Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) scratch that...better to follow Edited November 28, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 It's not that esoteric. The point is that it is functionally impossible to determine if similarities in (to continue my example) the dna for bipedal adaptations are the result of being born from a biped of genus Homo or being born from a biped of some other genus, because the dna "blueprint" for bipedalism in primates would be the same due to the identical nature of their function. So the presence of the bipedal gene sequence does NOT necessarily indicate that the creature is from genus Homo, as it can easily be from any other bipedal primate. But you should be able to determine which particular 'bipedal gene sequence' it is. A particular gene sequence might have a string of characters whose complexity is comparable to the string of letters and spaces that make up Shakespear's "Hamlet." If you found that same gene sequence, or only a slight variation, in two separate individuals, you might know for certain the two individuals had a recent common ancestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) It's not that esoteric. The point is that it is functionally impossible to determine if similarities in (to continue my example) the dna for bipedal adaptations are the result of being born from a biped of genus Homo or being born from a biped of some other genus, because the dna "blueprint" for bipedalism in primates would be the same due to the identical nature of their function. So the presence of the bipedal gene sequence does NOT necessarily indicate that the creature is from genus Homo, as it can easily be from any other bipedal primate. Yes you could assume that the genetic instructions for bipedalism would be conserved(at least somewhat) with any primate that inherited them in the last several million years. But my point is that that there are more ways to achieve that independently without evolving the same genetic sequences. If you look at the function of some organelles within various species you will find that they can have a different design, but serve the same function, because in nature phenotype is king. But determing how close species are is much, much more sophticated than comparing a small subset functioning genes. Edited November 28, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What I said is there is a distinct difference between forensics and interpreting new sequences of DNA. If you would like to debate that point with one of the experts I listed above who have done it successfully and published feel free to do so since I'm sure your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine . The new sequences wouldn't be interpreted, just discovered, mapped, and recognized as novel. Since it is part of an otherwise human genome then the uncatologued doner has to be another member of genus homo. That is the only scientific conclusion you could have unless there are examples of cross genus speciation. You ask the experts about that and see where it goes. Understanding the functions of the novel DNA doesn't have to be done to know they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) She looks haggard as heck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_5bRnNQlA5Q Edited November 28, 2012 by poignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I am coming to you from now on, man. Resource. "He may have a body. But would you bet on it? Look at that mascara he's wearing..." Let me put this is a way you might understand. Do you trust a guy with a Crafty Comb-over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Let me put this is a way you might understand. Do you trust a guy with a Crafty Comb-over? If a parasite unknown to science comes off on that comb, you mean...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) She looks haggard as heck: Come on folks, give it a rest. You are looking at a video camera filming someones tv screen of a skype session, and you expect what? Edited November 28, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) But you should be able to determine which particular 'bipedal gene sequence' it is. A particular gene sequence might have a string of characters whose complexity is comparable to the string of letters and spaces that make up Shakespear's "Hamlet." If you found that same gene sequence, or only a slight variation, in two separate individuals, you might know for certain the two individuals had a recent common ancestor. Your analogy is flawed. All the sequence does is dictate the shape of the hip and leg (bipedal pelvis, thigh bone, back bending knee, shin bones). The "text" is the same, in both cases. There is no way to tell from the text of your two copies of Hamlet printed at the same relative time what publishing company printed which and on what kind of press. That would require you to look elsewhere for evidence. Here's flowcharts of the two main routes to get to Bigfoot: Ketchum Theory Meldrum Theory (for want of a better term) Yes you could assume that the genentic instructions for bipedalism would be conserved(at least somewhat) with any primate that inherited them in the last several million years. But my point is that that there are more ways to achieve that independently without evolving the same geneic sequences. If you look at the function of some organelles within various species you will find that they can have a different design, but serve the same function, because in nature phenotype is king. But determing how close species are is much, much more sophticated than comparing a small subset functioning genes. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm pointing out that WITHIN the same larger group (in this case primates) that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a bipedal leg gene sequence inherited from a hominid ancestor or a bipedal leg gene sequence inherited from an independently, but convergently evolved ape ancestory, given the similarity of primate legs and the requirements for bipedalism. And that may be what is tripping up Ketchum. She sees (continuing the example) the gene sequence for bipedalism and assumes that it must be inherited from genus Homo. Edited November 28, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I disagree with your flowcharts beginning with the ape. Humans have their own unique DNA, as does BF. Nothing has been proven that we descended from apes. It's all theory, not fact. Edited November 28, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) WOW....!! Give me a BREAK! +1 Vx....No need to apologise. Melba's appearance has nothing to do with her work! She's been doing DNA for 27 years. Post your picture, and let us judge your appearance. Sheesh. You'd be disappointed if I did. I used to model for Elite when they were still Premier in London. I've also worked as a makeup artist. You really think people's appearance is totally divorced from their personality? If she was a dwarf, sure. Not her doing. If she had one leg, sure. Probably not her doing. Painting on lips that aren't there? Her doing. A deliberate choice. If you make deliberate choices like that, you will make other deliberate choices like that. Her appearance is not the issue. Her judgement is the issue. Edited November 28, 2012 by icicle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I disagree with your flowcharts beginning with the ape. Humans have their own unique DNA, as does BF. Nothing has been proven that we descended from apes. It's all theory, not fact. If you don't believe it hasn't been proven, would you concede that all other scenarios have been eliminated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I disagree with your flowcharts beginning with the ape. Humans have their own unique DNA, as does BF. Nothing has been proven that we descended from apes. It's all theory, not fact. Gimme a break, thermal...it's a quick and dirty demonstration of general principle, not a full on tree diagram of the entire primate line. It's designed to show how you can get to a bipedal primate without all bipedal primates coming from genus Homo. Edited November 28, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm pointing out that WITHIN the same larger group (in this case primates) that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a bipedal leg gene sequence inherited from a hominid ancestor or a bipedal leg gene sequence inherited from an independently, but convergently evolved ape ancestory, given the similarity of primate legs and the requirements for bipedalism. You may point it out, but it's not true. It would be readily obvious by looking at the code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You may point it out, but it's not true. It would be readily obvious by looking at the code. How so? one bipedal primate leg looks like any other, and so should the dna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts