I made this topic for you, to state your evidence against evolution, in which I will refute your so-called evidence.

Ok. I start with a question.

If the humans and chimps intercoursed with each over a period of time in history, what the result genorm will be, regarding to the EVs/viral DNAs in particular?

I'm sorry but I do not fully understand your question, can you please restate it?
By genorm do you mean the collection of VBA macros? Or do you mean genome?

I mean genome, or gene pool? Actually I am not talking about macro-evolution but question that the viral DNAs can be used as an evidence for common ancestor identification. That's why the question that is it possible that both species will get the same viral DNAs due to inter-breeding?

First, humans and chimps cannot breed, since they are different species.
Retroviruses become endogenous and will be passed on to the offspring of the primate, this is how they are traced, because they influence the evolution of the species.

First of all, how am I supposed to provide evidence against something, until you provide evidence for it? The burden in this discussion is on you to provide evidence. Evolutionism vs Skepticism. First I'd like for you to clearly define your view of macro evolution, as their are many branches, so I'll know what I'm dealing with here.

I have already provided evidence for it and how it works, in another thread, here...

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1835849

The reason why you need to provide evidence against it is because macroevolution, and evolution in general, already has a foundation to stand on, and the evidence for it is very well established. The evidence against it is pure speculation and doesn't have a basis. This is why you must post it here, so science can refute the claims.


When speaking of macroevolution in this thread, we will discuss the analysis of evolution across gene pools, above the level of species.

Very well, but you still did not state which brand of evolution you adhere to. Do you believe in Neo-Darwinism or Puntuated Equiliberium, conventional Darwinism or some other branch? I'll need to know because not all view points face the same difficulties.

There you go, trying to turn a scientific theory into a religion.

I dont think you'll be able to reason with this one climber, might as well give up.

Punctuated equilibrium and the like are theories concerning the mechanisms of how evolution works, not different overall theories of evolution. What we are discussing here is macroevolution in its general context, I who says that it is true, along with most if not all the scientific community, and you who says it doesn't. We will be focusing on the modern theory of evolution, not Lemarkian or any other.

You're claiming that there aren't differing views on evolution. Whether it takes place in short periods with mass amount of evolution occuring, or whether it is over time? You claim that there is complete unison? Naive. But, I guess I can't reason with you.

I'll start with structural homology, this may take a lil while so give a few minutes.

What?

You claim that structural homology is evidence for common descent. We can start with limbs as they are the example you used in your link to evolutionary misconceptions. The bat and the bird for example, possess extreme similarities so it is argued that it is evidence of common ancestry. Yet the DNA sequences that contain the data responsible for their design, are not the same. The sequences of DNA responsible are in fact completely different. If it is a result of evolution, that they have similar structures, then the DNA, responsible, should be similar in the species that are supposedly linked. They are not however so structural homology contains no evidence supporting evolutionary common descent.

I would like to see what evidence you have when you say "sequences of DNA responsible are in fact completely different". A species' genotype influences the species' phenotype. In general, the genetic code as a whole is nearly identical in all life and the differences we find constitute common decent. Here however, you are melding two different traits together as one, morphological and genetic. In fact, all life is composed of the same building blocks, and and biochemical organization. Proteins, for example, are present in all living organisms, and more complex organisms have additional protein subunits.

For example, when comparing genetic differences, humans are genetically divergent from Chimps by 1.2% What you are doing in the bird and bat example, is that you are apparently taking genes only associated with the limbs. I don't think you have data of genetic divergence in terms of limb differences between bats and birds, so you point is invalid.

There's no such thing as Darwinism. There's the theory of evolution which is always changing to accomodate new evidence. There are different views on the grey areas, but dont try to insinuate that these different views are equal to different religions.

Very well, the next point, is over the fossil record. How can you explain the diverse amounts of life found in Cambrian rock. As I understand, there was not enough time for the life forms to have evolved to such an extent. Charles Walcott discovered fossils in Cambrian rock, that are not supposed to have come into existence until Devonian era. The Cambrian rock contains animals from every animal phylum, over fifty thousands fossils in all. Many of which should not be there according to modern text books. So how did the various complex organisms evolve in such a short time so as to appear in the Cambrian era, some which are shown by text books to not have evolved for millions of years later?

I did not once insuate, say, or suggest, that the differing views of evolution are comparable to religions. You are simply placing words in my mouth, so that is your problem. For some reason you wish to discredit me with false accusations. That's your business.

If you are referencing what I believe you are referencing, "The Burgess Shale", then this occurrence is known as "The Cambrian Explosion". In the most simplest since, it is the biological equivalent of the Big Bang.

There are a number of possible explanations of this.

1. An increase of oxygen in the atmosphere during this time allowed more complex organisms to evolve. Earlier, oxygen levels were very low, allowing only the simplest organisms to live. Increased oxygen levels mean increased diversity. This can be observed even today.
2. The development of the Embryo allowed organisms to develop more complex than before.
3. Hox genes. These are incredibly interesting genes, which also goes along with your previous question. Hox genes basically tell where to make something. For example, it tells the body to develop and eye on your head. What is cool is that recent experiments were done on fruit flies, where a Hox gene was used inside them. What happened was the Hox gene still worked. In fact, the flies developed normal fruit fly eyes. This shows that the common ancestor had similar Hox genes.

As for your assertion that text books are making such claims, do you have any evidence of this? Text books do indeed talk about the Cambrian Explosion.

Can I see your sources for the data that there was in fact increased oxygen at the time? Or is that purely theoretical? Even if the increased oxygen resulted in more diversity, there is still not enough time for such a vast amount of evolution to occur. How could a single celled organism evolve into a full fledged fish in a mere seventy million years? And why are there so few transitional fossils found during this period? There should be even more if there was in fact a burst of life due to raised oxygen levels.

The Cambrian Explosion was not the origin of multi-celled life, and there are transitional fossils (lobopods) as shown by the work of Simon Conway Morris.

The oxygen level increase was analyzed by Canfield and Teske, and can be seen in Nature, 382.

Only one transitional fossil in a period of time experiencing the most vast amount of sudden diversity in life? You said Morris has shown information about this, can we some some of it? Also do you have a link to Nature, page 382?

Not only one transitional fossil, I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. I was merely giving one example, which was lobopods.

You have to pay a monthly fee for Nature, so I cannot give you the full data, or send it via pdf, but the oxygen levels did rise by about 18% of present levels, which is staggering on the global scale.

Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.

BlindMessiah: even if you were able to prove evolution to be false (which, of course, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing), how would that make creationism any truer?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm saying by using the term Neo-Darwinism you appear to be making a claim that creationists often make, that evolution is a religion.

I don't think he's looking for "possible explanations". I think he would prefer facts. You could make up a number of scenarios that you believe to be true, but you should provide some concrete evidence that they are true.

The facts are the fossils, geologic and the genetic evidence. The possible explanations are constructed around those. That's how science works. Let's let out what we know and get rid of some common misconceptions about the Cambrian Explosion.

Starting with: There were complex organisms before the cambrian explosion. They were almost entirely soft bodied fauna which very rarely fossilize. Such organisms make up most of the life on earth today but are not well represented in the fossil record due to their soft bodies. Here are some examples of pre-cambrian fauna:

http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/precamb.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html

A couple of those sites link to more info. Now just prior to the cambrian and through the first part of it there was a major change in the chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean. It also caused or was the result of a mass extinction just prior to the cambrian that left huge ecological niches open. We can talk about these changes after you guys check this stuff out.

Ok, chimps have 23 sex chomosom, while humans have 24. That's why we assumed that they cant interbreed, according to understanding, hehe...

How possible (chances) that human genes get defected to give birth to a child with 23 chomosom, or this is impossible at all?

Cimber is saying there are a "number of possible explanations". That would suggest a lack of things we could consider concrete facts. What are the actual facts, not the things that are just speculation of what might have happened?

As I said, the facts are the fossils, when these things existed, their morphological relationship to existing animals, the genetic relatedness of all species and their levels of differentiation that shows roughly when species diverged, the geologic information of different chemical levels in the ocean and atmosphere and such changes correlate to living things today, specifically oxygen diffusion and how limited oxygen limits body types and complex development. All these things are factual (and there obviously much more specific info relating to all these things but it gives an idea) so from these lines of evidence we derive a model that best explains the evidence. Now since new evidence is always emerging these models will always be refined. If you're looking for 100% surety of every circumstance surrounding events 500+ million years ago, you're never going to get it. We can only construct models based on emperical evidence and the earth is a perfect record book by any means.

Now, let's not get too far ahead of Cimber's posts here before BlindMessiah can respond. I don't want to hijack Cimber's thread.

When did these things exist? Can you give me a time frame within a thousand years?

Can you explain the morphological relationship between one of these things and an existing animal, say an ostrich?

When did hookworms diverge? What is their genetic relationship to chimpazees?

What were the chemical levels of the ocean and the atmosphere during the era you are speaking of?

I will tell you what. Give me $400,000 + expenses and I will take a hiatus from my job for 3 1/2 months and try to teach you these things.

You're more than welcome to just post the answers in this thread. Thanks.

Perhaps I should more carefully word my diction. There are concrete facts and I even showed where you can access the data if you wish to do so. Read a scientific journal if you truly are interested in knowing about the Cambrian Explosion oxygen data.

In response to your other posts, I recommend you watch this video or research scientific journals such as Nature to find the answers yourself. If you have any further questions beyond this, please post them here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

What scientific journal gives the Cambrian Explosion oxygen data and explains how it was precisely measured? Can you give me the name of the journal, year, and issue?

And yes, I would still like my other questions answered. Thanks.

I already gave it, earlier in the thread, towards the middle of the second page.

Do you have the Aug 05 issue of Nature, Cimber?

Nature published a completed sequence of the chimpanzee genome.

This remarkable achievement received abundant publicity because it paved the way for biologists to conduct detailed genetic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees.

Unfortunately, the fanfare surrounding the chimpanzee genome overshadowed a more significant discovery. In the same issue, Nature published a report describing the first-ever chimpanzee fossils. This long-awaited scientific advance barely received notice because of the fascination with the chimpanzee genome. News of the two discoveries produced different reactions among scientists. Evolutionary biologists declared the chimpanzee genome as evidence for human evolution, but some paleoanthropologists were left wondering how humans and chimps could have evolved, based on where the chimpanzee fossils were found.

According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. About 5 million years ago, this ancestral primate spawned two evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimpanzees. Anthropologists consider the physical, geographical separation of hominids and proto-chimpanzees to be the "driving force" for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees. They postulate that the formation of the Rift Valley isolated the hominids in East Africa (a hot, dry savannah) from chimpanzees in Central and West Africa (with warm, wet jungles). The geographical isolation of hominids and chimps, presumably, sent these two lineages along different evolutionary trajectories.

Evolutionary biologists think that fossil hominids like "Lucy," Homo erectus, and Neanderthals document the emergence of humans. Yet, until recently paleoanthropologists had no corresponding fossils for the chimpanzee lineage.

Surprisingly, the first chimpanzee fossils were discovered not in West or Central Africa, but in East Africa, near Lake Baringo, Kenya. These fossils, consisting of three teeth, dated to 500,000 years in age--meaning that chimpanzees coexisted alongside hominids. The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.

Sally McBrearty, one of the paleoanthropologists who uncovered the chimpanzee fossils, noted, "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."

References:

First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution by Fazale R. Rana Ph.D.

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, "Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome," Nature 437 (2005): 69-87.

See Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005) for a discussion of human-chimpanzee genetic comparisons from a creation perspective.

Sally McBrearty and Nina G. Jablonski, "First Fossil Chimpanzee," Nature 437 (2005): 105-08.

See Who Was Adam? for a treatment on how the hominid fossil record creates problems for human evolution.

Michael Hopkin, "First Chimp Fossil Unearthed," news@nature.com (August 31, 2005), http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/pf/050829-10_pf.html, accessed November 30, 2005.


Respectfully,

Hairston

In this article they said there was probably a rise in atmosphreric oxygen concentrations. This would suggest that they don't know for sure. You can't really count this as concrete since all they're doing is guessing that there was an increase in atmospheric oxygen concentrations and then attributing it to the possiblity of animals evolving. Sounds kind of silly.

Well, since I'm not sure which precise thing your talking about (I posted a bunch a different fauna that lived over a pretty extended time frame) I'll just choose one as an example for now. Like this little guy:

http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/taxon/vendo/63257.html

Now, it was found in the Ediacara Assemblage. The dating is nowhere near within a thousand years for rocks that old. We're talking millions of years because only certain types of rock lend themselves to radiometric dating which is usually between .03-.08 million years plus or minus. Here are the estimates of the Ediacara Assemblage and how they are arrived at:

The age of the Ediacara assemblage has been debated, and is still not resolved. It is generally agreed to be from the early Vendian, also known as the Ediacaran, a late stage in the Pre-Cambrian Neoproterozoic. Estimates include ~ 25 million years (my) ± 10-15 my before the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary between 600 and 530 my ago (Sepkoski, 1979).

A volcanic-ash bed which is interbedded with Ediacara fossils at Mistaken Point Formation in Newfoundland gave a U-Pb zircon age of 565 ± 4 my. The Slawatycze Formation in Poland yielded a U-Pb zircon age of 551 ± 4 my, but this is indirectly gained through assumed lithological correlation with a volcanogenic sequence in the Ukraine. The lower age limit for Ediacara fossils has been calculated at 548.8 ± 0.3 my using zircon dating (Grotzinger et al. 1995).
From here:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/l...l%20setting.htm



An ostrich? Well, very indirectly if at all. Staying with the spriggina you'll find its at the center of debate as to whether it's a worm or a trilobite ancestor though the latter is more agreed upon by most making it an arthropod which would not make it an ancestor of an ostrich but of things like insects, lobster, crabs and such. Also, there is nothing that says it just died out and isn't the ancestor of anything. We have so few fossils of this very early time that it's pretty tough to make a complete picture.



I know of no molecular clock study of hookworms (though I'm sure they're out there) but being that they are nematodes your talking about a very early divergence. Basically 540+ my during the Cambrian explosion. Here's a break down of the homologs in many species that are in common:

http://eugenes.org/all/hgsummary.html



Sticking with the precambrian atmosphere you're looking at co2 and water vapor mostly as our best estimation though we know there was little to no free oxygen. From deposits we can tell the oceans would be rich with iron (very likely making them bright green). We know at some point around this time photosynthetic life started producing oxygen which started to change everything. Oxygen is very reactive and start oxidizing all the oceans iron which then sunk and formed huge layers of iron oxides that we see today.

Sorry Hairston, I am still reading the article you gave.

WWF, if you seriously think a scientific journal article only says 'probably' without giving concrete data, you neither read the article, nor have you understood the data. Its far from guessing.

All you read was the abstract and you continue to play with diction because you cannot provide evidence of the contrary.

In addition, if you think anything is 'silly' that is published inside these journals, I suggest you retune your brain. This stuff is taking very seriously and scientists work their entire lives to have a chance to be published here. It is serious business and they don't just give their space to anyone they want.

Not a prob, Cimber. No rush.

Kindly,

Hairston

If you're expecting absolutes about what took place 500+ million years ago forget about it. As has already been explained, data is facts, theory is how the facts fit the combined data when all is taken into account. It's not silly. Iron banding requires oxygen to precipate to the iron so we know levels of free oxygen rose at that time. We also know that vast amounts of photosynthetic bacteria preceded this time.

Humans have 23 chromosomes in their sex cells and chimps have 24.

K, thanks. Still my question remains unanswered. I am querying if the possibility of inter-breeding has been taken into account when the common ancestry theory is developed.

Well, we know that Lions can cross-breeding with the Tigers. Then what will happen if some of those offsprings go back to breed with Lions while others with the Tigers?

First I'd like to adress Wombat. You asked me how disproving evolution would prove creation. I never once claimed to support creation. I simply stated that I believe that evolution is a scientific hypothesis, lacking the data to be considered a theory, that is shoved down the throats of those who have varying points of view. You are living proof of those who wish do this. You do not help the scientific process as you do nothing more than assault those with differing view points. When free thinking is removed from a scenario, it no longer remains a science, but rather becomes a dogmatic belief. If you wish to prove this so called fact, then why don't you follow the example of others on this forum such as Cimber, and debate the subject? Until you decide to do this, you have no place in any scientific debate.

Now Cimber, my next point. It address the age of the earth. I'm aware that the majority of the scientific community belives that the universe, as well as the earth is very old. But I believe there is consenting evidence as far as the age of the earth. If the earth is in fact young, as some evidence supports, then there would have been no time for life to have evolved.

First of all, the decrease in magnetic fields indicate that the earth cannot be more than twenty-five thousand years old. Other wise, the magnetic field would be too strong and the heat would be too great for life to survive.

Second, natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized two hundred thousands years down to possibly as low as seven thousand years. Experts on DNA insist that it cannot exist in natural environments longer than ten thousand years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older.

Third, every year, rivers and other sources dump over four hundred million tons of sodium into the ocean. Twenty seven percent of this sodium renters the sea each year. The remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than forty five million years at today’s input and output rates. The argument against this has been that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. Calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only sixty five million years.

It is odd that this didn't get a little more press in 05 but I think it's because the relatively young age of the chimp teeth. It's so far from where we'd see expected divergence (5-8 million years or so) that it doesn't give us much insight into our evolutionary connections with chimps. While they are in an odd place it's not that astounding given many animals' ability to adapt to seemingly incongruant ecologies without any really significant biological adaption. Especially for fairly intelligent animals. There are especially good examples of this in Africa. African elephants have been successful in small numbers in harsh desert environments. Lions can learn to deal with flood plain environments. In North America the coyotes ability to fill just about any ecological niche left open, climate not withstanding, is a good example of this too.

Since Cimber seems not to be around I'll address this a bit until he is if you don't mind.



The earth's magnetic field is really no hard indicator of anything. It is decreasing right now but it has before and has switch polarities many times throughout earth's history. This is well established by any rock that forms over the Curie temp. At that point the magnetic crystals in the rock align with the magnetic field of the earth. We have deep ocean lave flows that show layers that have switched polarities quite a bit throughout earth's history. The last time about 780,000 years ago and it has happened many times before that at fairly regular intervals.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29...gneticfield.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...magfield_2.html

Lots of info here:

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html



Firstly, you might be mistaken in what you're assumption of what "Eve" is (aside from one the stupidest names one could possibly attribute to the lineage just because of what it implies). It is not the first woman, or the only woman at the time even. It's the result of a genetic bottleneck. Putting date aside for a moment (I'll return to it) let me try to show how such a bottleneck occurs and why following only maternal lineages can end up being confusing.

Say the total human population is A. The total population of mothers (as mitochondrial DNA is maternal) of A is B. A must be larger than B obviously (or equal given the unlikelyhood of every B giving birth to only one A but obviously every B must must be a mother). Keep doing this. Say C is the the population of all mothers of all B. C again, must be smaller than B. Keep doing this and you arrive at the conclusion that there had to be, at one point, one maternal lineage. This is true but it's deceptive. Firstly, we're only looking at female offspring. Take B again. A good percentage of them is only give birth to males, ending their mitochondrial lineage but they existed. Their nuclear DNA was still passed on, just not their mDNA.

Now lets look at another example of how bottlenecking can cause the title of mDNA to change hands. That's the key. It's not an indicator of the first, one or only woman who has contributed DNA to the human race. Say we have human populations clan A54 and clan B67 (not related to the first example) that are seperated by geography. The first number indicate the number of women in the clan, the second males. These clans could each easily have their own mDNA Eve depending on how long they have been seperated. All mDNA eve is is the closest common female ancestor. For a small clan that could concievably be a great great grandmother. All's it takes for that title to change hands is to have daughters that die, don't give birth, or only give birth to males. In that scenario your "mDNA eve" lineage dies out. So getting back to clans A54 and B67. Clan A shares a common female lineage going back ten generations and clan B only four. It would seem obvious that clan A's lineage should win out but even the simplest circumstances can change that. They meet and interbreed. Even in the best scenario not all these people would be viable to reproduce but we'll ignore that. The 4 males from A have children with all 6 females from B producing two females of the B lineage. Conversely the the B males have children with the A females and produce three females of the A lineage. The A lineage females need only to produce another A lineage female but death or not producing a female ends that lineage. Even if only one of the B lineage females produces a female the suddenly the "mDNA Eve" title has just been usurped by by clan B. This does not negate the fact that the A lineage existed and was productive for ages. It just ended in a bottleneck. That's all mDNA Eve is. Not the oldest woman or the only woman or anything of the sort.

As for the molecular clock dating that's a bit of strawman. Creationists jumped on Parson's paper saying that a certain segment of mDNA shows a far higher mutation rate than the other 94% of the genome. Firstly, the dating is based on substitution, not this segment. The base genome shows no such variation. Parson would point that out to you. While molecular clock estimations have a decent level of variablity it still shows a mDNA bottleneck somewhere around 175,000 years ago. But realize that comparisons of nuclear DNA pushes back the our common ancestor to about 500,000 years ago. This takes into account both sexes and those lineages, as I've shown (I hope) have had the mDNA Eve title change hands many times.

I'm going address salinity after I've had a break.

Thanks for this post capeo. I also wanted to add that the previous post in regards to the chimps was not an attempt to promote something other than evolution. I just found it interesting. I have more later haha.

Kindly,

Hairston

Oh I know, bro. Do me a favor, if you have a sec at some point, and read my attempt to explain mitochondrial eve. I was trying to make it simple but I may have made it tougher to grasp. I'd appreciate your input. I've always found mDNA Eve to be one of the more misleading concepts in popular genetics as it's usually presented it web articles an such.

"Probably" isn't concrete. And it's not for you to determine whether or not I can understand the data or not. The writers make it clear that they are not 100% certain. If you want to believe everything you read in a journal, that is up to you, but that does not mean everybody else will.