Why Did God Cause Us To Share Over 98% Of Our Dna With Chimps?

[Sluggo 0]

Or are you a believer, and just curious why god would do this? If so couldnt you just as well ask "Why did god make grass green" or "Why did he make my penis so small?"

I'm not saying that having no reasonable explanation invalidates monotheism. I'm just curious.As for the greenness of grass, that was so plants could absorb sunlight efficiently.As for your penis, blame your parents. Because you inherited their genes.

[mcsoupman 0]

Avoiding all smaller discussions. . .I know a few guys that act like Apes does that count?I thought it pretty creative to do all this with really only 4 options TACG. Technically we are all made out of the same goop anyway. I guess it is the 2% that makes us special. Actually, I think you have to look at the idea of a Spirit. Most Christians believe that all humans have a spirit element and every other creature does not. It is not the "body" that gets to go to heaven, but he "soul."

[Sluggo 0]

But why is our junk DNA so similar? What other explanation than evolutionary vestige is there?

[mcsoupman 0]

But why is our junk DNA so similar? What other explanation than evolutionary vestige is there?

Why can't we just have similarities? Switch one code and the whole thing falls apart anyway. Down syndrome is an "mutation" with just one gene. Switch another one and the person can't even be born alive. The delicate balance of own very life points me away from the evolutionary process. Could transitional forms all have made the same switch at the same time? It would take at least 2 for the person to propogate, correct?

[Sluggo 0]

Junk DNA doesn't appear to contain genes.Down syndrome isn't a mutation of one gene.No, you don't need to be identical to someone else to mate.

[mcsoupman 0]

Junk DNA doesn't appear to contain genes.Down syndrome isn't a mutation of one gene.No, you don't need to be identical to someone else to mate.

Ok, but you get my point right? I must be lost on the difference between DNA and genes.I'm not talking about simple mating, but propogating. As clearly addressed earlier by a poster, humans and chimps can't propogate. Mating I guess is a possibility. When the transitional forms that preceeded us both mutated, there would need to be 2 like forms mutating at the same time for that DNA/gene to carry on in a new life form.

[crowTrobot 2]

It would take at least 2 for the person to propogate, correct?

no. expressed genes (mutated or not) can come from one parent or the other. they don't have to come from both

When the transitional forms that preceeded us both mutated, there would need to be 2 like forms mutating at the same time for that DNA/gene to carry on in a new life form.

that's exactly what happens when different populations of a species become genetically isolated from each other for long periods.

[mcsoupman 0]

no. expressed genes (mutated or not) can come from one parent or the other. they don't have to come from both :huh:that's exactly what happens when different populations of a species become genetically isolated from each other for long periods.

Ok, but then the probability of that mutated gene being transferred goes way down, does it not. The mutation has a greater likelihood of going away that it does propagating. And that is fine for one mutation, but what about the myriad of mutations that have to happen for the species to change?

[crowTrobot 2]

The mutation has a greater likelihood of going away that it does propagating.

normally yes, but NOT if it is a benefical mutation that makes the offspring better able to deal with their environment than those without it - in that case the mutation is MORE likely to propagate. that's how natural selection works.

And that is fine for one mutation, but what about the myriad of mutations that have to happen for the species to change?

what we think of as speciation is really many small changes happening over thousands of generations with countless intermediate steps. speciation such as proto-ape splitting into chimp/human doesn't just happen overnight . if i remember correctly the most recent suspected common ancestor of chimp and human lived something like 6 million years ago. this is likely the point where the separate branches leading to modern chimp and human split - and they have likely been genetically diverging (into different species) for that long. 6 million years is a long time.

[mcsoupman 0]

normally yes, but NOT if it is a benefical mutation that makes the offspring better able to deal with their environment than those without it - in that case the mutation is MORE likely to propagate.

Not necessarily how it works. Six fingers would be awesome to have, maybe even an extra arm. I could swing more clubs and bash heads in with. Having the extra "advantage" does necessarily mean it will be given to the offspring, especially if it is only one parent. Wouldn't it only be MORE likely to propagate if there was an abundance of that mutation?6 million years is a long time. Probably longer than the earth has actually been around.

[crowTrobot 2]

Six fingers would be awesome to have, maybe even an extra arm. I could swing more clubs and bash heads in with. Having the extra "advantage" does necessarily mean it will be given to the offspring, especially if it is only one parent. Wouldn't it only be MORE likely to propagate if there was an abundance of that mutation?

i don't think it's a safe assumption that 6 fingers or an extra arm would be benefical lol, but otherwise yes - if the advantage to the mutation is critical enough it will lead to more offspring with that mutation. that is the basis of natural selection. also if you are talking specifically about humans - a genetic mutation of any kind is unlikely to propagate in humans for several reasons:1. we are already well adapted to our environment as it is2. we have the unique capability of altering our environment (reducing or eliminating normal selection pressure)3. we are a huge genetically homogenous population with free gene flowso barring a global catastrophy of some kind that wipes out most of us and genetically isolates the survivers into small populations, humans aren't likely to "evolve" much in the future.

6 million years is a long time. Probably longer than the earth has actually been around.

aww, no need to throw your credibility out the window lol

[mcsoupman 0]

aww, what great credibility! lol

FYPToo much thinking right now. Who wants to loose their bankroll and pay for my vacation?

[the shank 0]

my brain hurts from the ops question

[mcsoupman 0]

Crow,You amaze me, sometimes you are flaming people, and yet sometimes you have very rational conversation.Ok, here is the question I have for you. You are a poker player right? To play good poker, you have to understand odds. Mutation is as the heart of evolution. Without it there are no transitional creatures, there is no common ancestry etc. Every scientist I am aware of admits that the majority of mutations are harmful. There is a rarity that a mutation is actually beneficial. Now the odds of one good mutation is rare, what about several good mutations happening at the same time. Now you start having to using scientific numbers to describe. For most of these calculations it would take closer to billions of years, not just millions. Even still the probability of 5 favorable mutations occurring in a sigle life cycle of an organizm is effectively zero.See where I am coming from?Thoughts?

[Sluggo 0]

Crow,You amaze me, sometimes you are flaming people, and yet sometimes you have very rational conversation.Ok, here is the question I have for you. You are a poker player right? To play good poker, you have to understand odds. Mutation is as the heart of evolution. Without it there are no transitional creatures, there is no common ancestry etc. Every scientist I am aware of admits that the majority of mutations are harmful. There is a rarity that a mutation is actually beneficial. Now the odds of one good mutation is rare, what about several good mutations happening at the same time. Now you start having to using scientific numbers to describe. For most of these calculations it would take closer to billions of years, not just millions. Even still the probability of 5 favorable mutations occurring in a sigle life cycle of an organizm is effectively zero.See where I am coming from?Thoughts?

Mutations are actually relatively common. Every time a cell splits, it needs to copy 3 billion base pairs.Also, mutations have different frequencies among different species and points on the DNA strand. There are "hotspots" for mutation, where it can occur much more frequently.But yes, most mutations are bad (partially because we are already so well built and adapated).We use mutations to our benegit. Look at penicillin and other drugs. We've mutated bacteria to produce tons of the chemicals.Anyway, mutations aren't the driver of genetic change. Natural selection is. You could have a population of organisms that experience no mutation. If their food source grew taller, the taller organisms of the species would survive and pass their genes down. Thus, the gene frequency of tallness genes would increase in the population, even without mutation.

[crowTrobot 2]

Every scientist I am aware of admits that the majority of mutations are harmful.

the majority are probably neutral. scientists don't fully understand them or the mechanisms behind them yet.

Now the odds of one good mutation is rare, what about several good mutations happening at the same time.

why do you think any of them have to happen at the same time? they don't.

Now you start having to using scientific numbers to describe. For most of these calculations it would take closer to billions of years, not just millions. Even still the probability of 5 favorable mutations occurring in a sigle life cycle of an organizm is effectively zero.

you don't have enough information to calculate odds. for one the ratio of beneficial mutations to total mutations may be small, but if there are thousands of mutations happening in a few generations that still equals lots of benefical ones natural selection can potentially seize on.again, evolution is not an overnight thing like you are implying. it is a long process consisting of many small changes that happen over many generations.

[mcsoupman 0]

Mutations are actually relatively common. Every time a cell splits, it needs to copy 3 billion base pairs.Also, mutations have different frequencies among different species and points on the DNA strand. There are "hotspots" for mutation, where it can occur much more frequently.But yes, most mutations are bad (partially because we are already so well built and adapated).We use mutations to our benegit. Look at penicillin and other drugs. We've mutated bacteria to produce tons of the chemicals.Anyway, mutations aren't the driver of genetic change. Natural selection is. You could have a population of organisms that experience no mutation. If their food source grew taller, the taller organisms of the species would survive and pass their genes down. Thus, the gene frequency of tallness genes would increase in the population, even without mutation.

I agree, but that also doesn't speak the probability that a reptile could change into a bird and then even so, one like the woodpecker with highly differentiated attributes that could not happen independently of each other.

[crowTrobot 2]

I agree, but that also doesn't speak the probability that a reptile could change into a bird and then even so, one like the woodpecker with highly differentiated attributes that could not happen independently of each other.

not sure what you're talking about specifically, but attributes of a species don't evolve independantly of each other.a reptile didn't just "change" into a bird. the evolution of one or more dinosaur species into specialized modern day species of birds took 200 million years worth of gradual intermediate steps.

[mcsoupman 0]

not sure what you're talking about specifically, but attributes of a species don't evolve independantly of each other.a reptile didn't just "change" into a bird. the evolution of one or more dinosaur species into specialized modern day species of birds took 200 million years worth of gradual intermediate steps.

Sure, if it could only happen in that time frame. But the evoltion of a dinosaur into a bird would have to take longer than 200 million years. Just think about how many transformations would have to happen, and then how many of those would have to happen simultanously and that is just from a dinosaur to a bird. What about the fawna to suppor the life of the transition or the transition to the dinosaur in the first place. Even if this could happen, the probability is so minute even many scientists claim that it is statistically zero chance.I have faith yes, and I know that is something that many refer to as the magic brush to wipe away all difficulties. I undstand that and struggle with that all the time. However, the "probablity" of the evelution of species also requires a certain amount of faith and dependence on science that is "yet to be found." Can we agree on that?

[Sluggo 0]

You have no math or calculations to back up what you say. It's hogwash.How do you possibly know it would take more than 200 million years? By YOUR calculations, how many hundred million years would it take?Your statement that many scientists claim it has 0 chance is a lie.No, evolution doesn't require faith. The science already has been found.Please stop making things up in your arguments. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

[crowTrobot 2]

Sure, if it could only happen in that time frame. But the evoltion of a dinosaur into a bird would have to take longer than 200 million years.

all you're stating is opinion based on your unscientific preconceptions. if you start studying the scientific facts without preconceptions you'd see radical evolved change can and does happen a lot faster than that (particularly under extreme selection pressure).

I have faith yes, and I know that is something that many refer to as the magic brush to wipe away all difficulties. I undstand that and struggle with that all the time. However, the "probablity" of the evelution of species also requires a certain amount of faith and dependence on science that is "yet to be found." Can we agree on that?

no.

[mcsoupman 0]

Sluggo,Ready? If the mutation rate were .00001 (1 in 100,000) and average mutation rate) and if the occurrence of each mutation doubled the chance of another mutation occurring in the same cell, the probablility that five simultaneous mutations would occure in any one individual woule be 1 x 10 to the 22 (sorry don't know how to write that here). This means taht if the population averaged 100 million individuals and if the average generation lasted about one day, such an event as the appearance of five simultaneous mutations in one individual, would be expected once in every 274 billion years.Ambrose cellular biologist from University of London (not know for its creationists) "It is evident that the probablility of five favorable mutations occurring within a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero." Nature and Origin of the Biological World, 1982.Crow,"extreme selection pressure." Where? Is it happening? Again, this is a "leap" constructed to justify your preconceived notions. And by the way we all share the same "facts." It is just how we percieve and interpret them.I am not here to bash, just asking for you to admit there are some deficiancies in the theory.

[Sluggo 0]

Dude, there are 3 BILLION base pairs. If the mutation rate is .00001, there will be very many mutations (and there are).

[mcsoupman 0]

all you're stating is opinion based on your unscientific preconceptions. if you start studying the scientific facts without preconceptions you'd see radical evolved change can and does happen a lot faster than that (particularly under extreme selection pressure).no.

Maybe so, but serious, you think that just five is enough to make that happen? Again you have the problem of the woodpecker. Seriously, it doesn't happen. The probability doesn't hold up. You are a number guy. You like poker. Do you like those chances? That is worse than betting to hit a royal flush 10 times in a row. How many hands have to be dealt for that to happen? We have countless websites dealing thousands of hands per minute. If that had happened we would have heard about it not only here but everywhere. Could it happen? Yes. Is it really probable to ever happen in our life time. No. You might have different locations deal a royal at the same time, but that really only equals 1, because each table would have to deal a royal 10 times by itself.We can look at sex. Why is such an enormously complex system as sexual reproduction even needed since life has already supposedly evolved the ability to reproduce withour sex? If sexual reproduction was truly essential for "higher" life as you mentioned before, how did species survive while waiting for random mutations to produce functional cooperative ssexual organs in both the male AND female of the new species. Have you seen a detailed answer to this written? Please point me to where I can find it.

[mcsoupman 0]

You guys are great, thanks for chatting with me. Sorry, I will have to pick this up later I guess I actually have to accomplish something today.