Why do men have nipples?

[camanintx]

Yes, but not in a million existing -if not more-individuals and at the same site.

Exactly. That's what makes them such strong evidence for common descent.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Exactly. That's what makes them such strong evidence for common descent.

In this way you are revolving around the same issue giving no meaningful answer, what made these ERVs' sequences enter in the same location in the original claimed ancestors which may include millions of them present at the same time? There is no plausible explanation except for the presence of a certain affinity of the retroviruses to special sequences, and if so this means that their presence in the same loci can be explained via this affinity without the need of a common ancestor.

 

[Jose Fly]

what made these ERVs' sequences enter in the same location in the original claimed ancestors which may include millions of them present at the same time?

Nothing. All they had to do was enter into a gem line cell that produced an ancestor who's genetic material is eventually represented in the entire population, many generations later.

Again, the problem here isn't the science, but your understanding of it.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Nothing. All they had to do was enter into a gem line cell that produced an ancestor who's genetic material is eventually represented in the entire population, many generations later.

Again, the problem here isn't the science, but your understanding of it.

You think the ancestor species was only one or two creatures , this is so superficial thinking, they are supposed to be in millions. How can you imagine that an entire species is present only in few numbers? It's not a game, this is reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

You think the ancestor species was only one or two creatures , this is so superficial thinking, they are supposed to be in millions. How can you imagine that an entire species is present only in few numbers? It's not a game, this is reality.

Not at all. You can have a population in the thousands that existed millions of years ago, yet one of them is an ancestor of everyone alive today. It's like if you and all your aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, mother, and father got together...even if all of them together numbered in the hundreds...you all could be traced back to a single individual (e.g. your grandfather) and if he had a specific ERV in a specific location, all of you would have it as well. But that doesn't mean he was the only person alive at the time, does it?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Not at all. You can have a population in the thousands that existed millions of years ago, yet one of them is an ancestor of everyone alive today. It's like if you and all your aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, mother, and father got together...even if all of them together numbered in the hundreds...you all could be traced back to a single individual (e.g. your grandfather) and if he had a specific ERV in a specific location, all of you would have it as well. But that doesn't mean he was the only person alive at the time, does it?

This is an imaginary situation that doesn't concord reality. The dependance of evolution on random mutations assumes that there would be more genetic errors than advantages and those with genetic errors won't survive and vice versa. This presumes that there's a great need of large number of those claimed ancestors to battle the malicious effects of mutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is an imaginary situation that doesn't concord reality.

???? So that your grandfather is a common ancestor to you, your father, mother, cousins, aunts, and uncles is imaginary?

The dependance of evolution on random mutations assumes that there would be more genetic errors than advantages and those with genetic errors won't survive and vice versa. This presumes that there's a great need of large number of those claimed ancestors to battle the malicious effects of mutations

No, not at all. Again, all of us are born with ~100 mutations. To reiterate, the problem here isn't with the science, but your understanding of it.

 

[tarekabdo12]

"Simple" is how I would describe it as well.


So basically your rebuttal is "Maybe they have a function, and you don't know everything about DNA anyways"? That's not very compelling, is it?


Yes they are. You simply haven't been paying attention.

New Species

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Reproductive character displacement and speciation... [Evolution. 2000] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

This is true, there're new species and this's somrrthing that I didn't know about as it's away from my field but notice that these are very minor changes that didn't confirm any view. It's not conclusive and didn't add anything. The organisms are not far away from the previous ones and no major and vital changes did happen. Since evolution assumes that major cahnges occured over time giving rise to amphibians and birds from a fish, these claims remained up till now unsupported. I agree that those minor changes may occur via genetic drifts and hybridization but so what? This doesn't expound the occurance of totally different forms of life with change of the entire living nature.

 

[idav]

This is an imaginary situation that doesn't concord reality. The dependance of evolution on random mutations assumes that there would be more genetic errors than advantages and those with genetic errors won't survive and vice versa. This presumes that there's a great need of large number of those claimed ancestors to battle the malicious effects of mutations.

I do agree that there would be more genetic changes that hurt rather than help. That would explain the 99% species becoming extinct over the course of history on this planet. The point isn't to have a large number of one species but to find the few species that can survive out of the millions that have inhabited this planet. We have gone through several mass extinctions for whatever reasons and life had to climb back up each time.

 

[tarekabdo12]

???? So that your grandfather is a common ancestor to you, your father, mother, cousins, aunts, and uncles is imaginary?

My grand father has gotten the same genetic basis as mine. We only flip alleles not having grave genetic divergence.

 

[tarekabdo12]

No, not at all. Again, all of us are born with ~100 mutations. To reiterate, the problem here isn't with the science, but your understanding of it.

so what?if these mutations alter our vital organs in the way that would lead to a total change in the nature of the creature we would simply die. Can't you see the genetic disease that mutations confer?

 

[tarekabdo12]

I do agree that there would be more genetic changes that hurt rather than help. That would explain the 99% species becoming extinct over the course of history on this planet. The point isn't to have a large number of one species but to find the few species that can survive out of the millions that have inhabited this planet. We have gone through several mass extinctions for whatever reasons and life had to climb back up each time.

I see that you're shifting from the essence of the conversation, we are talking here about ERVs' sequences not about the evolution of species through numbers. You are even contradicting yourself; a few number of individuals from the same species should remain according to evolutionary theory. This means that if there was a small number[that had the same ERV sequence in the same site of genome] they couldn't survive alone without death and pass through the series of devastating mutations. We need a large number of the same species to gain the viral sequence at the particular site and this means the virus has a specific tendency towards certain parts of the genome. Consequently, the virus may enter independently in the genome of both apes and humans without a need of a common ancestor due to such specific affinity.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Mutations occur and if they reach a vital part of genome they lead to malicious effect and are associated with malignancies and congenital anomalies.

For instance, Mutations in SOX17 are Associated with Congenital Anomalies of the Kidney and the Urinary Tract

In addition, some parts of the DNA are assumed to have no significant function and mutations in these parts will lead to nearly no crucial effect. This serves as a protection to the DNA by reducing the chance of the mutations to affect crucial parts for the development and the metabolism of the organism.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I [FONT=&quot]don't know why I remember this when I think about evolution.
[/FONT]

Just joking, I wanted to break the sharpness of this contention.

 

[camanintx]

My grand father has gotten the same genetic basis as mine. We only flip alleles not having grave genetic divergence.

Despite your genetic similarities, you and your grandfather are obviously not the same. You also carry about 240 mutations which he didn't. Now extrapolate that by a million generations and what do you get?

so what?if these mutations alter our vital organs in the way that would lead to a total change in the nature of the creature we would simply die. Can't you see the genetic disease that mutations confer?

Almost all mutations have no effect on an organisms because there are so many duplicate sequences and other unused portions of our DNA.

Of the ones that do affect the organism's development, most are harmful. That is probably one reason why so many conceptions result in a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Those that do come to term are then faced with the diseases those mutations can cause.

Occasionally, a mutation results in something like lactose tolerance that gives the organism an advantage. These mutations will spread via the organisms ancestors throughout the population until they become "fixed" at which point it can be said that they have evolved.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Occasionally, a mutation results in something like lactose tolerance that gives the organism an advantage. These mutations will spread via the organisms ancestors throughout the population until they become "fixed" at which point it can be said that they have evolved.

Ok, this is something good so why is this supposed to change the whole genome into a new creature? and Why do you consider that humans normally have lactose intolerance? The human body is created in an efficient way and I don't think that mutations will lead to a far better character than that present curretly. There's a greater difference between modifying a character and creating a different new whole organism with totally different way of living as propposed by evolution.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Despite your genetic similarities, you and your grandfather are obviously not the same. You also carry about 240 mutations which he didn't. Now extrapolate that by a million generations and what do you get?

These mutations have been going on for millions of years and no new cerature has evolved. The mutations can't alter the life system of a whole creature but can only give advantage for specific characters accordig to the surrounding coditions. For example, people living in tropical climates have different characters fromthose living in Europe and Asia. Thus mutations and natural selection may confer an advantage in this way but can't lead to a total divergence of an organism's life way.

 

[painted wolf]

The largest reason most mutations are neutral is the fact that there is significant redundancy in codons.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

You also don't have to change the whole genome to get a new species. There is just a couple of percent difference between humans and chimps for example.

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

You also don't have to change the whole genome to get a new species. There is just a couple of percent difference between humans and chimps for example.

wa:do

And what about the whole animal kingdom?