Man and chimps, Darwin vs. God

[Sorcerer]

That's an overly simple answer to a deceptively complex question. We are closely related to chimps. But as you probably know' date=' chimps have a different number of chromosomes, a different number of nucliotides and a different number of genes. So comparing our genomes isn't straightfoward. It's complicated by the way we have compared genomes in the past. This was done by finding genes that were identical in function, and then counting these as the same. People then used the numbers of these they found to extrapolate to give a figure of about how many genes we shared. This gives the high figures around 99%. But this ignores any differences in the genes, and of course any difference in the rest of our DNA.

 

This isn't to mention the fact that we are still figuring out our genome and have barely started on the chimps. So any figures should be taken as provisional estimates at this stage.[/quote']

 

I think they also used hybridistation of homologous chromosomes, i.e heated up human and chimp DNA, till they doubled strands separated, took 1 half of each chromosome and mixed the two together, then cooled.... they found that about 98% of the DNA strands were bound tightly enough to be comparable. But as we know the majority of DNA is junk, and these could be those regions, however junk isn't generally conserved, so it is more likely to be genes which we have in commmon.

 

I agree with your post, however you needed to add that this still doesnt disproved evolution, because a creationist could take this response and try to turn it into an argument to use against a layman. It might work too..... the really funny thing is, both are trying to make an argument and it is likely that neither one has done genetics.

[Sorcerer]

I heard someone at a youth conference say "god may have just set things in motion so it looked like there was a big bang".

 

For evidence just look at what god was like and turned into....like he allowed in-breeding when he first created the world ("go forth an multiply" to adam and eve' date=' how were they to do this without in breeding) there are heaps of contradictions i have found in the bible you just have to look for them....but basically there will always be people on either side of the fence...just more people on the right (evolution ) side..

 

BTW Go.Sorcerer .....another kiwi in the mix...YE-YAA[/quote']

 

Yeah he could have, and my response would be, but why not just set it in motion at the big bang? I am sure the youth minister would come back with; because the Bible says it happened like this..... or something equally unjustified.

[Skye]

I think they also used hybridistation of homologous chromosomes' date=' i.e heated up human and chimp DNA, till they doubled strands separated, took 1 half of each chromosome and mixed the two together, then cooled.... they found that about 98% of the DNA strands were bound tightly enough to be comparable. But as we know the majority of DNA is junk, and these could be those regions, however junk isn't generally conserved, so it is more likely to be genes which we have in commmon.

 

I agree with your post, however you needed to add that this still doesnt disproved evolution, because a creationist could take this response and try to turn it into an argument to use against a layman. It might work too..... the really funny thing is, both are trying to make an argument and it is likely that neither one has done genetics.[/quote']

I was trying to get across that a single number doesn't represent our relatedness, even the similarity of our genomes, because there's more than one way to measure it. Of course this doesn't disprove evolution. Even if chimps weren't related to us and we put here by Hanuman to rule over His creation, our other observations would still hold for the rest of life.

[dagaz]

And it's this gross misconception and ignorance of science that one has to fight in this situation. Theories don't "grow up" to be laws. Scientific laws are fairly simple mathematical relationships that have been observed to hold. Nothing more.

 

Evolution will never be a law only because you can't jot down an equation that represents it' date=' and not because of its validity (or possible lack thereof).[/quote']

 

I agree with you, there are NO Laws of Biology, only of Physics and Chemistry, but my poor choice of phrasing was chosen to express my sentiment that to me evolution isn't as fundamental to science as gravity is - and this could just be the high school science teacher in me coming out, i.e. I teach kids about gravity in their first year of high school but don't start teaching them about evolution until their 4th year and we don't go into much detail about evolution unless they choose Biology as seniors.

[Sayonara]

I agree with you, there are NO Laws of Biology

Given that most of biology is described in terms of the underlying mathematics I say "ha ha ha ha" to that.

[dagaz]

Given that most of biology is described in terms of the underlying mathematics I say "ha ha ha ha" to that.

 

Give me some examples of mathematics in biology.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Hang on it could be that both views are correct. God created Adam and Eve. They went at it like rabbits and after a couple of hundred years of in breading their offspring de evolved into chimps. Then as the chimp population grew and seperated re refinement of genes took place in certain areas re evolving the chimps good gene lines back into humans. Some of the isolated pockets of bad genes remained as chimps and other speices. Some parts of America still have in breeding problems and also the missing link.

[Sayonara]

Give me some examples of mathematics in biology.

Very well. Here are some random pages from typical degree-level biology text books.

 

Apologies for the poor scans - turns out the rising hinges on my scanner actually don't make book scanning "better".

 

 

Figure 1 is page 117 of Biostatistical Analysis, Fourth Edition, an entire 750 or so pages purely devoted to the common maths of biology.

 

Figure 2 is page 20 (the maths starts early in this book) of Population Biology: Concepts and Models.

 

Figure 3 is page 34 of From Individual Behaviour to Population Ecology, Second Edition.

 

Figure 4 is page 101 of Evolution, Second Edition.

 

Stryer's Biochemistry, Fourth Edition would not fit in the scanner.

[YT2095]

Give me some examples of mathematics in biology.

you breathe AIR, composed of 78% Nitrogen, you need water 2 thirds of which are Hydrogen, you are Carbon based also! )

 

 

now then, take a deep breath of HCN, see how long you last, and tell me there`s no maths in Biology, you`ve just sniffed Hydrogen Cyanide

[fuhrerkeebs]

Give me some examples of mathematics in biology.

 

Hahahahaha, I actually just finished reading a book called "Introduction to Mathematical Biology" by S. I. Rubinow. It's 277 pages full of mathematics in biology. Some examples are population growth and diffusion. And I don't know how you could overlook the mathematics they use in evolution, such as the changes in allele frequency, estimates of the number of people in a population with a certain allele after n generations, and the list can go on and on...

[YT2095]

boy`o`boy, does THAT ever put an end to THAT question )

 

Biology and maths are intimately linked , just the same as Chem and Physics and Electronics etc...

[Skye]

there are NO Laws of Biology

Of course there are. Eg. the Hardy-Weinberg Law, Shelford's Law of Tolerance, Mendel's Law of Segregation/Independent Assortment.

[Kingpin1989]

Forgive me for excercising my beliefs as a Christian, but I sincerely believe that the THEORY of monkeys turning into humans sounds pretty much more far-fetched as the belief of creationists.

 

The beauty of a forum is that everyone is able to express the opinion that confines them and doesn't have to restrain their thought based on the environment, because in a forum, your environment is whatever you want it to be...

 

also, I would like to say that while there is no physical proof of Creationism, Darwin's and all other THEORIES of evolution have severe loopholes.

[fuhrerkeebs]

Forgive me for excercising my beliefs as a Christian, but I sincerely believe that the THEORY of monkeys turning into humans sounds pretty much more far-fetched as the belief of creationists.

 

I don't see what is so far fetched about it. The have pretty much the same organs and bodily functions as humans, we share an approximate 98% of our DNA (the only real difference comes from the extra chromosome chimps have), and chimps are pretty smart for non-human animals.

 

also, I would like to say that while there is no physical proof of Creationism, Darwin's and all other THEORIES of evolution have severe loopholes.

 

The term used today is neo-Darwinism. Darwin didn't know several things we know today, such as genetic drift. But, you mention all other theories of evolution, so tell me, what is one of these "severe loopholes" of neo-Darwinism?

[swansont]

Forgive me for excercising my beliefs as a Christian' date=' but I sincerely believe that the THEORY of monkeys turning into humans sounds pretty much more far-fetched as the belief of creationists.

 

The beauty of a forum is that everyone is able to express the opinion that confines them and doesn't have to restrain their thought based on the environment, because in a forum, your environment is whatever you want it to be...

 

also, I would like to say that while there is no physical proof of Creationism, Darwin's and all other THEORIES of evolution have severe loopholes.[/quote']

 

Your use of caps indicates you don't know what the definition of a theory is, in science. I point you to post 24, in which I was apparently referring to you.

[AL]

Forgive me for excercising my beliefs as a Christian, but I sincerely believe that the THEORY of monkeys turning into humans sounds pretty much more far-fetched as the belief of creationists.

Evolution does not say that humans descended from monkeys. That's just a Creationist straw man. Evolution does suggest that humans and monkeys are more closely related to one another than they are to say, a jellyfish, and that they share a recent (recent as in on a geological timescale, not as in "yesterday afternoon") common ancestor.

 

also, I would like to say that while there is no physical proof of Creationism, Darwin's and all other THEORIES of evolution have severe loopholes.

I too, would like to know what the "severe loophole" is. The only major evolutionary event that doesn't quite have a satisfactory explanation yet (in my opinion) is the Cambrian explosion, but that hardly constitutes a refutation of evolution, and doesn't come anywhere close to supporting Creationism (the Cambrian era was not 6,000 years ago). All other Creationist arguments I've heard such as casting doubt on radiological dating, crying "lack of transitional fossils," or my all-time favorite "hurricanes don't assemble jumbo jets" are at best straw-grasping, and at worst testify to the willful ignorance of many Creationists.

[JHAQ]

Humans are NOT descended from monkeys & Darwin never said that . Humans & present day monkeys had a COMMON ancestor ; a BIG difference when you think about it .

[Sayonara]

Personally I couldn't care less if creationists want to waste their time attacking Darwinism, seeing as virtually every detail of it has been superseded anyway (apart from the central "things change" premise, which even creationists don't deny).

[JHAQ]

See < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html >. This site may throw some light on the Cambrian exposion -----it seems maybe that it followed the Edicarian explosion but evolved animals with more fossilizable hard parts .

[JHAQ]

Creationism is another example of subjective ideology tring to prevail over rational objectivity -- in this case , twisting & distorting the facts to conform to fundamentalist religious precepts ( a la the attack on Galileo ) .

[Ophiolite]

Here is another link that provides a possible explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/072497JLK.html

 

For me the real problem is the origin of life. When I say 'problem' I do not mean I feel a need to invoke a supernatural origin, rather that the current explanations are disturbingly incomplete. I'm confident we shall eventually understand the process, but we are not there yet.

[Sorcerer]

I know what you mean, the problem is Creationist think we claim to be, its funny how they argue its incomplete, but we never said it wasn't.

[Ophiolite]

I know what you mean, the problem is Creationist think we claim to be, its funny how they argue its incomplete, but we never said it wasn't.

Exactly. At the risk of generalising, the Creationists could be placed in two categories, the Educated and the Ignorant. I don't mean the latter to be derogatory. The Ignorant creationist is not schooled in scientific methods and so, quite reasonably, does not readily understand the arguments that derive from them. The Educated creationist fully appreciates the methods, but makes a value judgement beyond those methods.

Many scientists do themselves and science no favours when they overstate their case. I would almost go so far as to say that Science is never wrong, but Scientists frequently are.

[philbo1965uk]

Im a creationist yet im not religious.I believe in god but not as an old man with grey beard.You actually have more in common biologically with a worm than a monkey.Taken at face value i dont believe survival of the survivors is a good enough theory.Perhaps if evolution (which implys evolving into a better creature suited to a changing environment.When in fact my knees are not too good painting these skirting boards today)was scrubbed from the records and simply called Darwinism it would be recieved better .The only niggly reservations i have with it though is i wish my ancestors had given me a bigger penis

[Ophiolite]

......Taken at face value i dont believe survival of the survivors is a good enough theory.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, in this context, at taking a theory at face value. At any rate, why do you feel it is inadequate? Where specifically does it fall down?