Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Origin of Man


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Origin of Man Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 7:12:03 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"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

(in reply to tigreetsa)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 7:28:22 AM   
lally2


Posts: 2621
Joined: 4/16/2009
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by lally2 -- 5/13/2010 7:35:22 AM >


_____________________________

So all I have to do in order to serve him, is to work out exactly how improbable he is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give him a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn him on!

(in reply to unDEAD)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 7:43:56 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 7:28:40 PM   
unDEAD


Posts: 41
Joined: 5/4/2008
Status: offline
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.”


_____________________________

"This is MY body. This is MY blood. Happy are they who come to MY supper..."

(in reply to tigreetsa)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 7:44:01 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to unDEAD)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 9:18:10 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 5/13/2010 9:19:59 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 9:41:18 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Origin of Man - 5/13/2010 10:25:15 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Origin of Man - 5/14/2010 12:01:46 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline


_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Origin of Man - 5/14/2010 10:52:59 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Origin of Man - 5/14/2010 11:59:11 AM   
SirLost


Posts: 142
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

The best respect is the one that's gained even after they learn your weaknesses.

(in reply to tigreetsa)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Origin of Man - 5/14/2010 12:34:42 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Origin of Man - 5/14/2010 1:31:07 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Gots ta admit here, that does make a material difference.

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

T

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Origin of Man - 5/15/2010 1:31:11 AM   
jennylandis


Posts: 56
Joined: 5/1/2010
Status: offline
men came from aliens and monkeys breeding

_____________________________

http://www.ctoutlet.com - my kinky online store - latex/fetish/masks
http://www.jennystgirls.com - my xxx site
http://www.vintageshemales.com - vintage tgirls

transgirl in California

(in reply to tigreetsa)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Origin of Man - 5/15/2010 2:02:03 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jennylandis
men came from aliens and monkeys breeding

I do hope that you are not serious?

(in reply to jennylandis)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Origin of Man - 5/15/2010 3:29:44 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 5/15/2010 3:33:52 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Origin of Man - 5/15/2010 5:14:51 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Origin of Man - 5/15/2010 7:52:01 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Origin of Man - 5/16/2010 4:15:08 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Origin of Man - 5/16/2010 5:35:42 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Origin of Man Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109