How do you define evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

OK -- what--excuse me please? You say the vast majority of genes will be shared because we have a common ancestor. OK, I can see the reasoning behind that. But what does this mean? "Those are neither chimp genes nor human genes. They are our, as in human and chimp, genes." (?)​

The genes that we share are our genes. Both human and ape. Are the genes that you share with your brothers or sisters yours or theirs? The correct answer is neither. They are all of yours. You would say "They are our genes".

 

[YoursTrue]

​

Yes. I am sure that you have seen the claims of how similar the chimp genome is to ours. Just as your genome is ever more similar to your parents. The same science that allows for paternity tests and identifying suspects in crimes is the same science that tells us that we are related to chimps.

,
OK, while I might memorize your answer in order to pass a test (and in the past I must say I wouldn't have wondered about it, or cared much what it meant), here is my question: those same tests you mention that show paternity or suspects, are you saying that those same tests show relatedness between chimps and humans? I'd have to more information about that in a way I understand it rather than just accepting that, or at worst, a link to information I wouldn't be able to ask questions of the poster, such as an article in a science journal, etc.
So here's what I'm thinking, SZ -- first of all, it seems that paternity goes only so far in similarity. For example, one might claim to be from a certain lineage, even royalty, etc. going back decades, is that right? Can we start there?

 

[YoursTrue]

The genes that we share are our genes. Both human and ape. Are the genes that you share with your brothers or sisters yours or theirs? The correct answer is neither. They are all of yours. You would say "They are our genes".

God could have made it that way. In other words, by God I mean a superior intelligent force. And yet the question remains in my mind, that difference between the genetic disposition of chimps, gorillas, bonobos, and humans makes a tremendous difference. As far as I am concerned. As a little example, because of the news today, we have newspapers, the internet, people being flooded out of homes, horrendous crimes being committed, and so forth. Much of this question settles around belief, yes, that is true as far as I am concerned. So here's the situation -- scientists are questioning now about the conscience, the ability to progress. I know by now the arguments: the brains got larger. And, while some made fun of me when I said that it's possible thinking can affect genes, seems that's not a real far-out thought. According to some scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

The genes that we share are our genes. Both human and ape. Are the genes that you share with your brothers or sisters yours or theirs? The correct answer is neither. They are all of yours. You would say "They are our genes".

Oh yes, on the other hand, humans are not chimps. (are they?)

 

[YoursTrue]

So you agree that DNA allows us to determine kinship / common ancestry?

OK, I haven't read your following posts yet so I don't want to jump subjects, but I wonder just how much in the past can close ancestry be determined? I hope you understand the question, because families in Europe, for instance, are genetically slightly (?) different than families that naturally developed in Asia, right, over a long period of time. So how close is close? And how different are those genes? And now I wonder -- how are gorilla genes determined to be the same as human genes? Do the genes look alike?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God could have made it that way. In other words, by God I mean a superior intelligent force. And yet the question remains in my mind, that difference between the genetic disposition of chimps, gorillas, bonobos, and humans makes a tremendous difference. As far as I am concerned. As a little example, because of the news today, we have newspapers, the internet, people being flooded out of homes, horrendous crimes being committed, and so forth. Much of this question settles around belief, yes, that is true as far as I am concerned. So here's the situation -- scientists are questioning now about the conscience, the ability to progress. I know by now the arguments: the brains got larger. And, while some made fun of me when I said that it's possible thinking can affect genes, seems that's not a real far-out thought. According to some scientists.

So God was deliberately misleading. In other words you are calling God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes, on the other hand, humans are not chimps. (are they?)

Of course not. Are you your cousins?

 

[YoursTrue]

So God was deliberately misleading. In other words you are calling God a liar.

How so? Do you believe in God anyway? Which would be integral to your question. But the Bible says that God does not lie. I can make mistakes in my thoughts or opinions about things. But God is all-powerful. He says and does what He wants. So why do you think I am calling God a liar?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course not. Are you your cousins?

Frankly, I don't think I am a somewhat close relative of the Queen of England either. Are you a chimp? Well, frankly my dear, I can see the conversation is on the descent. (Pun more or less intended.) So -- with that in mind -- much of the conversation with you has been interesting. And so -- good night. (Bye for now..."have a good one," as that saying has evolved in recent years.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so? Do you believe in God anyway? Which would be integral to your question. But the Bible says that God does not lie. I can make mistakes in my thoughts or opinions about things. But God is all-powerful. He says and does what He wants. So why do you think I am calling God a liar?

All of the scientific evidence supports evolution. There is none for creationism that I have ever seen.

I do not believe in God, but as you pointed out the Bible says that God does not lie. That means he cannot plant false evidence. That would be a form of lying. Since the evidence for evolution is endless and no creationist can seem to find any evidence for their ideas it is rather clear. Either Genesis cannot be read literally, or God is a liar. Your defense of the creation myths amounts to calling God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Frankly, I don't think I am a somewhat close relative of the Queen of England either. Are you a chimp? Well, frankly my dear, I can see the conversation is on the descent. (Pun more or less intended.) So -- with that in mind -- much of the conversation with you has been interesting. And so -- good night. (Bye for now..."have a good one," as that saying has evolved in recent years.)

Whoosh!

 

[shunyadragon]

Who said genetic similarities do not show one's relation to a family member? Not me. I'm thinking you did not understand the point, but thanks anyway, so in kindness, I won't continue. Thanks anyway.

You momentary termination in an act of Duck, Bob and Weave with an intentional deliberate ignorance of science based on a religious agenda is well documented.

Like boomerangs, stray dogs, wooden nickels and junk mail you will always return and continue this chain of nonsense posts.

 

[ecco]

God could have made it that way.

But the Bible says that God does not lie.

In the above quotes, you have succinctly defined your position. Put another way...

All your talk about genes and science and whatever is just fluff. Your beliefs and disbeliefs have nothing to do with science being right or wrong.

Stop wasting everyone's time by discussing science or your alleged problems with Evolution. Just repeat "God said it; I believe it, and that settles that". That would be refreshingly honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, I haven't read your following posts yet so I don't want to jump subjects, but I wonder just how much in the past can close ancestry be determined?

In the same way recent common ancestry can be determined
It forms a branching tree. You're either on one branch or on another. And the branch, is the story of your ancestors. And as it is a branching tree, if you follow the lines backwards, they meet up in common ancestors. Until you get to the root.

I hope you understand the question, because families in Europe, for instance, are genetically slightly (?) different than families that naturally developed in Asia, right, over a long period of time. So how close is close?

Funny you should mention that.
According to evolutionary history, humans evolved in africa and migrated from there.

So there's a mother population in africa and a subset group leaves this mother population and migrates towards eurasia. They go on to settle all over europe and asia.

This marks a genetic bottleneck among the descendends of that group as compared to the mother population. The bulk of genetic variation remains in africa. This is visible in DNA today.

There will be less genetic variation between a native belgian and a native japanese person, then there is between a black african and his neighbour.

There's actually a project by national geographic called the genographic project. You can send in a dna sample and they'll sequence it, run it through their database and will return to you a presentation of your genetic ancestry and which migration paths your bloodline has taken the last hundreds of thousand of years.

I think it's rather clear that you don't really understand just how much we can know from a simple DNA molecule these days.

And how different are those genes? And now I wonder -- how are gorilla genes determined to be the same as human genes? Do the genes look alike?

They are just strings of molecules, in the end. They are the same. Obviously there are differences. It's the pattern of the differences that matter. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy / family tree.

As it turns out, that's exactly the pattern. It didn't have to be that way. But it is.

Denying it is pointless.

 

[YoursTrue]

You momentary termination in an act of Duck, Bob and Weave with an intentional deliberate ignorance of science based on a religious agenda is well documented.

Like boomerangs, stray dogs, wooden nickels and junk mail you will always return and continue this chain of nonsense posts.

lol, I don't think so. Meantime, all you do basically is call me names. <g> Furthermore, while I find this illogical and sometimes amusing, I also wonder jesst how far back a person can go with their genealogical findings, I mean isn't there a gap between human genes and bonobos? C'mon now...it's either yes, or no. After you say yes or no, then you may go on to your reasoning as to why it's either yes, or no. (Thank you.)

 

[YoursTrue]

In the same way recent common ancestry can be determined
It forms a branching tree. You're either on one branch or on another. And the branch, is the story of your ancestors. And as it is a branching tree, if you follow the lines backwards, they meet up in common ancestors. Until you get to the root.




Funny you should mention that.
According to evolutionary history, humans evolved in africa and migrated from there.

So there's a mother population in africa and a subset group leaves this mother population and migrates towards eurasia. They go on to settle all over europe and asia.

This marks a genetic bottleneck among the descendends of that group as compared to the mother population. The bulk of genetic variation remains in africa. This is visible in DNA today.

There will be less genetic variation between a native belgian and a native japanese person, then there is between a black african and his neighbour.

There's actually a project by national geographic called the genographic project. You can send in a dna sample and they'll sequence it, run it through their database and will return to you a presentation of your genetic ancestry and which migration paths your bloodline has taken the last hundreds of thousand of years.

I think it's rather clear that you don't really understand just how much we can know from a simple DNA molecule these days.



They are just strings of molecules, in the end. They are the same. Obviously there are differences. It's the pattern of the differences that matter. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy / family tree.

As it turns out, that's exactly the pattern. It didn't have to be that way. But it is.

Denying it is pointless.

So again -- if you go back and back and back genealogically speaking, of course, there is a stop gap, isn't there, between "humans" and chimpanzee genes? A set of genes belongs to chimpanzees, but the same set does not belong to humans. If 98-99% of genes are so-called "shared," obviously something is missing. Somewhere. That "unknown common ancestor," you think? Scientifically, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the same way recent common ancestry can be determined
It forms a branching tree. You're either on one branch or on another. And the branch, is the story of your ancestors. And as it is a branching tree, if you follow the lines backwards, they meet up in common ancestors. Until you get to the root.




Funny you should mention that.
According to evolutionary history, humans evolved in africa and migrated from there.

So there's a mother population in africa and a subset group leaves this mother population and migrates towards eurasia. They go on to settle all over europe and asia.

This marks a genetic bottleneck among the descendends of that group as compared to the mother population. The bulk of genetic variation remains in africa. This is visible in DNA today.

There will be less genetic variation between a native belgian and a native japanese person, then there is between a black african and his neighbour.

There's actually a project by national geographic called the genographic project. You can send in a dna sample and they'll sequence it, run it through their database and will return to you a presentation of your genetic ancestry and which migration paths your bloodline has taken the last hundreds of thousand of years.

I think it's rather clear that you don't really understand just how much we can know from a simple DNA molecule these days.



They are just strings of molecules, in the end. They are the same. Obviously there are differences. It's the pattern of the differences that matter. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy / family tree.

As it turns out, that's exactly the pattern. It didn't have to be that way. But it is.

Denying it is pointless.

Again, I was just reading something about "Scottish" genes, "Irish" genes, and "English" genes. They're all humans, though. In that human race, or whatever you want to call it. All these that are said to have emerged from Africa are not chimpanzees, are they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again -- if you go back and back and back genealogically speaking, of course, there is a stop gap, isn't there, between "humans" and chimpanzee genes? A set of genes belongs to chimpanzees, but the same set does not belong to humans. If 98-99% of genes are so-called "shared," obviously something is missing. Somewhere. That "unknown common ancestor," you think? Scientifically, of course.

When a species splits into two different species the genes that evolve in group A will not be in group B and vice versa. As result of the split between our common ancestor with chimps the genes that are just ours and the genes that are just theirs arose after the split.

This is oversimplified since many genes are shared, but they have different variations in them between chimps and men. Whole new genes did not need to arise, only differences great enough to detect. And there is no controversy at all about new variations in genes arising. You for example have on the order of one hundred mutations of the DNA that you received from your parents. The vast majority of those changes will be in non-coding DNA, but new variations do appear in working genes too.

Do you have any more questions on this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean isn't there a gap between human genes and bonobos?

The same kind of "gap" as there is between you and your third cousin as opposed to your brother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So again -- if you go back and back and back genealogically speaking, of course, there is a stop gap, isn't there, between "humans" and chimpanzee genes?

I have no clue what you mean. I predict you will be unable to explain what you mean exactly as well.

A set of genes belongs to chimpanzees, but the same set does not belong to humans.

And a set of genes belongs to you but the same set does not belong to your cousin.
Derp di derp derp.

What's your point? That all biological entities of any species aren't clones of eachother?

If 98-99% of genes are so-called "shared," obviously something is missing. Somewhere. That "unknown common ancestor," you think? Scientifically, of course.

You make zero sense.
You and your own siblings aren't a 100% match of DNA, so does that then mean that you don't share ancestors?

You make zero sense.


Seems like you are grasping at straws here.
And meanwhile, off course, you ignore every point made in the posts you are responding to.