Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

Extensive conservation of sex chromosome organization between cat and human revealed by parallel radiation hybrid mapping.

Murphy WJ1, Sun S, Chen ZQ, Pecon-Slattery J, O'Brien SJ.

Author information

Abstract

A radiation hybrid (RH)-derived physical map of 25 markers on the feline X chromosome (including 19 Type I coding loci and 6 Type II microsatellite markers) was compared to homologous marker order on the human and mouse X chromosome maps. Complete conservation of synteny and marker order was observed between feline and human X chromosomes, whereas the same markers identified a minimum of seven rearranged syntenic segments between mouse and cat/human X chromosome marker order. Within the blocks, the feline, human, and mouse marker order was strongly conserved. Similarly, Y chromosome locus order was remarkably conserved between cat and human Y chromosomes, with only one marker (SMCY) position rearranged between the species. Tight linkage and a conserved gene order for a segment encoding three genes, DFFRY-DBY-UTY in human, mouse, and cat Y chromosomes, coupled with demonstrated deletion effects of these genes on reproductive impairment in both human and mouse, implicates the region as critical for Y-mediated sperm production.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613845?dopt=Abstract

The National Center for Biotechnology Information 

Quote

Researchers, acting as "genetic paleontologists," recently discovered that the X and Y chromosomes of cats and humans are remarkably alike, despite the fact that the two species haven't shared a common ancestor for about 90 million years—around the same time the human line diverged from goats, sheep, and cows. 

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/cat_humans.shtml

Just a food for thought, since we are looking for similarities...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

We have bias on both sides, so that is not a Point to explain in to much detail. 

If possible, lets just speak to the accuracy of data. 

Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/alleged-human-chromosome-2-fusion-site-encodes-an-active-dna-binding-domain-inside-a-complex-and-hig/

 

I should have said that looking for your Scientific opinion, it would have saved you a lot of writing. Any Scientific view on the data, charts and analysis on the material here.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234989658-the-theory-of-evolution/?page=17&tab=comments#comment-3082342

 

The article is centered around data from answers in genesis, sourced from someone who is self contradicting and is not peer reviewed.

 I have every reason to distrust and to doubt AIG. And with that, I can't be bothered to dive into a topic that is beyond my field to discern it's fine details. I simply discard it.

young earth creationism is kind of like a black hole. On the surface there is apparent credibility. But if you dig, you will come to discover that they're not interested in truth. They are interested in proving the Bible, by any means. Even if it means contradicting ones self.

I'd be curious to see what you SMHA, found in digging into these aig claims.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the scientific and technical details regarding evolution, there is an argument that can be made that God (Allah) never *stopped* creating--the universe and everything in it, continues to be formed according to His will. Man is in a state of becoming, and is not fixed.

Another paradox connected to this has to do with the ancient question of God's omniscience and the fate of man. The philosopher Boethius was asked the following question: if God knows everything we will do, and everything we will become, does it mean that we have no free will, and that we live in a deterministic universe?

 

The answer to that question is that God does not see things the way human beings do: God is supra-temporal, and exists outside of time. Everything that He sees occurs before Him in the flash of immediacy, like light from a lamp filling a room. 

 

I think these issues like evolution arise because we put human constraints on God, and apply physical and temporal limitations to what He does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the scientific and technical details regarding evolution, there is an argument that can be made that God (Allah) never *stopped* creating--the universe and everything in it, continues to be formed according to His will. Man is in a state of becoming, and is not fixed.

Another paradox connected to this has to do with the ancient question of God's omniscience and the fate of man. The philosopher Boethius was asked the following question: if God knows everything we will do, and everything we will become, does it mean that we have no free will, and that we live in a deterministic universe?

 

The answer to that question is that God does not see things the way human beings do: God is supra-temporal, and exists outside of time. Everything that He sees occurs before Him in the flash of immediacy, like light from a lamp filling a room. 

 

I think these issues like evolution arise because we put human constraints on God, and apply physical and temporal limitations to what He does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613845?dopt=Abstract

The National Center for Biotechnology Information 

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/cat_humans.shtml

Just a food for thought, since we are looking for similarities...

 

These appear fine. Looks like a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cat-mouse-human report is pretty interesting.  I like the figures they give. The results are a bit difficult to understand (as im not a geneticist, i have to sit and translate word for word and sentence for sentence to understand the lingo). But theyre discussing mammalian radiation in the tertiary (in part). Or post dinosaur radiation of mammals (even toed ungulates, and pre existing eutherians). And i guess just taking their findings and unpacking them for further discussion. Looks like theyre pointing out similarities, differences, and comparing various qualities between cat, mouse, man and other mammals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, iCambrian said:

The cat-mouse-human report is pretty interesting.  I like the figures they give. The results are a bit difficult to understand (as im not a geneticist, i have to sit and translate word for word and sentence for sentence to understand the lingo). But theyre discussing mammalian radiation in the tertiary (in part). Or post dinosaur radiation of mammals (even toed ungulates, and pre existing eutherians). And i guess just taking their findings and unpacking them for further discussion. Looks like theyre pointing out similarities, differences, and comparing various qualities between cat, mouse, man and other mammals.

Gets interesting, As they claim 

96% Chimpanze

90% Cat

85% Mouse

80% Cow

61% fruit fly

60% chicken

and Even bananas surprisingly still share about 60% of the same DNA as humans!

http://www.businessinsider.com/comparing-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-other-things-2016-5/#and-while-the-egg-laying-and-feathered-body-are-pretty-different-from-a-humans-about-60-of-chicken-genes-have-a-human-gene-counterpart-7

Here are some sensational head lines

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/07/meet-the-ancestor-of-every-human-bat-cat-whale-and-mouse/

"Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

"Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/

*****

Here is the stuff to read with that you do not find in newspapers/magazines 

Quote

One potential limitation of the studies described above is that they are confined to protein-coding regions, which comprise <2% of the human genome. It is possible that most of the genetic changes that “make us human” involve regulatory sequences rather than coding sequences 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3814392/

Quote

Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees.

Glazko G1, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.

Author information

Abstract

The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

Quote

The DNA analysis and comparison between humans and chimpanzees confirmed a homology of a very high percentage, above 98%. Some scientists used this finding to confirm our kinship with chimpanzees while others highlighted the 2% mismatch as a very important part to stress the differences between the species. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2464272/

 

The National Center for Biotechnology Information

*****

Kind of like All bodies in the Universe and the elements in the periodic table share a common ancestor. Since they are all made from similar materials. Like Hydrogen and Heliem just cousins with a difference  the atomic number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relatedness isnt simply about what living things are made of. It is the patterns found in that relatedness that is the focus of all the articles you posted.

 

The patterns identified in our genes indicate common ancestry. Its the same for the ERVs, the same for fused chromosome #2, same for patterns of mutations. The patterns of common ancestry are repeated time and time again in countless tests. And these same patterns are even present in the fossil succession, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and a whole host of other fields.

The patterns are so repetitive, that you even get cross over. Where teams will look at DNA, and use patterns in DNA to predict where fossils will be found in the earth.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Relatedness isnt simply about what living things are made of. It is the patterns found in that relatedness that is the focus of all the articles you posted.

The patterns identified in our genes indicate common ancestry. Its the same for the ERVs, the same for fused chromosome #2, same for patterns of mutations. The patterns of common ancestry are repeated time and time again in countless tests. And these same patterns are even present in the fossil succession, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and a whole host of other fields.

The patterns are so repetitive, that you even get cross over. Where teams will look at DNA, and use patterns in DNA to predict where fossils will be found in the earth.

I suggest going full circle to this post and posts after this. 

There is no Common Ancestor. 

No Tree, It may be a Web.

Reality of Fossils

Actual Fossils, and what they are, and what conclusions are been derived from it.

Evolution and Devolution( Whales)

Instant transformation (cataplier and butterfly) 

Its  the "Mutant" Evolution is a Theory of Delusion.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S.M.H.A. said:

I suggest going full circle to this post and posts after this. 

There is no Common Ancestor. 

No Tree, It may be a Web.

Reality of Fossils

Actual Fossils, and what they are, and what conclusions are been derived from it.

Evolution and Devolution( Whales)

Instant transformation (cataplier and butterfly) 

Its  the "Mutant" Evolution is a Theory of Delusion.  

 

 

 

You arent really giving responses to anything, youre just kind of moving on to other topics. Like, what is your response to my last post? That there isnt a tree of life, but rather its a web of life? Ok? Thats not really a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Relatedness isnt simply about what living things are made of. It is the patterns found in that relatedness that is the focus of all the articles you posted.

The patterns identified in our genes indicate common ancestry.

Your last post, is utilizing, "Indicate"

"Common ancestry"

Provide concrete proof, Is their a Common Ancestor? 

No, maybe , possibly, we may find it to prove our delusion. 

Provide Proof. Who is it, what do you know about it. (ONLY tangible, solid proof, no man made delusions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Your last post, is utilizing, "Indicate"

"Common ancestry"

Provide concrete proof, Is their a Common Ancestor? 

No, maybe , possibly, we may find it to prove our delusion. 

Provide Proof. Who is it, what do you know about it. (ONLY tangible, solid proof, no man made delusions)

The proof is in the patterns. For example, DNA patterns match those of comparative anatomy.

The conclusion is that anatomy is a product of our DNA. We know this is true.

Ok. So whats next?

Patterns of comparative anatomy, and patterns in genetics, match patterns of the fossil succession and biogeography.

The conclusion here is also pretty straight forward. Fossils are bones, comparable to bones used in understanding comparative anatomy.  Fossils (their traits) of prehistoric life, were also a product of genetics.

Also, straight forward, and simple. And true.

DNA changes through time. Common ancestors (like our parents) give birth to us, our DNA is slightly different than our parents, and so our comparative anatomy and morphology is slightly different as well. Also straight foward, well understood, true. There are no questions about this, its just the way it is.

Now, the conclusion, DNA changes, therefore comparative anatomy changes, therefore fossils through time change.

And thats it. That is all there is to evolution. It is all very straight foward, it is simple, and it is well understood.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we understand this simple and straight foward truth.

image.thumb.jpeg.4e6330c46ff60a15557519c879261351.jpeg

 

It becomes as clear as day, that fossils through time are a direct depiction of genetics through time, ie evolution. Fossils, and DNA and comparative anatomy, all show oder of common descent.

Now, the example of common ancestry. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in the fossil succession. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in comparative anatomy. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in genetics.

Therefore, the only conclusion that any rational person could have, is that reptiles, or more specifically, species or a species of reptile, is the common ancestor of both birds and mammals.

 

 

 

Every proposition is known, is clear, understood and true. Therefore the conclusion is known. The conclusion being that common descent is a reality of life. ie mankind evolved from prehistoric apes.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest challenge in this discussion, isnt about whether biological evolution is a reality or not. The challenge is whether or not people are willing to accept it.

I can throw a rock into the air and it can fall and land on the ground. But people do not have to accept that it was gravity that pulled that rock down. Regardless of if gravity is proven, if people do not want to accept that it exists, that is just the way it will be and they will not accept it. They may not have any alternative explanation for the existence of gravity, but it doesnt matter, if they dont want to believe in it, then they wont. Regardless of any evidence that demonstrates its existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

The proof is in the patterns.

I like you to remember this that there are patterns. Nothing is happening by Chance or is s random event. 

*****

Second, 

Page 16 , 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234989658-the-theory-of-evolution/?page=16&tab=comments#comment-3075157

Who is this common ancestor?

Any hard evidence to prove its existence? Or it's just Theory based on speculation.(fill in the gap situation, we really do not know or have any evidence for it, let’s fill in the gap) like the constants utilized in other theories, to make the equation work. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart. except for the mechanic or procedure or change or growth or whatever word we want to assign it. 

Case Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof was given.

I think you just dont want to accept it. And I dont think there is any evidence you could ever be given that could convince you.

You have not rationally  disputed any of the propositions. Nor have you described why those propositions are insufficient in formulating the conclusion. You are simply irrationally rejecting it all.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

The proof was given.

I think you just dont want to accept it. And I dont think there is any evidence you could ever be given that could convince you.

You have not rationally  disputed any of the propositions. Nor have you described why those propositions are insufficient in formulating the conclusion. You are simply irrationally rejecting it all.

"The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/

We are not discussing Philosophy/Religion. 

*****

Kindly, go back to Page 16 and Read all my posts.

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you are ready to actually respond to my posts, let me know.

Otherwise, I'll be on my way.

The good news is, the war is already won. We already have established truth in biological evolution and common descent, its foundations go back 200-300 years and have only advanced since. So, i have nothing to prove here. I'll just continue to watch the deniers uncomfortably squirm as more and more evidence is uncovered, as it has since the olden days of darwin. The scientists know whats going on and that's good enough for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can live well with "Evolution is the change in the relative frequency of alleles in a population over time". this is an exact science since it can be replicated in lab.

but human being originated from last common ancestor (LCA) is not yet an exact science, IMO.

Are we going to be able to recognize the LCA when we find it?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 11:51 PM, hoskot said:

i can live well with "Evolution is the change in the relative frequency of alleles in a population over time". this is an exact science since it can be replicated in lab.

but human being originated from last common ancestor (LCA) is not yet an exact science, IMO.

Are we going to be able to recognize the LCA when we find it?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

Human evolution and common descent is just as much as an exact science, as the evolution and common descent of any other life form. And if we did find bones of that ancestor, we could very well not even know it, as there were likely many similar species like it, living in similar times. Right now, sahelanthropus seems to be championed as one of the oldest transitionals holding close relation to our shared ancestor. But 10 years from now, who knows what other fossils will be found that may give a more clear picture.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Human evolution and common descent is just as much as an exact science, as the evolution and common descent of any other life form.

i take this to mean there are "missing links" everywhere, most apparent at the upper branches of the tree of life.

13 hours ago, iCambrian said:

And if we did find bones of that ancestor, we could very well not even know it, as there were likely many similar species like it, living in similar times. Right now, sahelanthropus seems to be championed as one of the oldest transitionals holding close relation to our shared ancestor. But 10 years from now, who knows what other fossils will be found that may give a more clear picture

sound not very reassuring to me. but let's wait and see.

anyway, i'm not a scientist. but your comment "the war is already won", just caught my attention.

i don't deny science. at the same time, i don't take science as a religion. it's not fraud-free to me.

a case in point is a challenge dated 15/2/2017, issued by wordmercuryproject aimed at putting an end to including mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin found to be 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally which can be found in the link below:

https://worldmercuryproject.org/press-release/robert-f-kennedy-jr-announces-the-world-mercury-projects-100000-challenge-with-goal-of-stopping-use-of-highly-toxic-mercury-in-vaccines/

and the responses, so far, to the challenge is in the link:

https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/entries-for-the-challenge/

sorry if this is a digression to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hoskot

Missing links is desceptive in it's name. They are no more missing than baby pictures in a family album (can't have an infinite number of pictures for every second of life, and even if we did, there would be half-second "missing links" in the album). No matter how many fossils are found, opponents will continue to say "there are missing links".

im not sure what the second part of your post is referring to but I'll take a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 9:47 AM, hasanhh said:

Ive heard a few studies now, coming out with the same line of thought.  People are just sort of chasing the fossils i suppose, chasing them around back in time. I guess we will see, what comes of it.  Finding fossils though in southern europe, may cause people to redirect the locations of their searches, which could result in more of the same sort of findings.

thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 10:44 AM, hasanhh said:

cool stuff, thanks. Its always interesting getting a glimpse, almost back in time.  Now if only we could find a T rex, or something similar.

Sometimes i feel like, horseshoe crabs are really cool, just because they resemble some of the earliest fossils that are known.  Its cool just seeing its compound eyes in particular. Just like early trilobites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salaaam Alaykum,    So I have a SoundCloud for my fav latmiyah for Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. InshaAllah i might even go for a premium account in the future and let me know how they are For Arabic and Farsi -  click below   For Urdu - click below   THANK YOU AND TAKE CARE YA'LL 
    • Salam. Umn al-Baneen AS is well known for her love and loyalty toward the Holy Prophet SA, Fatima Zahra AS, Imam Ali AS, Imam Hassan AS, and Imam Hussein AS. No doubt that Imam Ali AS loved her because she loved Ahlul Bayt AS.  http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/37432-umm-al-baneen-sa/
    • Members are unaware of many inappropriate posts that banned members made in the past, because Moderators removed those posts from the forums. 
    • Guest Zahra
      Salam! Did Imam Ali (as) love Um al baneen like he loved Fatima al zahra? Or did he marry her just so that she could take care of Imam Hussein and imam Hassan? 
    • Hi Mosa, Thanks for your reply! Sorry to say we have not received your email, might be due to a maintenance that our SMTP server was running. Please Contact me on my temporary email for any urgent issues : techie.world99@gmail.com Thanks
×