Evolution question.

[juantoo3]

There is a 3% difference between monkey's and man (at most)yet we can't interbreed.

Your claims are decades out of date, based on the coding sequences of a handful of genes. Things have turned out to be very different once we have sequenced entire genomes.

Very good, now have we gotten our info from the discovery channel, or the human genome mapping project and Dr. Francis Collins?

I'm afraid there is a line of thought that suggests the possibility of interbreeding between humans and bonobos. The line is drawn at ethics, not genomes.

The typical example of interspecies mating is the mule...and it is sterile. So the *presumption* is that *all* interspecies matings are sterile. Not so.

Even among typically sterile cross breeds, occasionally a virile example will occur. But "occasional" is not conducive to procreation and evolution, however it does slap one definition of "species" square in the face.

To further complicate matters is the example of the wild horse of the Steppes, called Przlewski's horse or something, which has 66 genes. The typical horse we in the west are familiar with has 64 genes. Yet these two can mate, successfully, with virile offspring. Shoots that concept of "species" right in the foot....

If that is not enough, research the quagga. From there, research the various bovine species that are frequently interbred...like the brangus and the beefalo.

Now let's discuss ring species and breeds of dog...how they are the same but they are different but they are the same but they are different....just depends on the bias and needs of the promoter at a given time.

So no, "species" is a necessarily vague and ambiguous term subject to the will and whim of a given author at a given time, subject to amendment on the fly as necessary.

Which leads me now to always ask for the clarification: Linnean or cladist? and to hold that author to their chosen POV at cost. Otherwise, I know they are blowing smoke out of their nether regions....

 

[Tao_Equus]

I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.

Sorry but I have to call on this one. Long before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his fathers eye Eugenics was a well established practice. We have written evidence of that in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt, in the lineages of countless Royal families and even in the dying wishes of Muhammed. To state that eugenics is the result of a scientific dogma is utter nonsense. Perhaps back when they did not have a full understanding of what evolution is, but they well understood some of the facets of how lineage worked. Controlling a breeding population is eugenics and its history is as old as any extant writing.

tao

 

[Dogbrain]

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Not at all. Before evolution caught the public imagination, God was invoked to justify racist policies. Scripture after Scripture was quoted by the slavers of the US southern states to rationalize their practices of chattel slavery.

 

[Dogbrain]

Very good, now have we gotten our info from the discovery channel, or the human genome mapping project and Dr. Francis Collins?

I'm a biologist. I specialize in molecular biology of gene promoters and sidelight into genetics. If you wish, I can a list of recent publications. Tell me, how many papers have you had published in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals?

I'm afraid there is a line of thought that suggests the possibility of interbreeding between humans and bonobos. The line is drawn at ethics, not genomes.

And I'm afraid you're trying to do a smear-job on me in a very indirect and dishonest fashion. If you want to call me a monkyf-----, be honest enough to come out and do. Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I said anything about attempting to interbreed humans and bonobo.

Which leads me now to always ask for the clarification: Linnean or cladist?

Ernst Mayr-influenced modern synthesis.

 

[Quahom1]

I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.

Indeed, defer was what I meant, none the less I definitely sensed the "disgust" and dare I say, prejudice, for even expressing a thought. It seems none are immune to that.

 

[path_of_one]

Differ or defer... both were acceptable to me. Of course, I have had students who look at all the skeletons and insist on ignoring all evidence. I don't think that makes them stupid. Stubborn perhaps, but then so am I. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs about things, unless they are somehow harming others. Evolutionary theory is something useful, but not necessarily to the everyday person. They reap the benefits, but like most of science, they don't need to understand or believe in it themselves to have its consequences.

 

[Quahom1]

Differ or defer... both were acceptable to me. Of course, I have had students who look at all the skeletons and insist on ignoring all evidence. I don't think that makes them stupid. Stubborn perhaps, but then so am I. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs about things, unless they are somehow harming others. Evolutionary theory is something useful, but not necessarily to the everyday person. They reap the benefits, but like most of science, they don't need to understand or believe in it themselves to have its consequences.

There are over 3,000,000,000 bits of information in a single DNA helix, of which must be perfectly aligned in order for the "blue prints" to be read to create the life form they represent. Miss one or move a primary one, and the entire blueprint changes or fails. or;

DNA is the abbacus of life, and someone is the master mathematition flipping the beads on that abbacus..., which determines what the resulting answer will be.

It seems to me, that "random chance" would result in more wrong results than right...

 

[juantoo3]

I'm a biologist. I specialize in molecular biology of gene promoters and sidelight into genetics. If you wish, I can a list of recent publications. Tell me, how many papers have you had published in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals?

Good for you, I am truly happy for you. Are you intending to discredit me because I am an armchair who reads a lot of these peer reviewed papers? An armchair who can think for himself, unbeholding to *any* institutions?

And I'm afraid you're trying to do a smear-job on me in a very indirect and dishonest fashion. If you want to call me a monkyf-----, be honest enough to come out and do. Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I said anything about attempting to interbreed humans and bonobo.

Where you got this from I have no idea...way out in left field perhaps? If I had meant to call you anything, I would have done so. Or at the least, there would be no misunderstanding my intent. I said what I said because it is a point of fact...there is a line of thought that runs among some dealing in the field of genetics that the only obstacle to humans breeding with bonobos is the ethics involved. But surely, if you are a papered biologist working in the field you know exactly what I am speaking of, and that I speak truly.

Feigning offense is a misdirection to shift the subject. I am still waiting for a simple irrefutable definition of the term "species."

Besides, we hardly know each other. A bit early for ad hominems, don't you think?

Ernst Mayr-influenced modern synthesis.

Who is Ernst Mayr?

Ernst Mayr:

Neither Darwin nor anyone else in his time knew the answer to the species problem: how multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for the concept species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations of organisms get isolated, the sub-populations will start to differ by genetic drift and natural selection over a period of time, and thereby evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).

His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced) based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Mayr is generally credited with inventing the modern philosophy of biology, particularly of evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics, for its introduction of (natural) history into science.

Ernst W. Mayr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is common in debates about species for participants to argue at cross purposes. For example, in a debate over the species status of Baltimore Oriole and Bullock's Oriole one person might think that the critical question is about the two kinds of orioles and how similar they are. A second person might think that the critical question concerns the actual taxonomic rank of species, and on what the correct criteria are for identifying a species. If one person is talking about the birds, and another person is talking about the rank of species, then there can be confusion.

Disagreements and confusion also happen over just what the best criteria are for identifying new species. In 1942 the famous biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that because biologists have different ways of identifying species, they actually have different species concepts[2]. Mayr proceeded to list five different species concepts, and since then many more have been added [1][3]. The question of which species concept is best has occupied many printed pages and many hours of discussion [4].

So, Mayr acknowledges my position?

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commonly used names for plant and animal taxa sometimes correspond to species: for example, "lion," "walrus," and "Camphor tree" – each refers to a species. In other cases common names do not: for example, "deer" refers to a family of 34 species, including Eld's Deer, Red Deer and Elk (Wapiti). The last two species were once considered a single species, illustrating how species boundaries may change with increased scientific knowledge.

Each species is placed within a single genus. This is a hypothesis that the species is more closely related to other species within its genus than to species of other genera. All species are given a binomial name consisting of the generic name and specific name (or specific epithet). For example, Pinus palustris (commonly known as the Longleaf Pine).

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species. Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to give precise taxonomic rankings to.

Because of the difficulties with both defining and tallying the total numbers of different species in the world, it is estimated that there are anywhere between 2 and 100 million different species.[1]

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it would appear Mr. Mayr, and others, agree with me. No name calling or insinuation involved...just the facts.

 

[juantoo3]

Sorry but I have to call on this one. Long before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his fathers eye Eugenics was a well established practice. We have written evidence of that in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt, in the lineages of countless Royal families and even in the dying wishes of Muhammed. To state that eugenics is the result of a scientific dogma is utter nonsense. Perhaps back when they did not have a full understanding of what evolution is, but they well understood some of the facets of how lineage worked. Controlling a breeding population is eugenics and its history is as old as any extant writing.

Not at all. Before evolution caught the public imagination, God was invoked to justify racist policies. Scripture after Scripture was quoted by the slavers of the US southern states to rationalize their practices of chattel slavery.

With due respect, both of you are attempting to conflate issues. I understand your desires to attach eugenics to selective breeding and religion, but the history of eugenics does not bear your positions out.

Eugenics was a political movement based in evolutionary theory. Albeit an early form of evolutionary theory, but just the same...

Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quahom1]

With due respect, both of you are attempting to conflate issues. I understand your desires to attach eugenics to selective breeding and religion, but the history of eugenics does not bear your positions out.

Eugenics was a political movement based in evolutionary theory. Albeit an early form of evolutionary theory, but just the same...

Glad I'm not a mongrel puppy, I'd never have the chance to be a swimmer dog, and pull 15 from a sinking sail boat, while the pure bred Lab cowarded at the dock because of fear of sea sickness...but then, maybe I am a mongrel...i mean, I do know a master has a hand in all of this, and because of him I swim for others...lol

eugenics: what an oxymoron.

 

[juantoo3]

There are over 3,000,000,000 bits of information in a single DNA helix,

Yes Q, there are 3 billion base pairs to a typical genome, and it is to that 3 billion base pairs that numbers like 3%, 5%, 1/2%, get applied. 1% of 3 billion is 30 million. I'll take 1% of 3 billion dollars any day someone offers it.

The trouble is that there are *only* 50,000 genes that make a human genome, the rest (so far as they can tell right now) is garbage. I personally think it just hasn't been deciphered yet, but it is a mere 50,000 genes that make up a human. The most divergent humans differ by only 1/2 of 1% of the genome. This info is per Francis Collins and the genome mapping project.

"The difference between a mouse and a human is only a few hundred genes. But you cannot replace those genes in a mouse and expect it to start listening to Mozart or playing golf." -Francis Collins

His point being that the genes on the human genome "multi-task" (his words).

That *only 3%* difference everybody except the experts in the field rave about is not quite fully accurate...ambitious perhaps, inspiring maybe, but factually correct is misleading.

 

[Quahom1]

Yes Q, there are 3 billion base pairs to a typical genome, and it is to that 3 billion base pairs that numbers like 3%, 5%, 1/2%, get applied. 1% of 3 billion is 30 million. I'll take 1% of 3 billion dollars any day someone offers it.

The trouble is that there are *only* 50,000 genes that make a human genome, the rest (so far as they can tell right now) is garbage. I personally think it just hasn't been deciphered yet, but it is a mere 50,000 genes that make up a human. The most divergent humans differ by only 1/2 of 1% of the genome. This info is per Francis Collins and the genome mapping project.

"The difference between a mouse and a human is only a few hundred genes. But you cannot replace those genes in a mouse and expect it to start listening to Mozart or playing golf." -Francis Collins

His point being that the genes on the human genome "multi-task" (his words).

That *only 3%* difference everybody except the experts in the field rave about is not quite fully accurate...ambitious perhaps, inspiring maybe, but factually correct is misleading.

Indeed, but then Collins headed the team that actually mapped the genetic code of homo sapien sapien...no? Who better (as of now) to look towards as far as expertise on the sequencing of genes, DNA, and the ramifications?

BTW...Collins found God, in his discovery... ;-)

 

[juantoo3]

Indeed, but then Collins headed the team that actually mapped the genetic code of homo sapien sapien...no? Who better (as of now) to look towards as far as expertise on the sequencing of genes, DNA, and the ramifications?

Craig Venter ran the parallel project that was privately funded...I want to say the company was Celera, but I might be mistaken. There are a few others that were involved in these two projects whose quotes I have read, and they seldom fully jibe with the hype.

In fact, in the program "Our Genes, Our Choices" (I *highly* recommend) Collins specifically chastises the telecommunications / news industry for inappropriately and improperly reporting the findings...in effect blowing the findings out of proportion.

BTW...Collins found God, in his discovery... ;-)

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[Quahom1]

Craig Venter ran the parallel project that was privately funded...I want to say the company was Celera, but I might be mistaken. There are a few others that were involved in these two projects whose quotes I have read, and they seldom fully jibe with the hype.

In fact, in the program "Our Genes, Our Choices" (I *highly* recommend) Collins specifically chastises the telecommunications / news industry for inappropriately and improperly reporting the findings...in effect blowing the findings out of proportion.


Amazing, isn't it?

Collins also stood before President Clinton as he(the president), announced the accomplishment, effectively knocking the media for a loop.

And yes, it is amazing to find brilliant minds finding God.

Oh, Collins has a book out now "The DNA of God"...

 

[Quahom1]

Yes Q, there are 3 billion base pairs to a typical genome, and it is to that 3 billion base pairs that numbers like 3%, 5%, 1/2%, get applied. 1% of 3 billion is 30 million. I'll take 1% of 3 billion dollars any day someone offers it.

The trouble is that there are *only* 50,000 genes that make a human genome, the rest (so far as they can tell right now) is garbage. I personally think it just hasn't been deciphered yet, but it is a mere 50,000 genes that make up a human. The most divergent humans differ by only 1/2 of 1% of the genome. This info is per Francis Collins and the genome mapping project.

"The difference between a mouse and a human is only a few hundred genes. But you cannot replace those genes in a mouse and expect it to start listening to Mozart or playing golf." -Francis Collins

His point being that the genes on the human genome "multi-task" (his words).

That *only 3%* difference everybody except the experts in the field rave about is not quite fully accurate...ambitious perhaps, inspiring maybe, but factually correct is misleading.

Not me. I rather be poor and of sound mind and body. I can get rich later...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Good for you, I am truly happy for you. Are you intending to discredit me because I am an armchair who reads a lot of these peer reviewed papers? An armchair who can think for himself, unbeholding to *any* institutions?


Where you got this from I have no idea...way out in left field perhaps? If I had meant to call you anything, I would have done so. Or at the least, there would be no misunderstanding my intent. I said what I said because it is a point of fact...there is a line of thought that runs among some dealing in the field of genetics that the only obstacle to humans breeding with bonobos is the ethics involved. But surely, if you are a papered biologist working in the field you know exactly what I am speaking of, and that I speak truly.

Feigning offense is a misdirection to shift the subject. I am still waiting for a simple irrefutable definition of the term "species."

Besides, we hardly know each other. A bit early for ad hominems, don't you think?


Who is Ernst Mayr?

Ernst Mayr:



Ernst W. Mayr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, Mayr acknowledges my position?

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it would appear Mr. Mayr, and others, agree with me. No name calling or insinuation involved...just the facts.

Which proves what? Evolution theory is an evolving science that can be used to support findings in the field of biology. That researchers in that field use different criteria of classification is irrelevant to the question of whether or not evolution theory holds water. The genetic variability within a given species may be huge or tiny, usually dependent on population size and its degree of isolation. Science recognises that. The area where one species becomes another can be very grey and fuzzy and hard to define, science recognises that too. It is only religionists, these people that go to war over their supernatural beliefs that have absolutely no foundation in science, that want to make this an issue. What they are doing is calling these uncertainties a wound in the theory and constantly pick at it to attempt to make it fester. But science itself recognises the variability and works with it. I think religionists should have a look first in their own back yard. The variety and personality of the Gods they have invented vary far more than arguments between biologists over what defines a species. To be honest I am a little surprised at you Juantoo for opening up this old red herring, this smokescreen or diversion over the naturally fuzzy transition zones.

tao

 

[greymare]

oh, i wish flow was here for this discussion.................. ( sad face)

 

[Tao_Equus]

With due respect, both of you are attempting to conflate issues.

To the contrary. I will not stand by and let eugenics be called a product of science when it patently is not. Just because some racist coins a new word and uses a new theory to support old ideas does not make it something new. That kind of supremacist thinking was the reason for inbreeding amongst the pharoes, amongst royal families and within religious groupings throughout recorded history. I object in the strongest terms to you attempting to call it a product of science. Again you are trying to mislead, divert and confuse. You may convince yourself but to me your arguments hold as much water as fishnet stockings.


tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Oh, Collins has a book out now "The DNA of God"...

Now aint that a surprise!!

lol.... saw this guy in an interview... "lost the plot" was my thought.


tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

oh, i wish flow was here for this discussion.................. ( sad face)

yeh, would be nice to have Flow here for ANY discussion...