Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Evolution in Action

Thanks Anyman.

Blacknad.

Anyman,

How would you deal with the fact that chimps and humans have only a 1.5% difference in DNA?

Doesn't this alone point to a link?

Blacknad.

Whatever you do don't ask anyman to explain why male mammals have nipples or why human embryos have tails. He might go apoplexic.

Let?s go back:

I simply reviewed the link as offered and tried to point up one
of the things I find mysterious about life forms adaptation.

Amaranth tells me that?concluding any mutation is intentional
presupposes facts not in evidence?.

TFF tells me ?they did not develop flat wings to do anything?
He adds, ?perhaps I have misinterpreted? the article.

I recited the essence of the article. I did not say any mutations,
those suggested by the article or otherwise, were intentional. As
to TFF is respond that the crickets ?did not develop flat wings to
do anything? fails to apply the content of the article. You could look
at it from the stand point that they failed to develop bent wings and that
is ?something?.

The point of the story is that some crickets body parts changed.
That could be a random item unrelated to any thing. When the
change appears to relate to some previous problem the change looks
to be directed to the problem. It is that apparent focused direction
that becomes so entertaining for me.

Consider for a moment the potential number of random mutations
that could have altered those crickets. A bad odder, a shell under the
wings, a spiders sound, just being quiet, etc. Here we are offered a
very specific change directed to a specific problem. I think, if I was
directing the change I would have gone for a poisonous effect on the
flies in my body fluids. Any way it should not likely be offered by the
publisher as a sign of evolution, or if it is, then please explain my
mystery factor.
jjw

"That could be a random item unrelated to any thing. When the change appears to relate to some previous problem the change looks to be directed to the problem. "

Outstanding observation!

"Consider for a moment the potential number of random mutations that could have altered those crickets."

Here's the thing - there are LOTS of mutations, but there are not an infinite number of mutations that actually occur. Selection can only operate on the variation that happens to occur. If the variation exists to secrete and deliver poison, then that route can be taken. It helps if there is already some poisonous structure in cricket to work with. But there is no mechanism for evolution to pick the best solution. That's a main point. It picks the variation that gets it down the gradient in the fastest way.

jjw wrote:
"Here we are offered a very specific change directed to a specific problem."

No biologist would ever agree with the statement I quote above. Change is not directed. Change happens. Those changes that improve the viability survive to be tried yet again by future generations. Those that are harmful to viability are wiped out quickly. Those that are neutral may or may not hang around until they prove of value or harmful.

Your anthropomorphic supposition that change is directed by some invisible hand belongs in Sunday school not science class.

i have previously dealt with this issue on this board, but it was several years ago...so here we go again

first, there are claims as high/low as 99/1% similarity/difference...one study claims 98.77% similarity

second, your 1.5% figure has been known to be in error for several years (at least 4yrs), but as usual, they don't withdraw the literature claiming that it stays because it was what was *known* at the time...nor do they blast the headlines like they did when they first made the claim particularly if the numbers go backward (ie, look worse than the original claims, look in any way weaker in support of evolution) so that they can preserve the paradigm

so people keep on quoting and posting bogus info

the figure now stands at 5% difference (95% similarity, though some still fudge it up to 96% similarity)

the percentage of difference may yet grow because there is still a lot that we don't understand (ie, *junk* dna, etc)

but lets just suppose for a moment that the difference was to go down/up to 90/10% or even 80/20%...the evolutionary faithful would still claim that the similarity is incredible and is clear evidence of shared ancestry...and they would still claim that chimps are our *closest relatives*

that said, now lets take it back to the oft (falsely) claimed 1.5%...1.5% of ~3billion base pairs in the human genome (and lets assume for a moment an identical number for the chimp genome, which is also false, but...) is still 45m bp difference

now do the math...you will find that the alleged 6-7my that they claim have passed since the divergence between chimps, humans, and the alleged (but UNKNOWN) *common ancestor* is not nearly enough time for the needed mutations to occur (at least not in any uniformitarian or gradualistic scenario)

10my isn't enough, 100my isn't enough

don't forget that mutations are relatively rare, most are harmful, many are *neutral,* and only a very few are thought to be *beneficial* (and not one of those claimed to be beneficial has been shown to be purely so...there is always a tradeoff, and all of them are controversial as to their actual beneficiality...ie, sickle cell anemiacs have a resistance to malaria...but they forget to tell us that 25% of sickle cell anemiacs will DIE of their affliction...hardly purely beneficial...and all of these *beneficial* mutations are a result of a LOSS of information)

so...since those don't work (uniformity and gradualism), in steps punk eek, punc eq, punctuated equilibrium to save the day...but if you've got all these unpredictable great leaps, hopeful monsters going on, then you can't calculate very well anymore because uniformity is the dustbin

anyway, the problem with the 1%, 1.33%, 1.4%, 1.5% claims is that they didn't (perhaps couldn't) look far enough...their comparisons were limited to *nt substitutions* only...now that more study has been done, they realize that *indels* account for more than twice as many differences as substitutions

then there is evidence building that heritable traits are not limited to genetic activity but that other cellular components may also figure in...we have a long way to go on this yet...we may need to revise mendel's long standing work, and we will almost certainly need to add to it in terms of what contributes to heritability

hardly...i mean, there is a possibility in one sense that it points toward an evolutionary scenario, but on the other hand, there are many conflicts that still need to be overcome to make the darwinian hypothesis even a remote possibility...and it certainly doesn't in any way *necessarily* point to an evolutionary link

the evidence fits just as well (actually much better) with a common designer scenario as it does with a common ancestor scenario

evolution does not have the upper hand except in arguments from authority (not the strongest argument in terms of logic) simply because they have more authorities (believers :-)...not because they have more evidence...we all have the same evidence; the issue is how we interpret the evidence and the worldview, bias, preconceptions that we bring to the table

in short, it depends on how you conduct the study, what you look at, and how you interpret your findings

study the *differences* one way (a much more limited way) and you will come up with between 1 and 1.5% difference...study it another way (much deeper and broader, but still far from *comprehensive*) and you will come up with more than 3x as many differences

it's what's missing between the human and chimp genomes that makes a bigger difference than the differences between what is there :-)

below are some references, links, and quotes for your perusal...from evolutionary guys, in highly evolutionary biased journals


Britten, R.J. 2002. ?Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.? Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.

full text

Britten, R.J., Rowen, L., Williams, J. and Cameron, R.A., Majority of divergence between closely related DNA samples is due to indels, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100(8):4661?4665, 2003.

full text

but you evolutionary guysngals are welcome to keep the faith :-)

dano, dano, you're back, and in fine form too :-)...welcome

(just so you know blacknad, i've dealt with this *stumper* at least half a dozen times on this board over the years, but dano has apparently forgotten, has chosen to be willfully ignorant, or has just been unwilling to accept my reponse and so pretends that i never responded)

dano...apoplexic?

no such word...and i never got apoplectic when responding to this before, can't imagine why i would now :-)

you have rephrased the question a little but i am only going to deal with the human male in reponse

while there may be other uses we are not yet aware of (just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know later...remember the hittites [a tangential topic but directly related to this point], the appendix, and dozens of other so-called *vestigial* organs that have since been shown to be functional :-)...there is one clear use for male nipples...sex

they are (at least on males that are in decent shape) sexually appealing to our female counterparts (of course your female sexual counterpart should be your wife :-) and they are sexually stimulating (ie, erogenous zones) for the male when orally or manually stimulated by the female

they help to create desire and sexual *tension* so that we can enjoy the pleasure of sex and have kiddos

just like the boss said...in fact the very first words he spoke to the first couple were that they were to fill the earth with their progeny :-)

(and if you think it wasn't supposed to be for pleasure according to the boss, you haven't read the song of solomon/songs)

next...

embryos have what appear to be tails but they are never tails in humans, just like they appear to have gill slits but humans never have gills...not even in embryos

however, a common designer could and often would (as is evidenced by painters, architects, etc) use common features in his work providing they worked to provide his desired end result

dude, are you really still trying to invoke haeckel's long since falsified (not to mention his fakery) "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny" nonsense...say it aint so :-)

love to stick around and play more boyzngirlz but i've got to get up in a couple of hours to get to the airport...off to sanya for 6 glorious days of golf...well 6 days of golf anyway (the glorious part will depend on whether the weather and my golf stroke hold up :-)

Anyman,

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Blacknad.

Anyman, if nothing else, you always are a good source of humor. But now is the time to be serious. I keep asking this question of you because you are so good at shooting yourself in the foot.

You wrote:
"there is one clear use for male nipples...sex"

I didn't ask you about your personal sex proclivities. In fact I didn't even mention members of your genus or species. Read the question again. What I asked was: "why male mammals have nipples."

So lets review. Are you saying that god gave my pet cat nipples for reasons of receiving sexual gratification? That god gave male groundhogs nipples for reasons of sexual gratification? How about male elephants? male seals? male grizzly bears? male warthogs?

If so your god has a very interesting sense of humor and I can't wait to read the accounts in PlayOdobenidae magazine about walruses with nipple clamps. The pictures will, I presume, be in National Geo(porn)ographic.

Perhaps now you can now see a glimmer of why anyone with a serious interest in science might find you an endless source of amusement. Care to try yet again?

TFF and DA to the forefront:

Why must the content of the article be altered to make it look like I AM contending something. for example DA writes:

"No biologist would ever agree with the statement I quote above. Change is not directed. Change happens."

We have a problem, I think, on this Forum keeping focused on the issue discussed. This started from an article some one else published leaving to the readers to contemplate what is going on with some crickets they found. THEY said some crickets could make a noise with their wings and some crickets they found could not. Those that made the noise to atrack mates were victim of flies inserting larva in them.

As I read the article there is an intention to draw some relationship between the noisy crickets and those that lost the ability to make noise and the fact that flies got to the noisy.

Please understand that I have no fear of being wrong and to suggest it does not offend me. Misquote me or placequote me and I might get a litle tired of the exchange. Also it serves NO point to tell me what you think some bilogist may think about an article that I can read for myself.

By roundabout you are of the opinion that the changed referred to in the article was random, it had nothing to do with the flies morbid behavior, the change in the wings was neither directed towards the fly activity and was in no way a by product of the crickets desire. I think I understand your views. You are satisfied that the flat wing developement was just a fortuitous developement, accidental and irrelevant.

I accept your majority view. Because this result is so irrelevant we should all be concerned that we too might wake up with some flat wings on the morrow, or possibly noisy wings, or whatever.

jjw

Dear jjw,

The variation is random, but the selection pressure is not. Selection pressure is due to the environment. Because the environment changes, the selection pressure can change, too, but that is not the case here.

Take a ball and set it at the top of a hill, the path it takes down the hill is partly random and partly determined.

I don't think you are afraid of being wrong. I do think that you don't understand the nature of adaption yet. Also, I don't think I've misquoted you.

I think part of the problem is we don't have a really good vocabulary for describing evolution and we don't have enough education of sufficient quality to understand the particulars. Part of the problem is that discussion happens on multiple levels. A scientist might say something to one audience that he wouldn't say to another. For example, I've heard a physicist trying to explain gravity to a lay person who said, "thi s mass *wants* to do this." NO! The mass doesn't *want* to do anything. A fellow physicist listening to this would realize the speaker was being metaphorical. Perhaps even the listener understood that - but it was a distinctly bad way of explaining it.

Evolutionists refer to "random" mutations and they say that "mutations aren't affected by the environment." The first statement is misleading when spoken to a lay person, an d the second is true on one level and false on another.

IFF said it as well as it can be said so I'll just repeat the most poignant part:

"The variation is random, but the selection pressure is not."

That is the matter in its entirety. You go out splashing around in a shark feeding frenzy and you are a genetic dead-end. If, on the other hand, your genetic heritage leads you to watch someone else splashing around and to, instead, use a boat your children will celebrate their good fortune.

You all!

There-in lies the "mystery" of the issue.

"The variation is random, but the selection pressure is not."

If you do not see any thing mysterious there then, you are, in my opinion, just glossing over the fine points to have a working model.
Thank you for the exchange.
jjw

I'm glossing over the fine points, because I'm following Bohr's dictum never to write more clearly than I can think. There is still a lot of work to explain these things and still some work on my part to understand the current state of knowledge, but we know what causes selection pressure - the environment, to include other organisms, and other members of the same population.

Ok:

It seems that all we can conceive "causes slection pressure". I agree, but isn't it at least a little "mysterious"?
jjw

jjw wrote:
""The variation is random, but the selection pressure is not."

If you do not see any thing mysterious there then, you are, in my opinion, just glossing over the fine points to have a working model."

Nothing mysterious. Lets say the planets temperature increases over the next 50 years. Do you have any doubt that those that remain will be those best able to adapt to the temperture increase? I hope not.

Is the selection criteria affects all. Those that, by random means, acquired the ability to thrive ... also will survive.

dear jjw,

everything is a mystery to me. But there is the mystery of the unknown and the perhaps unknowable an unfathomable and there is the mystery of "ooo...it must be aliens."