RE: Origin of Man (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 7:12:03 AM)

"Why don't you just fess up and admit to being the missing link?"

Sure, LOL.

Perhaps we all are, we're just not missing yet. To dismiss that seems to claim that we are at the end of human evolution. I, for one, would find that quite disappointing.

T




lally2 -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 7:28:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unDEAD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Your premise is incorrect. You cannot determine a person's ancestry or "race" based on simpe examination of the skeleton.


I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are you really saying there's no differences in the skeletal remains of an human of African descent as compared to one of nordic descent?  Police forensics, while not always correct, often relies on  these specific differences to identify (or at least begin to) a victim. 



if i remember my anatomy correctly:  - there are three main categories of skeleton, african, asian and caucasian.  african tend to be of a heavier bone density, asian of a much lighter bone density and caucasian somewhere in between

i believe it has been more or less proven that the first homo sapien came from africa.  they migrated across the planet and pretty much wiped out the indigenous populations due to intelligence and agility.  some cross breeding occurred however.  evolution did occur, of course, in response to climate and environment and thus our 'differences' in appearance developed.

in the end it was survival of the fittest and the homo sapien won the day.  the heavier set, slower, bigger jawed, heavier browed neanderthal was largely wiped out.  though its not uncommon to see traces of those neanderthal characteristics, so they werent completely bred out by the homo sapien migration and you could argue that the aborigine is possibly closer to the model of early man.

however, i believe, scientists are still fairly unsure of the exact and actual evolutionary processes




juliaoceania -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 7:43:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I have RH negative blood, and I will admit it is a highly maladaptive trait, one which my professors never explained to me, but still, I don't think aliens are the reason I have this trait, just sayin

Rh negative usually means negative for the Rh D antigen.

The last study I saw showed that Rh D positive was protective against toxoplasmosis but had poorer pyshomotor reaction times. So the risk of getting the parasite balanced against better reaction times controlled the spread of the gene for the D antigen. Thoe gene was less common in Europeans because they had very few wild cats which was the primary vector of infection prior to the widespread keeping of the domestic cat.


RH negative means I lack a certain antigen in my blood that 85% of other people have. Women with this negative blood have trouble carrying positive babies to term (at least until they develop a shot that prevents negative women from miscarrying positive babies). I say it is maladaptive because women with negative blood reject positive babies... my body would attack a positive blood baby without a shot.


Actually Rh type is much more than a single antigen. The primary one is Rh D but there are others.


RH is one antigen of many, but the one I was addressing was the RH antigen because it is the one that has impacted my life.




unDEAD -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 7:28:40 PM)

Really interesting article, but kinda sorta off this particular topic, but I really didn't want to start yet another threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59133/title/All_present-day_life_arose_from_a_single_origin

One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms. The idea that life-forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass. “But recently there has been some mumbling, especially from microbiologists, that it may not be so cut-and-dried.” Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.   To determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Theobald put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests. The results, published in the May 13 Nature, come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor. A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.    No one has previously put this aspect of evolution through such a stringent test, says David Penny, a theoretical biologist and Allan Wilson Centre researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. “In one sense, we are not surprised at the answer, but we are very pleased that the unity of life passed a formal test,” he says. He and Mike Steel of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote a commentary on the study that appears in the same issue of Nature. For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species — four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. “The universal common ancestor (models) didn’t just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts,” Theobald says. A model that had a single common ancestor and allowed for some gene swapping among species was even better than a simple tree of life. Such a scenario is 103,489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model, Theobald found. That’s a 1 with 3,489 zeros after it. Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today. “It doesn’t tell you where the deep ancestor was,” Penny says. “But what it does say is that there was one common ancestor among all those little beasties.”




Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 7:44:01 PM)

Only 102,000 to 1 ? In a simple lottery using 6 numbers ranging up to 40, the odds of winning are over 2 billion to one. And they are nowhere as easy now.

And what if just one significant variable wasn't included ? This includes unknown variables.

T




DomKen -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 9:18:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Only 102,000 to 1 ? In a simple lottery using 6 numbers ranging up to 40, the odds of winning are over 2 billion to one. And they are nowhere as easy now.

And what if just one significant variable wasn't included ? This includes unknown variables.

T

He's talking about the universal common ancestor of all life not just H sapiens. 102,000 to 1 is how unlikely it is that the basic chemistry of life developed from multiple independently evolved ancestors. Dr. Theobald's number may be have resulted in favoring teh multiple ancestor models in order to get a comparable model since it is almost completely impossible for the DNA to protein coding to have evolved multiple times in exactly the same way.

For H sapiesn there is a 0% chance that we do not all come from the same original population located in east Africa.




Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 9:41:18 PM)

"some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life"

"For H sapiesn there is a 0% chance that we do not all come from the same original population located in east Africa"

To claim that there is a zero percent chance of anything I see as a claim of omnipotence.

I shouldn't even have mentioned aliens, because that is not the larger part of it. But zero percent is almost 0% probably. I said ALMOST. I can accept that the premise of this thread could have astronomical odds against it. If you had said the odds would be a googal to one, I would accept that. But even a googal to one is not a 0% chance. Even DNA testing does not claim that, hell, even the Bible does not claim that. Not that I believe the Bible, but even it mentions the land of Nod. There were other people there. (supposedly)

T




DomKen -> RE: Origin of Man (5/13/2010 10:25:15 PM)

Actually DNA testing does say that there is no chance of multiple origins for the species. Mitochrodrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam would be impossible if the species had multiple origins.




Vendaval -> RE: Origin of Man (5/14/2010 12:01:46 AM)

[sm=abducted.gif]




Rule -> RE: Origin of Man (5/14/2010 10:52:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Only 102,000 to 1?

I have not read the article, but I got the impression that the intended ratio was ten to the power 2000 (a one followed by two thousand zero's) to 1. Due to cut and paste it ended up as the far smaller ratio of one hundred thousand and two thousand.




SirLost -> RE: Origin of Man (5/14/2010 11:59:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigreetsa
Our roots are in Africa and we evolved from a group of insectivore primates or apes.


Just a small correction:

" Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. "

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html




DomKen -> RE: Origin of Man (5/14/2010 12:34:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Only 102,000 to 1?

I have not read the article, but I got the impression that the intended ratio was ten to the power 2000 (a one followed by two thousand zero's) to 1. Due to cut and paste it ended up as the far smaller ratio of one hundred thousand and two thousand.

Finished reading teh article and the odds are not 102,000 to 1. The odds as calculated are 10^2860 to 1.




Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/14/2010 1:31:07 PM)

Gots ta admit here, that does make a material difference.

More later, maybe. With Friday night coming up, who knows.

T




jennylandis -> RE: Origin of Man (5/15/2010 1:31:11 AM)

men came from aliens and monkeys breeding




Rule -> RE: Origin of Man (5/15/2010 2:02:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jennylandis
men came from aliens and monkeys breeding

I do hope that you are not serious?




Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/15/2010 3:29:44 AM)

OK Ken. I'll have to see the definition of hyperbole in this context, in which I may have engaged.

But the fact is, and I want to see proof if you would like to refute it, even if the odds were 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000 the remainder is still not 100 nor 0 %.

True or not ? Is infinity finite ? If so please define it.

T

For people who don't know, I think that is 1 in 10 septillion.

T




Rule -> RE: Origin of Man (5/15/2010 5:14:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But the fact is, and I want to see proof if you would like to refute it, even if the odds were 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000 the remainder is still not 100 nor 0 %.

T, you are not an evolution biologist. Give it up.




DomKen -> RE: Origin of Man (5/15/2010 7:52:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

OK Ken. I'll have to see the definition of hyperbole in this context, in which I may have engaged.

But the fact is, and I want to see proof if you would like to refute it, even if the odds were 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000 the remainder is still not 100 nor 0 %.

True or not ? Is infinity finite ? If so please define it.

T

For people who don't know, I think that is 1 in 10 septillion.

T

Where did I say that mutliple orgins of all life was impossible? What I said and I quote "almost completely impossible" which I think accurately describes 10^2860 to 1 odds.

As to multiple origins of H sapiens that's precluded by the genetic and fossil evidence.




Termyn8or -> RE: Origin of Man (5/16/2010 4:15:08 AM)

Ken, I really wonder just what kind of job you have. You have demonstrated quite a bit of knowledge in cwrtain areas and my best guess would be a senior actuary. In fact if you look back using the usual 20/20 nidsight, I really don't refute you all that much, I refute the source.

But on with it. If we are arguing the origins of humens, it must fit in with the biological aspects of the planet, which would include other species'. Now I am questioning and not being sarcastis here, what about dogs ? What makes a dog a dog ? I mean is there a Rover X and a Tramp Y chomosome that defines the species ? Is that from where the reproductive compatibility comes ? Can a cihuahua mate with a great dane ? I am not talking about the viability of copulation, which might be fun to explore later, I mean if the sperm meets the egg, will it grow ? If so, does that necessarily mean that all dogs have decended from a single source ?

And then there is the case of the liger. A lion and tiger mixed. They grow HUGE, but cannot reproduce. But does the fact that one can be born indicate that the feline X and Y DNA match but not other factors ? Or does it mean that X and Y do not match, but are simply close enough to reproduce ?

You have the floor.

T




DomKen -> RE: Origin of Man (5/16/2010 5:35:42 AM)

You have no idea what you're talking about.

What I do for a living is immaterial.

Dogs are a complicated case and show what we'd see in H sapiens genetics if our species had multiple origins. All dogs are the same species and can interbreed. As a matter of fact all dogs are cross fertile with both old world and new world timber wolves and new world coyotes. However the genetics of dogs is quite muddled when we start trying to trace them back to a where and when they diverged from wolves. The evidence is that rather than all dogs ultimately being derived from a single pair (or even multiple individuals at the same time and place) that dogs were domesticated multiple independent times, at least 4 times.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf

As to lion/tiger crosses the female offspring are fertile although offspring due not tend to do very well.What this shows is that a hybridization of tiger and lion gets all the genes needed to live but that the match isn't quite right in regards the Y chromosome. This is in accordance with Haldane's Rule.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875