Who did we evolve from?

[alextemplet]

Leben, what do you propose as a scientific alternative to evolution?

[Linn]

Oh no this topic is ressurected

[Leben]

What do I propose as a scientific alternative? I will not go there right now, but just look at it. It does not make sence. Do you know how many factors that went into evolution? Do the math
Scientists say that the world is 4.5 billion years old, and life didnt exist till around 3.5 billion years ago but it wasnt till around 545 million years ago that invertebrates came into existance. Then evolution continued till the first primates came into existance 65 million years ago. Now humans came into existance around 200,000 years ago.

Remember when I said that 2% of DNA is 60,000,000 pairs. That is a whole of mutations to take place withen 65,000,000 years. If a mutation occured every genereation and if there was a new generation every year that would take 60,000,000 years in itself. Not to mention that the oldest evidence of something like a chimp is 4.5 million years old. That would take 13.333 mutations to occure in a new generation of primates which there would have to be a new generation every year.
This is also taking in the fact that these mutations are not fatal, so mathamatically evolution does not make sence.
Also this is taking in the fact that the mutations do not deform the chimp itself, if you went and tampered with the DNA of a chimp you would probably end up with some rather deformed chimp. So these mutations that take place would have to be perfect and harmless. It would have to take a whole lot of chance and lookin at the odds the chances are really slim.

I will not give a scientific explanation at the moment, probably in a future post but at the moment I would rather comments, critisisms, questions, etc.

[damien james]

Haha, this going to be fun!!

Also do not overlook that there would be aprx 100000 - 10000000 specimens for natural selection to act on!

I will come back later after exam

[AstusAleator]

Well, Hopeful Monsters are a scientific alternative to the accepted model of evolution. It's still essentially evolution, but not darwinian gradualism. It states that from time to time, animals will simply give birth to a new creature, and depending on the fitness of that creature it will live and start a new species or die. This has pretty much been refuted through the scientific process, but as it is still based on genetics and observation, it is scientific. Don't forget, scientific just means it follows a particular process.
If I didn't have all of the education I do, I might propose that different creatures occur from the cross-mating between different types. That's of course erroneous in many ways, and disprovable by testing, but it's still a scientific hypothesis, based on my observations of sex and biodiversity.
And in fact, it's not completely wrong, as horizontal gene flow does occur among microorganisms, and hybridization does occur.

[damien james]

What do I propose as a scientific alternative? I will not go there right now, but just look at it. It does not make sence. Do you know how many factors that went into evolution? Do the math
Scientists say that the world is 4.5 billion years old, and life didnt exist till around 3.5 billion years ago but it wasnt till around 545 million years ago that invertebrates came into existance. Then evolution continued till the first primates came into existance 65 million years ago. Now humans came into existance around 200,000 years ago.

Remember when I said that 2% of DNA is 60,000,000 pairs. That is a whole of mutations to take place withen 65,000,000 years. If a mutation occured every genereation and if there was a new generation every year that would take 60,000,000 years in itself. Not to mention that the oldest evidence of something like a chimp is 4.5 million years old. That would take 13.333 mutations to occure in a new generation of primates which there would have to be a new generation every year.
This is also taking in the fact that these mutations are not fatal, so mathamatically evolution does not make sence.
Also this is taking in the fact that the mutations do not deform the chimp itself, if you went and tampered with the DNA of a chimp you would probably end up with some rather deformed chimp. So these mutations that take place would have to be perfect and harmless. It would have to take a whole lot of chance and lookin at the odds the chances are really slim.

I will not give a scientific explanation at the moment, probably in a future post but at the moment I would rather comments, critisisms, questions, etc.

You seem to like math, but unfortunately do not seem interested in learning genetics.

1. No scientist has said human evolved from Pan troglyodyte. Only we share common ancestor that have branched off in different lineages. So questioning how we evolve from chimp irrelevant since it is not correct question to ask. Evolutionary relative not same as being descended from.

2. You seem be equate base pairs with genes. This not case. Only apprx 30,000 genes (exons that code for protein) in Homo sapien.

3. Your argument focus on specific base mutation, or "point mutation". Any college level bio course (and most highschool for that matter) will show point mutation only small part way DNA can be mutated. If you take genetics, you will learn even more. Term for you to research include:

genetic duplication
frameshift mutation
reading frames
evolution and mutation of HOX gene with radical result to morphology

4. Also your time estimate of human are waaaayyyy off. If you consider Homo genus which encompass and is human lineage, estimate closer to divergence at 4.5 mya. But if you only consider Home sapien as specific species of modern man, modern estimate is at 200,000 yrs ago. Remember though here are many other form of human lineage before modern man before you even come close to ape-like ancestor. And genetic difference between these steps of Homo genus is would be miniscule.

I'm sure astus, alex, and david can add more.

I will get to springer who is misinformation thorn in side of bio forum later.

[Leben]

Cross breeding only creates a new breed of something, you cant breed two types of dog and get a cat, you will come up with a new breed of dog. Maybe with genetic alteration you can create a new species but there are still facters that have to apply. So naturally you will not get evolution from this.

The monster theory I also would think is upsurd because wouldnt that still take place today? If so why doesnt it happen? Wouldn't humans also give birth to some bizzar creature? If that happened it would be a gene that is passed down through the generations, and every once in a while something would trigger it to become visible in its host, insted of the host just being a carrier of the gene. With the "Monster" theory that means that something is passed through the generations with genetics so what would this be? A certain cromozome? A gene? A small segment of DNA or RNA that needs to be in the right position?
What would this have to be to be carried down throughout the generations? There would have to be something because there would be no reason that a new creature would be born to something that is not of its species.

[Leben]

You seem to like math, but unfortunately do not seem interested in learning genetics.

1. No scientist has said human evolved from Pan troglyodyte. Only we share common ancestor that have branched off in different lineages. So questioning how we evolve from chimp irrelevant since it is not correct question to ask. Evolutionary relative not same as being descended from.

2. You seem be equate base pairs with genes. This not case. Only apprx 30,000 genes (exons that code for protein) in Homo sapien.

3. Your argument focus on specific base mutation, or "point mutation". Any college level bio course (and most highschool for that matter) will show point mutation only small part way DNA can be mutated. If you take genetics, you will learn even more. Term for you to research include:

genetic duplication
frameshift mutation
reading frames
evolution and mutation of HOX gene with radical result to morphology

4. Also your time estimate of human are waaaayyyy off. If you consider Homo genus which encompass and is human lineage, estimate closer to divergence at 4.5 mya. But if you only consider Home sapien as specific species of modern man, modern estimate is at 200,000 yrs ago. Remember though here are many other form of human lineage before modern man before you even come close to ape-like ancestor. And genetic difference between these steps of Homo genus is would be miniscule.

I'm sure astus, alex, and david can add more.

I will get to springer who is misinformation thorn in side of bio forum later.

Okay yes I like math, math and science go hand in hand. I also realized after my post that I was only focusing on point mutation and was going to reply back on that. I do know of frame shift mutation, and how greatly DNA can be altered if just one pair is removed, and if the wrong pair is removed then you have a dead creature on your hands.
I am glad though that someone caught what I was saying and posted before someone got the wrong idea.

Now I would like to ask a question sence most people here probably know more about this than I do, from what I learned primates didnt apear till 65 million years ago. Is this true or not? If not I would very much like to know how long ago it is estimated that primates first came to be.

[David George]

I'm sure astus, alex, and david can add more.

Why not, here a link of the latest discovery
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
If your interested you can also go to the following address
http://www.becominghuman.org.If you want to know about the evolution of primates I can give you an address only thing it doesn't have pictures.

[alextemplet]

Leben, if there is no scientific alternative to evolution, and so far you haven't given one, then it is the best we can do and we must stick with it until we can find something better.

That said I think your questions have already been well-answered by others, and I won't bother to restate since I had a rough day at work and I'm tired.

[Leben]

I can think if an alternative right off the bat, but if I state it I will become probably banned from this forum. Which I think is wrong.
One of the reasons I joined this was to hopefully has some questions answered. But I can not freely ask these questions because of sertain boundries.
If I can ask questions without being persecuted then I will start to talk more, but untill I can be given imunity I will not bother stating them here.

You all seem well educated so I thought yall might be able to help, but from reading around I have come to realize that I was wrong.
I will say that I am a Christian, but one with a lot of questions and is not interested in shoving God down everyones throat. If yall would answer my questions without giving me a hard time I would really appreciate it. I have no intention on converting anyone, for I can not convert. All I have are questions that do tie with evolution, but they also deal with religion.

[alextemplet]

Leben, if you can think of a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution, then you need not fear being banned. This forum is about science. Anything scientific is welcome. And I'm Catholic, perhaps I can entertain your religious questions, perhaps your scientific ones as well?