Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Was the human-chimp split a messy divorce?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  11:22:39  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
This AP story from CNN.com caught my eye:
quote:
DNA study: Human-chimp split was messy

Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 1:03 p.m. EDT (17:03 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Humans and chimps diverged from a single ancestral population through a complex process that took 4 million years, according to a new study comparing DNA from the two species.

By analyzing about 800 times more DNA than previous studies of the human-chimp split, researchers from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard were able to learn not just when, but a little bit about how the sister species arose.

"For the first time we're able to see the details written out in the DNA," said Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute. "What they tell us at the least is that the human-chimp speciation was very unusual."

The researchers hypothesize that an ancestral ape species split into two isolated populations about 10 million years ago, then got back together after a few thousand millennia. At that time the two groups, though somewhat genetically different, would have mated to form a third, hybrid population. That population could have interbred with one or both of its parent populations. Then, at some point after 6.3 million years ago, two distinct lines arose.

Some experts in human evolution are skeptical of that precise scenario, but nevertheless impressed with the study.

"It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis," said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard. "My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."

Past studies that compared human and chimp DNA could only offer a point estimate of how long ago the two species split by averaging the amount of divergence in their genes. Generally, those studies come up with a figure of about 7 million years ago.

But since the completion of the chimpanzee genome project in September it is possible to look at how specific sections of the genetic code have evolved. The Broad Institute study, which will be published in a future issue of the journal Nature, is one of the first to do that.

"There are a lot of big surprises here," Lander said.

For one thing, the new data suggest the human-chimp split was much closer to the present than the 7 million year date that fossils and previous studies indicate -- certainly no earlier than 6.3 million years ago, and more likely in the neighborhood of 5.4 million.
This kind of makes sense to me. Members of geographically separated population groups would develop into subspecies, which would still tend to interbreed occasionally when they met, until the genetic differences between the subspecies became too great for viable, reproducing hybrid offspring.

Your comments?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/17/2006 11:44:05

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  22:53:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
What about the human, chip, fish, minow, primordial soup split? That was a far worse divorce.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  23:51:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

What about the human, chip, fish, minow, primordial soup split? That was a far worse divorce.

What about the divorce between you and reality?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  23:59:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
What about the divorce between you and reality?



H.H., first you'd have to have some evidence that verlch and reality have ever even met.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  00:03:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dude

quote:
What about the divorce between you and reality?



H.H., first you'd have to have some evidence that verlch and reality have ever even met.





With sufficient medication they might come within hailing distance.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  00:40:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
"It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis," said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard. "My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."
Oh, dear.....
And somebody made this guy a professor?
Go to Top of Page

Chippewa
SFN Regular

USA
1496 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  01:17:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Chippewa's Homepage Send Chippewa a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard..."My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."


Well, a bipedal hominid of 6.3 million years ago and a chimpanzee might look approachable enough to each other.

Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.

"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.)
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  01:42:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
Also, I doubt that this hominid would have found any chimpanzees 6.3 M years ago.
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  03:08:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
Comments from Carl Zimmer,

and also from John Hawks
quote:
I've read the paper, and I have to say it doesn't deliver on its promises. It fails to cite previous work on the topic, it discards without explanation the hypothesis supported by most previous studies, and it promotes a "provocative" hypothesis for which there is no good evidence. It doesn't even show that the speciation of humans and chimpanzees was "complex".

It's just a mess.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  04:06:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
This should be interesting to watch, as the expert opinions and analyses fall out. I'm certainly not capable of forming a conclusion based upon what I've read. I hope someone independent of the study will crunch its numbers with a statistical analysis.




Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  08:39:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
One of the reasons that I love physical anthropology is the detective work involved. It's like a great mystery novel, only it isn't fiction. Here is one more piece of evidence that needs to be worked out and fit into the picture of hominid evolution. New evidence is always exciting. And so the wars begin over just what the new evidence means to the total picture. Peer review and the camps of thought on the subject will now weigh in on the evidence. What fun!

The Leaky camp must be happy, since they have always championed a more recent divergence.

And, of course, creationists will mistake the debate, if there is one, as proof that the scientists are full of it, not understanding that those debates are a part of the process. Look for quote mining in the very near future over this. They will fight until every single piece of the puzzle is in place. They will miss exactly what makes science so exciting. The quest for new knowledge does not interest those who are steeped in dogma…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  11:55:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
Kil opined:
quote:
And, of course, creationists will mistake the debate, if there is one, as proof that the scientists are full of it, not understanding that those debates are a part of the process. Look for quote mining in the very near future over this. They will fight until every single piece of the puzzle is in place. They will miss exactly what makes science so exciting. The quest for new knowledge does not interest those who are steeped in dogma…
Great point. The noisy, competitive, confrontational scientific process has been providing an ever-refined picture of human divergence from Africa apes ever Darwin stated his guess that humanity sprang from apes on that continent.

In all those years, have the Creationists advanced their evidence of their human origin "theory"? Is there one additional shred of evidence -- documentation, eyewitness accounts, experimental results-- that support the Biblical creation myth? Of course not. All that the Creationists have "advanced" is the art of deception in debate.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  14:40:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
Did anyone see the Family Guy episode this past Sunday - it showed the Board of Kansas version of creation - the genie from I Dream Of Jeanie comes out of the ocean and blinks her eyes and everything pops into existence, cars, businessmen, telephones, plants, etc. It also showed that the universe was created because god lit a fart to impress his roomate.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  19:23:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
pleco mentioned:
quote:
Did anyone see the Family Guy episode this past Sunday - it showed the Board of Kansas version of creation - the genie from I Dream Of Jeanie comes out of the ocean and blinks her eyes and everything pops into existence, cars, businessmen, telephones, plants, etc. It also showed that the universe was created because god lit a fart to impress his roomate.
I saw it. I prefer that Intelligent Design scenario to the one the Creationists intended to be taught as an alternative to evolution. It makes more sense than that Biblical crap, and it has a sexy genie.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2006 :  02:37:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

In all those years, have the Creationists advanced their evidence of their human origin "theory"? Is there one additional shred of evidence -- documentation, eyewitness accounts, experimental results-- that support the Biblical creation myth? Of course not. All that the Creationists have "advanced" is the art of deception in debate.






Join the club Mr. Fantasy land!

Where is your testable evidence to support your theories. All I see are fully formed fossils, drawings, and fossils you think, may be missing links that "evolved" too quickly to be seen by the naked eye in the fossil record.

Talk about strawman!

Human beings are complex, living creatures. Smart no less, I would expect a super smart, being to have made us, and by golly, the by faith evidence I see in the bible. It takes more faith to believe what you believe, or have been spoon feed at are great pools of indoctrination, the public school system.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2006 :  05:31:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

Join the club Mr. Fantasy land!

Where is your testable evidence to support your theories. All I see are fully formed fossils, drawings, and fossils you think, may be missing links that "evolved" too quickly to be seen by the naked eye in the fossil record.

Talk about strawman!
The strawman being your idea that a transitional fossil should not be "fully formed," or that fossilization is so common it should leave detailed records, even of animals which wouldn't fossilize well.
quote:
Smart no less, I would expect a super smart, being to have made us, and by golly, the by faith evidence I see in the bible.
So you really would rather be created from dirt by a magical bully than to have evolved from dirt? You're welcome to your fantasy, of course, but it seems the exact opposite of the "dignity" you'd like to have.
quote:
It takes more faith to believe what you believe...
Then why am I waiting for the next time that knowledge will change in a fundamental way? And why won't I die to defend evolution?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.14 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000