PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Humans closer to Orangutans?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh great!  Just when I had it in my brain that we were closer to chimps, some researchers have to go and present an argument that orangutans are our closest common ancestors among the great apes.

Go ahead Lester and Timbrx - jump on this!  :0)

But seriously, the argument does present some good points - one being it removes the difficulty of migrations of ape ancestors from Africa to Asia, and then back to Africa.  It makes a lot of sense in other ways too.  So I actually like the idea.

From the Science Daily News:
Humans Closer to Orangutans than Chimps?


And for all you Creationists out there, keep in mind that it is research and questioning like this that make science such a powerful tool, and so interesting.  Nature doesn't give up her mysteries easily.  As far as evolution goes, this is an example of working out the details and probable scenarios - putting the pieces of the puzzle together.  It in no way takes away the fact that evolution has occurred, and is occurring today.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:44 AM on June 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting article. While he makes good points, and I do look forward to the theories rejection or acceptance from the scientific community, he has some questions of his own to explain.  One of which is why we are closest genetically to chimps. And there is research that shows that ancestral humans and chimps interbred from five to two million years ago.

From reading the article it looks like his theory explains some things better than the current theory. It looks like the biggest problem for the human-chimp side is the morphological explanation of the human-orangutan side. But I know that features that are very similar between two species can have origins that are not related to each other at all. The environment and skills that humans and orangutans needed may have been so similar to one another that certain features that no other ape needed found its way in both camps independent of each other.

I feel that the evidence for the current theory is so strong that it will not be completely over turned, but rather possibly revised in accordance to the new evidence supported by this guy (forgot his name), and it could be revised a lot. Again I look forward to the scientific communities ruling on his findings.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:00 PM on June 20, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The entire premise is built on the presupposition of evolution. Human - ape similarities does not support evolution. Evolution supports evolution. And since evolution is supported only by its own presupposition than evolution is unsupported.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:48 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx,

What is evolution to you? I know many creationist accept micro-evolution, do you, and how far of a role does evolution play in the diversity of life according to you?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:16 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:48 AM on June 21, 2009 :

The entire premise is built on the presupposition of evolution. Human - ape similarities does not support evolution. Evolution supports evolution. And since evolution is supported only by its own presupposition than evolution is unsupported.



And the hominid fossils that have been found, Timbrx?  The fossil record clearly shows an unmistakable transition to a modern human physiology over the past few million years among the hominids.  And more are being found all the time.

If that is not clear evidence that humans evolved from earlier hominid ancestors, I don't know what is.

Your statements about presupposition is nonsense.  The evidence is waved under your nose and you call it presupposition.  Lester calls it imaginary.  You are both in denial of the facts.  



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:54 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The entire premise is built on the presupposition of evolution.
We build on a presupposition that has been in consistent harmony with the facts.

You don't have anything remotely like that. And you still dare to build.

Look at this creationist classification of hominid fossils:


It should be enough to make creationists look down in shame. I'm not trying to offend you, but i sincerely don't understand how you manage to be so confident...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:03 AM on June 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting, Wisp.  Where did you get that information?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:59 AM on June 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's from TalkOrigins.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:05 AM on June 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, can you find a picture comparing the skulls of modern African, Caucasian, Oriental, and American Indians? I bet you they're different. But I don't think one race is more developed than the other. I just think they've developed separately. And this would mean, yes Fencer, I do believe in micro-evolution. I define it as change within a kind (phyla?). I don't believe that change from one kind  to another has ever been demonstrated because it has never occurred.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:06 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeap. TalkOrigins.

Every creationist agrees that there's a distinct line that separates humans from the rest of the apes. But they don't agree on where to put it.

They argue that we make mistakes too.
Well of course we do! We're the ones that say that there's no distinct line! We're the ones that say that it's a puzzle! Our mistakes on the subject are not remotely as revealing as the creationist ones!

And, by the way, the puzzle solvers are doing a remarkable job with the pieces they get.

Your finding was very interesting too, orion. I'm not sure i understand it completely though. It seems kind of reasonable to look for "features", but can that be more revealing than a simple DNA comparison? This is very interesting. I need more time to ponder it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:16 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:06 PM on June 22, 2009 :
Wisp, can you find a picture comparing the skulls of modern African, Caucasian, Oriental, and American Indians? I bet you they're different. But I don't think one race is more developed than the other. I just think they've developed separately.


I agree completely, and Wisp, if you can also find one of Australian Aborigines (as they have some unique features of their own) that would be great.

And this would mean, yes Fencer, I do believe in micro-evolution. I define it as change within a kind (phyla?). I don't believe that change from one kind  to another has ever been demonstrated because it has never occurred.


My next question is two part; 1) What constitutes as a kind? 2) What barrier prevents one kind from evolving into another kind?



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:43 AM on June 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting back to the original post about orangutans and humans...

In the article the guy points to paleontology and says that they only use morphology to develop ancient trees of life, and that there are no reasons for DNA to trump morphology. This is simply not true, if paleontology could use DNA analysis they would.

Two organisms can get the same characteristics, like lactose intolerance, the eye, and wing completely independent of each other if the environment that they are in permits it. But the only way to get the same DNA is because of a biological link (save freaky flukes). That's why the DNA comparison of humans and chimps are regarded so high. Take the difference in genomes with the mutation rate and you know approximately how far back the last common ancestor was, and the winner with no close competition is the chimp.

While I find the article interesting, and certainly there are questions to be asked about the similarities in morphology, I don't see it as threatening to overturn the current human origin theory/hypothesis.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:02 AM on June 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, i see it pretty much like you do, but i'm not quite sure...

Is it possible to retain so much DNA similarity with the chimp and the bonobo, and being more closely related to the orangutan?
How?
Morphology is not objective (i'm sure that they didn't take traits such as "cuteness", but still), and DNA is. I'm not saying that objective must always be superior to subjective, but it usually is.
They could have said that the difference is due to the orangutan's high mutation rate (that somehow didn't affect those traits that we allegedly share)... But they didn't say it. And why would it be particularly high?

It seems interesting, and perhaps it's my lack of understanding that prevents me from seeing what they think they found.

Fencer
timbrx
I bet you they're different. But I don't think one race is more developed than the other. I just think they've developed separately.
I agree completely,
And so do i.
and Wisp, if you can also find one of Australian Aborigines (as they have some unique features of their own) that would be great.
Presto:

Amazing.

And here in the living flesh (is that how you say it?):


I agree that some would rush and say that those are primitive skulls from almost-men.
And others would then realize that morphology isn't enough to determine our family tree insertions.
But nobody says it is.

Yet the point is that we say that it's a blur, and creationists say that there's no blur, and yet fail to agree on which ones are humans and which ones are not.

The table i posted should make creationists at least admit that there are (or have been) animals that were pretty much like ourselves.

At least that!!

Fencer
timbrx
And this would mean, yes Fencer, I do believe in micro-evolution. I define it as change within a kind (phyla?). I don't believe that change from one kind  to another has ever been demonstrated because it has never occurred.
My next question is two part; 1) What constitutes as a kind? 2) What barrier prevents one kind from evolving into another kind?
Exactly. We've shown you bacteria that learned how to make colonies that could work like an individual organism. Actually i've shown you every frikin step of the way, and that wasn't enough for you.

What would?


See that round one in the filament?
That's specialization by a different expression of the same DNA.

Then you get biofilms, then this...



You'll just say "No, that's a bacteria. That's a bacteria too. That too. No, that's an multicelled organism and was created like that; never a bacteria."

Except that, as when classifying human and non-human fossils, again creationists will disagree.

They will keep saying that there's a clear distinction, and will consistently fail to agree on its whereabouts.


(Edited by wisp 6/23/2009 at 12:42 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:33 AM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 01:02 AM on June 23, 2009 :
Getting back to the original post about orangutans and humans...

In the article the guy points to paleontology and says that they only use morphology to develop ancient trees of life, and that there are no reasons for DNA to trump morphology. This is simply not true, if paleontology could use DNA analysis they would.

Two organisms can get the same characteristics, like lactose intolerance, the eye, and wing completely independent of each other if the environment that they are in permits it. But the only way to get the same DNA is because of a biological link (save freaky flukes). That's why the DNA comparison of humans and chimps are regarded so high. Take the difference in genomes with the mutation rate and you know approximately how far back the last common ancestor was, and the winner with no close competition is the chimp.

While I find the article interesting, and certainly there are questions to be asked about the similarities in morphology, I don't see it as threatening to overturn the current human origin theory/hypothesis.




Schwartz has this bug up his butt about molecular data - since it contradicts his pet hypothesis, he has spent about the last 15-20 years trying desperately to 'debunk' it.

But you are right, bones truly do not trump DNA.  Schwartz is going to make a fool of himself one day.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:13 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:33 AM on June 23, 2009 :
Is it possible to retain so much DNA similarity with the chimp and the bonobo, and being more closely related to the orangutan?
How?


Not in the time scale we're talking about and the difference (genetically) between us, chimps, and orangutan. While different sections of the genome mutate at different rates, I think the rates themselves are fairly consistent. Remember, we're only talking a few million years, and theres genetic evidence that suggests that us and chimps transfered DNA horizontally up to two million years ago.

Morphology is not objective (i'm sure that they didn't take traits such as "cuteness", but still), and DNA is.


I'm sure the morphological traits that they tested were objective. These aren't creationist pseudo-scientists, and you can definitely compare morphology objectively.

I'm not saying that objective must always be superior to subjective, but it usually is.


What do you mean by this?

They could have said that the difference is due to the orangutan's high mutation rate (that somehow didn't affect those traits that we allegedly share)... But they didn't say it. And why would it be particularly high?


If it was I can't think of a reason why. But some species change slowly over time while others change more rapidly. I don't think this is because of high mutation rates, but rather it is due to the environment that they are in.

Fencer
timbrx
I bet you they're different. But I don't think one race is more developed than the other. I just think they've developed separately.
I agree completely,
And so do i.
and Wisp, if you can also find one of Australian Aborigines (as they have some unique features of their own) that would be great.
Presto:

Amazing.


Wow, I've never actually seen one before. Only heard about them. I'm surprised at how the skull looks very much like a Neanderthal skull.

I agree that some would rush and say that those are primitive skulls from almost-men.


I agree, without knowing what it was I would have thought the skull was from a southern Neanderthal, or late Cro-Magnon.








-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:23 AM on June 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, Fencer.

I'm not saying that objective must always be superior to subjective, but it usually is.
What do you mean by this?
That i'm not saying that DNA MUST be correct because it's objective and morphology is not, but objectivity seems like a big hint... I wouldn't bet my life on the DNA, but i would my money.

(Edited by wisp 7/1/2009 at 3:23 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:17 PM on June 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Endogenous retroviruses indicate that our closest relatives are the chimps.

In this graphic you can see retroviral insertions (marked with arrows, only those insertions present in humans).

Once you get an insertion, it probably sticks.

We share endogenous retroviruses (to share them means that they are in the same locus of the same chromosome, can't be chance) with the chimps that we don't share with the orangutan, and never the other way around. That sounds pretty conclusive to me.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:30 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:30 PM on July 1, 2009 :
[color=teal]Endogenous retroviruses indicate that our closest relatives are the chimps.


So does the beta-globin gene cluster.  So does complete mitochondrial genome analysis.  So does serum albumin.  So does...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:39 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, thank you!

Sorry, orion, but it looks like your guys got it wrong.

So, an agreement between genome analysis, mitochondrial genome analysis, retroviral insertions, serum albumin, beta-globin gene cluster, etc.
Why would Yahweh do such a thing? Testing our faith?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:11 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've actually been discussing this a bit with one of the authors of that paper.  His position is basically that all types of molecualr analyses are flawed and should be dismissed, and morphological studies that do not agree with their hypothesis are fraudulent.

IOW, even some 'evos' can argue like creationists when they have a pet belief to protect. it is really quite infuriating.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:17 AM on July 10, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 09:17 AM on July 10, 2009 :
IOW, even some 'evos' can argue like creationists when they have a pet belief to protect. it is really quite infuriating.


I'm surprised anyone who does this stuff professionally would hold on to such pre-conceptions. In science you must throw out all your common sense and pre-conceived notions of how things work and only follow the evidence. At least that is how they teach science these days.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:33 PM on July 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Me too... I'm also surprised at whoever is responsible for the money supply for those investigations.

Thanks for the info, derwood.
Indeed, some evos can do what you say. I recently posted something about evolutionary biology (and behavior) in a psychology forum, and got the same crap i usually get from creos: we humans are special and free, we have a choice, genes don't determine human behaviors... They farted strawmen at every phrase... Ad hominem... Arguments from the negative consequences ("Oh, but then a rapist will have no responsibility, and will say that he's just being natural!!"), argumentvm ad bacvlvm (I, as a moderator, cannot allow anyone to excuse himself with such an argument)... Wishful thinking... Every creationist argumental fallacy! You name it!

I was appalled...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:49 AM on July 11, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.