Are humans related to apes?

[Zzyzx]

.
Are humans related to apes?

Geneticists (people who study such things) tell us that H. sapiens have great genetic similarity to members of the taxonomic group Family: Hominidae (great apes).

This seems to offend some people or to contradict their religious beliefs.

On what basis can argument be made that the classification is in error?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 60 by Goose]

Wouldn’t we expect from evolution that all the primates are more similar to humans than non-primates?

Since evolution is about traits and not similarities, it may be a good rule to follow, however, with migrations to new environments and niches, genes not needed in one scenario, can come to dominance in another.

In other words, physical appearance, although a good indicator of genetic similarity, is not a conclusive assumption to make. For example, lemurs and lorisids are primates, but not related to monkeys.

[Difflugia]

I took the data you provided and collected similar COX2 data for some other organisms chosen at random (some primates, some not). I then used the alignment tool at UniProt to check for similarities in the sequences. The results were interesting to say the least.

...

Wouldn’t we expect from evolution that all the primates are more similar to humans than non-primates?

The short answer is that they are, but you don't have enough data for the exact comparison you're trying to make. If you're simply looking at a measure of similarity between two organisms (as here, you're ordering a list of organisms by their "similarity" to a human), you'll need a longer sequence (most researchers use a combination of several genes for these types of comparisons). Even here, if you were to include more organisms, you'd see patterns in your table that aren't apparent here. In that case, it would show you two things: first, that there's noise in the raw data and second, that through that noise, you'd see overlapping patterns of similarity. That's where the tree comes in.

If you're building a tree, then having a broader list of organisms would provide the extra data. Sticking one or two more distantly-related organisms in the tree, as you've done, will often lead to long branch attraction, particularly with a short sequence, like a single gene. Including enough organisms to limit the lengths that individual organisms will branch from each other will allow the algorithm to find more parsimonious branching points. As long as there are enough organisms to keep the branches short, then a single gene will still give you good trees. If you want to include organisms that are only distantly related to others in your tree, then you need a longer sequence.

There is noise in the data and you've shown that. If, as you imply, it's actually not noise, but a different (or competing) signal in the form of a different pattern, more data should make that signal more robust. Does it?

If common descent were true then we would expect all the primates to show a closer similarity to humans than the other non-primates. Certainly, if the theory were true, then we would expect the Wied’s marmoset, the Tufted capuchin, and the Bearded saki to show a markedly closer similarity to humans than the Iguana. On a purely logical basis, this is tantamount to falsification via modus tollens.

If this data holds, you are more closely related to a seal, whale, dog, horse, and rabbit than you are to numerous other primates. If the data holds you are even more closely related to an Iguana than you are to a Wied's marmoset, Tufted capuchin, and Bearded saki.

But if these data hold, then I'm more closely related to Old World monkeys than I am New World monkeys, which according to creationists, I shouldn't be. We should be at least three different kinds and have diverged the same amount since the creation. For the metric you're using, there's too much noise in the data to be conclusive.

It takes ad hoc explanations such as Horizontal Gene Transfer to explain away the contradictions in the data. When the evidence supports the theory, the evidence is good. When the evidence contradicts the theory, the evidence is bad and must have an explanation because the theory is true.

Now you've jumped to conclusions that you haven't justified. Where do you get "horizontal gene transfer" from? We're dealing with a single gene.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 60 by Goose]

Wouldn’t we expect from evolution that all the primates are more similar to humans than non-primates?

Since evolution is about traits and not similarities, it may be a good rule to follow, however, with migrations to new environments and niches, genes not needed in one scenario, can come to dominance in another.

In other words, physical appearance, although a good indicator of genetic similarity, is not a conclusive assumption to make. For example, lemurs and lorisids are primates, but not related to monkeys.

From the perspective of humans, the branch leading to the clade that includes lemurs and lorises is more distal than the point where monkeys and ultimately apes split off as a clade. We are less closely related to lemurs than we are to any monkeys, New or Old World, but we're more closely related to lemurs than to any non-primate mammals.

This link goes to an Open Access paper that did a molecular phylogeny of primates using 54 nuclear genes (as opposed to my single mitochondrial gene). It's still pretty close to what I got.

[Difflugia]

From the perspective of humans, the branch leading to the clade that includes lemurs and lorises is more distal...

Sorry... that should be basal, not distal.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Those who study geology and hydrology understand that erosion is predominantly fluvial (conducted by running water) and that the end destination of running water on continents is ocean basins. Thus, sediments carried by running water eventually are deposited in oceans – that constitute 71% of the Earth surface (a LOT of space for deposits).

Wow! That would be a whole lot of some type of sheet erosion to totally erode every inch of 1.2 billion years with of rock.

You know what could cause that much erosion over the entire planet? I got it, a worldwide flood could cause that much erosion. Did you ever think of that? I thought of that before.

But that is not the only problem. There are other layers of strata also missing from the rock record. Little known by most people, but what is familiar to most geologist, is that the rock record consists of a few epochs in which strata layers were deposited. Followed by hundred of millions of years in which there was no strata layers deposited across the Earth. The miraculous sheet erosion that stripped the earth of 1.2 billion years of rock periodically returns and strips the earth of millions of years rock. Do you think that we are due for another miraculous sheet erosion event?

You can believe in some miraculous sheet erosion event that has no known mechanism except for the belief of a few in some miraculous story of massive sheet erosion events.

It is much more likely that all of these layers were laid down at the same time and have nothing to do with geologic time.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 55 by SallyF]

In my experience, Christians almost NEVER discuss the details of biblical "Creation".

But they will discuss scientific evidence and theory at great length.

Would you care to give us the details behind the mud-man and his rib-woman good helper …

With the same level of demand for evidence …?

What details would you like to know?

How the layers of strata was laid down by a worldwide flood and the reason that there are huge gaps in the so called geologic record is because the layers of strata have nothing to do with time but how the flood laid down the eroded sediments from that much water moving across the Earth.

If you would like a more detailed explanation here is a whole book on the subject. It is a great read.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ngTOC.html

Or you can order Andrew Snellings book
Earth's Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, & the Flood
It is a two volume set that is quite technical.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 58 by Difflugia]

No, that's not what happened. I've been reading creationist apologetics for getting on thirty years now. What creationists "have been saying for a long time" is that evolution can't explain "junk" DNA. Their excuses have changed through the years, but that's their entire refrain about everything: "science can't explain x."

In contrast to the secularist view that expected “junk� to clutter the genome after eons of time, creationists had predicted that the all-wise Creator had designed amazing, functional complexity into DNA, as ENCODE is now confirming.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/j ... k-science/

[marco]

In contrast to the secularist view that expected “junk� to clutter the genome after eons of time, creationists had predicted that the all-wise Creator had designed amazing, functional complexity into DNA, as ENCODE is now confirming.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/j ... k-science/

He also seems to have designed cancers and placed in many people all sorts of malfunctions which our medical research workers are attempting to combat. It is curious that his faulty craftmanship has killed children at birth.

We learn a lot about uses of medicines from their effect on animals, which seems to indicate the Master Artisan used the same template for man and animal. If we are made in God's image, God has many flaws.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 56 by Zzyzx]

Okay, let's be biblical and stop Earth rotation -- and consider the results.

Quote:
If Earth Suddenly Stopped Spinning

Our atmosphere is rotating at the same rate Earth is spinning: approximately 1050 miles per hour at the equator, with the speed decreasing the further north or south you go from the equator.

If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, the atmosphere would still continue moving at 1050 miles per hour, and anything not attached to bedrock would be ripped off the surface of the planet. This includes rocks, trees, buildings, people — all thrown sideways at a speed of 1050 mph (at the equator). Could you imagine the oceans being pushed inland with that speed? Oceans would travel approximately 17 miles (28 kilometers) inland in just 60 seconds.

http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/ ... ped-spinni...

Ancient storytellers were not likely aware of these effects, so their stories could tell of the Earth stopping rotation so favored armies could win a battle. Modern people have access to more accurate information (though many may prefer to remain unaware).

Ok, you are really making the assumption that a Being that can slow the rotation of an entire planet and speed it up again can only affect the rate of spin of the planet and not every point in space around the planet also. To even slow the rotation of a planet would require action on every point on and in the body otherwise the planet would be torn apart.

Since God is at every point in the universe and beyond then it would be possible for Him to affect every point in space in and around the Earth. Therefore He could slow every molecule around Earth at the same rate make the Earth system slow at any negative acceleration or positive acceleration needed without anyone on Earth even noticing the acceleration positive or negative.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]

Scientists. Creationists are getting non-coding DNA mixed up Junk DNA.

Quote:
There was a time when scientist thought vestigial organs had not use in the Bible and creationist said just wait, you will find that they do have a use. Who was correct in that situation?

Scientists. Creationists are confused about vestigial organs that have been repurposed and does not function as they did in their ancestors.

Quote:
There was a time when it was thought that fossilization took millions of years and creationist said just wait there will be discovered a way that fossils can be formed in hundreds of years or less. Who was correct in that situation?

Scientists. Creationists are getting fossilization and mineralization mixed up.

Are you really suggesting that men and women with Doctorates in each one of the fields and who have taught at universities for years even secular universities are confused about what they are talking about?

Talk about a dodging an argument.