Evolution is a Religious Issue

Well, randman, it is great that you retract one unsubstantiated claim. But why in the world would you replace it with a different unsubstatiated claim?So, here we go: I contest your data. There is no study that compares humans with mice and nematodes using the same methodology and comes to the conclusion that the genome of nematodes is more closely related to the human genome than the mouse genome is related to the human genome.Remember randman that 'media reports' do not really qualify as a source for scientific data. Otherwise we would have conclusive evidence that Elvis lives, Jesus appeared in Oklahoma and on the moon at the same time and that aliens are abducting every farmer in the midwest to give them an anal probe.Edit: Inserted final paragraph.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 06:20 PM

Randman, great that you changed it. However, I still question your data. Can you actually give us a real source that claims that the genomic difference from human to mouse is the same as the genomic difference from humans to fruit flies?Btw. the Chimp genome has been sequenced and the results are available publicly. A paper discribing the results is expected in late spring/early summer. For more info click click here.Edit: Added last paragraph.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 07:18 PM

Randman, you are missing the point. The enzymes are functionally interachangeable, they just differ in their sequence. So, the mollusc enzymes of the Krebs Cycle would work just fine in humans and vice versa, just like the Chimp enzymes of the Krebs Cycle would work in humans. Yet, the similarities in sequence follow the relatedness of the species.

The funny thing is, Randman, something like you describe happens all the time. It is called convergent evolution. Organisms that end up leading similar lives end up developing similar physical characteristics.Oddly enough, though, even though their morphology is simlar (driven by the environment) they do not share genetic similarity. For example, a dolphin is genetically more closely related to other mammals than to fish, even though dolphins and fish live in similar environments and share a number of physical traits. Just type in 'convergent evolution' into your search engine of choice and read up on the multitude of examples you will find.

Randman, you ask too much. If I was able to determine exactly the genetic program responsible for growing a dolphins fin (or a human arm) then I would certainly not waste my time on this board. I'd be giving talks everywhere and think about my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.It appears to me that we are jumping around all over the place. Maybe we should finish up some aspects of the discussion before we get to a new topic, right? Otherwise I might get the feeling that you just keep on pulling new ideas out of the limitless hat for me to answer, without you actually reflecting on the answers that I am giving.

No, they have not published their findings, yet. However, there are other ways to compare genomes without having a complete genome sequence. In fact, the earliest comparisons were made before we were even able to sequence genomes.

Well, let's just finish up first if closer related species actually have more similar genomes. For example something along the lines of humans-chimps-mice-flies-yeast-bacteria. So that way we can put to rest the objections you found on this weird anti-Darwinism site that seemed to be full of mis-information.

Alright, so first we have to establish a way to actually get at true closest relations without the use of DNA sequencing and without convergent evolution getting in the way.Fortunately, the cladistic system was established before the advent of DNA sequencing, so we actually have such a system. Classic cladistics looks for similarities and differences in organisms in order to determine how closely they are related. They might not always get things completely right, but they certainly can get close.And the idea is to not only look for general morphological markers: i.e. has wings, does not have wings or lives in water vs. does not live in water, since these physical attributes can easily be the cause of thhe animal living in water or in the air.So, we examine as many external and internal markers as possible. With this data, independent of any DNA analysis we come to the conclusion that humans and chimps are very similar. And even though we are different from a mouse, we do share a number of characteristics: we give birth to live young, we nurse them, we have four limbs, we have a jaw, a cranium, skeleton, ... Using these methods we also find that dolphins, even though they live in the water are more closely related to other mammals than to fish. For example dolphins have flippers (bones covered with skin) while fish do not, dolphins have lungs like mammals, not gills like fish, dolphins give birth to live young and nurse, fish do not, and the list is endless. So, using this system we can find that all mammals seem to be closely related. Interestingly, there is a group of animals that has a placenta like mammals, but differs in a number of other ways: the marsupials. Using similar characteristics, we can determine that marsupials are related to mammals, but it appears that marsupials are more closely related in their group while mammals are more closely related within their group. I.e. a kangoroo is more closely related to a wombat than to a cow or a mouse is more closely related to a cow than to an wallaby.Can we agree on this so far?Edit: Alright, I gotta run. Please, give this a good read and think about it. If you have questions, you can check out cladistics on the web and see if it makes sense to you. Also, if you don't agree, be specific, does the dolphin vs fish/mammals make no sense or does the mammals/marsupials make no sense, ... and if it does not make sense, exactly what causes it to make no sense. I will get back to you on this. But if it does make sense, then I will take it from there a little later tonight or tomorrow. Cheers.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 09:17 PM

Randman, I do not want to necessarily disregard what you posted, but to come to an understanding, I think it would be helpful if you stay within the confines of the examples that I gave. Especially, since I did not use terms liek 'theorized ancestors', 'closely related cousins', 'common descent' or 'fossil record'.Essentially, I asked very specific questions: Do you think that with the methodology I described (one that does not rely on genetics) we can determine the relatedness between species. Specifically, I asked whether you agree that a dolphin should be related closer to other mammals than to fish and if marsupials among each other should be closer related that marsupials with mammals.I know that in your post you brought up questions that may or may not question DNA as a measure of common descent, but before we get to that we have to see on which points we agree or do not agree. So, sorry if I kinda disregard your message 300, but please come back to my message 295 and lets see specifically on which points we agree and on which points we disagree. Only that way will we actually make any headway.