The Human Design: DNA

[cacian]

It is interesting concept that all humans similar and and different but never exact. The one fundemental design that sets us apart so radically is our DNA.
This is fascinating because I set myself a task to find out why this very unique difference?
WHat is the purpose of DNA being the one and only?

I am not a creationist and do not believe in Darwin's theory.
My human instinct does not and never has allowed to think that I relate to an animal specie for reasons of my own.
But I do find Darwin's idea a mean or a reason for me to raise an issue regarding human DNA.
I am not a biologist but my question is this:

How is the human different from that of an animal specy such as chimp?
I figured if one human DNA is different from another human then there has to be a significant difference with thay of a chimpanzee.

[Lokasenna]

How is the human different from that of an animal specy such as chimp?
I figured if one human DNA is different from another human then there has to be a significant difference with thay of a chimpanzee.

Well, it has to do with the degree of variance. Each human being's DNA pattern varies from other humans by hundredths of a single percent. So when we say that chimps share 98.8% of our DNA, they are still many hundreds, if not thousands, of times removed standard human variance.

Almost all life above the single-cell level shares a degree of genetic similarity with humans:

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

This is, of course, because we all evolved from a common ancestor approximately 1.5 billion years ago.

[cacian]

Hi lokasenna in terms of differences I mean if I was to identify one person form another then DNA is the only way.
In this sense the diffence is exact meaning minute and to the point, like saying 1 and 2 are different right otherwise there is not point in DNA right?

What I am trying to say is can the naked eye see two DNAs of two people and say they are different? In descriptions and not in numbers?
Like saying the Madonna painting and the La Donna Velata are two very different paintings although they are of two females.
In other words here is an example
I have three DNAs which I put in front of you
Two are of humans and one is of an animal specy say a chimpanzee.
Can one tell which is human and which is chimp?
And can one describe how the two human DNAs differ?
I guess we need a biologist here haha.

[Lokasenna]

I have three DNAs which I put in front of you
Two are of humans and one is of an animal specy say a chimpanzee.
Can one tell which is human and which is chimp?
And can one describe how the two human DNAs differ?
I guess we need a biologist here haha.

Well, I may not be much of a biologist, but I can safely say that the answer to both questions is yes! Assuming, of course, that one has the proper equipment and a working knowledge of DNA sequencing.

The degree of variance between human and chimp will be very obvious, assuming you know where to look for the distinction. And whilst two humans differ only very slightly in their genetic code, nevertheless each human's gentic code is unique - it is entirely possible to describe the differences between them!

[cacian]

In other words one is able to see the difference but humans and animal DNA.
It is an interesting thing to be able to recognise a human DNA design from a non at a glance and tell the difference between two human DNAs.
It is a bit like looking at two people they do not look the same but they are the same because they are humans.

If then the difference of an animal and a human DNA is obvious and there is no link between the two where does Darwin 'sevolultion stand with regard to DNA differences?

Humans throughout time have carried the same but different DNA and yet there is no at link DNA that bridges a human to a chimp.

[Calidore]

Hi lokasenna in terms of differences I mean if I was to identify one person form another then DNA is the only way.
In this sense the diffence is exact meaning minute and to the point, like saying 1 and 2 are different right otherwise there is not point in DNA right?

What I am trying to say is can the naked eye see two DNAs of two people and say they are different? In descriptions and not in numbers?
Like saying the Madonna painting and the La Donna Velata are two very different paintings although they are of two females.
In other words here is an example
I have three DNAs which I put in front of you
Two are of humans and one is of an animal specy say a chimpanzee.
Can one tell which is human and which is chimp?
And can one describe how the two human DNAs differ?
I guess we need a biologist here haha.

DNA testing is done all the time to identify/rule out people in criminal cases. Do you mean something different than that?

I have a friend who has a Masters in molecular biology/genetics and teaches at the university level. I'll give her a call and ask.

I am relieved to know that A) I'm more closely related to a fruit fly than a banana, and B) that the degree of variance thing means eating an 80%-related hamburger is not cannibalism.

[OrphanPip]

If then the difference of an animal and a human DNA is obvious and there is no link between the two where does Darwin 'sevolultion stand with regard to DNA differences?

I don't really get what you're asking, the DNA similarity is evidence of interrelatedness. First of all, it's a little more complicated than just amount of difference or similarity. One of the ways we track the point of divergence (or last common ancestor) between two species is by looking specifically at highly conserved genes. There are certain proteins that are so old and so fundamental to life that pretty much all living things have a form of them, and because of how fundamental they are, mutations accrue much more slowly. This lets us build what are called phylogenetic trees that can help place species along lines of genetic divergence. One of the great features of these trees is that they roughly correspond to the same pattern we'd expect from what we know about fossils and observations of anatomical changes.

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/tree.jpeg

Here is a very detailed phylogenetic tree of squirrel species:

http://research.uleth.ca/rgs/photos/phylogeneticTree.gif


Genetics is mostly used for finding the LCA of single celled organisms, because fossils tend to be able to give more exact results for animals. The other limitation is that you need living organisms to get DNA, so while a phylogenetic tree might tell you roughly when two animals diverged, it won't be able to tell you much details, or how many different animals existed between the two end points. This is why fossils are still an important part of evolutionary biology.




Humans throughout time have carried the same but different DNA and yet there is no at link DNA that bridges a human to a chimp.

All humans are only separated by around 60,000-100,000 years of difference, with much gene flow in-between populations over that period. Chimps and humans are separated by 7 million years. DNA always changes, bit by bit, over time. And it is simply wrong to say there is no DNA that "bridges" a human to a chimp, we are far more similar to Chimps and Bonobos than to anything else currently living.

[cacian]

I don't really get what you're asking, the DNA similarity is evidence of interrelatedness. First of all, it's a little more complicated than just amount of difference or similarity. One of the ways we track the point of divergence (or last common ancestor) between two species is by looking specifically at highly conserved genes. There are certain proteins that are so old and so fundamental to life that pretty much all living things have a form of them, and because of how fundamental they are, mutations accrue much more slowly. This lets us build what are called phylogenetic trees that can help place species along lines of genetic divergence. One of the great features of these trees is that they roughly correspond to the same pattern we'd expect from what we know about fossils and observations of anatomical changes.

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/tree.jpeg

Here is a very detailed phylogenetic tree of squirrel species:

http://research.uleth.ca/rgs/photos/phylogeneticTree.gif


Genetics is mostly used for finding the LCA of single celled organisms, because fossils tend to be able to give more exact results for animals. The other limitation is that you need living organisms to get DNA, so while a phylogenetic tree might tell you roughly when two animals diverged, it won't be able to tell you much details, or how many different animals existed between the two end points. This is why fossils are still an important part of evolutionary biology.




All humans are only separated by around 60,000-100,000 years of difference, with much gene flow in-between populations over that period. Chimps and humans are separated by 7 million years. DNA always changes, bit by bit, over time. And it is simply wrong to say there is no DNA that "bridges" a human to a chimp, we are far more similar to Chimps and Bonobos than to anything else currently living.

Thank Juniper for the indepth posts.
My question is this: why should human be linked to anything but themsleves?
What is the issue with no relating to anything else but oursleves because then where and the what is the beginning of a living things if it was not a human first?
In other words what is wrong with just humans starting first then animal species next?

[Volya]

Thank Juniper for the indepth posts.
My question is this: why should human be linked to anything but themsleves?
What is the issue with no relating to anything else but oursleves because then where and the what is the beginning of a living things if it was not a human first?
In other words what is wrong with just humans starting first then animal species next?

Because that isn't what happened. It's called evolution, you should try researching it.

[OrphanPip]

Thank Juniper for the indepth posts.
My question is this: why should human be linked to anything but themsleves?
What is the issue with no relating to anything else but oursleves because then where and the what is the beginning of a living things if it was not a human first?
In other words what is wrong with just humans starting first then animal species next?

Because the evidence says otherwise. The fossil record, and the genetic record, suggest that life has been around a lot longer than humans have been around. It also suggests that new species come from other species. So, there is no reason to think humans are different when they are perfectly explainable using the current model.

[Volya]

I struggle to understand why some people refuse to accept Darwins theory of evolution...

[cacian]

Because that isn't what happened. It's called evolution, you should try researching it.

I have and it does not make sense to me.

[cacian]

I struggle to understand why some people refuse to accept Darwins theory of evolution...

I guess I struggle to understand why those who believe in evolution cannot believe others just do not believe in it.
Regardless of what you think I think differently.

[Volya]

I have and it does not make sense to me.

What about evolution does not make sense to you?

[Alexander III]

I guess I struggle to understand why those who believe in evolution cannot believe others just do not believe in it.
Regardless of what you think I think differently.

I guess I struggle to understand why those who believe that the earth rotates around the sun, cannot believe that others simply do not believe that, but believe instead that the sun rotates around the earth. Regardless of what you think I think differently.

[cacian]

What about evolution does not make sense to you?

What does not make sense is that a human is genetically modified being through a chimp/ape.
I consider the human form pure and different of that a chimp.
One is wild and the other domesticated.
Gene ways there is not a shrink of mutual DNA that links one human to one chimp.
Scientifically one should be able to identify one common gene between a human and a chimp to support the evolution theory.
There is no link and unless that is found then I will continue to ignore it.

For exampe in a plant DNA there is one common gene that links one plant to another that shows that plants are different but at the same time they are the same.
The reasons why plants are able to diversify is because of thet one common gene they share.
It allows to procreate more varieties of plants and remain true to their own biological formation.

The reasons why there is a variety of races black white red whatever is because althougth we are superficially different we are physiologically the same.
Our DNA is unique from each other but there is one common gene in our DNA that we all share that allows the human race to diversify.


If humans and chimps are related that we must have that common gene that allows human/chimps to diversdify more.
Accroding to the evolution chimps diversified once and that is into human and then it stops there.
That is the gap that is missing or shall I say widening.

[Volya]

What does not make sense is that a human is genetically modified being through a chimp/ape.
I consider the human form pure and different of that a chimp.
One is wild and the other domesticated.
Gene ways there is not a shrink of mutual DNA that links one human to one chimp.
Scientifically one should be able to identify one common gene between a human and a chimp to support the evolution theory.
There is no link and unless that is found then I will continue to ignore it.

For exampe in a plant DNA there is one common gene that links one plant to another that shows that plants are different but at the same time they are the same.
The reasons why plants are able to diversify is because of thet one common gene they share.
It allows to procreate more varieties of plants and remain true to their own biological formation.

The reasons why there is a variety of races black white red whatever is because althougth we are superficially different we are physiologically the same.
Our DNA is unique from each other but there is one common gene in our DNA that we all share that allows the human race to diversify.


If humans and chimps are related that we must have that common gene that allows human/chimps to diversdify more.
Accroding to the evolution chimps diversified once and that is into human and then it stops there.
That is the gap that is missing or shall I say widening.

But chimp DNA and human DNA IS similar. Oh and technically we're not descended from chimps, we just share a common ancestor (although there are some arguments that we should be put in the same 'family' as the chimp and other primates). The link between two different plants is the same as the link between chimps and humans. They share common ancestors.

[cacian]

But chimp DNA and human DNA IS similar. Oh and technically we're not descended from chimps, we just share a common ancestor (although there are some arguments that we should be put in the same 'family' as the chimp and other primates). The link between two different plants is the same as the link between chimps and humans. They share common ancestors.

Yes it would similarish because it a DNA of a living being ie species humans and plants.

What I tried to say earlier is that the common gene that should link us to this one ancestor that should allow for more diversified forms of living beings is not present.
Here is what I am trying to say:
If you say humans and chimps have one common ancestor then that means through this ancestor we have must a common gene that should allows to procreate a more diversified form of other beings in that it does not stop there with just humans.
By diversification meaning that same gene should allow humans to then procreate with other species in other to diversifiy and that is not the case.
Darwins suggested that humans share a common ancestor with a chimp and it stops therre.
If this was the case by now we should also have shared more other ancestors with other species to procreate a different kind of humans race.
This bit is missing.

In other words the reason why plants for example are able to diversify in nature in their different thousands of plants is because their procreative gene is the same.
The more plants and the more different plants to be.
The same with humans the reason why we are able to reproduce different races is because we share that one procreative gene. Without this gene there is no more races no more people.

If you take however a chimp and try and mate it with a human it simply won't happen. It is impossible because a human and a chimp have not got that same procreative gene.
Because of this I firmly believe that we humans do not share a same ancestor with that of a chimp.
This gene is missing.

Take a red haired person in a family tree they say it jumps gene but it still happens.
A family can go having blond hair and blue eyes through the years and then one day out of the blue they can still have a red haired person.

[Volya]

Yes it would similarish because it a DNA of a living being ie species humans and plants.

What I tried to say earlier is that the common gene that should link us to this one ancestor that should allow for more diversified forms of living beings is not present.
Here is what I am trying to say:
If you say humans and chimps have one common ancestor then that means through this ancestor we have must a common gene that should allows to procreate a more diversified form of other beings in that it does not stop there with just humans.
By diversification meaning that same gene should allow humans to then procreate with other species in other to diversifiy and that is not the case.
Darwins suggested that humans share a common ancestor with a chimp and it stops therre.
If this was the case by now we should also have shared more other ancestors with other species to procreate a different kind of humans race.
This bit is missing.

You do realize one of the defining traits that set apart species is that they CAN'T procreate? (or in some cases they can, but the offspring are infertile).
We don't need to be able to procreate to tell that we have a common ancestor. The DNA tells us we have a common ancestor. You say 'species, humans and plants'. Humans ARE a species. Humans share a common ancestor with every living animal planet, if you track the ancestry back far enough.

[cacian]

You do realize one of the defining traits that set apart species is that they CAN'T procreate? (or in some cases they can, but the offspring are infertile).
We don't need to be able to procreate to tell that we have a common ancestor. The DNA tells us we have a common ancestor. You say 'species, humans and plants'. Humans ARE a species. Humans share a common ancestor with every living animal planet, if you track the ancestry back far enough.



Ok here is the bit that you have missed:
The reason why plants for example are able to diversify in nature in their different thousands of plants is because their procreative gene is the same.
The more plants and the more different plants to be.
The same with humans the reason why we are able to reproduce different races is because we share that one procreative gene. Without this gene there is no more races no more people.

But if you take a chimp and try and mate it with a human it simply won't happen. It is impossible because a human and a chimp have not got that same procreative gene.
Because of this I firmly believe that we humans do not share a same ancestor with that of a chimp.
This gene is missing.

Take a red haired person in a family tree they say it jumps generation gene but it still happens.
A family can go having blond hair and blue eyes through the years and then one day out of the blue they can still have a red haired person.

Human a living being and not a species.

The reason a human is not a species is because it is not possible for a human to mate with an animal or plant.
If it did then yes.

[Lokasenna]

What does not make sense is that a human is genetically modified being through a chimp/ape.
I consider the human form pure and different of that a chimp.

What do you mean by pure? At least fourteen different species of human have been identified across the world, even if it just so happens that homo sapien is the only one that hasn't died out. In fact, a evidence of a new species of human from Africa has turned up very recently: link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19184370).


One is wild and the other domesticated.
What's that go to do with genetics? A feral dog is exactly the same type of creature as a domesticated version.


Gene ways there is not a shrink of mutual DNA that links one human to one chimp.

Other than the aforementioned 98.8% similarity?


Scientifically one should be able to identify one common gene between a human and a chimp to support the evolution theory.
There is no link and unless that is found then I will continue to ignore it.

We can observe the genetic similarity - it's clear as anything to anyone who looks at it. To deny it requires a strong degree of wilful ignorance.


For exampe in a plant DNA there is one common gene that links one plant to another that shows that plants are different but at the same time they are the same.
The reasons why plants are able to diversify is because of thet one common gene they share.
It allows to procreate more varieties of plants and remain true to their own biological formation.

Evidence please. All life procreates - it's one of the defining factors for what life means in a biological sense. It's a genetic imperative that ALL living things share. The act of procreation has no impact on the subject's 'biological formation', whatever that means.


The reasons why there is a variety of races black white red whatever is because althougth we are superficially different we are physiologically the same.
Our DNA is unique from each other but there is one common gene in our DNA that we all share that allows the human race to diversify.

It's not one common gene at all - the degree of genetic variance between individual humans, as I have already said, is a tiny fraction of a single percent.


If humans and chimps are related that we must have that common gene that allows human/chimps to diversdify more.

Evolution is not cause by a gene - it is a phenomenon that affects genes.


Accroding to the evolution chimps diversified once and that is into human and then it stops there.
That is the gap that is missing or shall I say widening.

No it isn't. Evolution is still happening to both our species, although the relative success of homo sapien means that there isn't much change going on with us - the rate has slowed in the human case. This is because we have perfectly adapted to our environment, so the impetus for natural selection has decreased. Please remember that evolution takes hundreds, or thousands, of generations before it becomes an observable effect.

[Volya]

Human a living being and not a species.



That statement is truly the most ridiculous I have seen from you cacian.
Humans. Homo sapiens. They are a species of the genus Homo.

[Lokasenna]

Forgive the double post, but there's more to respond to.


Human a living being and not a species.


Homo sapien is both a living being and a species - these are not mutually exclusive terms!


Ok here is the bit that you have missed:
The reason why plants for example are able to diversify in nature in their different thousands of plants is because their procreative gene is the same.

Any two things can successfully breed if the variance in their genetic make-up isn't too great. How do you produce an ***? Mate a horse and donkey! But try to pollenate a rose from a yucca tree, and nothing is going to happen.


The same with humans the reason why we are able to reproduce different races is because we share that one procreative gene. Without this gene there is no more races no more people.

Race is emphatically NOT the same thing as species. Every human alive today is homo sapien, part of the exact same species.


But if you take a chimp and try and mate it with a human it simply won't happen. It is impossible because a human and a chimp have not got that same procreative gene.

A human and a chimp can't mate, but this has nothing to do with procreative genes. It's to do with genetic variance. The greater the degree of variance, the lower the percentage of successful conception. Humans and chimps have long since diverged significantly enough that the chance of conception was nothing. There has been a lot of scientific study in the last few years to suggest that for a substantial period of pre-history homo sapien was capable of, and indeed did, breed with homo neanderthalensis, Neanderthal man.


Because of this I firmly believe that we humans do not share a same ancestor with that of a chimp.
This gene is missing.

I'm sorry, but I think your understanding of genetics is a little bit confused.


Take a red haired person in a family tree they say it jumps gene but it still happens.
A family can go having blond hair and blue eyes through the years and then one day out of the blue they can still have a red haired person.

This is a completely different matter entirely, and is to do with dominant and recessive alleles. In simple terms, the reason children do not always carry the distinguishing physical features of their parents is due to the process by which egg and sperm cells form, each of which carries half of the parent's gentic pattern. Some characteristics are dominant, and others are recessive (which means that they do not appear if the dominant one is also present).

For example, in terms of eye colour brown is a dominant characteristic (which I shall call 'B'), and blue is a recessive characteristic (which I shall call 'b'). My parents both have brown eyes, I have blue eyes. This means that my parents must have the genetic pattern Bb. This means that half of their eggs and sperm would carry the 'B' characteristic, and the other half the 'b' characteristic. This means that the potential offspring could be BB (brown eyes, doesn't carry the recessive allele), Bb (brown eyes, does carry the recessive allele), bB (brown eyes, does carry the recessive allele), or bb (blue eyes, doesn't carry the dominant allele). Therefore, when I was concieved there was a 1-in-4 chance I would have blue eyes. This does not make me a different species from my parents, nor preclude me from mating with a brown-eyed girl!

[Charles Darnay]

I am not a creationist and do not believe in Darwin's theory.

All misinformation and lack of scientific understanding aside: what do you believe, Cacian, if you reject both creationism and evolutionary theory. I have never heard of a third option, other than those who try to reconcile the two (which doesn't work).

[cacian]

Forgive the double post, but there's more to respond to.



Homo sapien is both a living being and a species - these are not mutually exclusive terms!



Any two things can successfully breed if the variance in their genetic make-up isn't too great. How do you produce an ***? Mate a horse and donkey! But try to pollenate a rose from a yucca tree, and nothing is going to happen.



Race is emphatically NOT the same thing as species. Every human alive today is homo sapien, part of the exact same species.



A human and a chimp can't mate, but this has nothing to do with procreative genes. It's to do with genetic variance. The greater the degree of variance, the lower the percentage of successful conception. Humans and chimps have long since diverged significantly enough that the chance of conception was nothing. There has been a lot of scientific study in the last few years to suggest that for a substantial period of pre-history homo sapien was capable of, and indeed did, breed with homo neanderthalensis, Neanderthal man.



I'm sorry, but I think your understanding of genetics is a little bit confused.



This is a completely different matter entirely, and is to do with dominant and recessive alleles. In simple terms, the reason children do not always carry the distinguishing physical features of their parents is due to the process by which egg and sperm cells form, each of which carries half of the parent's gentic pattern. Some characteristics are dominant, and others are recessive (which means that they do not appear if the dominant one is also present).

For example, in terms of eye colour brown is a dominant characteristic (which I shall call 'B'), and blue is a recessive characteristic (which I shall call 'b'). My parents both have brown eyes, I have blue eyes. This means that my parents must have the genetic pattern Bb. This means that half of their eggs and sperm would carry the 'B' characteristic, and the other half the 'b' characteristic. This means that the potential offspring could be BB (brown eyes, doesn't carry the recessive allele), Bb (brown eyes, does carry the recessive allele), bB (brown eyes, does carry the recessive allele), or bb (blue eyes, doesn't carry the dominant allele). Therefore, when I was concieved there was a 1-in-4 chance I would have blue eyes. This does not make me a different species from my parents, nor preclude me from mating with a brown-eyed girl!

Hi lokasenna thank you for your post.
I am not going to be able to accept that sharing an ancestor with a chimp is to do with a phenomena and A time set.
I have given what I see as a plausible answer to why I cannot settle on an evolution that cannot explain why a human cannot mate with a chimp.
If we are truly related through time and ancestry then we should be able to mate as a result of it.
The same with a family ancestry tree I can the correlations and the link that it begins with someone and somebody and leads to thousands of related people.
This is how I understand ancestry. That there is a gene or two that we carry the tell us I am related to my ancestors and with that procreative gene I am able to determine my blood line.
Two cousins same blood line and so on.

Thus if the evolution is telling that I have a same ancestor as a chimp is that the least it can do is that it can show me the gene that I have in common with that of a chimp.
The only direct easy way to this is to show me that I can mate with any chimp or show that I have a same blood line. As it stands the nature of things it is at this minute an impossible task.
Please understand that there is nothing you can do to change my mind.
That is my frame of mind I like to see to believe especially if I am going to be informed that I share a same ancestor as that of a chimp.
I respect and understand your views but I do not share them.

[Volya]

Hi lokasenna thank you for your post.
I am not going to be able to accept that sharing an ancestor with a chimp is to do with a phenomena and A time set.
I have given what I see as a plausible answer to why I cannot settle on an evolution that cannot explain why a human cannot mate with a chimp.
If we are truly related through time and ancestry then we should be able to mate as a result of it.
The same with a family ancestry tree I can the correlations and the link that it begins with someone and somebody and leads to thousands of related people.
This is how I understand ancestry. That there is a gene or two that we carry the tell us I am related to my ancestors and with that procreative gene I am able to determine my blood line.
Two cousins same blood line and so on.

Thus if the evolution is telling that I have a same ancestor as a chimp is that the least it can do is that it can show me the gene that I have in common with that of a chimp.
The only direct easy way to this is to show me that I can mate with any chimp or show that I have a same blood line. As it stands the nature of things it is at this minute an impossible task.
Please understand that there is nothing you can do to change my mind.
That is my frame of mind I like to see to believe especially if I am going to be informed that I share a same ancestor as that of a chimp.
I respect and understand your views but I do not share them.

The reason you don't seem to be able to understand evolution, is because you don't seem to grasp some basic rules of biology. Chimpanzees and humans cannot mate, because they are not of the same species. This does not mean they are not related. They are related, because if you tracked their ancestry backwards, they effectively have the same 'grandparents' as it were. They both evolved from the same creature, just in different ways.

What do we have in common with the chimp? Almost 100% of our DNA. Is your refusal to accept evolution simply because you cannot stand the idea that we, as the human species, are almost no different from monkeys?

[cacian]

All misinformation and lack of scientific understanding aside: what do you believe, Cacian, if you reject both creationism and evolutionary theory. I have never heard of a third option, other than those who try to reconcile the two (which doesn't work).

Hi Charles I cannot tell you for sure where one is from and why we are here.
I suppose my answer would be in the same breath as one believes there are ufos but one has never seen one.
I am pretty sure there is a higher being to whom we are all endebted to be here.
The answer is ultimately with them and not me.
I personally do not really fuss that much to how I came about because I have other more important things to think about.
I like mystery and time is my friend and when I am ready to know about how I came about then I will.
I am sure we are all bound to one way or another it is just it is not on this earth.
I take it there are more pressing urgent things to do and think about.
My interests take somewhere else where there is so much to be had.
However one thing I can vouch for and without a sinlge doubt in my mind is that I do not share anything with a chimp/ape let alone have a common ancestor.
It is I guess my choice and I am happy with it.


The reason you don't seem to be able to understand evolution, is because you don't seem to grasp some basic rules of biology. Chimpanzees and humans cannot mate, because they are not of the same species. This does not mean they are not related. They are related, because if you tracked their ancestry backwards, they effectively have the same 'grandparents' as it were. They both evolved from the same creature, just in different ways.

What do we have in common with the chimp? Almost 100% of our DNA. Is your refusal to accept evolution simply because you cannot stand the idea that we, as the human species, are almost no different from monkeys?

But there is a contradiction here.
I apply what I know from basic science that I have picked up and it is this:

In order for me to establish and find my ancestry I have to go through a DNA and bloodline process to show that I am related to my family tree.
That is the only scientific process today and forever that establishes one's ancestry from another it is called bloodline.

So I take this same process and apply it to that of the evolution that says I share a same ancestor with a chimp.
That is the only way for me to put the evolution into the test.
What I have found is that not only it lacks that bloodline link and but it also does not allow to mate with a chimp.
The findings are conclusivee and therefore I must reject the evolution.
I am sorry I do not agree with you not because I do not understandt the theory but because of these two very basic things science thought me.

That is my way of understanding and I cannot change how I think in the same way I could not change how you think.
That does not mean I am going to fall out with you about it I justhappen to think differently.
One must respect other people's views in the same way that I respect your views.;)

[Volya]

But there is a contradiction here.
I apply what I know from basic science that I have picked up and it is this:

In order for me to establish and find my ancestry I have to go through a DNA and bloodline process to show that I am related to my family tree.
That is the only scientific process today and forever that establishes one's ancestry from another it is called bloodline.

So I take this same process and apply it to that of the evolution that says I share a same ancestor with a chimp.
That is the only way for me to put the evolution into the test.
What I have found is that not only it lacks that bloodline link and but it also does not allow to mate with a chimp.
The findings are conclusivee and therefore I must reject the evolution.
I am sorry I do not agree with you not because I do not understandt the theory but because of these two very basic things science thought me.

That is my way of understanding and I cannot change how I think in the same way I could not change how you think.
That does not mean I am going to fall out with you about it I justhappen to think differently.
One must respect other people's views in the same way that I respect your views.;)

I think if you were using those processes properly, you would find that yes, we are related to them. We're not related via 'blood', as brothers, sisters and parents are. We're related in the sense that we share the same DNA and ancestors. Oh and if you traced your family tree far enough, you would actually find you were related to a chimp, EXTREMELY distantly. Once again I tell you, not being able to reproduce with a chimp, in NO WAY means that we are not genetically related. A dolphin cannot reproduce with a whale, they are still related. The same goes for humans and chimps. I am not a biologist, or a scientist of any kind, but it does not require vast amounts of knowledge to understand the theory of Evolution. Perhaps if you read Darwins 'On The Origin Of Species' you would understand why we are, in fact, related to chimps.

I am respecting your view, but I make it a point not to let people stay unaware if I have the means to enlighten them.

[cacian]

Ok about species they are what we call reversed from us.

Human DNA is different from that of a whale say in this way:

Humans share the same reproductive gene in their dna and have a unique gene DNA that makes them exclusive from each other.

Species DNA is based on selection.

A same species share the same DNA in both their reproductive gene and their bioligical make up.
In other words species do not have a unique gene that makes them unique from each other but what they have.
is uniqueness based on that fact they cannot mate with other species of the same fauna or different.



The reason why humans can mate with different humans of different races is because of that gene DNA of exclusivety.
If we did not have exclusivety in our DNA we will not be able to mate with other humans.


So to sum it up human DNA is exclusive to each and species dna is mutual to all.

[Lokasenna]

Ok about species they are what we call reversed from us.

Human DNA is similar and different.
Similar in the sense that humans share a same reproductive gene which allows to reproduce with each other and different in that each of our DNA make up is unique.


Species DNA is totally different from that of a human.

Their DNA is exclusive to their 'race' ie biological make up. Meaning all whales great and small carry the same DNA to indicate which species they are and also the same reproductive gene to allow them to only reproduce between them.

In other words each species' DNA is exclusive not individually but as a whole to their genetic make up.


That is the difference between a human and a specie DNA.
One exclusive and one is mutual.

I'm sorry to say it Cacian, but there isn't a single sentence in this entire post that is in any way, shape or form biologically correct.

You are of course entitled to your opinions, and I feel I should point out that this discussion is by no means intended to be a personal attack or anything other than a friendly debate. However, if (by your own admission) nothing we say or demonstrate will change your opinion, then it does all feel rather futile.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, cacian, why do you even bother asking questions like these if you're not even going to entertain the possibility the the answer you have already come up with is wrong? You ask a question, people answer with a ton of logic and evidence, and you brush it off with bizarre and completely illogical rationales. You claim you're no expert on biology, and you're acting as if you are. Do you not realize how frustrating it is when Lok and Pip go to the trouble of giving you good, intelligent, and through responses and you respond by, "Well, I disagree because it just doesn't seem right to me." What a bunch of ****ing bull****. Your last post DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY SENSE, and I don't know if it's because of your horrible English or because you just have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I have my suspicions, though.

I'm so sick of the, "Well, that's what I believe and it's okay if it's different from what you believe (insert stupid ****ing emoticon here)," act. If you refuse to learn, why are you on a message board in the first place?

I seriously don't know why people continue to entertain the crap you continuously pollute these boards with.

[Volya]

Ok about species they are what we call reversed from us.

Human DNA is similar and different.
Similar in the sense that humans share a same reproductive gene which allows to reproduce with each other and different in that each of our DNA make up is unique.


Species DNA is totally different from that of a human.

Their DNA is exclusive to their 'race' ie biological make up. Meaning all whales great and small carry the same DNA to indicate which species they are and also the same reproductive gene to allow them to only reproduce between them.

In other words each species' DNA is exclusive not individually but as a whole to their genetic make up.


That is the difference between a human and a specie DNA.
One exclusive and one is mutual.

Have you actually never been taught rudimentary biology?
There is no difference between 'species' as you put in, and humans. Humans ARE a species. DNA is not 'exclusive' to any one species. Chimps, frogs, rabbits, horses, they all have SOME DNA that is like ours, but they also have some that is not. That is what makes them different. You're refusing to accept some basic facts about biology, which is probably why you're so wrong about evolution.
EDIT: Thank you Mutatis.

[cacian]

So, cacian, why do you even bother asking questions like these if you're not even going to entertain the possibility the the answer you have already come up with is wrong? You ask a question, people answer with a ton of logic and evidence, and you brush it off with bizarre and completely illogical rationales. You claim you're no expert on biology, and you're acting as if you are. Do you not realize how frustrating it is when Lok and Pip go to the trouble of giving you good, intelligent, and through responses and you respond by, "Well, I disagree because it just doesn't seem right to me." What a bunch of ****ing bull****. Your last post DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY SENSE, and I don't know if it's because of your horrible English or because you just have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I have my suspicions, though.

I'm so sick of the, "Well, that's what I believe and it's okay if it's different from what you believe (insert stupid ****ing emoticon here)," act. If you refuse to learn, why are you on a message board in the first place?

I seriously don't know why people continue to entertain the crap you continuously pollute these boards with.

You are always sick of something and that is no news to me.
As to polluting well it is more then youcan do which is to complain all the time that a thread is this or that.
Horrible English maybe but I do try which is more then you can do which to constantly complaint.
My threads are for an open audience to exchange ides and be able to extract new ones.
The whole point of a conversation is to think about what people say and extract new stuff out of what everyone is saying. It is called the art of thinking out loud.
You obviously not very good at it because all you seem to do is complaint.


Have you actually never been taught rudimentary biology?
There is no difference between 'species' as you put in, and humans. Humans ARE a species. DNA is not 'exclusive' to any one species. Chimps, frogs, rabbits, horses, they all have SOME DNA that is like ours, but they also have some that is not. That is what makes them different. You're refusing to accept some basic facts about biology, which is probably why you're so wrong about evolution.
EDIT: Thank you Mutatis.

Well in life you are going to come cross poeple who do not believe in what you believe in.
What I do not understand is the attitude of trying to convince everyone and make belief that evolution is it when it is not for everyone.
That is the nature of things and that is not what people are about.
I do not get why you have to go on trying to shove evolution down someont 's throat when they bluntly don't believe in it.
I do not get it.
We are here to discuss different views and not shout out the truth about one belief agaisnt another.
You stick to your guns and I will stick to mine but that does not or should not stop from putting our views across without having to accuse people of this or that.
This is not acompetition this is about differences and why we have them.
I have not once tried to convince or convert you to my beliefs and yet you have not stopped going on about how you are right about your evolution and everyone else is wrong,
That is not the point of any conversation certainly not mine.

[Volya]

First and foremost, why are you being rude to mutatis...
He's hardly 'always complaining', and right now I think he has a pretty good reason to explain. EVERYONE has given you the facts that show why evolution is correct (or at least, the most popular and plausible scientific theory available at the moment). All you have done is say 'well we cant breed, so we're not related' or 'well it just doesnt feel right', both of which are equally stupid statements to make.

The point of starting a discussion, is to attempt to educate each other. They are trying to educate you. And you are refusing to be taught.

[Charles Darnay]

First and foremost, why are you being rude to mutatis...
He's hardly 'always complaining', and right now I think he has a pretty good reason to explain. EVERYONE has given you the facts that show why evolution is correct (or at least, the most popular and plausible scientific theory available at the moment). All you have done is say 'well we cant breed, so we're not related' or 'well it just doesnt feel right', both of which are equally stupid statements to make.

The point of starting a discussion, is to attempt to educate each other. They are trying to educate you. And you are refusing to be taught.

You are operating on the basis that scientific facts are that: facts that have been tested, and proven in an empirical sense. Not everyone shares this view, to some, science will always be a theory - as much as religious beliefs are a theory. Sometimes this arises from lack of understanding of these empirical proofs, sometimes an adamant desire not to know - sometimes both. It's one of those things that you have to accept and cut your loses.

[Volya]

You are operating on the basis that scientific facts are that: facts that have been tested, and proven in an empirical sense. Not everyone shares this view, to some, science will always be a theory - as much as religious beliefs are a theory. Sometimes this arises from lack of understanding of these empirical proofs, sometimes an adamant desire not to know - sometimes both. It's one of those things that you have to accept and cut your loses.

Hence why I said in brackets, 'at least, the most popular and plausible scientific theory available at the moment)'. I personally DO believe its true, but if scientists find evidence to the contrary, then I would have to reconsider. What irritates me the most is that cacian is using completely made-up facts to support his viewpoint.

[Charles Darnay]

What irritates me the most is that cacian is using completely made-up facts to support his viewpoint.

yup, that's how it works.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You are always sick of something and that is no news to me.
As to polluting well it is more then youcan do which is to complain all the time that a thread is this or that.
Horrible English maybe but I do try which is more then you can do which to constantly complaint.

You obviously not very good at it because all you seem to do is complaint.

Yep, take a look at my posting history, that sure is all I do around here is complain. It's probably the case with your threads, but I can hardly be faulted for that since when I hit "New Posts" half of the bloody threads that pop up are schlock you came up with.


My threads are for an open audience to exchange ides and be able to extract new ones.
The whole point of a conversation is to think about what people say and extract new stuff out of what everyone is saying.
Are you aware of irony?

[KCurtis]

I have and it does not make sense to me.

And then when knowledgable people try to explain it to you, and do it very well, you reject it. Why do you ask any questions at all? It's tiresome

[Alexander III]

:lurk5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Thank Juniper for the indepth posts.

Uh... no problem.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Uh... no problem.

:lol:

[Charles Darnay]

Uh... no problem.

I can understand your confusion Juniper, but it is quite simple.

You see: you and Pip are both Canadian, and therefore your DNA is equal to the ratio of water to algae in Lake Superior, which obviously means you are the same person. Science!

[OrphanPip]

Uh... no problem.

I pull off a stellar drag performance impersonating you.

[JuniperWoolf]

I pull off a stellar drag performance impersonating you.

Haha, I'm flattered.

[cacian]

First and foremost, why are you being rude to mutatis...
He's hardly 'always complaining', and right now I think he has a pretty good reason to explain. EVERYONE has given you the facts that show why evolution is correct (or at least, the most popular and plausible scientific theory available at the moment). All you have done is say 'well we cant breed, so we're not related' or 'well it just doesnt feel right', both of which are equally stupid statements to make.

The point of starting a discussion, is to attempt to educate each other. They are trying to educate you. And you are refusing to be taught.

I am not refusing to be taught.
You are insisting that I should be taught.
I have always believed my views to be correct to me.
You have your own views.
The difference here is that I am not trying to convince you or teach you mine but you are insisiting that the evolution is the only truth.


And then when knowledgable people try to explain it to you, and do it very well, you reject it. Why do you ask any questions at all? It's tiresome

Kowledgable is relative to one's views.
It is not everyone's knowledge it might to some scientists and you but I do not have to take as world wide knowledge.
People differ and therefore theri receit of that knowledge and what they make of it will differ too.


Hence why I said in brackets, 'at least, the most popular and plausible scientific theory available at the moment)'. I personally DO believe its true, but if scientists find evidence to the contrary, then I would have to reconsider. What irritates me the most is that cacian is using completely made-up facts to support his viewpoint.

I am a she.
How do you know that what I have said is made up?
There are things one can work out without having to reach out to a book.
Learning is just about everyhwhere and not in a book on a page somewhere.
Take religion for example where does religion stands in terms of evolution?
One has to justify God and religion and unless that is then evolution stands no chance in my eyes.

[Buh4Bee]

I pull off a stellar drag performance impersonating you.

Sorry I missed the show.;)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How do you know that what I have said is made up?
Because it's nonsensical BS.

There are things one can work out without having to reach out to a book.
So you did make it up, then. You can't even go two sentences without contradicting yourself.

[Anton Hermes]

There are things one can work out without having to reach out to a book.

Biology is not one of those things.

[cacian]

Biology is not one of those things.

Biology is something that can be grasped without having to reach out for the books.
Yes what is written in books is relevant and makes for a base to study further out of the what is written.
One can easily find things out by thinking out through many logical steps.
The ennvironemt what we see feel and other various outside factors allow for more room to ponder and think.
We have the ability to think outside the box and so I do that.
Research is about questioning everything and finding out for one self what is and what is acceptable as an idea that one has read or heard of.

[Anton Hermes]

One can easily find things out by thinking out through many logical steps.

Biology is not one of those things.

[cacian]

Biology is not one of those things.

OK what is it then?

[Volya]

Biology is not one of those things.

Well, I hate to disagree, but it sorta is... How do you think it originated? Somebody had to start somewhere.

But cacian, I think if you had read the relevant books and studies, it would all be much clearer to you. Your theory has no scientific grounds, its 'pseudo-science' (as i think it's called).

[Anton Hermes]

OK what is it then?

It's one of the many subjects that require intensive study of specialized literature (or educational texts derived from it) to understand. One can't simply "ponder and think" if he wants to understand DNA recombination, the protein cascades responsible for blood clotting, or the complex processes involved in the gestation of a mammalian embryo.

It isn't a matter of opinion. It's nothing personal. It's just true.

[cacian]

I'm sorry to say it Cacian, but there isn't a single sentence in this entire post that is in any way, shape or form biologically correct.

You are of course entitled to your opinions, and I feel I should point out that this discussion is by no means intended to be a personal attack or anything other than a friendly debate. However, if (by your own admission) nothing we say or demonstrate will change your opinion, then it does all feel rather futile.

Hi Lokasenna I have rewritten this paragraph see if it makes sense now.

Ok about species they are what we call reversed from us.

Human DNA is different from that of a whale say in this way:


Humans share the same reproductive gene in their dna and have a unique gene DNA that makes them exclusive from each other.

Species DNA is based on selection.

A same species share the same DNA in both their reproductive and biological genes.
In other words species do not have a unique gene that makes them unique from each other but what they have is uniqueness in the fact they cannot mate with other species of the same fauna or different other then theirs.

The reason why humans can mate with different humans of different races is because of that gene DNA of exclusivety.


So to sum it up human DNA is exclusive to each and species dna is mutual to all.

[Volya]

Hi Lokasenna I have rewritten this paragraph see if it makes sense now.

Ok about species they are what we call reversed from us.

Human DNA is different from that of a whale say in this way:

No, no, no.
Humans ARE a species. 'Species' DNA isn't 'reversed'.
Human DNA is not exclusive to each. We all share DNA. We share with with monkeys too. Your argument of reproduction? Humans can't reproduce with other species. No species can reproduce with another species. It's impossible. You are not making any sense.
And all animals in a species are not exactly the same. They are different from each other, just as each human is different from the other.

[tonywalt]

There are dragons if you sail to far west of Europe. I've seen 'um!

[Lokasenna]

Volya beat me to it, but I echo his sentiment. I was not objecting to your language, cacian, but to your assertions - which, I maintain, are incorrect.

All humans alive today are part of the same species, which is why we are all able to breed successfully. Race does not come into the equation anywhere.

The impetus to reproduce is mutual to all things - the ability to reproduce is one of the seven factors that is used to decide whether something is biologically alive or not.

You cannot divide the DNA sequence into 'human' DNA and 'species' DNA - our DNA is not just animal DNA with an extra special unique bit tacked on. From an objective standpoint, there is nothing unique or special about our DNA compared to other animals. Ours is, certainly, more complex than, say, the DNA of an amoeba, but then we are a much larger organism that is required to regulate a greater number of internal and external processes.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your comments.

Such posts will be removed without further notice.

As a side note, unless you are prepared to have your views challenged,

please do not air them in a public Forum.

~

[Alexander III]

There are dragons if you sail to far west of Europe. I've seen 'um!

Same, and other credible sources have only reinforced the notion that there are Dragons all over Continental Canada and some parts of the U.S.A. But more importantly, if dragons have always and do still exist as countless well informed sources agree upon; (I am to tired to post links but if you look for them on the internet you will find them) - anyways back to the main point, dragons like gold and maidens, dragons are essentially the embodiment of masculinity, while the embodiment of the feminine; to wit unicorns, are utterly extinct. Since dragons still exist and unicorns are extinct, any intelligent person will assume that the masculine is superior to the feminine, as nature through it's processes has proved to be true since dragons are alive and unicorns are extinct. So women according to the inviolable laws of nature be slaves, the Athenians were right in there estimation of women, any woman who has been taught to read or write is an abomination against nature. And if you disagree find me a unicorn, until you find one you can't disagree. My beliefs are just as valid as yours, except that mine are better.

[Anton Hermes]

My beliefs are just as valid as yours, except that mine are better.
:lol:

Rule 1 of the Internet. Probably Rule 2 through 10 as well.

[cacian]

There are dragons if you sail to far west of Europe. I've seen 'um!

Ay I have seen lepricorns and they are not even real.;)

[Volya]

Same, and other credible sources have only reinforced the notion that there are Dragons all over Continental Canada and some parts of the U.S.A. But more importantly, if dragons have always and do still exist as countless well informed sources agree upon; (I am to tired to post links but if you look for them on the internet you will find them) - anyways back to the main point, dragons like gold and maidens, dragons are essentially the embodiment of masculinity, while the embodiment of the feminine; to wit unicorns, are utterly extinct. Since dragons still exist and unicorns are extinct, any intelligent person will assume that the masculine is superior to the feminine, as nature through it's processes has proved to be true since dragons are alive and unicorns are extinct. So women according to the inviolable laws of nature be slaves, the Athenians were right in there estimation of women, any woman who has been taught to read or write is an abomination against nature. And if you disagree find me a unicorn, until you find one you can't disagree. My beliefs are just as valid as yours, except that mine are better.

I sure hope you're kidding xD

[cacian]

No, no, no.
Humans ARE a species. 'Species' DNA isn't 'reversed'.
Human DNA is not exclusive to each. We all share DNA. We share with with monkeys too. Your argument of reproduction? Humans can't reproduce with other species. No species can reproduce with another species. It's impossible. You are not making any sense.
And all animals in a species are not exactly the same. They are different from each other, just as each human is different from the other.

Ok without the no no no for a bit I am going to try and explain it again in a simpler language.
Here is an example

Think of all the fish in the sea.
OK There are thousands of different fish species in the sea.
Each fish is different from another but they are all refered to as 'fish'.
Each fish let say let say a carp can only reproduce with another carp and only a carp.
It cannot reproduce with a sea bass haha.
This is because their dna is the same. Same means no exclusivity.

This mean they get to have to their uniqueness in another way and that is to keep breeding their own kind forever.
This allows for one species to grow and develop into one consistant ,ie a carp, or sea bass and so on.
That is the reason why a sea bass and a carp cannot mix or mate.
The reasons for all this is for human consumption in oreder to keep humans alive ie they must eat.


Humans however have exclusivity of dna in that my dna is different from yours.
This is to allow one black person to mate with a white and so on and so forth.
The reason for this is to keep the human race ongoing and since it is not going to be consumed by any other we get to mix and match and multiply with other humans unlike species.

Because of this simple logic I conclude for myself that I am not related by ancerstory to a chimp.
I am going to leave it here now.

[Volya]

Ok without the no no no for a bit I am going to try and explain it again in a simpler language.
Here is an example

Think of all the fish in the sea.
OK There are thousands of different fish species in the sea.
Each fish is different from another but they are all refered to as 'fish'.
Each fish let say let say a carp can only reproduce with another carp and only a carp.
It cannot reproduce with a sea bass haha.
This is because their dna is the same. Same means no exclusivity.

This mean they get to have to their uniqueness in another way and that is to keep breeding their own kind forever.
This allows for one species to grow and develop into one consistant ,ie a carp, or sea bass and so on.
That is the reason why a sea bass and a carp cannot mix or mate.
The reasons for all this is for human consumption in oreder to keep humans alive ie they must eat.


Humans however have exclusivity of dna in that my dna is different from yours.
This is to allow one black person to mate with a white and so on and so forth.
The reason for this is to keep the human race ongoing and since it is not going to be consumed by any other we get to mix and macth with other humans unlike species.

Because of this simple logic I conclude for myself that I am not related by ancerstory to a chimp is.
I am going to leave it here now.

It is nothing to do with your language, it's a simple matter that you are wrong. You do not seem to understand the difference between terms such as species, race, and human.

[Lokasenna]

Think of all the fish in the sea.
OK There are thousands of different fish species in the sea.
Each fish is different from another but they are all refered to as 'fish'.
Each fish let say let say a carp can only reproduce with another carp and only a carp.
It cannot reproduce with a sea bass haha.
This is because their dna is the same. Same means no exclusivity.

Yes, all species of fish can be called 'fish'. It's simply a collective noun based on a variety of distinguishing features. We have one for us as well: we are 'mammals' - along with apes, cats, dogs, bats, bears, whales, dolphins, and thousands of other things. This is because we all share similar characteristics.

A carp cannot breed with a sea bass because their common ancestor is too far back - their genetics have diverged to a sufficient degree that they are no longer compatible. But let us take another example - one I raised earlier - that of what happens when you mate a horse and a donkey. Now, horses and donkeys are different species, but their common ancestor is relatively close to hand, which means that conception is still reasonably likely if you breed them. The result is a mule - a creature which has the best characteristics of both species, but is in 99.9% of cases totally infertile, hence why we don't have a new species appearing and must continue to cross-breed horses and donkeys.


This mean they get to have to their uniqueness in another way and that is to keep breeding their own kind forever.
This allows for one species to grow and develop into one consistant ,ie a carp, or sea bass and so on.
That is the reason why a sea bass and a carp cannot mix or mate.
The reasons for all this is for human consumption in oreder to keep humans alive ie they must eat.

You are presupposing that animals never change at all, that they are a perpetually static unit. This is completely fallacious - the proof of change is readily apparent to anyone. We've been artificially doing it for years as part of the human pastime of animal husbandry.


Humans however have exclusivity of dna in that my dna is different from yours.
This is to allow one black person to mate with a white and so on and so forth.
The reason for this is to keep the human race ongoing and since it is not going to be consumed by any other we get to mix and macth with other humans unlike species.

For the third time, RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPECIES. A black Cocker Spaniel is as much a Cocker Spaniel as brown one is. And yes, they can breed successfully.

We have, as I have already pointed out, uncovered significant genetic evidence that suggests that our species of human, homo sapien, successfully and regularly inter-bred with our nearest species, neanderthal man, for a significant part of our ancient history.

[KCurtis]

Biology is not one of those things.

And genetics is not a viewpoint or an opinion,if it were we would not have any advances in genetic disorders or anything that involves humans and biology.

[QUOTE=cacian)

Humans however have exclusivity of dna in that my dna is different from yours.
This is to allow one black person to mate with a white and so on and so forth.
The reason for this is to keep the human race ongoing and since it is not going to be consumed by any other we get to mix and match and multiply with other humans unlike species.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you insist on using black and white people in this discussion?? What is the problem here-

[OrphanPip]

A carp cannot breed with a sea bass because their common ancestor is too far back - their genetics have diverged to a sufficient degree that they are no longer compatible. But let us take another example - one I raised earlier - that of what happens when you mate a horse and a donkey. Now, horses and donkeys are different species, but their common ancestor is relatively close to hand, which means that conception is still reasonably likely if you breed them. The result is a mule - a creature which has the best characteristics of both species, but is in 99.9% of cases totally infertile, hence why we don't have a new species appearing and must continue to cross-breed horses and donkeys.



Reproductive isolation is one of the interesting questions of evolutionary biology. It is something that happens gradually, and there are a number of ways two closely related populations can become reproductively isolated and end up eventually as separate species.

Reproductive isolation is often presented as the defining feature of separate species. Despite the fact that biologist know full well that several distinct species can produce viable hybrid offspring (especially amongst plants, and even rarely amongst animals, the bison and cow produce viable fertile offspring). And single celled organisms can be notoriously promiscuous when it comes to spreading genes around.

Usually gamete incompatibility is the cause of reproductive isolation in mammals: the receptors involved in the fusion of sperm and egg are pretty finicky. Over time separated populations will diverge just through genetic drift so that their gametes no longer have the ability to fuse. Other times they might diverge along lines of the chemoreceptors or attractants that the sperm use to find the egg.

An interesting classic example of a hybrid is the Mule, as you have mentioned. Here we have a case where the gametes of two species, domestic horses and donkeys, retain the ability to fuse and produce an embryo. However, horses have one more pair of chromosomes than donkeys (they contain roughly the same genetic information, except for minor differences and the placement of genes within the chromosomes). It used to be thought that the mere fact of the extra chromosome pair would make the offspring infertile, but that's not entirely true. Mules actually can't produce proper sperm because the maternal and paternal chromosomes won't fuse properly during sperm production. This is due largely to genetic divergence between the species. However, it illustrates something interesting about chromosome difference, if the genes were sufficiently close enough, viable offspring could be produced from the mating of two closely related animals who happened to have different chromosome numbers. And in fact it does happen, a species of wild horse with a different chromosome number than the domestic horse is capable of producing viable offspring with the domestic horse. Which is cool because it shows how radical changes in DNA, like the disassembly of chromosomes into more pairs or the fusion of some into less total pairs, do not result in the immediate infertility of these animals, it shows how these changes can accrue through genetic drift or natural selection in populations. And even more exciting in a relatively short period these chromosome number differences will almost always either lead to extinction or to a reproductively isolated species as the two populations become increasingly incapable of breeding, largely in accordance with Haldane's Rule.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Biology is something that can be grasped without having to reach out for the books.


Biology is not one of those things.
This.

Well, I hate to disagree, but it sorta is... How do you think it originated? Somebody had to start somewhere.
Yes, and that somewhere was "God did it." Hell, that wasn't even the start, even THAT was thought that evolved over time. The person who started thinking about biology didn't come to all the conclusions that we have now (from all those fancy books). The only way your or cacian's "I don't need to read a book to understand something as well as if I had" is if that was the case. It's not.

Ok without the no no no for a bit I am going to try and explain it again in a simpler language.
Here is an example

Think of all the fish in the sea.
OK There are thousands of different fish species in the sea.
Each fish is different from another but they are all refered to as 'fish'.
Each fish let say let say a carp can only reproduce with another carp and only a carp.
It cannot reproduce with a sea bass haha.
This is because their dna is the same. Same means no exclusivity.

This mean they get to have to their uniqueness in another way and that is to keep breeding their own kind forever.
This allows for one species to grow and develop into one consistant ,ie a carp, or sea bass and so on.
That is the reason why a sea bass and a carp cannot mix or mate.
The reasons for all this is for human consumption in oreder to keep humans alive ie they must eat.


Humans however have exclusivity of dna in that my dna is different from yours.
This is to allow one black person to mate with a white and so on and so forth.
The reason for this is to keep the human race ongoing and since it is not going to be consumed by any other we get to mix and match and multiply with other humans unlike species.

Because of this simple logic I conclude for myself that I am not related by ancerstory to a chimp.
I am going to leave it here now.
This makes no sense, not on any level. A fish has this same exclusivity of DNA as a human does. They reproduce to keep the species ongoing, just like we do, just like every species does. I don't get what being black or white has to do anything--a white person and black person are the same species (and you seeming to suggest otherwise is extremely racist) just with slightly different traits. If the ability to mate with a wide variation of things within a species in order to propagate said species, dogs must be further advanced then human, since a chihuahua can mate with a Great Dane.

It is nothing to do with your language, it's a simple matter that you are wrong. You do not seem to understand the difference between terms such as species, race, and human.
This.

I mean, look at what you're saying cacian. You're actually claiming you know more about a topic that people have studied and written about for centuries, more than our resident experts, and you did all this without a book. And don't give us "it's just my opinion" crap, because refuting established scientific theoris isn't an opinion, that's an argument. That you don't even understand the difference and still think you're smarter than everyone is astounding (and don't kid yourself, you obviously do think you're smarter than everyone, or else you wouldn't be so opposed to near-universally accepted views). Pip just gave you another intelligent example howling how you're completely wrong (and did it in a very polite manner, kudos to him), and you'll just write it off--in the very thread in which you asked the question, no less.

[Volya]

This.
The person who started thinking about biology didn't come to all the conclusions that we have now (from all those fancy books).


This is what I meant, sorry if that didn't come across clearly.

[cacian]

It is nothing to do with your language, it's a simple matter that you are wrong. You do not seem to understand the difference between terms such as species, race, and human.

I am not sure wrong is the word but and please do not take this as an incitement to argue further on this matter but I feel I need to perhaps add two things and they are :
Firstly that the very first time I heard of the evoltuion I did not know what to say or think. I was truly taken aback.
My gut instant was not inclinde to it not one bit. Now one might say that it is not entirely my fault if my first reaction/impression or instinct was utterly indignited by the whole idea.

Secondly I do cannot call include me as a species for the simple reason that I behave differently from say a fish or a chimp or a lion.
I terms these species because their food chain is entirely reliant on their own cycle of life. A big fish will eat a small fish and lion will eat a smaller animal and so on.
I however eat what nature has on offer AND live and procreate with my fellow human. Humans do not eat other humans like species do with other species. That is one siginifcant difference for me.
My behaviour towards survival is entirely differnt from that of a specie in this very sense and therefore I feel I must not call me a species because of this very instinct.
That is all.

[Alexander III]

Secondly I do cannot call include me as a species for the simple reason that I behave differently from say a fish or a chimp or a lion.
I terms these species because their food chain is entirely reliant on their own cycle of life. A big fish will eat a small fish and lion will eat a smaller animal and so on.
I however eat what nature has on offer AND live and procreate with my fellow human. Humans do not eat other humans like species do with other species. That is one siginifcant difference for me.
My behaviour towards survival is entirely differnt from that of a specie in this very sense and therefore I feel I must not call me a species because of this very instinct.
That is all.

No ,no, that is all just because you are a woman and thus less intelligent and cultured and inferior in all respects to men. I adequately proved why before. You should not spend so much time thinking, woman are ill-suited to anything above slave tasks, as I adequately proved before.

[OrphanPip]

Secondly I do cannot call include me as a species for the simple reason that I behave differently from say a fish or a chimp or a lion.

Exactly how does that matter, salmon behave differently from tuna, chimps behave differently from lions.



I terms these species because their food chain is entirely reliant on their own cycle of life. A big fish will eat a small fish and lion will eat a smaller animal and so on.
I however eat what nature has on offer AND live and procreate with my fellow human. Humans do not eat other humans like species do with other species. That is one siginifcant difference for me.

This gives me a headache, cacian. Your definitions are silly, how exactly is a human being eating a cow different than a lion eating an antelope? Lions don't usually eat other lions, just as humans don't usually eat other humans (however there are numerous exceptions to both statements).

[Lokasenna]

Firstly that the very first time I heard of the evoltuion I did not know what to say or think. I was truly taken aback.
My gut instant was not inclinde to it not one bit. Now one might say that it is not entirely my fault if my first reaction/impression or instinct was utterly indignited by the whole idea.

When I first heard of the internet, I remember thinking it was a silly idea with almost no practical application. I have long since realised that my gut instinct was hopelessly wrong. Furthermore, gut instincts and hunches do not measure up to empirical scientific fact.


Secondly I do cannot call include me as a species for the simple reason that I behave differently from say a fish or a chimp or a lion.
I terms these species because their food chain is entirely reliant on their own cycle of life. A big fish will eat a small fish and lion will eat a smaller animal and so on.
I however eat what nature has on offer AND live and procreate with my fellow human. Humans do not eat other humans like species do with other species. That is one siginifcant difference for me.

What on earth does diet have to do with anything? All creatures, man included, eat what is available. Some creatures are purely carnivorous and some purely herbacious, but most are to some degree omnivorous. We have a greater choice over what we eat than most animals because human society has moved to stage where we can suit our food supply to our taste preferences. This is a relatively recent development for us - believe it or not, they didn't have 7-11s knocking around 100,000 years ago.

We don't have to compete for our food in the same way animals do, though in some of the poorest parts of the world we are pretty close to that stage. Even here in the built up western world, if the food supply was cut off you could be damn sure it wouldn't be all that long before cannibalism became all the rage. Have you never heard of the 'four meals from anarchy' model? Humans eat to survive, and in that sense we identical to every other animal on the planet.


My behaviour towards survival is entirely differnt from that of a specie in this very sense and therefore I feel I must not call me a species because of this very instinct.
That is all.

Then your definition of the word 'species' is entirely contrary to any standard definition.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Guys, I think it's time to just end this the way every smart male does when arguing with an illogical woman:

You're right, cacian.

[tonywalt]

Guys, I think it's time to just end this the way every smart male does when arguing with an illogical woman:

You're right, cacian.

There ya go - well done. See how easy that was.

[KCurtis]

All sexist joking aside, I have given up on this topic, my sixth graders know what species means. They are ages eleven and twelve.

[Buh4Bee]

Cacian- My husband just says, "Yes, dear."

[cacian]

Cacian- My husband just says, "Yes, dear."

Does he? haha :lol:
Mine says ' speak quietly' LOL of course he knows I will always have a say on everything and anything.