in some species. There are species which lack genetic diversity. Example: Asiatic Lion.
Many families of Animals including Great Apes kick young males out of the family which prevents inbreeding.
@tranquility4all Nice to see you here tranquillity. This one is in my academic field, the people Im living with and doing research into their lives and culture well they quite like the first cousin marriage, and if they cant do that the second cousin is preferred; what many people would call inbreeding so you can also argue that humans do it to.
@foiran People can choose who they want to procreate with. Some Animals don't have a choice. Normal migratory routes are obstructed by man made barriers . The result is some species are forced to mate with their own offspring.
@foiran I spent some time in Africa visiting National Parks. Some species are in trouble because of inbreeding. When You have isolated populations of any species the chance for inbreeding increases. Many people fail to realize Human Encroachment restricts Normal activity in Nature. Good to see You here.
@baxtar1963 As distasteful as it may be to many people it is pretty common. Animals commonly cant tell their own offspring, males that is generally speaking, and will “tap that” if they get the chance. Additionally it is common in various human populations driven by cultural ideals such as preferred cousin marriage among many people.
That doesn't really prove anything. It just shows that you could explain the difference in chromosomes by an evolutionary event in the past. It doesn't support evolution as an alternative over another method like the ape being created with 48 and the human with 46. It just puts it in the running.
@cras17 However, when combined with the thousands of other facts that also fit perfectly well with evolution it raises the question: Why would a creator create things in a way so that all the evidence points to evolution? Why is the telomere sequence in the middle of the chromosome there?
If the creator wants us to believe in him, but made everything appear evolved, then we had no chance.
So how do they know that ALL humans now have 46 chromisomes? Maybe a very small portion of the human population have retained 47 chromosomes and they just haven't been discovered.
And, after a great video like that, there are still ignorant Creationists in the world. I wonder if the 84 dislikes were from people who even watched this movie. I think not.
@xoxILoveCatsxox But are you not convinced by the wonderful miracles of Our Lord? Like when they came to arrest him in the garden, and Peter cut the ear from a soldier. Jesus turned to the soldier and said, 'Do you want a bandage over there?', and the soldier replied, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
@xoxILoveCatsxox ...I've got one here...... ......I've got one 'ear..... It was never a great joke and, like a vivisected frog, dies completely under examination.
"Clearly evolution is real science." Whenever I hear "clearly" used in a statement like this it reminds me of the old preacher's point in his sermon notes: "Weak point, pound on pulpit."
The business about predicting is bogus. They knew there were telomeres in #2 upon the first chance discovery. That's like knowing "who done it" in a murder "mystery" from the first 2 minutes of a movie. There's no surprise involved.
Of what is the telomere in the middle of Human 2 evidence? That human 2 may have once been separate. Is it evidence that humans are related to chimps and gorillas? Only by extended inference. Even if one could find DNA evidence of a divided human chromosome 2, it would not be direct evidence of their relation. Could an ape with a divided #2 in the proper place be found (chimps are at location 12/13 and gorillas/orangutans at 11/12), that would be more direct.
It may not have been said in the video but Doctor Kenneth Miller made it very clear that they knew not only hwich chromosomes were fused but also at exactly which base pair. Dr. Miller also shows evidence that points directly to common ancestry: endogenous retroviruses and their corresponding insertion location.
@Quintinohthree I'm not sure what ERVs have to do with the issue of the fused chromosome. The point of noting different locations for the fused and unfused chromosomes in humans, chimps, and gorilla-orangutans it that, not only must we assume that human chromosome #2 was likely fused in our ancestor, but if it is the same as the unfused chromosomes in the other primates, it had to relocate.
@Quintinohthree Yes, thank you. These are the evidences of common ancestry that are presented for evolution. My post is an analysis of this evidence. It is interesting that the "fused" chromosome seem to generally coincide with the unfused chromosomes, but is this indirect evidence sufficient to say they had a common ancestor? Those who already assume that they are would say yes. Those who assume their common design is from a similar plan would say no.
So what questions do ERV's pose? The fact is that when two of the same ERV sequence are found inside genomes of different species in the same place on both genomes, to conclude otherwise than common ancestry would either require an incredible coincidence, even more so with multiple ERV's, or the presupposition of design.
I agree though, the fused chromosome is weak evidence on its own. The only reason to bring it up is because it was a potential refutation of common ancestry.
@Quintinohthree "What questions ... in the same place on both genomes ..." Are they in the same place? I haven't seen evidence of this. But, the more interesting question is how it is possible that SO MUCH of the genome (8% or 300,000 segments) is made up of viral leftovers that can only be passed on genetically by the infection of a sex cell--and these leftovers aren't junk, but play critical roles in gene expression. They have been identified as ERVs because they look like viral sequences.
Knowing the structure of science I doubt that scientists would/could lie about this and keep information hidden for a long time but I must admit, I do not know how ERV's can be identified and thus I think this discussion has come to a standstill as I can not refute your claim and you obviously did not claim that common ancestry is incorrect.
@Quintinohthree ERV's are identified by the sequence of ACTG nucleotides they are composed of (just like we identify any gene). Did you not think it was that simple?
@MorganMarvinson nope, they not only LOOK like viral sequences, but when rebuilt through consensus mapping actually produce functional working viruses.
search "Ancient human virus resurrected" from Nature News
@ExtantFrodo "Search ..." Thanks for the clue. Interestingly, the article doesn't dispute the 8% of the genome being what are supposed to be ERVs. It also states that this "resurrected virus" was "a 5-million-year-old virus whose remains are now found littered across the human genome." That raises the question of how they know this was a single virus.
It also stated quite forthrightly: "...scientists have never found one that can still convert itself into new, infectious virus particles."
@MorganMarvinson Of course not. Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?
"how they know this was a single virus."
The same way you know any gene is a copy of another gene, by it's sequence. Copy errors don't only occur to functional parts of the genome. Any part or section is up for being made redundant through copying.
@ExtantFrodo "Of course not. Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?" I'm not sure what you are replying to here.
"how they know this was a single virus." The article tells how, I just hadn't read the whole thing when I asked the question. Pieces are duplicated in several places and they made an educated guess on how to reconstruct.
@ExtantFrodo "Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?" I see what you are replying to now. If you read the article, you will see that they suspicion that this very thing may occur and they just haven't observed it.
@MorganMarvinson Umhmm, suspicions are one thing. That's what we call a conjecture, a hunch, a guess. There's no data or experiment to verify or back the statement. It's more likely to be separate failed infections by similar viruses in different generations or copy errors duplicating sections of the genome. But we're straying from the point. The point being they ARE proved to be remnants of infectious viruses. So they are not possibly part of our "original" genome, or some intelligent design.
@ExtantFrodo "proved to be remnants" The evidence seems in your favor, yet I am still left pondering how many of these ERV segments have been shown to have significant roles in gene expression. Still more, where do the viruses come from? They require an organism to propagate. Would they not also derive their DNA from an organism? If not, how do they form?
@MorganMarvinson ERV's like any genetic material is subject to mutations and certainly can become useful or utilized by the cell. I'm not certain, but I think there have been reported instances of ERV's having developed such usefulness.
We don't know how viruses originated yet. It's an interesting mystery.
@ExtantFrodo Unless there were a way to isolate an ERV that has no usefulness and then find the same segment in another human having usefulness, it would seem that we only have an inference as to developing usefulness. It is interesting that no new ERVs have been noted as infecting the human genome.
If we don't know how viruses originated, but we do know that they can't duplicate themselves apart from a host, would it be unreasonable to postulate that they originated in some organism's genome?
@MorganMarvinson Most ERV's have no function. They're not even partly expressed. Just dead sections of DNA.
"It is interesting that no new ERVs have been noted as infecting the human genome."
Hardly. Very few people have been sequenced. It is still very costly. AS costs drop and more people get fully sequenced we will know more about our nature and history, but your inference that ERV's are not still infecting our genome is premature at best.
@ExtantFrodo "Just dead sections of DNA." May I quote you? "Very few people have been sequenced. It is still very costly. AS costs drop and more people get fully sequenced we will know more ... [your assertion] is premature at best."
It would seem that your assumption is that these sequences will be found to be useless and my assumption, based on preliminary surprises, is the opposite.
"your inference that ERVs ..." Actually, I read it in a scientific paper, though it's been some time ago now.
@ExtantFrodo "Are you not aware ..." I guess not. I did some reading recently on recent efforts to redo the evolutionary "tree of life" based on DNA. From paper to paper, they cited "surprises" and "difficulties." Some even talked about "uprooting" the "tree of life." I started to wonder why my friends who hold to evolution have been so confident about it.
@MorganMarvinson yet you failed to notice all that talk pertained to the pre-multicellular life's evolution because of the discovery that genetic material is very mobile among single celled organisms. Do you imagine any of that has the potential to undo all the evidence that shows we share a common ancestor with chimps and other great apes? No, not at all.
@ExtantFrodo " ... all that talk pertained to the pre-multicellular life's evolution ..." Well, you're right about the "uprooting" talk, but not the rest. It was discussing the surprises and difficulties in multicellular organisms--the ones that LGT can't explain their crossover DNA and common traits.
Will folks give up on being related to apes? Probably not.
@MorganMarvinson OK, time to put your money where your mouth is. Please cite your reference for these claims. And I hope you don't just say "oh i read it in a paper somewhere" Not good enough.
@ExtantFrodo "Why ..." I have no idea. My browser doesn't give that message. I posted them in response to your request for the source of my information. I came up with the sites as I described--just doing some searches on DNA and "tree of life." These were the sources of what I wrote you earlier.
A brief overview on all the bits of mobile DNA in your genome: * SINEs (13.6% of your genome) * LINEs (20.9% of your genome) * LTR elements, which includes the more complete ERVs (8.5% of your genome) * DNA transposons (2.4% of your genome)
That adds up to ~45% of your genome. Now do you get the joke? If we are made in Gods image, God is a parasitic, selfish gene. LOL!
@ExtantFrodo "Joke"? For me the joke is that after all these years of degradation in the human genome, the original design was so good, we're still here!
@MorganMarvinson Stop thinking of evolution in term sof individuals and ladders. It's vast herds of populations. crap and corruption throughout. The crapiest fall through the cracks never to be seen again. Natural Selection! For the rest, their babies survive as a gradient of their fitness in their environment. And Yes the best have the most babies that survive the best and reproduce the most whatever the challenges, leaving most on the lab table of experiments to add to the mix of the best.
yes, maybe there was a fusion in ancient humans, so what? maybe humans where originaly created with 48 chromosomes, but there was a fusion some day in the past.
we don´t need evolution to explain the fusion, we only need to accept the fact that sometimes chromosomes are fused.
@Answerquestions1 Uhhh, no? Evolution is defined as the change in gene pool or inherited traits of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. The fusion of the chromosomes is an example of mutation to be more specific.
ok, we don´t need to assume that we came form an ape man, in orther to explain the chromosomal fusion, as creationists we can simply say that ancient humans had a fusion.
@Answerquestions1 Saying humans had a fusion in their chromosome is saying it HAD evolved. Evolution doesn't always have to be a gigantic difference. Look at my previous post, I just gave you its description. Furthermore, please don't confuse evolution and the THEORY of evolution (which suggests we descended from a common ancestor). The latter explains the former's mechanics. The former is a fact; it's an ongoing phenomenon. We KNOW it happens; the theory just tries to explain how and why.
you can call it evolution if you what to, (after all it is just a matter of word games) the point is that one can aacept the fact that a fusion occured, without assuming that we evolved fom ape-man creatures.
the creationists possition is, and has always been, that organisms change, but there are limits, ifyou what to call this evolution go ahead.
@Answerquestions1 I don't just "want" to call it evolution, if you look at the meaning of biological evolution everywhere, they don't specify that it has to be a huge difference like a reptile turning to a mammal. It's a slow process. You're also saying that creatures can evolve but with a limit. Can you define and prove this? Furthermore, please try to be more open to facts and evidences instead of just assuming a divine being created everything without proof of his existence.
you are the one who needs to provide a mechanism that causes big changes, at least in the long term, all the known mechanisms that cause change are limited.
for example the chromosome fusion caused change (at least at the molecular level) but it doe not matter if you get 100000 fusions you will never get a feather out of a scale. in other words a fusion causes a small change but many fusion do not cause a big change. (unless youprove the opposite)
out of a sinle recepie (eggs, milk, flower, chocolate) you can make different cakes (big, small roud, rectangular etc.) but it doe snot matter how many times you try you will never get a pizza out of that recepie.
@Answerquestions1 Is this concept backed up by empirical evidence or...did you just make it up? The only thing that separates us from being another creature is our genetic code, which can mutate. If enough mutation accumulates, a point will be reached where a species completely breaks away from the other, unable to interbreed with each other.
@Answerquestions1 These are your arguments, not EMPIRICAL evidences.
2.) Just wow.
1 and 3.) It's as absurd as "Gravity has no mechanism to cause unlimited pull, therefore objects should stop mid-air". You can't stop genes from mutating, this is why two species can diverge from each other indefinitely.
Still waiting for your "evidence" for limited change.
Like I said, evolution is a FACT. We are constantly evolving.
@TheYipedo the theory of evolution is based unpon the blind assumption that ´´smal´l changes´´ can eventualy accumulate and cause big changes. this assumption has bnever been proven. organisms change only within the available information, this is why changes are limited.
you can have big dogs and small dogs, but never a flying dog (not even after 10000000,years, not even if there is selective preassure) you will never get a flying dog. or atleast there is no known mechanism that could do it
@Answerquestions1 You seriously need to educate yourself about biology. What available information? Genetic mutation is RANDOM. I’ll state it again. The theory of evolution only explains the mechanics of evolution (natural selection), but evolution is a F-A-C-T. Closing your eyes to evidence to avoid offending your God does nothing to change it. It’s called delusion. There are tons of educational material out there; please feel free to browse and think critically.
“[The] theory of evolution is based [upon] the blind assumption that ‘[small] changes’ can [eventually] accumulate and cause big changes.”
That is inaccurate. The evolutionary model seeks to address that which is so clearly demonstrated by data (especially genetic data); namely, that modern life shares common ancestry. It does this by looking at the observable mechanisms of biological change (such as natural selection) and proposes the best candidates.
“[Organisms] change only within the available [information;] this is why changes are limited.”
That is inaccurate. Random variation, such as in the gene conversion to 6-Aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase in pseudomonas and flavobacterium, or the R332Q mutation in human tripartite motif-containing protein 5 (isoform α), or the mutations forming the α-globin and β-globin alleles in Peromyscus maniculatus, causes novel sequences on which to select.
“[You] can have big dogs and small dogs, but never a flying dog (not even after 10000000, years, not even if there is selective [pressure]) you will never get a flying dog. [Or at least] there is no known mechanism that could do it.”
Dogs are a poor example. I shall present what I have previously written on the matter: The effect of the artificial selection used in dog breeding is a rapid change in phenotype, relative to the usual timescales of speciation in the evolutionary model.
Over the past few centuries, more than 400 breeds of domestic dogs have been created—displaying a vast array of phenotypic variation (Young & Bannasch, n.d.). Since the timescale is so small, the selection is predominantly acting on preexisting genotypic variation, rather than on new variation introduced by mutation.
This is confirmed by the large genetic variation observed in these dog breeds (Parker, Sutter, & Ostrander, n.d.), and by the extremely small genetic difference between them and the grey wolves from which they recently diverged (Savolainen, n.d.; Leonard, Vila, & Wayne, n.d.).
What dog breeding demonstrates is how large genetic variation in even phenotypically uniform populations correlates to an enormous range of potential phenotypes. This allows populations to adapt to new environmental pressures, even when the change is rapid and drastic.
Rather than simply being wiped out, the population can persist long enough for further adaptation by natural selection acting on the genetic variation slowly introduced by mutation. Populations with larger variation have more of a built-in safeguard against being decimated by a changing environment.
@Answerquestions1 small incremental changes invariably cause big differences. Take a penny and double it, by the end of a month you'll have more than 10 million dollars
@TheYipedo arent there too many missing transitional specie links for evolution to be consideered a fact and yes genes mutate but there is no mutation found that allows DNA to store an added amount of information for the species to become smarter and more advanced such as humans coming from the ancestor of a monkey. these are questions so im just curious
« for the species to become smarter and more advanced »
1. Evolution does not require increased strength or intelligence. Evolution has no goal; it is simply continuous adaptation to changing environments.
2. In the case of humans, the increase in intelligence is not necessarily the result of an increase in genetic information. There is good evidence that the increase in our intelligence is the result of a loss of genes, not a gain.
@Answerquestions1 You do know that with respect to evolution none of these points are true. If you have evidence write it up, you would be a fool not to because it would cement for yourself a wondeful and lucrative career in a number of fields biology/agriculture/biotechnology/genetics etc
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
You know what I think is interesting. Is how science contradicts this. For instance, science says, when there is to few chromosomes the result is almost always death or a disease such as turner syndrome.
But you know last time I check it didn't change a entire species, let alone turn them into something new.
@LiveForChrist101 chromosome fusions are not unknown in people alive today.
It is highly likely that some people live their entire lives no even knowing that they have one.
This is because head to head fusions still result in the same genes.
These fusions are sometimes detected in fertility tests because they may reduce the chances of successful reproduction. But as the video says, it is only a reduced chance, it does not make reproduction impossible.
@kandtell Chromosome fusion is another way of saying homologous chromosomes didn't divide like they are suppose to during meiosis. Thus, creating a genetic defect, that is often deadly. Not all the time, but most of the time. I gave the example of Turners Syndrome in human. Tuners Syndrome occurs only in the female, and yes, a person with turners syndrome cannot reproduce. Genetic defects in any animal or human is destructive in some way. Also, why isn't this still happening?
1. I don't think Turner's Syndrome is a good example. It's not a head-to-head fusion, it involves missing genes. In a head-to-head fusion all the genes are still in the egg/sperm just packaged into one fewer chr.
I'm not saying head-to-head fusions don't cause problems, but most of the time they are not as problematic as something like Turner's syndrome according to what I have read.
2. "why isn't this still happening?" - It is still happening, that was the point I was making in my 1st comment to you.
About 1 in 1000 people are born with Robertsonian translocations, which I believe is either a similar type of fusion or perhaps *is* the type of fusion which lead to human chr 2.
That means there are about 6 million people alive today with 45 chromosomes. Most of them are unaware of that at least until they have children.
It's been observed in other animals alive today, in fact Robertsonian translocations were first observed in grasshoppers.
Also, other animals show evidence of historic fusions in their genes.
I have heard that the genetic material in human chr2 that is spread across 2 chrs in the other great apes is spread across 4 chrs in dogs. Which implies 2 more fusions in our past before the one under discussion happened.
@kandtell According to what I have read, and learned in Biology class. Turner Syndrome is a form of nondisjunction. Nondisjunction occurs during meiosis in which gametes with an abnormal number of chromosomes results. Basically, the homologous chromosomes fail to separate. There is a need for the right amount of chromosomes in each species. (Continue to next comment 1)
@kandtell (Continue from previous comment 1) Why isn't fusion still occurring? Why aren't apes still becoming human, and humans becoming something else?
You said there are no missing genes in "head-to-head fusion". Therefore, apes would still bee the same because they have the same genes. They would not become a new species..
The fusion event did not make us human although it may have had a part in one of the speciation "events" between us and our LCA with chimps. Speciation events take many generations and there will have been several between us and that LCA.
Since fusions occur at 1/1000 in the human population it is reasonable to assume that they are about as common in chimps. So perhaps there is a chimp alive today with a fused chr2 something like the human chr2.
That chimp would not be human of course. It would have chimp genes, even it's chr2 would be different from ours (e.g. ours also contains a 150KB insertion). And it would gestate in a chimp womb.
It took millions of years for us to evolve from the LCA, it would take modern chimps millions of years to evolve into something like us. And it would not happen anyway because the selection pressure would not be there to make it happen.
Selection pressure (SP) is what drives evolution by Natural Selection (NS).
Basically SP is the increased probability that a gene will win in the population over it's rivals (alleles) for the same spot in the DNA because of the effects of that gene on the creature or on the universe in general.
Usually this works by the gene conferring some advantage to the creature which makes creatures with the gene more likely to survive and reproduce. But this is not always the case.
This is one "daffy" video. =p
kirbymelton23 3 days ago
Really!!
aurelama1 3 days ago
The originative part of evolution Theory is a religion as no one was there to observe it and no one has ever seen a big bang or live from non living material occurring.
You could call it a myth or fairy-tail rather than a religion
aurelama1 5 days ago
Helge129 I Know who I am and where I am going.. If you would humble yourself before God He will direct your path.
The alternative is to follow your own, or Darwen’s Ideology that leads to death and confusions. God Loves You man!!
aurelama1 5 days ago
@aurelama1 Oh shut up! This is a SCIENCE VIDEO!
BadLilNinja 4 days ago in playlist Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection
The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus.etc.
aurelama1 1 week ago
@aurelama1 You are an idiot if you call evolution a religion.
Helge129 6 days ago
. I see Because Humans and chimpanzee have the same genetic makeup, you ASUME that they share the same ancestor.
Evolution is a religion that allowed you be your own god without accountability to God or other peoples. Convenient bud dangerous for society- do some study sometimes about what Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton gut up to.. Shocking! Why should anyone choose to warship Darwin and his dump ideology?
So my Toyota argument still stands
aurelama1 1 week ago
@aurelama1 How can you call evolution a religion? There is no faith, only facts. If we look at the transitional forms from our most distant common ancestors and follow it up right to the homosapiens - we see the stepping stones and slight changes throughout these examples that would suggest that we evolved. The gradual changes in bone structure are a perfect example of how one species and another are directly related.
palmerpoop 1 week ago
That’s not evidence for evolution, it just prove that God made them all the chimpanzee and people.
My watch is made of metal so is my car that does not proof that Toyota comes from Switzerland.
Next time you need an organ or blood transfusion asks the doctor to consider putting you on the chimpanzee waiting list.
Your scientific excuse does not impress God; humble yourself before Him for He cares for you
aurelama1 1 week ago
@aurelama1 How can you be so damn ignorant? Evolution is NOT saying humans evolved from chimpanzee or apes, only that humans and chimpanzee and apes evolved from the same ancestor. SIGHT! God and religion have nothing to do with evolution. Creationism is part of religion, and evolution is part of science. Are you so damn insecure in your beliefs that you have to act like a damn fool like this? I feel sorry for you, I really do. It's actually sad and some what pathetic...
bodiejunior 1 week ago
there is no darvinian evolution and it has never been proven!!
there are no in between species. and had never been found. no fossils whatsoever.
ever now and then they say wuhu we found the missing link, but some years later ups oh wait we faked it or sth. else. species change from 1 species to another without anything in between.
they were never able to create any new species through mutation, but wait shouldn't this be the way evolution works.
pupspepper 2 weeks ago
Look up *evolution* in wikipedia if you know this little about evolution. Evolution is fact, nobody in sciences denies that. Scientifically illiterate people may believe there is a debate or controversy about evolution being true in science, but there isn't. Creationism is pure religion/superstition and has nothing to do with science. That's why it is being kept out of school curriculums even in "the bible belt" of America.: )
winterstellar 2 weeks ago
@winterstellar have i written that an all known god created all some 6000 years ago
no i wrote facts. if i write crap then well disprove me by facts not by statements like "looku up evolution in wikipedia" and saying that other people so called scientists claim it's fact regardless to what they found.
so show me proof
pupspepper 2 weeks ago
@pupspepper If you want to learn about science, like biology, you need to read proper modern textbooks or encyclopedias, like for instance wiki. (Ancient fairy-tales written by primitives are of very little use or relevance today.) Read science and see the evidence and the proof for yourself: )
winterstellar 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
bodiejunior 1 week ago
Your video went viral on Kigali
gusmcleod922 3 weeks ago
If you are intelligent you are a winner, you like intelligence, that's why you know the truth. Let me invite you to watch this video: Stem Cells & the Nephilim - Chuck Missler - 1 6.avi. Winners are few.
xchris1800 2 months ago
what is it worth for a monkey to read if it has no the capacity to read?, in the same way what is it worth for an evolutionist to read books, and investigate if he has not understanding? He himself is a self-contradiction, what he defines by truth today is wrong tomorrow, bks everything evolves, even he is evolving, so we can never take seriously his claims. Serious claims are from something stable. Intelligence. Creation comes from a Designer.
xchris1800 2 months ago
false science is a distraction against the truth. Time matters, let's not waste our time with them.
xchris1800 2 months ago
Time, space, mass had an absolute beginning. This is the beginning of human-science.
xchris1800 2 months ago
who can argue with people who believe that no-intelligence created all these things? no-body, and what is ironical is that they call us idiots, to us who believe in the intelligence as Designer of all, 99 percent of all scientists in human history has been God believers, and we have their contributions, now it seems impossible to remove these "evolutionist"-parasites from the labs. We are against the zombie "science".
xchris1800 2 months ago
@xchris1800 lolololol what a dick. you're against science as you use the internet to type that idiotic comment. evolution science is held to the same standard as every other science. but since it conflicts with your preconceived ideas (via indoctrination, which somehow IS your evidence), then it's bullshit? let go man. a cartoony existence is no way to live. i've been there. i much prefer no hope than false hope.
benny600 2 months ago
So we all came from inbred chimps. Makes sense when I look around at the tea bag movement.
baxtar2012 2 months ago
Fused chromosome is just speculation. There are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. If that much insertions occured is another speculation. Chimp protein is just around 29% identical to human protein.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog Thank you for showcasing your staggering ignorance.
"Fused chromosome is just speculation" - except for the fused chromosome within our DNA. The one with the telomeres in the middle.
"150,000 base pairs" All life on Earth has exactly 4 base pairs (CTGA). If you're talking about genes, you're still way off base, as the whole human genome is made up of 60,000 genes.
And I can't even tell what your last sentence wanted to mean.
StrikaAmaru 2 months ago
@StrikaAmaru read about chimp genome project so that you will know what I meant by 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. You are a shame to all evolutionists who would probably think that you are a creationist in disguise pretending to be a dumb evolutionist.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog Well, thank you for attacking me and ignoring all my points. If you wish to convince me that I'm an idiot, how about you prove it to me, instead of just saying it? Because so far, I am not convinced.
Lastly, I'll urge you to read the rest of the Wiki article from which you took the "150,000 base pairs difference" quote; you will find it supports the exact opposite to what you claim. Quote mining *is* one of the reasons we keep saying creationists are all dishonest bastards, after all.
StrikaAmaru 2 months ago
@StrikaAmaru I dont need to prove that you are an idiot. Your "All life on Earth has exactly 4 base pairs" is just a dumb statement in response to 150,000 base pairs difference. Show me a real fused chromosomes, not something with speculative base pairs insertions. Had there been a loss of 150,000 base pairs you would probably say those pairs were deleted in time. What if fused chromosomes did not happen at all? Better yet, show me some fossil evidence of a human-chimp common ancestor.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog Best0fScience showed you the real fused chromosome, right here in this video, but you just stuck your fingers in your ears and started singing hallelujah.
150,000 base pairs: I will confess to a little confusion on my behalf. I got cleared up when I read the wiki article on it (the one I told you to read in its entirety; did you?) This is well within what's expected of genetic drift. Chromosome 2 has 242,751,149 base pairs total. Replication causes 128 errors on average. Do the math.
StrikaAmaru 2 months ago
@StrikaAmaru Again, show me a real fused chromosomes, not something with speculative base pairs insertions due to speculative genetic drift. If mtDNA evidence showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, orangutans or gorillas, it is likely that humans did not evolve from any apelike common ancestor at all. Unless of course you could show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog If you're going to claim that genetic drift is speculative when it can be observed between generations, and then tell me that humans should have evolved from current animals which obviously they can't be our ancestors, I don't think there's anything I can do for you.
You willfully ignore evidence presented, without any reason, you make up ridiculous "criterias which would prove evo", which would both disprove evolution and require a time machine were they to happen.. good bye.
StrikaAmaru 2 months ago
@StrikaAmaru For the third time, show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor. Provide me this tangible and solid fossil evidence. Enough for fused and drift speculations.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog you can google it - or go to the Museum of Natural History. Either way, sitting on your ass helps nothing.
CreativeVisionary92 1 month ago
@CreativeVisionary92 I dont think you are creative or visionary in any way. Have you not noticed that some museums exhibited the so called LUCY having human feet? The reality is that LUCY was excavated without facial or feet bones.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog Booo it's a giant conspiracy!!!! The museums are trying to deceive you. God, seriously! You're like a small kid! The "Lucy" fossil is not the only. There are dozens of other remnants of ancient relatives. Aside from that, if you're looking for a conclusive proof that humans are primates and that other great apes are our closest living relatives, look up the hundreds of publications that show remarkable similarity in genes and proteins between us and the other primates.
CreativeVisionary92 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CreativeVisionary92 remarkable similarity in genes does not prove anything. A type of worm has 75 percent similar DNA to human DNA. Can you say that such a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human? Chimp protein is just around 29 percent similar to human protein.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog
"Have you not noticed that some museums exhibited the so called LUCY having human feet? The reality is that LUCY was excavated without facial or feet bones."
a). we can identify what parts of the anatomy are missing using the parts of the anatomy that have been found
b). Lucy was simply THE FIRST fossil find of australopithecus afarensis and we now have several (that confirmed the anatomy)
Questions?
types10000 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
types10000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" For the third time, show me fossils or mtDNA extracted from human-chimp common ancestor"
why? you dont need either of those things to confirm it existed, you can just as easily do that through genetics or comparative anatomy using modern humans and chimps
Also i dont think you understand what a common ancestor is in terms of
types10000 2 weeks ago
jesus sucks dick
cuteseesamantha 3 months ago
Is this a joke, right?
xchris1800 3 months ago
@xchris1800 are you stupid?
OpRedDawn 2 months ago
A hundred years from now, this will probably be common knowledge to college freshmen. There will probably still be creationists frantically scrambling to defend their cherished myths also.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago 2
@ndrthrdr1 I learned this in elementary school.. :-)
ThinkOneMoreTime 2 months ago 2
@ndrthrdr1 it's already happening, depending where you live. In Western Canada, if you mention any concept of creationism at public science class, people will laugh at you.
Casshyr 2 months ago 2
This video is a joke, BTW. Speculation is not science.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
Comment removed
nolobede 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
"Speculation is not science."
-Right, science doesn't speculate... religion speculates.
Its amazing what a fucking troll you are. I can randomly select a video regarding evolution and there you are spewing more of your troll vomit bullshit. Your intellect (lack of) has been pwned beyond embarrassment. Monumental IDiot...proven time after time. You've no fucking clue regarding facts, science or reality.
Don't feed this troll, it only encourages him to vomit more verbal feces.
nolobede 3 months ago
No, the evidence does not support evolution.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
well from 6:09 the 3rd band, we clearly see that the 47 chromosomes are more than the 46. So by comparison their population should be more than the humans or at least noticeable. If one says they were Extinct, then there should be a proof of that & an explanation why no such DNA's weren't found in any of thousand & thousand of the fossils discovered. Evolution is a powerful idea. But still there are some gaps in it.
mst7eel 4 months ago
@mst7eel your looking for dna in fossils?
Johnf85 4 months ago
@Johnf85 ahh,you question is reasonable :) i read an article about "Ancient DNA" and it seems i didn't understand it correctly. The aDNA was mainly extracted from mummies not fossils. However, the first part of the question still holds. The 47 chromosomes how did they extinct and why was it only them not the 46 humans or the 48 chimps?
mst7eel 4 months ago
Why we don't see any apes with 47 chromosomes in nature?
Can you prove that natural selection has wiped them out?
or having 47 chromosomes cause any disadvantage?
lonlyrain 6 months ago
@lonlyrain Do You think it's economically feasible to collect blood samples from Every Ape to check the # of chromosomes each one possesses ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all You don't need to check all apes. Just enough number to give statistically significant results.
lonlyrain 6 months ago
@lonlyrain How many Apes need to be checked to give a statistically significant result ?
1 % , 5 % , 10 % ??? Suppose the first 1 checked has only 47 chromosomes How many more need to be checked for a statistically significant survey ? Do You have any idea How many Great Apes are alive today ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@lonlyrain What constitutes a significant survey ? Do We collect samples of 1 % or 5 % of males & females in every Group ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
Wow inbreeding apes, can this get any stupider?
mironyuk 6 months ago
@mironyuk .The definition of Inbreeding is the breeding of closely related species over long periods of time. When a population of any animal including humans remains isolated inbreeding will occur. Whether You accept it or not inbreeding does occur in some species. There are species which lack genetic diversity. Example: Asiatic Lion.
Many families of Animals including Great Apes kick young males out of the family which prevents inbreeding.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all Nice to see you here tranquillity. This one is in my academic field, the people Im living with and doing research into their lives and culture well they quite like the first cousin marriage, and if they cant do that the second cousin is preferred; what many people would call inbreeding so you can also argue that humans do it to.
foiran 6 months ago
@foiran People can choose who they want to procreate with. Some Animals don't have a choice. Normal migratory routes are obstructed by man made barriers . The result is some species are forced to mate with their own offspring.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@foiran I spent some time in Africa visiting National Parks. Some species are in trouble because of inbreeding. When You have isolated populations of any species the chance for inbreeding increases. Many people fail to realize Human Encroachment restricts Normal activity in Nature. Good to see You here.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
Its hard enough arguing that we came from a common ancestor of chimps now we have to say in bread chimps wow thats not going to fly to well.
baxtar1963 6 months ago
@baxtar1963 As distasteful as it may be to many people it is pretty common. Animals commonly cant tell their own offspring, males that is generally speaking, and will “tap that” if they get the chance. Additionally it is common in various human populations driven by cultural ideals such as preferred cousin marriage among many people.
foiran 6 months ago
This blew my mind.
Thank you.
afsdgdfgergerg 7 months ago
That doesn't really prove anything. It just shows that you could explain the difference in chromosomes by an evolutionary event in the past. It doesn't support evolution as an alternative over another method like the ape being created with 48 and the human with 46. It just puts it in the running.
cras17 7 months ago
@cras17 However, when combined with the thousands of other facts that also fit perfectly well with evolution it raises the question: Why would a creator create things in a way so that all the evidence points to evolution? Why is the telomere sequence in the middle of the chromosome there?
If the creator wants us to believe in him, but made everything appear evolved, then we had no chance.
Sgrunterundt 6 months ago
So how do they know that ALL humans now have 46 chromisomes? Maybe a very small portion of the human population have retained 47 chromosomes and they just haven't been discovered.
DarthHater100 8 months ago
And, after a great video like that, there are still ignorant Creationists in the world. I wonder if the 84 dislikes were from people who even watched this movie. I think not.
xoxILoveCatsxox 8 months ago
@xoxILoveCatsxox But are you not convinced by the wonderful miracles of Our Lord? Like when they came to arrest him in the garden, and Peter cut the ear from a soldier. Jesus turned to the soldier and said, 'Do you want a bandage over there?', and the soldier replied, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok I feel stupid saying this, but I don't get it…
xoxILoveCatsxox 7 months ago
@xoxILoveCatsxox ...I've got one here...... ......I've got one 'ear..... It was never a great joke and, like a vivisected frog, dies completely under examination.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok Uh, okay?…
xoxILoveCatsxox 7 months ago
@xoxILoveCatsxox I assure you it's a wonderful joke in Aramaic, with a South London accent.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok Well, I'll take your word for it…maybe. Lol.
xoxILoveCatsxox 7 months ago
"Clearly evolution is real science." Whenever I hear "clearly" used in a statement like this it reminds me of the old preacher's point in his sermon notes: "Weak point, pound on pulpit."
The business about predicting is bogus. They knew there were telomeres in #2 upon the first chance discovery. That's like knowing "who done it" in a murder "mystery" from the first 2 minutes of a movie. There's no surprise involved.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
Of what is the telomere in the middle of Human 2 evidence? That human 2 may have once been separate. Is it evidence that humans are related to chimps and gorillas? Only by extended inference. Even if one could find DNA evidence of a divided human chromosome 2, it would not be direct evidence of their relation. Could an ape with a divided #2 in the proper place be found (chimps are at location 12/13 and gorillas/orangutans at 11/12), that would be more direct.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
It may not have been said in the video but Doctor Kenneth Miller made it very clear that they knew not only hwich chromosomes were fused but also at exactly which base pair. Dr. Miller also shows evidence that points directly to common ancestry: endogenous retroviruses and their corresponding insertion location.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree I'm not sure what ERVs have to do with the issue of the fused chromosome. The point of noting different locations for the fused and unfused chromosomes in humans, chimps, and gorilla-orangutans it that, not only must we assume that human chromosome #2 was likely fused in our ancestor, but if it is the same as the unfused chromosomes in the other primates, it had to relocate.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
You wanted evidence of common ancestry so there you have it.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree Yes, thank you. These are the evidences of common ancestry that are presented for evolution. My post is an analysis of this evidence. It is interesting that the "fused" chromosome seem to generally coincide with the unfused chromosomes, but is this indirect evidence sufficient to say they had a common ancestor? Those who already assume that they are would say yes. Those who assume their common design is from a similar plan would say no.
The ERVs pose their own questions.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
So what questions do ERV's pose? The fact is that when two of the same ERV sequence are found inside genomes of different species in the same place on both genomes, to conclude otherwise than common ancestry would either require an incredible coincidence, even more so with multiple ERV's, or the presupposition of design.
I agree though, the fused chromosome is weak evidence on its own. The only reason to bring it up is because it was a potential refutation of common ancestry.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree "What questions ... in the same place on both genomes ..." Are they in the same place? I haven't seen evidence of this. But, the more interesting question is how it is possible that SO MUCH of the genome (8% or 300,000 segments) is made up of viral leftovers that can only be passed on genetically by the infection of a sex cell--and these leftovers aren't junk, but play critical roles in gene expression. They have been identified as ERVs because they look like viral sequences.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Knowing the structure of science I doubt that scientists would/could lie about this and keep information hidden for a long time but I must admit, I do not know how ERV's can be identified and thus I think this discussion has come to a standstill as I can not refute your claim and you obviously did not claim that common ancestry is incorrect.
I wish you all the best.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree ERV's are identified by the sequence of ACTG nucleotides they are composed of (just like we identify any gene). Did you not think it was that simple?
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo
You take it from here then. Best of luck, you may need it.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson nope, they not only LOOK like viral sequences, but when rebuilt through consensus mapping actually produce functional working viruses.
search "Ancient human virus resurrected" from Nature News
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Search ..." Thanks for the clue. Interestingly, the article doesn't dispute the 8% of the genome being what are supposed to be ERVs. It also states that this "resurrected virus" was "a 5-million-year-old virus whose remains are now found littered across the human genome." That raises the question of how they know this was a single virus.
It also stated quite forthrightly: "...scientists have never found one that can still convert itself into new, infectious virus particles."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Of course not. Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?
"how they know this was a single virus."
The same way you know any gene is a copy of another gene, by it's sequence. Copy errors don't only occur to functional parts of the genome. Any part or section is up for being made redundant through copying.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Of course not. Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?" I'm not sure what you are replying to here.
"how they know this was a single virus." The article tells how, I just hadn't read the whole thing when I asked the question. Pieces are duplicated in several places and they made an educated guess on how to reconstruct.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Why would it spontaneously go from corrupt and broken to perfectly functional?" I see what you are replying to now. If you read the article, you will see that they suspicion that this very thing may occur and they just haven't observed it.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Umhmm, suspicions are one thing. That's what we call a conjecture, a hunch, a guess. There's no data or experiment to verify or back the statement. It's more likely to be separate failed infections by similar viruses in different generations or copy errors duplicating sections of the genome. But we're straying from the point. The point being they ARE proved to be remnants of infectious viruses. So they are not possibly part of our "original" genome, or some intelligent design.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "proved to be remnants" The evidence seems in your favor, yet I am still left pondering how many of these ERV segments have been shown to have significant roles in gene expression. Still more, where do the viruses come from? They require an organism to propagate. Would they not also derive their DNA from an organism? If not, how do they form?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson ERV's like any genetic material is subject to mutations and certainly can become useful or utilized by the cell. I'm not certain, but I think there have been reported instances of ERV's having developed such usefulness.
We don't know how viruses originated yet. It's an interesting mystery.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Unless there were a way to isolate an ERV that has no usefulness and then find the same segment in another human having usefulness, it would seem that we only have an inference as to developing usefulness. It is interesting that no new ERVs have been noted as infecting the human genome.
If we don't know how viruses originated, but we do know that they can't duplicate themselves apart from a host, would it be unreasonable to postulate that they originated in some organism's genome?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Most ERV's have no function. They're not even partly expressed. Just dead sections of DNA.
"It is interesting that no new ERVs have been noted as infecting the human genome."
Hardly. Very few people have been sequenced. It is still very costly. AS costs drop and more people get fully sequenced we will know more about our nature and history, but your inference that ERV's are not still infecting our genome is premature at best.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Just dead sections of DNA." May I quote you? "Very few people have been sequenced. It is still very costly. AS costs drop and more people get fully sequenced we will know more ... [your assertion] is premature at best."
It would seem that your assumption is that these sequences will be found to be useless and my assumption, based on preliminary surprises, is the opposite.
"your inference that ERVs ..." Actually, I read it in a scientific paper, though it's been some time ago now.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson yes you may quote me. If you don't know what "expressed" means then maybe a high school biology book might be useful.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Thanks for the suggestion, yes, I know what "expressed" means in this context.
I guess we'll both just have to wait and see as the evidence comes in (unless you are yourself doing research).
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson wait and see what? Are you not aware that the nested hierarchy is evident not only in the ERV's but in EVERY aspect of our genomes?
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Are you not aware ..." I guess not. I did some reading recently on recent efforts to redo the evolutionary "tree of life" based on DNA. From paper to paper, they cited "surprises" and "difficulties." Some even talked about "uprooting" the "tree of life." I started to wonder why my friends who hold to evolution have been so confident about it.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson yet you failed to notice all that talk pertained to the pre-multicellular life's evolution because of the discovery that genetic material is very mobile among single celled organisms. Do you imagine any of that has the potential to undo all the evidence that shows we share a common ancestor with chimps and other great apes? No, not at all.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo " ... all that talk pertained to the pre-multicellular life's evolution ..." Well, you're right about the "uprooting" talk, but not the rest. It was discussing the surprises and difficulties in multicellular organisms--the ones that LGT can't explain their crossover DNA and common traits.
Will folks give up on being related to apes? Probably not.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson OK, time to put your money where your mouth is. Please cite your reference for these claims. And I hope you don't just say "oh i read it in a paper somewhere" Not good enough.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Well, here is one of them:
sciencedaily(dot)com/releases/2004/10/041030151817.htm
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson why are the certificates for all the sites you post out dated or untrusted?
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Why ..." I have no idea. My browser doesn't give that message. I posted them in response to your request for the source of my information. I came up with the sites as I described--just doing some searches on DNA and "tree of life." These were the sources of what I wrote you earlier.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Here's another. This contained some surprises. The earliest multicellular organism still alive has a nervous system.
nhm(dot)ac(dot)uk/about-us/news/2008/march/dna-study-reveals-more-of-the-tree-of-life18682(dot)html
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo This was in a newspaper.
anusha.com/eukarya(dot)htm
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson site untrusted. site certificate invalid. added exception and got file not found. Care to try again?
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Sorry for your troubles. Try adding doubleUdoubleUdoubleU(dot) before the addresses, replacing the (dot). YouTube is picky about links.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson DUH! I'm not an idiot. anusha website opens, but there's no eukarya from that site.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo It works for me when I put the doubleUdoubleUdouble(dot) before the address and replace the (dot)s.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson From ERV on scienceblogs.
A brief overview on all the bits of mobile DNA in your genome: * SINEs (13.6% of your genome) * LINEs (20.9% of your genome) * LTR elements, which includes the more complete ERVs (8.5% of your genome) * DNA transposons (2.4% of your genome)
That adds up to ~45% of your genome. Now do you get the joke? If we are made in Gods image, God is a parasitic, selfish gene. LOL!
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo "Joke"? For me the joke is that after all these years of degradation in the human genome, the original design was so good, we're still here!
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Stop thinking of evolution in term sof individuals and ladders. It's vast herds of populations. crap and corruption throughout. The crapiest fall through the cracks never to be seen again. Natural Selection! For the rest, their babies survive as a gradient of their fitness in their environment. And Yes the best have the most babies that survive the best and reproduce the most whatever the challenges, leaving most on the lab table of experiments to add to the mix of the best.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Don't waste your time with morgan. He/she is a troll.
srexob715 9 months ago
@srexob715 Morgan is a 53-year old man. And what art thou, O beloved troller?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@srexob715 "TROLL!" Well, yes, I know that. But are you a male troll or a female one?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL! WHAHAHA
srexob715 9 months ago
83 people are creationist fundies
Andy180084 9 months ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
It's so sad that creationists wouldn't understand a bit of this.
LerkurlianTamer 10 months ago
yes, maybe there was a fusion in ancient humans, so what? maybe humans where originaly created with 48 chromosomes, but there was a fusion some day in the past.
we don´t need evolution to explain the fusion, we only need to accept the fact that sometimes chromosomes are fused.
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Uhhh, no? Evolution is defined as the change in gene pool or inherited traits of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. The fusion of the chromosomes is an example of mutation to be more specific.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@TheYipedo
ok, we don´t need to assume that we came form an ape man, in orther to explain the chromosomal fusion, as creationists we can simply say that ancient humans had a fusion.
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Saying humans had a fusion in their chromosome is saying it HAD evolved. Evolution doesn't always have to be a gigantic difference. Look at my previous post, I just gave you its description. Furthermore, please don't confuse evolution and the THEORY of evolution (which suggests we descended from a common ancestor). The latter explains the former's mechanics. The former is a fact; it's an ongoing phenomenon. We KNOW it happens; the theory just tries to explain how and why.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@TheYipedo
you can call it evolution if you what to, (after all it is just a matter of word games) the point is that one can aacept the fact that a fusion occured, without assuming that we evolved fom ape-man creatures.
the creationists possition is, and has always been, that organisms change, but there are limits, ifyou what to call this evolution go ahead.
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 I don't just "want" to call it evolution, if you look at the meaning of biological evolution everywhere, they don't specify that it has to be a huge difference like a reptile turning to a mammal. It's a slow process. You're also saying that creatures can evolve but with a limit. Can you define and prove this? Furthermore, please try to be more open to facts and evidences instead of just assuming a divine being created everything without proof of his existence.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@TheYipedo
you are the one who needs to provide a mechanism that causes big changes, at least in the long term, all the known mechanisms that cause change are limited.
for example the chromosome fusion caused change (at least at the molecular level) but it doe not matter if you get 100000 fusions you will never get a feather out of a scale. in other words a fusion causes a small change but many fusion do not cause a big change. (unless youprove the opposite)
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@TheYipedo
An analogy could be:
out of a sinle recepie (eggs, milk, flower, chocolate) you can make different cakes (big, small roud, rectangular etc.) but it doe snot matter how many times you try you will never get a pizza out of that recepie.
¿is my concept of limited change clear?
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Is this concept backed up by empirical evidence or...did you just make it up? The only thing that separates us from being another creature is our genetic code, which can mutate. If enough mutation accumulates, a point will be reached where a species completely breaks away from the other, unable to interbreed with each other.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@TheYipedo
Yes I DO HAVE EVIDANCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS
1) observation, we see that organisms change but always within some limits
2)Information theory: we know that random variables (like random mutation) destroy information
3) the lack of a mechanism that can cause unlimited changes
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 These are your arguments, not EMPIRICAL evidences.
2.) Just wow.
1 and 3.) It's as absurd as "Gravity has no mechanism to cause unlimited pull, therefore objects should stop mid-air". You can't stop genes from mutating, this is why two species can diverge from each other indefinitely.
Still waiting for your "evidence" for limited change.
Like I said, evolution is a FACT. We are constantly evolving.
TheYipedo 10 months ago 10
@TheYipedo the theory of evolution is based unpon the blind assumption that ´´smal´l changes´´ can eventualy accumulate and cause big changes. this assumption has bnever been proven. organisms change only within the available information, this is why changes are limited.
you can have big dogs and small dogs, but never a flying dog (not even after 10000000,years, not even if there is selective preassure) you will never get a flying dog. or atleast there is no known mechanism that could do it
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 You seriously need to educate yourself about biology. What available information? Genetic mutation is RANDOM. I’ll state it again. The theory of evolution only explains the mechanics of evolution (natural selection), but evolution is a F-A-C-T. Closing your eyes to evidence to avoid offending your God does nothing to change it. It’s called delusion. There are tons of educational material out there; please feel free to browse and think critically.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1
“[The] theory of evolution is based [upon] the blind assumption that ‘[small] changes’ can [eventually] accumulate and cause big changes.”
That is inaccurate. The evolutionary model seeks to address that which is so clearly demonstrated by data (especially genetic data); namely, that modern life shares common ancestry. It does this by looking at the observable mechanisms of biological change (such as natural selection) and proposes the best candidates.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
“[Organisms] change only within the available [information;] this is why changes are limited.”
That is inaccurate. Random variation, such as in the gene conversion to 6-Aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase in pseudomonas and flavobacterium, or the R332Q mutation in human tripartite motif-containing protein 5 (isoform α), or the mutations forming the α-globin and β-globin alleles in Peromyscus maniculatus, causes novel sequences on which to select.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
“[You] can have big dogs and small dogs, but never a flying dog (not even after 10000000, years, not even if there is selective [pressure]) you will never get a flying dog. [Or at least] there is no known mechanism that could do it.”
Dogs are a poor example. I shall present what I have previously written on the matter: The effect of the artificial selection used in dog breeding is a rapid change in phenotype, relative to the usual timescales of speciation in the evolutionary model.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
Over the past few centuries, more than 400 breeds of domestic dogs have been created—displaying a vast array of phenotypic variation (Young & Bannasch, n.d.). Since the timescale is so small, the selection is predominantly acting on preexisting genotypic variation, rather than on new variation introduced by mutation.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
This is confirmed by the large genetic variation observed in these dog breeds (Parker, Sutter, & Ostrander, n.d.), and by the extremely small genetic difference between them and the grey wolves from which they recently diverged (Savolainen, n.d.; Leonard, Vila, & Wayne, n.d.).
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
What dog breeding demonstrates is how large genetic variation in even phenotypically uniform populations correlates to an enormous range of potential phenotypes. This allows populations to adapt to new environmental pressures, even when the change is rapid and drastic.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
Rather than simply being wiped out, the population can persist long enough for further adaptation by natural selection acting on the genetic variation slowly introduced by mutation. Populations with larger variation have more of a built-in safeguard against being decimated by a changing environment.
MolecularBioVids2 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 small incremental changes invariably cause big differences. Take a penny and double it, by the end of a month you'll have more than 10 million dollars
lyricaljunkster 7 months ago
@TheYipedo arent there too many missing transitional specie links for evolution to be consideered a fact and yes genes mutate but there is no mutation found that allows DNA to store an added amount of information for the species to become smarter and more advanced such as humans coming from the ancestor of a monkey. these are questions so im just curious
MrAe500 8 months ago
« there is no mutation found that allows DNA to store an added amount of information »
That is false. Gene duplications and insertions are routinely observed.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« for the species to become smarter and more advanced »
1. Evolution does not require increased strength or intelligence. Evolution has no goal; it is simply continuous adaptation to changing environments.
2. In the case of humans, the increase in intelligence is not necessarily the result of an increase in genetic information. There is good evidence that the increase in our intelligence is the result of a loss of genes, not a gain.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« arent there too many missing transitional specie links »
No. Even a single transitional form would confirm the model. Many hundreds, even thousands have been found.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@TheYipedo evidence not "evidences"
Alexknobsob 7 months ago
@Alexknobsob yes sir
TheYipedo 7 months ago
@Answerquestions1 You do know that with respect to evolution none of these points are true. If you have evidence write it up, you would be a fool not to because it would cement for yourself a wondeful and lucrative career in a number of fields biology/agriculture/biotechnology/genetics etc
2plus2make4 10 months ago
If GoodScienceForYou wants to tout his forum let's show you some of his 'science' quotes there, try not to laugh -
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
-Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.
-The cause of sickle cell anemia is unknown, dumb ass.
-Carbon is the only thing that makes us "carbon" based creatures
-There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.
-There are only two species of bacteria.
Anyone think they can learn anything from this clown?
KrokrX 11 months ago 2
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
You know what I think is interesting. Is how science contradicts this. For instance, science says, when there is to few chromosomes the result is almost always death or a disease such as turner syndrome.
But you know last time I check it didn't change a entire species, let alone turn them into something new.
LiveForChrist101 1 year ago
@LiveForChrist101 chromosome fusions are not unknown in people alive today.
It is highly likely that some people live their entire lives no even knowing that they have one.
This is because head to head fusions still result in the same genes.
These fusions are sometimes detected in fertility tests because they may reduce the chances of successful reproduction. But as the video says, it is only a reduced chance, it does not make reproduction impossible.
kandtell 11 months ago
@kandtell Chromosome fusion is another way of saying homologous chromosomes didn't divide like they are suppose to during meiosis. Thus, creating a genetic defect, that is often deadly. Not all the time, but most of the time. I gave the example of Turners Syndrome in human. Tuners Syndrome occurs only in the female, and yes, a person with turners syndrome cannot reproduce. Genetic defects in any animal or human is destructive in some way. Also, why isn't this still happening?
LiveForChrist101 11 months ago
@LiveForChrist101
1. I don't think Turner's Syndrome is a good example. It's not a head-to-head fusion, it involves missing genes. In a head-to-head fusion all the genes are still in the egg/sperm just packaged into one fewer chr.
I'm not saying head-to-head fusions don't cause problems, but most of the time they are not as problematic as something like Turner's syndrome according to what I have read.
cont...
kandtell 11 months ago
2. "why isn't this still happening?" - It is still happening, that was the point I was making in my 1st comment to you.
About 1 in 1000 people are born with Robertsonian translocations, which I believe is either a similar type of fusion or perhaps *is* the type of fusion which lead to human chr 2.
That means there are about 6 million people alive today with 45 chromosomes. Most of them are unaware of that at least until they have children.
cont...
kandtell 11 months ago
It's been observed in other animals alive today, in fact Robertsonian translocations were first observed in grasshoppers.
Also, other animals show evidence of historic fusions in their genes.
I have heard that the genetic material in human chr2 that is spread across 2 chrs in the other great apes is spread across 4 chrs in dogs. Which implies 2 more fusions in our past before the one under discussion happened.
kandtell 11 months ago
@kandtell According to what I have read, and learned in Biology class. Turner Syndrome is a form of nondisjunction. Nondisjunction occurs during meiosis in which gametes with an abnormal number of chromosomes results. Basically, the homologous chromosomes fail to separate. There is a need for the right amount of chromosomes in each species. (Continue to next comment 1)
LiveForChrist101 11 months ago
@kandtell (Continue from previous comment 1) Why isn't fusion still occurring? Why aren't apes still becoming human, and humans becoming something else?
You said there are no missing genes in "head-to-head fusion". Therefore, apes would still bee the same because they have the same genes. They would not become a new species..
LiveForChrist101 11 months ago
@LiveForChrist101
The fusion event did not make us human although it may have had a part in one of the speciation "events" between us and our LCA with chimps. Speciation events take many generations and there will have been several between us and that LCA.
Since fusions occur at 1/1000 in the human population it is reasonable to assume that they are about as common in chimps. So perhaps there is a chimp alive today with a fused chr2 something like the human chr2.
cont...
kandtell 11 months ago
That chimp would not be human of course. It would have chimp genes, even it's chr2 would be different from ours (e.g. ours also contains a 150KB insertion). And it would gestate in a chimp womb.
It took millions of years for us to evolve from the LCA, it would take modern chimps millions of years to evolve into something like us. And it would not happen anyway because the selection pressure would not be there to make it happen.
cont...
kandtell 11 months ago
Selection pressure (SP) is what drives evolution by Natural Selection (NS).
Basically SP is the increased probability that a gene will win in the population over it's rivals (alleles) for the same spot in the DNA because of the effects of that gene on the creature or on the universe in general.
Usually this works by the gene conferring some advantage to the creature which makes creatures with the gene more likely to survive and reproduce. But this is not always the case.
cont...
kandtell 11 months ago