How do you define evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Hey here's another state-the-obvious factoid: you are not your cousin. How about that, ha?

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

You are saying that when there's enough rift between the groups the genes do not duplicate? Or rather, some of the genes do not duplicate, therefore the two groups cannot interbreed any longer? Such as chimps and humans. Do I have this basically correct?

 

[YoursTrue]

Hey here's another state-the-obvious factoid: you are not your cousin. How about that, ha?

But do you think you are a chimp's relative? But you're not your cousin or a chimp, so how related are you to a chimp? And going back in dna time, something got lost in the mix, didn't it?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Not from what I read about the amount of shared genes, so to speak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are saying that when there's enough rift between the groups the genes do not duplicate? Or rather, some of the genes do not duplicate, therefore the two groups cannot interbreed any longer? Such as chimps and humans. Do I have this basically correct?

When the rift between two groups gets large enough they cannot successfully breed with each other. An example are lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but the offspring eventually run into a dead end. The two groups have separated past the point of reunification. And it is not that the "genes do not duplicate". That is a rather nonsensical phrase in biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

When the rift between two groups gets large enough they cannot successfully breed with each other. An example are lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but the offspring eventually run into a dead end. The two groups have separated past the point of reunification. And it is not that the "genes do not duplicate". That is a rather nonsensical phrase in biology.

Upon reflection, looking at pictures of bees (I just got a book about bees - <g>) I figure (I haven't investigated this much) that bees may make (?) different types. This does not mean that God did not enable them to do so. But! the idea that the various branches of the Darwinian model explains plants, tigers, bees, elephants as all evolving is something I (1) do not see or recognize, and (2) no longer see it as logical or logically theoretical now. But thank you so much (really) for your nicely expressed ideas.
As usual, I still have questions about the gap between groups that somehow are said to be highly related. Such as lions and tigers. Do I know how they got to be that way in those two groups, except by conjecture? OK, scientific conjecture. No. Beyond the fact that I cannot right now account for the (rather permanent) changes. But again, it seems reasonable for me now to believe that God made the earth's atmosphere relative to the sun for growth of plants and animals on the earth. Meaning that I re-read the Genesis account. It doesn't go into detail. But it does help to see that somehow Moses knew the earth's atmosphere was made ready for life on it.
P.S. Slightly off the subject, SZ, I was looking in admiration and amazement at pictures of bees, and their ways. OK, I wasn't trained in the sciences and I know the various forms of animals have their own studies. But bees are amazing! I simply cannot imagine they just "came about" by evolutionary forces. No. Not at all. This does not mean that I don't think somehow the various types of bees emerged from one another--(I don't really know)-- but again -- I think God is highly involved, meaning He is the one that causes to be in life forms. Not that He causes deformities. I don't believe He does. I believe these come about because of His allowing imperfection to exist at the present. I also do not believe or see that deformities (mutations?) enable better living conditions for those who inherit such. We all inherit disabilities, my aching bones tell me that. I saw the birth of a baby giraffe on youtube. The mother giraffe did not seem to be in any pain whatsoever dropping this (not) little baby. She just let it go. And by instinct the baby did what babies do. Naw -- it's too amazing for me to think these ways just came about. Again - do I think science can explain how these guys including bees know how to do what they do? :=)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not from what I read about the amount of shared genes, so to speak.

I don't think you understood his example. The "gap" is bigger between you and your cousin than it is between you and your brother. The difference between you and a person from a continent where you have no recent relatives from is larger still.

 

[YoursTrue]

When the rift between two groups gets large enough they cannot successfully breed with each other. An example are lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but the offspring eventually run into a dead end. The two groups have separated past the point of reunification. And it is not that the "genes do not duplicate". That is a rather nonsensical phrase in biology.

OK, looking back at the statistics, I see that bonobos are considered to be among humans closest relatives, sharing "98.7% of their genetic material with humans."
But that 1.3% difference makes a whole lot of difference in -- thinking and creativity. And breeding. "Let us make man in our image..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Upon reflection, looking at pictures of bees (I just got a book about bees - <g>) I figure (I haven't investigated this much) that bees may make (?) different types. This does not mean that God did not enable them to do so. But! the idea that the various branches of the Darwinian model explains plants, tigers, bees, elephants as all evolving is something I (1) do not see or recognize, and (2) no longer see it as logical or logically theoretical now. But thank you so much (really) for your nicely expressed ideas.
As usual, I still have questions about the gap between groups that somehow are said to be highly related. Such as lions and tigers. Do I know how they got to be that way in those two groups, except by conjecture? OK, scientific conjecture. No. Beyond the fact that I cannot right now account for the (rather permanent) changes. But again, it seems reasonable for me now to believe that God made the earth's atmosphere relative to the sun for growth of plants and animals on the earth. Meaning that I re-read the Genesis account. It doesn't go into detail. But it does help to see that somehow Moses knew the earth's atmosphere was made ready for life on it.
P.S. Slightly off the subject, SZ, I was looking in admiration and amazement at pictures of bees, and their ways. OK, I wasn't trained in the sciences and I know the various forms of animals have their own studies. But bees are amazing! I simply cannot imagine they just "came about" by evolutionary forces. No. Not at all. This does not mean that I don't think somehow the various types of bees emerged from one another--(I don't really know)-- but again -- I think God is highly involved, meaning He is the one that causes to be in life forms. Not that He causes deformities. I don't believe He does. I believe these come about because of His allowing imperfection to exist at the present. I also do not believe or see that deformities (mutations?) enable better living conditions for those who inherit such. We all inherit disabilities, my aching bones tell me that. I saw the birth of a baby giraffe on youtube. The mother giraffe did not seem to be in any pain whatsoever dropping this (not) little baby. She just let it go. And by instinct the baby did what babies do. Naw -- it's too amazing for me to think these ways just came about. Again - do I think science can explain how these guys including bees know how to do what they do? :=)

Do you realize that modern Bible scholars understand that Moses was fictional? We could discuss how they know this. It is an abuse to interpret the Bible literally. If one does it to an extreme one should be a Flat Earther.



As to how the differences get large enough the first thing necessary is some sort of separation between two different populations of the same species. As you know about one hundred mutations appear per individual when any two animals breed. As time goes on the difference between two different groups grows and grows. Eventually certain aspects of the body do not work correctly. For example when Lions and tigers interbreed the male offspring are always sterile and the females have a lowered fertility. The few times those females have offspring they would die in the wild and even in captivity they are rather sickly. As the difference get even larger no offspring at all are produced. There are examples of different "dogs" where that is the case. African dogs cannot interbreed with the dogs that you are used to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, looking back at the statistics, I see that bonobos are considered to be among humans closest relatives, sharing "98.7% of their genetic material with humans."
But that 1.3% difference makes a whole lot of difference in -- thinking and creativity. And breeding. "Let us make man in our image..."

It is a difference due to evolution. Have you ever asked yourself why reality is so different from the Bible account?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understood his example. The "gap" is bigger between you and your cousin than it is between you and your brother. The difference between you and a person from a continent where you have no recent relatives from is larger still.

My point was about genetic change from bonobos to humans. Now I understand they say there's a missing link. So without proof (by proof here I mean fossils), I have seen conjectures about what that missing link is. But no one can say it's conclusive without doubt. And there still is that 1.3% gap. No so with humans. Bonobos don't have a gap, do they, from bonobo to another, and neither do humans have gaps in structure (unless maybe they're born with a genetic disorder). So without doubt, humans are not bonobos, and yes, I am not my cousin. To use the parlance, my "human" cousin. This does not mean that there is not a genetic hole (? gap?) between bonobos and humans. Again -- bonobos are bonobos and they are not humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you realize that modern Bible scholars understand that Moses was fictional? We could discuss how they know this. It is an abuse to interpret the Bible literally. If one does it to an extreme one should be a Flat Earther.

I do not take everything in the Bible as literal. In reference to the shape of the earth, as a child I used to think and believe the earth was round like a ball. I saw pictures in school and believed them. Had no reason not to. Not quite like I shrugged my shoulders, or held them solid when learning about evolution. I had no alternative opinion about that. I believed it because I couldn't figure who God was, so I figured without much else to go by, that evolution must be true.
I used to go to the beach with my mother when I was a little child and wonder if I could dig deep enough maybe I could reach the other side. I see no proof from anyone, including those who say the earth is like a disc, that it's flat. Or a disc. So to say that because I believe Moses not only existed as a person, but believe that he wrote most of what's in the writings credited to him does not mean I am a flat-earther.
OK, well, I'm going to say good night, it's been a pleasant conversation. I am now reading a couple of chapters in Deuteronomy, ascribed to Moses, about the entrance to the promised land, many places are mentioned that are specific. There's so much to research, so many things to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But do you think you are a chimp's relative?

I don't "think" that. I know that. It's a genetic fact.

But you're not your cousin or a chimp, so how related are you to a chimp?

The same way I'm related to my cousin: we share an ancestor.

And going back in dna time, something got lost in the mix, didn't it?

This question sounds like gibberish.
Perhaps you should rephrase and a bit more clear / specific.
I have no clue what you are on about.

Phylogenetic trees are the result of plotting out DNA matches. I have no idea what you are referring to with "lost in the mix".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not from what I read about the amount of shared genes, so to speak.

Considering all the wrong things you believe about evolution, I wouldn't get my hopes up that those sources knew what they were talking about. Or were being honest.

Another option is that you completely misunderstood the article.

Now would be a good time for you to expand on this and get specific instead of these vague one-liners that only resonate in the heads of those with dogmatic a priori creationist religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As usual, I still have questions about the gap between groups that somehow are said to be highly related

You keep using that word. What exactly are you referring to when you say "gap"?

Do I know how they got to be that way in those two groups, except by conjecture?

The how is explained in explanatory models. The current model that best fits the evidence, the data, is evolution by natural selection.

That tigers and lions share a common ancestor, is a genetic fact and really not up for debate in reality.

OK, scientific conjecture. No. Beyond the fact that I cannot right now account for the (rather permanent) changes. But again, it seems reasonable for me now to believe that God made the earth's atmosphere relative to the sun for growth of plants and animals on the earth. Meaning that I re-read the Genesis account. It doesn't go into detail. But it does help to see that somehow Moses knew the earth's atmosphere was made ready for life on it.

I think it's rather funny, and a bit sad also, that on the one hand you think a science like evolution is not evidenced well enough, while it is one of the BIGGEST fields of science and one of the most, if not the most, widely supported and established models in all of science.

But a magical story, 1 of MANY mutually exclusive ones, written by superstitious goat herders in the iron age... that you find to be justifiably believable.

It's mindblowing, really.

But bees are amazing! I simply cannot imagine they just "came about" by evolutionary forces. No. Not at all.

And Einstein thought his theories were wrong, because he thought the idea of black holes was ridiculous. He could not imagine such things to exist. And then we found black holes.

The universe does not care about what you believe or can imagine.

What you are expressing here, is no more or less then an argument from incredulity. ie "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it".

To quote Lawrence Krauss: "To say that you can't conceive of something.... only means that you can't conceive it."

This does not mean that I don't think somehow the various types of bees emerged from one another--(I don't really know)-- but again -- I think God is highly involved, meaning He is the one that causes to be in life forms. Not that He causes deformities. I don't believe He does. I believe these come about because of His allowing imperfection to exist at the present. I also do not believe or see that deformities (mutations?) enable better living conditions for those who inherit such. We all inherit disabilities, my aching bones tell me that. I saw the birth of a baby giraffe on youtube. The mother giraffe did not seem to be in any pain whatsoever dropping this (not) little baby. She just let it go. And by instinct the baby did what babies do. Naw -- it's too amazing for me to think these ways just came about. Again - do I think science can explain how these guys including bees know how to do what they do? :=)

So do you have any positive evidence in support of your belief that a god is involved?

It's rather obvious that you are demanding a much much much MUCH lower standard of evidence for your god beliefs then you do for evolution theory.

In both cases, the standards are to the extremes.
For god, you demand no evidence at all.
For evolution, you demand an impossible amount of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My point was about genetic change from bonobos to humans.

Bonobo's to humans? Are you implying that humans evolved from bonobo's?

Now I understand they say there's a missing link.

In evolutionary history.

There's a "missing link" in literally every generation that is lost in history.

Suppose you and another person were always said to be distant cousins. You do a DNA test. And idd, it turns out that he's your distant cousin. You share a great, great, great, great, great grandfather.
Neither of you know who that person was.

This is a missing link in your family / evolutionary history.

When people speak of a "missing link", then THAT is what they are referring to.
ie: it is KNOWN it existed. But the identity is unknown.

Same with our primate ancestors.
Do we know the exact species that split into the branches that would go on to become chimps and humans? No. Likely, we never will.

The identity is unknown. Its existence is not. We know it existed. It is a fact that we share ancestors.
Not knowing who the ancestors were, doesn't make that fact go away.

However, we can make some predictions about what it would have looked like. Just like we could do with that great, great, great... grandfather

And there still is that 1.3% gap.

The 1.3% difference between humans and chimps isn't any different then the 0.001% difference between you and your cousin. In fact as a general rule: the lower that percentage, the closer related.
The higher, the further related.

You keep mentioning this as if it is a problem. I have no clue why. If it were 0% then all living things would be clones from one another and there would be no species. Or evolution, for that matter.

So please, explain yourself.... what about that 1.3%?

No so with humans. Bonobos don't have a gap, do they, from bonobo to another, and neither do humans have gaps in structure (unless maybe they're born with a genetic disorder). So without doubt, humans are not bonobos, and yes, I am not my cousin. To use the parlance, my "human" cousin. This does not mean that there is not a genetic hole (? gap?) between bonobos and humans. Again -- bonobos are bonobos and they are not humans.

Word salad... I can't make heads or tails from this. What are you trying to say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point was about genetic change from bonobos to humans. Now I understand they say there's a missing link. So without proof (by proof here I mean fossils), I have seen conjectures about what that missing link is. But no one can say it's conclusive without doubt. And there still is that 1.3% gap. No so with humans. Bonobos don't have a gap, do they, from bonobo to another, and neither do humans have gaps in structure (unless maybe they're born with a genetic disorder). So without doubt, humans are not bonobos, and yes, I am not my cousin. To use the parlance, my "human" cousin. This does not mean that there is not a genetic hole (? gap?) between bonobos and humans. Again -- bonobos are bonobos and they are not humans.

You have it wrong again. Our ancestors were never bonobos. Just as your grandmother was never your brother.

 

[Subduction Zone]

T

I do not take everything in the Bible as literal. In reference to the shape of the earth, as a child I used to think and believe the earth was round like a ball. I saw pictures in school and believed them. Had no reason not to. Not quite like I shrugged my shoulders, or held them solid when learning about evolution. I had no alternative opinion about that. I believed it because I couldn't figure who God was, so I figured without much else to go by, that evolution must be true.
I used to go to the beach with my mother when I was a little child and wonder if I could dig deep enough maybe I could reach the other side. I see no proof from anyone, including those who say the earth is like a disc, that it's flat. Or a disc. So to say that because I believe Moses not only existed as a person, but believe that he wrote most of what's in the writings credited to him does not mean I am a flat-earther.
OK, well, I'm going to say good night, it's been a pleasant conversation. I am now reading a couple of chapters in Deuteronomy, ascribed to Moses, about the entrance to the promised land, many places are mentioned that are specific. There's so much to research, so many things to learn.

There is no proof of the myths on Genesis either. There is only evidence or proof against them

Deuteronomy was written by someone (or someones) that lived in Israel. Knowing about the area is not evidence for Moses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not from what I read about the amount of shared genes, so to speak.

You almost certainly did not understand the source. Or hit you made the error of using a,creationist one you were lied to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's try again, perhaps rephrasing will help? Do gorillas and humans have the same number of genes? It should be an easy answer for you. Yes, or no. Do gorillas and humans have the same number of genes?

Please read the link I've provided for you no less than 3 times.