Page 4 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,084
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

08 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Can you make a genetic argument for that though? 46 resulting from 2 fused chromosomes is only 48 in actuality if its read as 48. Its a pretty simple and straight-foward claim.


No idea how this is relevent.

Chimps, and each of the other non human great apes (gorillas, Orangs) have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Humans only have 23.

However-they recently discovered that our chromsome pair no. 2 is really two of the ape chromosomes stuck together end to end. So we really have the same 24 pairs of chromosomes that our ape cousins have. One pair just got fused together.

So that would be further evidence, on top of much else, that we are not only desceded from apes-but are still a type of ape. We are not just a species related to a group of species- we are member of that group of species.

But apes are several extant species (and an even greater number of exitinct species), and humans are just one species.

So what does any of this have to do with shoe horning the larger taxomic group (apes) into the smaller pigeonhole (human)?

I'm as confused as you are - ie. I'm pretty sure I'm saying the same thing.

I suppose the dividing line of whatever we think we're disagreeing on might be this: do the 46 chromosomes really work like 48 or do they work like 46? If the data is read that much differently on the fused chromosome then you have a very different manifestation from an ape for rather obvious reasons - ie. tRNA and such wouldn't discriminate. If this case is that 46 chromosomes are still read like 48 then nm, by all intents and purposes we'd fit within the ape phylum.

IMHO if we have 46 working as 46 is makes as much sense to call us apes as it is to call chickens tyranosaurs or raptors.



BlueAbyss
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 413
Location: California, USA

08 Jan 2013, 1:12 pm

Yes, we are part of the family of species known as "great apes" or Hominidae ... also part of the subfamily known as Homininae. Wikipedia has a decent clarification of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo


_________________
Female
INFP


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,662
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2013, 1:19 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Can you make a genetic argument for that though? 46 resulting from 2 fused chromosomes is only 48 in actuality if its read as 48. Its a pretty simple and straight-foward claim.


No idea how this is relevent.

Chimps, and each of the other non human great apes (gorillas, Orangs) have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Humans only have 23.

However-they recently discovered that our chromsome pair no. 2 is really two of the ape chromosomes stuck together end to end. So we really have the same 24 pairs of chromosomes that our ape cousins have. One pair just got fused together.

So that would be further evidence, on top of much else, that we are not only desceded from apes-but are still a type of ape. We are not just a species related to a group of species- we are member of that group of species.

But apes are several extant species (and an even greater number of exitinct species), and humans are just one species.

So what does any of this have to do with shoe horning the larger taxomic group (apes) into the smaller pigeonhole (human)?

I'm as confused as you are - ie. I'm pretty sure I'm saying the same thing.

I suppose the dividing line of whatever we think we're disagreeing on might be this: do the 46 chromosomes really work like 48 or do they work like 46? If the data is read that much differently on the fused chromosome then you have a very different manifestation from an ape for rather obvious reasons - ie. tRNA and such wouldn't discriminate. If this case is that 46 chromosomes are still read like 48 then nm, by all intents and purposes we'd fit within the ape phylum.

IMHO if we have 46 working as 46 is makes as much sense to call us apes as it is to call chickens tyranosaurs or raptors.


Youre worried about what color the deck chairs on the titantic are painted.

For the most part nature doesnt read our chromosomes AS chromosomes- it reads them as vast libraries of genes. The other apes have their genes stored in 48 room libraries, but in humans - one partition got knocked down and two rooms got consilidated into one. But the books and periodicals stored in the consilidated room are still accessed much the same way as they were before. Its the literature in the rooms that matters- not the rooms themelves.

And the natural "dewey decimal system"- the arrangement of the books and periodicals in the labraries is in the exact same order in apes and in humans in all of the rooms- partition present or not.

The genes on the chromosomes are what to look at.

Sibling species vary from other by about 1 to 2 percent of their genes. One kind of frog differs from another kind of frog by about that much.

Humans differ from Chimps by 1.5 percent of our DNA. So thats typical for sibling species of the same general type of creature.

A small amount of the stuff in the library differs- so they are seperate species. But only enough to make them sibling species.

So its reasonalbe to lump chmps and humans together in same group - both being 'apes'.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2013, 1:20 pm

We (as a species) are similar to the other great ape -- chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangitan, baboon. We are most closely related to the chimpanzee, having over 90 percent of our genes in common. Arguments over whether we are apes or not is a semantic quibble. We are a species very closely related to the above primates so it is clear that some time umpteen million years ago all of the primates including us, have a common ancestor.

ruveyn



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

08 Jan 2013, 4:55 pm

M87 wrote:
Jitro wrote:
Well, we evolved from a nonhuman primate that was an ape, but does that mean that we're apes?


YES


End of story.






Quote:
We also came from fish and bacteria, does that mean we're fish and bacteria?
This we evolved from apes and ourselves apes we did not come from dust created by some invisible make believe being! We are evolved well beyond those of fish and bacteria.


Please read up on evolutionary theory before asking stupid questions like this, kiddo.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwzAw8fchU[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

11 Jan 2013, 4:39 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Claims are they found the gene where two fused to bring 48 to 46?

I think you'd run into much fuzz trying to call us apes as you would trying to call apes humans though. Best analogy: if you create a molecular compound from two precursors it includes its precursors but it doesn't have the same qualities so calling it by its precursors is deceptive to its behavior and attributes. Similarly there's no scientific quality of human or ape aside from genetic manifestation, such things are really just cognitive constructs.



Calling humans "apes" is like saying that blue jays are "birds".

Saying that apes are "human" is like saying that all birds are "blue jays".

Not same thing at all.

Humans are one species. Apes are several. Just like blue jays are one species and birds are 10 thousand. You cant have the single species tail wag the larger taxomic group dog.


Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. wait. wait... blue jays are NOT birds?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,662
Location: temperate zone

11 Jan 2013, 4:56 pm

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Claims are they found the gene where two fused to bring 48 to 46?

I think you'd run into much fuzz trying to call us apes as you would trying to call apes humans though. Best analogy: if you create a molecular compound from two precursors it includes its precursors but it doesn't have the same qualities so calling it by its precursors is deceptive to its behavior and attributes. Similarly there's no scientific quality of human or ape aside from genetic manifestation, such things are really just cognitive constructs.



Calling humans "apes" is like saying that blue jays are "birds".

Saying that apes are "human" is like saying that all birds are "blue jays".

Not same thing at all.

Humans are one species. Apes are several. Just like blue jays are one species and birds are 10 thousand. You cant have the single species tail wag the larger taxomic group dog.


Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. wait. wait... blue jays are NOT birds?


WTF??????????????????????
Nobody said blue jays are not birds.

To repeat what I already said: blue jays are one species. "Birds" are a whole class (like 'mammals").

So blue jays are equivalent to "human" (one species). And "bird" is equivalent to "ape" ( a related group of several species- a whole subclass of primate).



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

11 Jan 2013, 5:15 pm

What they've found is human chromosome 2 shows many clear signs of being two ape chromosomes fused together end to end.

They know exactly where the fusion took place in the chromosome, and they have found the equivalent two chromosomes (not fused) in our closest living relatives the chimpanzees.

And to clarify, all humans are apes, but not all apes are humans just as all blue jays are birds, but not all birds are blue jays.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

11 Jan 2013, 6:35 pm

Yes!! ! Now give my banana be it chiquita or Dole!! !


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


billiscool
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,989

11 Jan 2013, 8:33 pm

no we are not. we were created by god. please stop thinking this way.



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

11 Jan 2013, 10:40 pm

billiscool wrote:
no we are not. we were created by god. please stop thinking this way.


IF we were created by a God, either God used evolution as a tool of creation, OR God planted all sorts of evidence to make it LOOK like we evolved (the fossil record, plus many types of evidence from our DNA). Either evolution happens or God is a liar. Take your pick. Either he lied to us in His Book or in His Creation, because what we learn from his Creation says something different than what SOME people think His Book says. Is the God you choose to believe in a malicious prankster to try to fool us like that, when if we use the senses and reasoning ability He gave us we will be led to Hell because of all the false evidence He planted that clearly shows evolution happens?

MOST Christians worldwide belong to denominations that either say they accept the fact evolution happens or SAY whether or not it happens makes no difference to their faith. It is only a few denominations, the Biblical literalists, who say otherwise. But their viewpoint is NOT supported by the evidence of the physical world, so what does that mean? Either their INTERPRETATION is wrong or the Bible is wrong, take your pick.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,179
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jan 2013, 10:56 pm

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
billiscool wrote:
no we are not. we were created by god. please stop thinking this way.


IF we were created by a God, either God used evolution as a tool of creation, OR God planted all sorts of evidence to make it LOOK like we evolved (the fossil record, plus many types of evidence from our DNA). Either evolution happens or God is a liar. Take your pick. Either he lied to us in His Book or in His Creation, because what we learn from his Creation says something different than what SOME people think His Book says. Is the God you choose to believe in a malicious prankster to try to fool us like that, when if we use the senses and reasoning ability He gave us we will be led to Hell because of all the false evidence He planted that clearly shows evolution happens?

MOST Christians worldwide belong to denominations that either say they accept the fact evolution happens or SAY whether or not it happens makes no difference to their faith. It is only a few denominations, the Biblical literalists, who say otherwise. But their viewpoint is NOT supported by the evidence of the physical world, so what does that mean? Either their INTERPRETATION is wrong or the Bible is wrong, take your pick.


I'm personally a big believer in theistic evolution.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

11 Jan 2013, 11:08 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm personally a big believer in theistic evolution.


Good for you. I can't say whether or not God exists or if it is the God of the Bible. I can say that there is so much evidence for evolution that to deny it shows incredible ignorance of what is demonstrably real.

Many so-called Christian web sites that argue against evolution are such blatant LIARS that they bring no honor to Christ. They ignore much of the evidence for evolution and deny or distort what they do not ignore. They take pieces of quotations out of context in such a way to make it look like the person quoted meant the opposite of what he or she really said when you read the whole quotation from the original source. THAT is dishonest and I have no respect for such LIARS!

Truth is truth. IF evolution did not happen, God is a liar to plant so much evidence of so many different types that clearly shows it did happen, and so-called Christian web sites such as Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research (to name two of the biggest liars) do nothing but turn people away from Christ by spreading LIES about what evidence exists.

I respect the honesty of the Catholic church at least on this issue.
Pope John Paul II wrote:
New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Of course, most of the denominations that argue the most vehemently against the observable fact of evolution also hate Catholics, so this statement by a Pope will do nothing to convince them. But at least it shows that not all Christian denominations are outrageously out of touch with demonstrable reality.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

12 Jan 2013, 12:05 am

The original post raises an interesting point about biological labels. There are (broadly) two different methods to sort species into categories.

The first method is to come up with categories based on the properties of species. For example, you might have a category "quadruped" which means "animals which have exactly four legs".

The second method is to imagine all species in the giant tree of life, pinpoint a particular species X, and come up with a category which means "all species which are descended from X". For example, you might have a category "dinosaur" which means "species which are descended from the last common ancestor of Triceratops and Neornithes".

The benefit of the first method is that it relies on things which can be checked, and it divides species into "obvious" categories.

The problem with the first method is that it can be very misleading. For example, elephants and axolotls are both quadrupeds.

The benefit of the second method is that it it wonderfully watertight and lets obsessive people sleep at night.

The problem with the second method is that we don't actually know what the tree of life looks like in detail, so sometimes we have to just guess whether species belongs to a category.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

12 Jan 2013, 12:23 am

No we are not apes.

While we share 98% of an ape's DNA, there are differences which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution either.
The most outstanding difference is that humans have only 23 chromosomes in their DNA, while apes have 24.
Humans have a layer of fat under their skin, while apes require body hair to maintain their warmth.
Every hair on the human body is aquiline - that is they are streamlined to go through water with the minimum of resistance. No kind of ape has the same aquiline hair.

Humans have webbing between their fingers and toes. No ape has this.

Not only are we not apes, there are strong arguments to suggest we did not evolve directly from apes.



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

12 Jan 2013, 12:39 am

ripped wrote:
No we are not apes.

While we share 98% of an ape's DNA, there are differences which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution either.
The most outstanding difference is that humans have only 23 chromosomes in their DNA, while apes have 24.
Humans have a layer of fat under their skin, while apes require body hair to maintain their warmth.
Every hair on the human body is aquiline - that is they are streamlined to go through water with the minimum of resistance. No kind of ape has the same aquiline hair.

Humans have webbing between their fingers and toes. No ape has this.

Not only are we not apes, there are strong arguments to suggest we did not evolve directly from apes.


Didn't you read the bit about our now knowing that human chromosome 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together? Whatever your sources, you are wrong sir. Besides the genetic evidence (not just chromosome 2, but the endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes in the DNA of related species), there is the fossil record. The oldest hominid fossils are more ape-like with a clear progression to more human features over time. Educate yourself before spreading more misinformation.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008