Thread: Why Humans Are The Dominant Species

Hey, he was thirsty...

I wish I could do that....NOT THAT I WOULD

Originally Posted by Jeff777

And to think...our DNA is 99% similar to theirs.

The following is a quote from David DeWitt (full article linked).



1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists
believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two
small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere.
Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA)
of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10
kilobases long.

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show
evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these
chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being
remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences
because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line
up between the human and chimpanzee.

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in
particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two
genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are
specific to the human lineage.’

Originally Posted by Invader

The following is a quote from David DeWitt (full article linked).



1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists
believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two
small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere.
Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA)
of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10
kilobases long.

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show
evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these
chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being
remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences
because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line
up between the human and chimpanzee.

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in
particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two
genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are
specific to the human lineage.’

Interesting read, thanks.

Welcome. I thought the same upon first reading. Leads me to assume that we still know next to nothing about what the individual sequences actually do.
There's something called "junk DNA", which is a term that really means, "we just don't know what this does yet". It applies to most of our DNA at present, if I'm not mistaken.

But I'm no geneticist.
Not a bit.

Originally Posted by Invader

The following is a quote from David DeWitt (full article linked).



1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists
believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two
small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere.
Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA)
of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10
kilobases long.

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show
evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these
chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being
remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences
because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line
up between the human and chimpanzee.

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in
particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two
genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are
specific to the human lineage.’

That is interesting, but it sounds like the author is ignoring the fact that humans didn't descend directly from chimpanzees (Nakalipithecus and Ouranopithecus are really where the human divergence begins), but instead share common ancestors.

I'm fairly sure that the accepted evolutionary path of the human is:
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarnensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens (archaic)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens (modern)

So, with roughly 11 different species in between us and the great apes, it should be safe to assume that there would be key differences in our genetic structures, but then again, I too am not a geneticist.

Originally Posted by Invader

There's something called "junk DNA", which is a term that really means, "we just don't know what this does yet". It applies to most of our DNA at present, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually it really does appear to be junk DNA. Researchers in genetic engineering have literally deleted huge portions (entire chromosomes IIRC) of the junk DNA in mice, and the mice developed and lived completely normally -- the missing DNA caused absolutely no effect at all, positive or negative.

My goodness, thanks a MILLION for those videos. I haven't laughed so hard since I watched the 'Did you hit brain' Wolverine spoof somewhere in the Lounge.
I REALLY needed that laugh.

Poor mokey really had to pee. He was wizzing away for over 30 seconds and had a mouthful of urine. He could've gargled the stuff :puke:


As for the second video... the funny part was the monkey falling over AFTER he smelled his finger.
Please excuse my ... ??? lack of decorum and tact ... but do you know how many people I've known who scratch their balls or butt and then take a wiff. I think it's so second nature to some people they don't even realize they're doing it.
My hubby is the cleanest person I've ever met and when he's in bed he has that very problem. I always hide my smiles because he's very self-conscience, but I've always wondered WHY people do that. Now I have to wonder about that monkey too

**Edit**
I'm still smiling.
Thanks again

Originally Posted by DuB

Actually it really does appear to be junk DNA. Researchers in genetic engineering have literally deleted huge portions (entire chromosomes IIRC) of the junk DNA in mice, and the mice developed and lived completely normally -- the missing DNA caused absolutely no effect at all, positive or negative.

Under normal conditions, correct? I read up about a dormant gene we have that, once activated, would allow a human being to produce the protein retrocyclin, which in turn happens to reduce the effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus to nill. Maybe you can tell me about whether or not dormant genes are classified as junk DNA? They may be largely useless to us now, but the way I figure it (being uneducated in this field and so on) is that as least some of the junk DNA has it's functions for specific (and perhaps extreme) living conditions. I do understand that there's remarkable amount of the junk, and way more than might be necessary for what I propose, but it's just a thought.

Do you think it might have served a purpose at one point, or can strings of useless DNA develop over long periods of time in an active population without serving any purpose at all?

I've seen other vids of chimps drinking their piss, but...this one's got some amazing flexibility.

Reminds me of this video:

Originally Posted by Invader

Under normal conditions, correct? I read up about a dormant gene we have that, once activated, would allow a human being to produce the protein retrocyclin, which in turn happens to reduce the effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus to nill. Maybe you can tell me about whether or not dormant genes are classified as junk DNA? They may be largely useless to us now, but the way I figure it (being uneducated in this field and so on) is that as least some of the junk DNA has it's functions for specific (and perhaps extreme) living conditions. I do understand that there's remarkable amount of the junk, and way more than might be necessary for what I propose, but it's just a thought.

Do you think it might have served a purpose at one point, or can strings of useless DNA develop over long periods of time in an active population without serving any purpose at all?

I don't really know the answers to your questions -- just foggy recollections from my genetics class.

But an interesting thought if you subscribe to the gene-centric view of evolution (the most dominant view in the levels-of-selection debate) is that the "junk genes" have made a living as hitch hikers of sorts, replicating themselves entirely passively. Keeping in mind that the only real goal of genes (if we can for illustration's sake anthropomorphize genes as entities which have goals) is to replicate themselves, it's not an absolute requirement that the genes affect the phenotype of their host in order to accomplish this.

I do think it's very likely that the genes served an active purpose in the past, but as far as I know there's no reason to believe that most of it has any phenotypic effect today. (I don't know if so-called dormant DNA is classified as junk, but I suspect not.) Although the Wikipedia article lists some interesting ideas about origin and function.