Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

I do believe that years ago @Audie used a desktop, or a laptop at the very least. Her spelling, punctuation and usage was flawless. Now she is using a phone or a tablet at best and those devices do not lend themselves as well to precision with the English language. I can sympathize since my tablet's autocorrect is so bad that I called it "autowrong" and turned it off. And it still changes words. At least now when it does if I catch it and backspace it goes back to the original spelling. When I use my table it is much harder to find sources and link them (Bing sucks) .

But yes, I was having fun with her typo. I knew what she meant, but picturing the Ark with brakes was too funny not to use.

Worse than you thought!

Actually, a phone, two different tablets (samsing and ipad) three different desktops
and a macbook. They all have different tricks.
Samsung at the moment.

Plus terrible proofreader. A bit of dyslexia and I just look at the
shape of words.

I see ark brakes looking like side wheel steamboat things.

My ex boyfriend was into guns and mentioned that people
get mixed up about breaks and brakes on guns?

Dunno what that was about but he thought it was funny.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't understand. You say there are many genes that are similar, but the chromosomes look quite different. I need a better explanation than that. I appreciate you showed me graphs of the cat genes and human genes, they look similar but certainly not like duplicates. The cat genes and human genes are obviously not exact in looks, therefore I figure that the genes in the cat are not in humans, despite someone being called a "cat lady," and there are more genes anyway in humans that may or may not look like genes that are in the cat, but humans have more than the cat. So other than a mountain in Africa looks similar but different from a mountain in Colorado, I don't see that humans have 38 is it? cat genes plus some more for humans. I'm not ready to give up though. You say many have the same genes. They do? Can you show me that? Many what have the same genes anyway? Many cats have the same genes as other cats? or what...

Remember that genes are stretches of DNA that encode for proteins. The genes are in the chromosomes.

So, for example, hemoglobin is a protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Both cats and humans have hemoglobin, but there are slight differences in the sequence of amino acids in the protein (and hence differences in the DNA--slightly different genes). The gene for hemoglobin is on chromosome 11 in humans. I wasn't able to find out which chromosome it is on in cats.

There are also genes for proteins that help digest food. Again, those are very similar in both cats and humans.

And, in fact, the vast majority of genes will be the same for both cats and humans: they code for proteins that do the same thing in humans and in cats--structural proteins, like collagen, digestive proteins, like the serine proteases, etc.

The other aspect of this is that chromosomes tend to have a LOT of non-coding pieces: stretches of DNA that don't code for any proteins, or, for that matter, not for anything at all. Sometimes, these are genes for proteins that have been permanently 'turned off' and have afterwards mutated to the point of uselessness. Other places are long stretches of repeating cododn that seem to be more structural.

It is actually these non-coding regions that are the biggest differences between the chromosomes of cats and humans. Again, the chromosomes are how the genes are stored. There are NOT 38 'cat chromosomes' in humans, even though the genes they store are often similar. They are arranged differently and genes that are on the same chromosome for cats may well be on different ones in humans (and vice versa).

 

[Polymath257]

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

That 'march of progress' picture is a trope: it doesn't actually reflect how evolution happens.

Cats have their own line of evolution, as does every other species.

And, yes, cats and humans have a LOT of similar genes, as do all mammals. There are more similarities between closely related species (say cats and tigers) than those that are less related (say cats and humans). And, as we go to different *types* of animals the differences get larger (birds differ quite a bit from both cats and humans, with cats and humans more similar to each other than to birds).

And, in fact, it is the *pattern* of similarities that is one of the pieces of evidence for evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

I recognized that, given I post from handheld device myself. I know that autowrong function well too. I spend considerable time editing and don't catch them all. Sometimes, I forget to check an entire post. One recent example changed something to the word pejorative as well as a number of errors that I could not fix since too much time had elapsed and editing was turned off. Reminds me that sometimes while editing I find strange words and can't remember what I had actually intended. Once, by chance, the correction was an entirely different word with a slightly different meaning that actually worked better. But most make the sentences look like nonsense or drunk posting. Sometimes they are funny.

I thought brakes on the ark were pretty funny too. A magical, mythical boat. Why can't it have brakes? Maybe a cool spoiler to. For high speed stability.

My biggest problem is that my keyboard driver is a bit wonky on my laptop. Evidently, the computer gets busy and either misses a few characters or repeats a character several times. I end up having to go back and look for red underlines, which means I often miss words that are 'correct' but not the one intended.

I also tend to write while looking at the keyboard and only looking at the screen every line or so. That also tends to multiply errors.

Plus, I am not as good of a proofreader as I should be. I often hit 'Post Reply' and then realize how poorly the text reads.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

How is it that, after all this time and all those conversations you've had on this topic with people answering your questions, clarifying things for you, correcting your misunderstandings etc etc... your knowledge on this subject is still so embarassingly small to the point of being almost non-existant?

And how is it, that while you actually admit to this yourself by your own initiative, that you feel like you are justified in arguing against it?


Why o why? How o how?

 

[tas8831]

Mine does that too. It also adds letters and words to the of a sentence, after the period, when I start a new paragraph. Sometimes, it I accidentally hit a letter instead of the space bar, it creates an entirely new word where there should have been two different words.

Edit. It also likes some two letter words more than others and insists on using its favorites. Like it instead of if in the third sentence above.

Second edit. Leaving end off of 'end of a sentence' above was my error. Can't blame them all on the technology.

I hate that.
I don't use a tablet, but my phone's auto'correct' will arbitrarily delete words. If I accidentally drag my thumb across several keys, and 'write' a random assemblage of letters, it will insert the word it thought I wanted to type, but leave the random assemblage of letters.
It also suggests totally unrelated words if I catch a typo I made - weird stuff like suggesting "intractable" if I typed "infnt"...

Technology is out to make us crazy.

 

[tas8831]

I also tend to write while looking at the keyboard and only looking at the screen every line or so. That also tends to multiply errors.

Oh man - I taught myself to type on a Sunday afternoon in 1983 - the day before my senior Social Studies thesis was due. I hand wrote the paper in about 2 hours, then it took me about 10 hours to type it (on an actual typewriter) - and I looked at the keys the whole time.

So now, I actually type pretty quickly, but by looking at the keyboard. When I look at what I've written, there are inevitably a dozen or so typos, especially where my brain moves more quickly than my fingers - lots or 'inverted' sets of letters (teh instead of the is a classic).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct.
In the future, we see a city 1500 miles tall and about half the size of the continental USA that has no need of the light from the sun. Why? Because God is the Light there. Jesus is the Light and He was right there creating and hovering over the sea at the time.


Time existed before God created the earth in six days.
Time is just something we became aware of after we were created here. As mentioned above the Light was here and moving/hovering above. So before the sun was put there, we had moving light over the earth!


Correct. They had the best Light in the universe. Algae was not needed.

Correct. He had already created light here. There was light before the sun. You see science does not know where the origin of light is. They do not know where it's 'house' is.
Don't take my word, here is the Almighty Himself telling you in His Own words!

Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
There were no stars. Earth was here first.
As mentioned above we had the Light moving over the planet.

It is right there in the second verse in the bible!
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



Right, they did not get put here till after the sun was here.


Man and animals were created day 6. The fish and birds the day before.


There is nothing you know that is contrary. Your religious wrong dates and misconception of what the fossil record is all about lead you to make models of the past that are fantasy.

The whole universe will soon go dark because of things man has done and God has to do in response. All the stars, and the sun and moon. God is moving to earth forever because of us. The governments of this world will all be overthrown completely because of believers being saved by Jesus. God will remake the earth into a paradise for us to live with Him here forever. God is making a whole new universe for us. For science to paint man as insignifcant is wicked.

Sounds like fairy tales to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

This is an extremely simplified diagram that doesn't accurately depict the processes involved. I'm not even sure it's used anymore.

You're better off sticking with the detailed explanations that scientific-minded posters have provided for you instead. Or try Googling some academic sites on the subject.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh man - I taught myself to type on a Sunday afternoon in 1983 - the day before my senior Social Studies thesis was due. I hand wrote the paper in about 2 hours, then it took me about 10 hours to type it (on an actual typewriter) - and I looked at the keys the whole time.

So now, I actually type pretty quickly, but by looking at the keyboard. When I look at what I've written, there are inevitably a dozen or so typos, especially where my brain moves more quickly than my fingers - lots or 'inverted' sets of letters (teh instead of the is a classic).

I typed my math dissertation on an old typewriter, switching out the balls to get the math fonts. Fortunately, my dissertation was short (23 pages).

I now type with multiple fingers, but while watching the keyboard, occasionally looking up to make sure the typing is working.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My biggest problem is that my keyboard driver is a bit wonky on my laptop. Evidently, the computer gets busy and either misses a few characters or repeats a character several times. I end up having to go back and look for red underlines, which means I often miss words that are 'correct' but not the one intended.

I also tend to write while looking at the keyboard and only looking at the screen every line or so. That also tends to multiply errors.

Plus, I am not as good of a proofreader as I should be. I often hit 'Post Reply' and then realize how poorly the text reads.

When I type I look at my screen, not at my keys. That makes it much easier for me to catch mistakes. I have made three already, waiting for the morning coffee to kick in. I often find that the standard word set in whatever source my desktop uses for its spell check is woefully inadequate. For example this word always gets a red underline "subduction" So sometimes when I get the red underline and look it up I don't have to change anything. I still do not type nearly as fast as some of the posters here. But it is several times the speed I get on my tablet.

 

[YoursTrue]

That 'march of progress' picture is a trope: it doesn't actually reflect how evolution happens.

Cats have their own line of evolution, as does every other species.

And, yes, cats and humans have a LOT of similar genes, as do all mammals. There are more similarities between closely related species (say cats and tigers) than those that are less related (say cats and humans). And, as we go to different *types* of animals the differences get larger (birds differ quite a bit from both cats and humans, with cats and humans more similar to each other than to birds).

And, in fact, it is the *pattern* of similarities that is one of the pieces of evidence for evolution.

I really appreciate your consideration and kindness in answering my questions, dumb as I am. I don't understand much of it, with the dna stretching and proteins, etc. When you say cats and humans have a lot of similar genes, I want to ask, are these genes exactly alike? (Too bad they can't take the similar genes, put them in a testtube and try to see if and how they evolve, or form different structures. Oh, well.) But back to the charts. Yes, they have explained how scientists (?) figure they are from the same lineage. Actually, silly as it sounds, humans do not resemble fish.
But I respect your wisdom and knowledge about these things, so thanks for putting up with me, and thanks for your answers. (Although I do have that little maybe last nitty-gritty question about if the cat's dna is like human dna in its exactitude, if that can be. By that I mean I figure each cat's dna may be slightly different from the other.) And thanks again.

 

[Polymath257]

I really appreciate your consideration and kindness in answering my questions, dumb as I am. I don't understand much of it, with the dna stretching and proteins, etc. When you say cats and humans have a lot of similar genes, I want to ask, are these genes exactly alike? (Too bad they can't take the similar genes, put them in a testtube and try to see if and how they evolve, or form different structures. Oh, well.) But back to the charts. Yes, they have explained how scientists (?) figure they are from the same lineage. Actually, silly as it sounds, humans do not resemble fish.
But I respect your wisdom and knowledge about these things, so thanks for putting up with me, and thanks for your answers. (Although I do have that little maybe last nitty-gritty question about if the cat's dna is like human dna in its exactitude, if that can be. By that I mean I figure each cat's dna may be slightly different from the other.) And thanks again.

How similar the genes are depends on how closely related the species involved are as well as whether changes make the gene unworkable.

So, for example, myoglobin is a protein in muscles that helps to store oxygen. A human myoglobin and a cat myoglobin will be very similar, but not identical. Myoglobin also is similar to the pieces of hemoglobin (there are four units in hemoglobin, each of which is similar, but different than myoglobin. All still carry oxygen). And cat hemoglobin will be different than human hemoglobin, although still similar.

But, in all of these, the part of the protein that actually holds on to the oxygen will be identical: it is called a conserved region. Changes to this small part make it so that the protein can't hold on to the oxygen, so it loses its function (and may even be deadly).

Other parts of the molecule are much more variable. As long as the differences aren't too great, there is no harm or benefit from the changes.

That said, some places can be deadly in other ways. So, for example, hemoglobin in humans can have a variation that makes the hemoglobin molecules stick together. They form long chains when they do so, changing the shape of the blood cell. This is the basis of sickle-cell anemia. One change in one location is enough to cause this disease. But it is in exactly the place and type to make the molecules stick together abnormally. I couldn't find a reference for sickle-cell anemia in cats, but I did find one for dogs.

Finally, yes, just like human DNA has small changes from person to person, so cat DNA has differences from cat to cat. There are individual differences. Some of these are genetic diseases, but some have no ill effects at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

@polymath, speaking of which, I don't understand dna either, so I would like to see a SIMPLE explanation of what it is and what it looks like, both human dna and cat dna, since cat dna is in the conversation, although I'd be willing to look at chimpanzee dna. I am guessing that high powered electron microscopes can 'see' dna?? When I took biology in college I was discouraged because I couldn't focus the elementary microscope on whatever it was the instructor wanted the class to look at and I didn't ask for special attention. But now that I'm older and wiser, yes, I can ask doctors, etc., more questions if I need to. Let's put it this way: when I don't understand something my doctor says, I'll call the office and ask for more answers. Then I use my thinking ability (whatever is left of it, but frankly I think it's greater than when I was in h.s. and college) to make a decision.

 

[YoursTrue]

How similar the genes are depends on how closely related the species involved are as well as whether changes make the gene unworkable.

So, for example, myoglobin is a protein in muscles that helps to store oxygen. A human myoglobin and a cat myoglobin will be very similar, but not identical. Myoglobin also is similar to the pieces of hemoglobin (there are four units in hemoglobin, each of which is similar, but different than myoglobin. All still carry oxygen). And cat hemoglobin will be different than human hemoglobin, although still similar.

But, in all of these, the part of the protein that actually holds on to the oxygen will be identical: it is called a conserved region. Changes to this small part make it so that the protein can't hold on to the oxygen, so it loses its function (and may even be deadly).

Other parts of the molecule are much more variable. As long as the differences aren't too great, there is no harm or benefit from the changes.

That said, some places can be deadly in other ways. So, for example, hemoglobin in humans can have a variation that makes the hemoglobin molecules stick together. They form long chains when they do so, changing the shape of the blood cell. This is the basis of sickle-cell anemia. One change in one location is enough to cause this disease. But it is in exactly the place and type to make the molecules stick together abnormally. I couldn't find a reference for sickle-cell anemia in cats, but I did find one for dogs.

Finally, yes, just like human DNA has small changes from person to person, so cat DNA has differences from cat to cat. There are individual differences. Some of these are genetic diseases, but some have no ill effects at all.

I understand and can comprehend that there are differences in DNA from cat to cat or person to person. Looking at the explanation of similarity of molecules, I can understand the idea that scientists put on the theory of evolution. What I can't get over yet is the idea that different "forms" have evolved that are more or less immutable. And again, despite the fact that I expect to be called ignorant, dumb, and a "creationist," by some here although I'm not reading many of their answers anymore, I just keep wondering why it is that lions are not evolving, or chimpanzees aren't evolving. The answers I have received is that there is not enough time for humans to observe that. And (shaking my head here) that doesn't set too well with me. I've read about the finches as well as the experiment done a while back with electrolytes I believe, but again -- to me it makes sense that God used whatever material He wanted to to make the heavens and the earth. And so just in case, to say, did God form a two-headed animal? No, I don't think so. Was that evolution? Again, no, I don't think so. Just as He permits humans to devise governments and other things, He permits things to happen now. But when I say I don't think so, He is the Grand Decider, and I look forward to seeing what happens to this earth if I live long enough. If not, again -- whatever happens, happens. I am thankful to know what I know now about God and the Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

@polymath, speaking of which, I don't understand dna either, so I would like to see a SIMPLE explanation of what it is and what it looks like, both human dna and cat dna, since cat dna is in the conversation, although I'd be willing to look at chimpanzee dna. I am guessing that high powered electron microscopes can 'see' dna?? When I took biology in college I was discouraged because I couldn't focus the elementary microscope on whatever it was the instructor wanted the class to look at and I didn't ask for special attention. But now that I'm older and wiser, yes, I can ask doctors, etc., more questions if I need to. Let's put it this way: when I don't understand something my doctor says, I'll call the office and ask for more answers. Then I use my thinking ability (whatever is left of it, but frankly I think it's greater than when I was in h.s. and college) to make a decision.

Well, DNA looks like a long double helix: two threads wrapped around each other forming a *long* strand. Each thread has nucleic acids (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine) along it and is paired with the other thread. So, on one thread, you might get a sequence adenine, thymine, thymine, cytosine, adenine, guanine, which we abbreviate as ATTCAG. On the other thread, the A will be opposite to a T, the C to a G, and vice versa. So the second thread for this sequence will have TAAGTC.

Each three nucleic acids will code for an amino acid, which makes up a protein. This genetic code is the same throughout all species known (except for the mitochondria inside of cells, which have a very slightly different code). So, the three nucleic acids that code for the amino acid histidine (CAC) will be the same in cats, birds, plants, fungi, etc.

You would not be able to tell the difference between cat and human DNA just by looking at the molecule of DNA. If you *knew* what a particular protein in cats and humans looks like and knew the differences in amino acids, you could tell that way, but that is pretty much what it takes. The DNA in both cases is made from the same building blocks, just arranged slightly differently.

The following might help:

DNA explained: Structure and function

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand and can comprehend that there are differences in DNA from cat to cat or person to person. Looking at the explanation of similarity of molecules, I can understand the idea that scientists put on the theory of evolution. What I can't get over yet is the idea that different "forms" have evolved that are more or less immutable. And again, despite the fact that I expect to be called ignorant, dumb, and a "creationist," by some here although I'm not reading many of their answers anymore, I just keep wondering why it is that lions are not evolving, or chimpanzees aren't evolving. The answers I have received is that there is not enough time for humans to observe that. And (shaking my head here) that doesn't set too well with me. I've read about the finches as well as the experiment done a while back with electrolytes I believe, but again -- to me it makes sense that God used whatever material He wanted to to make the heavens and the earth. And so just in case, to say, did God form a two-headed animal? No, I don't think so. Was that evolution? Again, no, I don't think so. Just as He permits humans to devise governments and other things, He permits things to happen now. But when I say I don't think so, He is the Grand Decider, and I look forward to seeing what happens to this earth if I live long enough. If not, again -- whatever happens, happens. I am thankful to know what I know now about God and the Bible.

They are evolving. We are still evolving. Lions, people, oaks, catfish, lizards, scarabs, water lillies, bacteria, etc. Living things are still evolving.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand and can comprehend that there are differences in DNA from cat to cat or person to person. Looking at the explanation of similarity of molecules, I can understand the idea that scientists put on the theory of evolution. What I can't get over yet is the idea that different "forms" have evolved that are more or less immutable. And again, despite the fact that I expect to be called ignorant, dumb, and a "creationist," by some here although I'm not reading many of their answers anymore, I just keep wondering why it is that lions are not evolving, or chimpanzees aren't evolving.

Well, the simple answer is that they *are* evolving. If you go back 1,000,000 years, the lions we see today didn't exist. Some other large cat existed instead. The same is true for chimps: the modern chimp didn't exist 1,000,000 years ago. But some other ape did that eventually evolved into chimps.

Your assumption that species are immutable is wrong. It's just that they change so slowly (usually), that there is very little change in the 5000 years of human writing. Remember that a mere 1 million years is 200 times as long as humans have had writing. And 1 million years is (usually) considered a *short* time period for evolution.

But we can use the fossil record and the genetics of species *today* and, to a limited extent, DNA acquired from fossils (if it isn't too degraded) to tell the genetic changes in species over time. And that *is* evolution.

The answers I have received is that there is not enough time for humans to observe that.

Precisely. We also haven't had the time to see changes in the sun. Those tend to happen over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand and can comprehend that there are differences in DNA from cat to cat or person to person. Looking at the explanation of similarity of molecules, I can understand the idea that scientists put on the theory of evolution. What I can't get over yet is the idea that different "forms" have evolved that are more or less immutable. And again, despite the fact that I expect to be called ignorant, dumb, and a "creationist," by some here although I'm not reading many of their answers anymore, I just keep wondering why it is that lions are not evolving, or chimpanzees aren't evolving. The answers I have received is that there is not enough time for humans to observe that. And (shaking my head here) that doesn't set too well with me. I've read about the finches as well as the experiment done a while back with electrolytes I believe, but again -- to me it makes sense that God used whatever material He wanted to to make the heavens and the earth. And so just in case, to say, did God form a two-headed animal? No, I don't think so. Was that evolution? Again, no, I don't think so. Just as He permits humans to devise governments and other things, He permits things to happen now. But when I say I don't think so, He is the Grand Decider, and I look forward to seeing what happens to this earth if I live long enough. If not, again -- whatever happens, happens. I am thankful to know what I know now about God and the Bible.

Macro mutations do occur. A two headed snake, a toad with eyes on the roof of its mouth instead of the top of its head. This is not evolution. These examples do not increase fitness and would not be preserved by selection to fix in a population so that population evolves.

 

[dad]

Sounds like fairy tales to me.

If your feelings and wisdom determined the future reality, some might care.