Printable View
Another point I would like to make with the tail thing. You used the formation of actual spinal discs as evidence that it was in their DNA code. I actually KNOW a guy in real life who has a condition where he was born with 2 spinal cords. Are you saying his DNA has the record for a whole new spinal cord from a past ancestor?
i will address ur statements subtle energy.. no problem.. hold on a sec
i explain everything i type and i dont copy and paste..
and wade,, yea, the human tail appendages look like hairless "pig tail" like structures.
I don't think humans will be envolving any time soon but they have to change because the world is getting hotter and there can be another ice age soon I agree that humans might start devolving because all the chemicals in the air ground and water will have an effect on our kids
change is change
there is no such thing as "Devolving".. creatures only can evolve.. change is change
people misunderstand evolution and place positive conotations with the word "evolve" (as it it involves what we consider to be "progress") and place negative conotations of the word "devolve" which isnt reallya recognized word.
if a creature changes, it has evolved... we humans selectively place our subjective opinion on the change, but nontheless a change no matter how it manifests itself.. as long as it it inheritable is evolution.
the chemicals in teh ground may have a positive effect one day down the line.
did we evolved exclusivesly from monkeys or could we have evolved from other species?
our ancestors evolved from creatures that we would today classify as a monkey. i quadrepedal primate with increased hand, foot and brain size that lives in close knit social groups.
from the quadrepeds sprang forth the bipedal primates (our closest ancestor) walking upright gave a tremendous benefit to lifestyle.
so in a nutshell, yes we come from monkeys, but none of the monkeys u see alive today.. our closest relatives are not monkeys to this day.. our closest ancestors alive today would be any of the apes and great apes... but remember, we didnt come from the great apes! we came from an extinct bipedal primate that lead to the evolution of us and teh great apes.. think of the great apes alive today as distant cousins.. we didnt come from them and they didnt come from us, but we share the same exact lineage!
the genetics involved proves this.
people always say "how could we come from monkeys if monkeys are still around".. thats nonsense.. evolution deals with splits, splinters and off shoots of the main family lineage or tree!
all living creatures on this planet are related (distant cousins of eachother).. we all come from the same "stuff" and share one ancestor in common.. (that ancestor being whatever was the 1st living cell on ths planet)..
this is why the genetic code of yeast issimilar to thegenetic code of a human.. why? because we are related... we are distant cousins of yeast !
the human genetic code is 40% identical to the genetic code of an apple.. why? because apples and humans share a common ancestor! that ancestor being whatever the first organism was that lead to the off shoot from plant to animal! (most likely a form of algae)!
so you're saying that humans are related to ducks, cows, and misquitos.........and cantalopes!?
EXACTLY !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeDyNaMiTe
now u see how far reaching evolution really is.. its not just simply monkeys and man.. it encomapasses all life on this planet!
if the first living creature on this very planet was a simple one celled organism and that one celled organism gave rise to all forms of life we know today.. then obviously all creatures from bacterium to zebras are related!
this is what a theory is all about.. evolution theoretcally predicted this way before we had dna and genomic data and technology and low and behold once we analyzed the genomic data of all creatures we found that we are indeed all related.. some more than others (the ones the most recently "split" from the evolutionary lineage)
for ex) tangerines are about 98% genetically similar to florida oranges.. we of course would expect this because they look and taste and appear similar.. so similar that tangerines must be a very recent off shoot from the native orange species...
humans are about roughly 20% genetically similar to oranges... thats amazing but once again its EXPECTED! its expected because humans and oranges share a recent common ancestor from many millions of years ago! that ancestor being a very very early multicellular creature (also known as eukaryotes).
humans are about 70% genetically similar to a modern mouse!.. this is also expected because we are oth mammals and have the same life processes.. looking at the genetic code of a mouse allows us to basically peer millions of years in the past of mammalian history! so far into the past that we reach a time where humans and mice share a commonancestor.. that ancestor being an early mammal that gave rise to a branch of crreatures called the rodents and also gave rise to another branch of the evolutionary "tree" that gave rise to the primates and consequently Wade and Jason
alright,
so you have illustrated that we have similar DNA as other living organisms and creatures. what proof is there that one definately came from another?
similar but not related?
Yeah, we are similar. We aare all life forms that exist on the same planet under the same conditions. We also all breathe oxygen. This doesn't mean we are the same. It means we were made for our conditions.
Also, Timbs. isn't it true our "ancestors" such as homo erectus, neaderthrals etc are now thought by alot of scientists to be our COUSINS rather than ANCESTORS?
I read also that some resemble races living today. That there is as much difference between an equatorial african and a caucasian and a human and some of these "ancestors."
the proof is within the sentence if one thinks about it.. i mean what more proof can i offer rather than to bring u into a lab and show u the gel electrophoresis?Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeDyNaMiTe
if a creature shares its genetic code with another creature.. they are RELATED. there are no ifs and buts about that.
what type of evidence do u have in mind? the dna evidence (the evidence of genetic homology.. which is basically what im discussing) is the best evidence in the world.
its liek asking someone on the maury povich show who just had the dna testing show that they are the father of a child ask... "but how do i know that im related to this child"..
the answer is beacuse there are certain domains (think of them as units or proteins) that reside on your dna that are indicative of you and your family lineage... if another creature has those same domains (let alone 74% of them!) then we can be rest assured that they are highly related!.. not merely similar..
similar is " oh a whales fin in similar to a flipper of a turtle".. thats an obscure similarity.. but does not prove that whales are related to turtles..... but guess what...! whales are indeed related to turtles! they share a common ancestor.. (humans share this common ancestor too by the way)
here is the lineage
lets make it simple...
Creature A ( a modified fish-like creature from 200 million years ago..think of an amphibian...like a salamander)
undergoes "evolution" over 100,000 thousand years giving rise to a new species called Creature B (a fully land dwelling quadriped.. the first reptile...) ... more time passes and eventually we end up with Creature C (the precursor to the first mammal.. ie, loss of scales for hair/fur, becomes warm blooded.. modified reproductive system.. etc etc).. .... years pass and Creature C now gives rise to Creature D ( a mammal that has took back to the waters but yet still retaining the successful mammalian characteristics (ie warm blooded, live young... etc etc)
in this simplified example.. we can see that "Creature B" is a species of animal that lead to the development of the Turtle.. however.. "Creature D" (a descendant of Creature B) is a fully aquatic mammal ( a whale!)
Creature D is related to Creature B.. not simply similar to it.. its a blood/genetic relative.
and thats what evolution is all about.. thats what we have going on in the world multiplied by a million things and a million differenrt factors and variables.. its very complex.
the whales fin/flipper is similar to the turtles arm/flipper because they are directly related! the whales flipper is nothing but a MODIFIED mammal arm! the mammalian arm is nothing but a modified reptilian arm. the reptilian arm is nothing but a modifed fish fin !
the genetic data proves this... whales are more closely related to us than they are turtles, but yet still are related to turtles as are we! we all stem from CREATURE A
I am sorry, but to me the facdt that we are made of similar stuff does not prove to me that we are the same thing.
I could probably show coke is made up on molecular level very similarly to water. Doesn't mean they are the same.
Also, just because we are similar....why do you assume a particular order? Isn't assuming we came from monkeys based solely on this similarity? So why didn't monkeys come from us? That's a great new theory! Now I am an evolutionist. They are probably exiled Europeans who turned into monkeys. LOL.
The fact that everything is similar to everything proves MY point not yours. Apart from the strength of the similarites humans could have come from oranges from your point of view. Get the fuck out... Also aren't we genetically similar to pigs? So why did we come from monkeys? By the way...where is the cave man dna coming from?
I don't need to be taken into a lab, coz I do believe what you are saying. I just don't see that it proves shit. We are all related by having the same basic make up.That's as strong a relationship as I have to a rcok (both being made of electrons). Its not coz I evolved from a rock. It's because we were created in similar conditions.
Also, you haven't adressed my issue about our ancestors.
the fact that we all breath oxygen is indeed nothing special.. but if one digs deeper than that then the truth makes itself clear... all creatures share similarities on one level or another,, the degree oor percent of relation only makes itself evident if one digs back far enuff in time when those 2 creatures share a direct relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
but yes.. u are correct.. u cant tell relation simply by function or aaction of the creature! u have to go by the genetics! and thats why im stressing it.. im not talking about mere physical/ mechanical abilities and then saying.. they are similar therefore related.. thats what u are doing!
im going by the objective genomic data.. the percent of the genetic code that they share!
the reason u cant go by the action or ability and then tell if something is dir4ectly related because there are diferent types of evolution! (again,, its very complex!)
if i were to look at the wing of a bat and then the wing of a bird.. i would be foolish to assume that birds and bats are directly related! (remember, the key here is the word directly, because after all.. if u dig back far enuff in time.. u will see that they are related, just not directly!)
the bats wing and the birds wing are examples of convergent evolution (evolution that modifies an existing appendage to suit its environment or duty in 2 different species but yet the end result by mother nature are similar structures )
the bats wing is a modified mammalian forearm and hand with fingers (think of your hand having webbing between the fingers and webbing between the forearm and shoulder.. evolution created the bats wing from an already existing mammal arm.... thats totally diferent than the wing of a bird which is directly descending from the forearm of a reptile.. its a stroke of luck that both creatures ended up in similar environments that they both would have to evolve a wing in similar form.. but they are not direct relatives! thats teh beauty of evolution.. its all based on your environment coupled with whats beneficial for your lifestyle all wrapped up in a stroke of chance/luck.
we humans are highly related to bats.. we arent descendants of bats (this is where ppl go wrong and think that relatiuon means u must come from it).. we are highly related to bats because we all stem from a very recent mammal.
I see what you are saying. But my point is this. We are all related in the sense that we are all inhabitants of this planet. So it doesn't surprise me that we share dna anymore than it surprises me that we breath oxygen. I don't see how DNA's being in some way similar means that I came from a monkey like creature?