chromosome 2 and thoughts on human evolution

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Apes have 24 chromosomes but humans have only 23....somewhere the chromosome had to fuse as it's impossible for a chromosome to disappear. If one were to disappear we would be akin to a puddle of goo... So the theory is it had to combine at some point.

Chromosome 2 is the smoking gun for proof of this fused chromosome linking ape to man.

now get a better internet connection...

similarity does not equal causality. The experiments weren't set up to show a causal flow. They are descriptive of chromosomes and show that there are similarities. How the similarities arose is conjecture. It fits with the theory of evolution and is very cool information. But the interpretation of the results is not ironclad.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cornnifer wrote:

For some it may not have anything to do with length of the video or quality of internet connection. i, for, example, am at work and the school's filtering system denies me access to Youtube (pretty much makes this place useless). Get a grip.
Now, evolution debates around these parts have grown about as stale as abortion, and gay marriage, so i'll only comment to say that chromosome 2 doesn't really appear like a smoking gun to me. There is no smoking gun which is why my great great grandchildren will be listening to my pearl jam bootlegs and debating darwin on the moving train.

It was a joke... believe me, I've set up many of those back end systems that deny the "fruits of the internet" so to speak to the working masses.

Chromosomes are like rungs on a ladder in the lattice of life so to speak...the building blocks of life if you will, take one out, and the whole things falls apart into a puddle of goo.

While comparing the differences if one finds a direct link of chromosomes combining to account for the discrepancy...well I'd say that pretty compelling to say the least.

searchlightsoul

angelica wrote:

It sounds like there is a misunderstanding. I didn't say they failed to use the scientific method at all.

I said all the ways we conceptualize what "is" is just that...concepts. It's how we explain things to ourselves, within our ability to understand ourselves. It's independent of what actually exists.

The scientific method is a way to understand reality. So is philosophy. So is religion. One does not invalidate the other even remotely. As a matter of fact, in reality, they all exist interwoven without conflict. The conflict and separation is in the human heart and ego.

Okay. I get what your saying Angelica but I am not really sure how useful this approach is for the discussion at hand. For one, this approach can be used to discredit every scientific theory-it is not unique to evolutionary theory, because there is no truly independent way to view the world. It is always going to be coloured by our perceptions. But I thought I was pretty specific when I mentioned that we should limit this discussion to scientific truths. I never tried to claim any higher level of truth than that, for I am a meer music fan



BTW. There is debate amongst many philosophers about whether there is in fact any seperation between religion and science. That they can not invalidate each other is only one philosphical perspective on that argument. I steer well clear of that and leave it to Dawkins and co.

searchlightsoul

elmer wrote:

Are you sure there would be any evidence? As in fossils of the transitional stage between ape and man?

Take the idea of natural selection, why did a wingless bird ever evolve a wing? The initial wing stub must have made it tougher to survive in his environment, doesn't this go against the whole premise of natural selection? Or is the process not incremental, but building towards a goal many generations of bird ahead? Wouldn't that involve some god-like divine intelligence in that case?

Probably, no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way, not proven by empirical fact anyway.

http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

There are many thousands of 'hominid' fossils collected from africa which detail human evolution. The natural history museum in new York and several others all have excellent displays on this.

Regarding birds. Current thinking is that some small dinosaurs evolved the ability to fly by gradaually evolving wings from arms. Check out a chicken wing next time your eating one. They share most bones (have lost a few) that were present in your Jurassic Park raptors.

Evolution is not guided, this is a pretty big misunderstanding. There is evidence that there is tendency towards greater complexity, but this primarily because it confers an adaptive adavantage.

The evolution of 'superbugs' occurs all the time. New strains of bacteria resistant to drugs all develop by natural selection. It is Evolution we can see.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

elmer wrote:

Take the idea of natural selection, why did a wingless bird ever evolve a wing? The initial wing stub must have made it tougher to survive in his environment, doesn't this go against the whole premise of natural selection?

afaik, that's not how natural selection works, if a change makes it harder to survive, natural selection selects that particular individual out, as it would not endure as well compared to others. Only beneficial traits that enhance or do not adversely affect survival get carried forward.

ClimberInOz

searchlightsoul wrote:

There are many thousands of 'hominid' fossils collected from africa which detail human evolution. The natural history museum in new York and several others all have excellent displays on this.

Regarding birds. Current thinking is that some small dinosaurs evolved the ability to fly by gradaually evolving wings from arms. Check out a chicken wing next time your eating one. They share most bones (have lost a few) that were present in your Jurassic Park raptors.

Evolution is not guided, this is a pretty big misunderstanding. There is evidence that there is tendency towards greater complexity, but this primarily because it confers an adaptive adavantage.

The evolution of 'superbugs' occurs all the time. New strains of bacteria resistant to drugs all develop by natural selection. It is Evolution we can see.

I was working my way through this thread, getting all psyched to write a reply... and then you said everything I wanted to... and far more concisely as well... without the superfluous terminology that I no doubt would have added at great boredom to the reader.

Good post... and thanks, because now I can just go to bed!

angelica

searchlightsoul wrote:

Okay. I get what your saying Angelica but I am not really sure how useful this approach is for the discussion at hand. For one, this approach can be used to discredit every scientific theory-it is not unique to evolutionary theory, because there is no truly independent way to view the world. It is always going to be coloured by our perceptions. But I thought I was pretty specific when I mentioned that we should limit this discussion to scientific truths. I never tried to claim any higher level of truth than that, for I am a meer music fan



BTW. There is debate amongst many philosophers about whether there is in fact any seperation between religion and science. That they can not invalidate each other is only one philosphical perspective on that argument. I steer well clear of that and leave it to Dawkins and co.

What this approach does is keep the human ego in check. The majority of people have an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. And they proceed to make others wrong, given they've justified the ego-driven power struggles they act out. Meanwhile, the hallmark of fragmented awareness is this view of being "right" at the expense of Truth. Amidst the human silliness, what the scientific method uncovers, within it's parameters remains clear and pure, regardless of ego-power issues. The Truth cannot be threatened. And yet, it can be obfuscated by power-plays and struggles.

Keeping it real, and keeping bias and ego out, serves scientific uncovery. When we use scientific uncovery to be "right", and to minimize the views and approaches of others we show we do not have actual understanding of a bigger picture.

This approach does not in any way discredit scientific discovery. The view where everything that exists is accepted and understood embraces scientic discovery, as well as all philosophical and religious views.

If you suggest we limit this discussion to your preferred method of understanding, at the expense my own, or others, you might find we have other ideas.

angelica

searchlightsoul wrote:

... For one, this approach can be used to discredit every scientific theory-it is not unique to evolutionary theory, because there is no truly independent way to view the world. It is always going to be coloured by our perceptions. ...

Scientific method is limited. Humans always assess information through the screen of perception. Our senses meet with reality with a screen - ie: eyes, skin, hearing, etc, that interpret what we see. Interpretation is not the same as experiencing what we are faced with "as is". So, as I said, the scientific method is great - amazing - within the parameters of what it does. However, to think one is uncovering "what is" unhindered by perception is a false belief.

This is why the scientific method always leaves room for evolving theory. It's not that universal laws are changing and we then uncover them as they change...it's that our perceptions and awareness change and expand, and as they do, we are therefore able to perceive more clearly what is before us over time.

Again, this doesn't at all discredit science theory...it discredits using science theory as a means to act in a fragmented way of wielding science as a power-struggle tool. In the meantime, what we've uncovered scientifically, within the contexts that we have understanding, which is very limited given the vastness of what is before us, stands as unadulterated truth beyond the power plays and personal bias.

One view from one context - for example science over religion, or vice versa - cannot ever minimize or discredit another view from a different context. It is the human ego, and the idea of "I'm right, you're wrong" that tries to create this impossibility rather than let uncertainty be as it is.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Scientific method is limited. Humans always assess information through the screen of perception. Our senses meet with reality with a screen - ie: eyes, skin, hearing, etc, that interpret what we see. Interpretation is not the same as experiencing what we are faced with "as is". So, as I said, the scientific method is great - amazing - within the parameters of what it does. However, to think one is uncovering "what is" unhindered by perception is a false belief.

This is why the scientific method always leaves room for evolving theory. It's not that universal laws are changing and we then uncover them as they change...it's that our perceptions and awareness change and expand, and as they do, we are therefore able to perceive more clearly what is before us over time.

Again, this doesn't at all discredit science theory...it discredits using science theory as a means to act in a fragmented way of wielding science as a power-struggle tool. In the meantime, what we've uncovered scientifically, within the contexts that we have understanding, which is very limited given the vastness of what is before us, stands as unadulterated truth beyond the power plays and personal bias.

One view from one context - for example science over religion, or vice versa - cannot ever minimize or discredit another view from a different context. It is the human ego, and the idea of "I'm right, you're wrong" that tries to create this impossibility rather than let uncertainty be as it is.

everything we can think of is 'limited'...b/c we as humans are 'limited.' that's it. whether it be scientific theory or anything else. however, within the realm of human understanding and study of our natural world...i would say that scientific theory comes the closest to as an 'objective view' as we can humanly reach.


i have often seen you use theories in supports of your arguements, statisitcs such as 92% of humans not being 'self-actualized' and on, etc....tis all the same thing. theories, opinions - there is no one way of seeing things, 'proving' things and no matter what, it would ALWAYs be in the limited scope of what humanity can think and comprehend. that's our reality.


none the less...the point still stands that within the realm of our understanding and study, this is pretty compelling supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. one step further along in our human, flawed, understanding of our place in the world, and in the universe.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i dont know enough about this subject to comment. SORRY FANS OF THE MR.SMITH EXTRAVAGANZA!

Commy

prying open my third eye.

Mookie Baylock

oh hoo hoo

I've been waiting for a good evolution debate for months! I'm far too busy to read and come up with a good post for now; hopefully I'll get to it tomorrow being probably one of the most educated PJ fans on this subject,lol.

But for all the "just a thoery" folks I suggest you do some research and see the difference between a popular theory and a scientific theory. They are very different things.

In either case Darwin's theory is NOT that animals evolve! That was well known to scientists long before Darwin's time going back to Greco/Roman times. Darwin's "theory" explains how evolution happens ie. natural selection (and its dirty cousin sexual selection).

Just a quick lesson for the non-believers so they don't keep looking silly by not knowing what they are arguing about.

Good night folks!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If I had a nickel for every high and/or drunk conversation on evolution back in the day, I could probably buy a couple of chocolate bars.

(that was a realistic approximation btw)

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

i have often seen you use theories in supports of your arguements, statisitcs such as 92% of humans not being 'self-actualized' and on, etc....tis all the same thing. theories, opinions - there is no one way of seeing things, 'proving' things and no matter what, it would ALWAYs be in the limited scope of what humanity can think and comprehend. that's our reality.

Absolutely. We are each describing the concepts we hold that we comprehend the empirical happenings of life through. Including me. 100%.

Science has a distinct methodology from philosophy, from religion, or from opinion, for that matter. It's entirely relevant within it's scope, and for what it uncovers. As are each of the others. Each covers a specific approach, and within it's own unique context, each is entirely valid.

searchlightsoul

angelica wrote:

Scientific method is limited. Humans always assess information through the screen of perception. Our senses meet with reality with a screen - ie: eyes, skin, hearing, etc, that interpret what we see. Interpretation is not the same as experiencing what we are faced with "as is". So, as I said, the scientific method is great - amazing - within the parameters of what it does. However, to think one is uncovering "what is" unhindered by perception is a false belief.

This is why the scientific method always leaves room for evolving theory. It's not that universal laws are changing and we then uncover them as they change...it's that our perceptions and awareness change and expand, and as they do, we are therefore able to perceive more clearly what is before us over time.

Again, this doesn't at all discredit science theory...it discredits using science theory as a means to act in a fragmented way of wielding science as a power-struggle tool. In the meantime, what we've uncovered scientifically, within the contexts that we have understanding, which is very limited given the vastness of what is before us, stands as unadulterated truth beyond the power plays and personal bias.

One view from one context - for example science over religion, or vice versa - cannot ever minimize or discredit another view from a different context. It is the human ego, and the idea of "I'm right, you're wrong" that tries to create this impossibility rather than let uncertainty be as it is.

Well, within the bounds of people disagreeing with evolution based on misunderstandings of the scientfic evidence I don't accept that there is any credible alternative scientific perspective. Scientists always employ a level of uncertainity in any interpretation, they never claim certainty. Evolution and any other scientific theory is as real as the keyboard I'm typing this post on. I don't see promoting this point as egotistical, only in as much as any other poster on this board is promoting their perspective.

I didn't bring religion in to this debate- infact I avoided the topic completely because it has no relevence to the scientfic argument for evolution. One of the best arguments against the application of ID, creationsim etc. (one which has kept it largely from national acceptance in the US) is that it is religously motivated.

angelica

searchlightsoul wrote:

Well, within the bounds of people disagreeing with evolution based on misunderstandings of the scientfic evidence I don't accept that there is any credible alternative scientific perspective.

That's understandable.

Scientists always employ a level of uncertainity in any interpretation, they never claim certainty.

I agree that scientists aspire to this ideal. I have seen scientists blur the line between their personal opinion and view, and with what they know scientifically.

Evolution and any other scientific theory is as real as the keyboard I'm typing this post on.

It's certainly real to you. What can be proven within the parameters within which it's proven is scientifically real. Extrapolating upon that becomes philosophical, and is real in a different sense.

I don't see promoting this point as egotistical, only in as much as any other poster on this board is promoting their perspective.

This is exactly the point. The ego is the part of us that sees separation and division between ourselves, others and life. So by coming from one's personal - and therefore automatically biased - perspective, one comes from a place of ego. When one is representing the pure scientific view on the other hand (lacking in any power struggle), one moves beyond ego. Both views are valid. Only one comes from the ego and is personal. From a personal view, it's perfectly acceptable and on par with someone sharing a religious perspective or a philosophical one.

Eliot Rosewater

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

How many of you have heard about this?

Connecting the dots between man and ape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw

I kinda stopped listening when he said, "There's only one possible explanation."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I kinda stopped listening when he said, "There's only one possible explanation."

I would probably watch, or just skip the thread altogether, but I believe he means chromosomes cannot just disappear out of existence.

Myself I don't know for certain, maybe they can, but the findings are compelling, because instead of disappearing, there is visible evidence that they in fact combined.

Eliot Rosewater

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I would probably watch, or just skip the thread altogether, but I believe he means chromosomes cannot just disappear out of existence.

Myself I don't know for certain, maybe they can, but the findings are compelling, because instead of disappearing, there is visible evidence that they in fact combined.

I did watch it and it is interesting. I'm not some jesus freak creationist. Evolution exists. But it seems silly to say, "The only possible explanation"...especially in this case.

Mookie Baylock

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I did watch it and it is interesting. I'm not some jesus freak creationist. Evolution exists. But it seems silly to say, "The only possible explanation"...especially in this case.

Keep in mind however that this is a popular television explanation, and not the official scientific paper. I'm sure that in scientific circles this is given the same amount of speculation and scrutinization any other scientific explanation would.