Login

Join for Free!
118246 members


Monkeys??!

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Monkeys??!

Postby Avalbane » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:09 am

Sharifa wrote:hello..
i'm not persuaded that monkeys are the origin of human beings..
how could some of people believe that?
and plz give me some proofs to believe this theory..
as i know.. chimp has 48 chromosomes while the human has 46 chromosomes.. :?
people can create.. think.. talk ...etc. while monkeys are not.. :!:
please , help me :(
thanx all


The number of chromosomes in a (somatic) cell doesn't neccesarily signify smartness or ability. Just because chimps have more chromosomes doesn't mean that they are smarter than humans. There is a plant (I beleive it's a type of fern) that has 112 chromosomes, but a plant is far from being able reason or talk.
Avalbane
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:10 pm
Location: P'cola, FL

Postby MrMistery » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:07 pm

the current opinion is that humans form from apes by a phenomenon called centric fusion, in which 2 pairs of chromosoms fused to result one.

About that fern, you will find that are organisms with far more chromosomes than that. An eel has 150. A plant named snake's tongues has 2n=1246
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Carbon-14

Postby deadfish » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:54 pm

"Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field. "-Hovind

....so...how else do we date fossils? I'm most curious about those 40,000 years and older.....

DF
deadfish
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:05 pm


Postby mith » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:20 pm

Umm, other isotopes with longer half-lives?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby David George » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:25 am

The 17th chromosome of the a human is acrocentric chromosome and the 17th chromosome of a chimpanzee is metacentric.[Abberation-Inversion] this is also a good evidence that man evolved from apes.There have been lots of fossils found resembling man and apes.I think it is a good evidence.Scientists working in Africa have discovered a Stone Age skull that could be a link between the extinct Homo erectus species and modern humans.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... skull.html
Here is a link you can read about the recent discovery.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby 123Herpatology » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:42 am

fossilization alters the amount of sunlight upon c-14....if its under the ground its going to be receiving a lot less sunlight obviously...I'm sure if you had an amount of radioactive c-14 sitting in the sun for 5,000 years it would decay that quickly.
wisdom=the anti-venom for failure
123Herpatology
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:38 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Postby canalon » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:59 pm

C-14: the decay is not linked to sunlight exposure but simply to radioactive reactions. The mechanism is well known and described and depend only on the structure of the atom. Hence the decay rate is constant and known, nothing to be discussed here deadfish.
As for the concentration in the atmosphere, yes it can vary depending on the amount of energy reaching earth (not constant), the decay (constant), the fixation (not a constant) and probably other factors. So the hypothesis of a constant level of 14CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong, but thanks to the atmosphere trapped in the ice (at the poles) we have access to a sample of the 14CO2 content at given time (accounting for decay of course) and now the dating is normalized using those curves. And because of all these factors, you cannot assume that 14CO2 will ever reach equilibrium, and dating the age of earth through the leaking barrel method is simply laughable.
By the way, the fixation of 14CO2 is done uiquely by the plant, the inhaling has no effect! Animals acquire 14C only through their food.

As for the answer on how to date older fossils, mithril gave the answer.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:00 pm

I try to keep an open mind, but when someone tries to claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old it really makes me sad that people allow themselves to be deceived by something so easily disprovable.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby fireblaze » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:58 am

i have heard that the frontal lobe of the brain makes us 'human' and not monkeys. Are these chromosomes 47-48. responsible for that development?
fireblaze
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:07 pm

Postby masifzai » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:38 am

Is it correct " ontogeny repeats phylogeny"
Asif Khan
masifzai
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Islamabad-Pakistan

Re: Monkeys??!

Postby Linn » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:31 pm

Sharifa wrote:hello..
i'm not persuaded that monkeys are the origin of human beings..
how could some of people believe that?
and plz give me some proofs to believe this theory..
as i know.. chimp has 48 chromosomes while the human has 46 chromosomes.. :?
people can create.. think.. talk ...etc. while monkeys are not.. :!:
please , help me :(
thanx all


sometimes I sorta think maybe we did come from them, cause we do share characteristics. Then I think aha! that is why people started to believe that in the frst place. :lol:
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Dustfinger » Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:51 am

Dear Sharifa,
have you ever heard of the hybridisising (spelled that correctly ??? hmmph !) of the DNA of humans and gorillas ? The DNA matches to a large point if I remember well.
Image
Image
User avatar
Dustfinger
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:22 pm
Location: Somewhere in the endless Universe

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests