Why We Don't Look Like Chimps: Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God. "Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural se******n have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Racmanaz wrote:

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural se******n have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from... (show quote)

More poo being slung by Rac...

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural se******n have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from... (show quote)

Ridiculous bulls**t from rac. http://thewaronbulls**t.com/2008/05/08/intelligent-design-not-very-intelligent/

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

http://vimeo.com/102354414

Chimp DNA

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

http://vimeo.com/102354414

Chimp DNA

Unintelligent design. http://thewaronbulls**t.com/2008/05/08/intelligent-design-not-very-intelligent/

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

http://vimeo.com/102354414

Chimp DNA

Your creation bulls**t is just silly. Your creation institute bulls**t is just that, bulls**t. Your creation friends are lying through their teeth. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

RixPix wrote:

More poo being slung by Rac...

Typical

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Racmanaz wrote:

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural se******n have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from... (show quote)

OMG this is just asinine. No one (other than the creationists) believe that evolutionary theory says that we emerged from chimps. We evolved in parallel with chimps and the other primates.

Your great uncle is not your father and your second cousin is not your sibling.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

RixPix wrote:

More poo being slung by Rac...

Speaking of poo, that sounds like one of the nicer terms from your neighbors about your family.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Bazbo wrote:

OMG this is just asinine. No one (other than the creationists) believe that evolutionary theory says that we emerged from chimps. We evolved in parallel with chimps and the other primates.

Your great uncle is not your father and your second cousin is not your sibling.

Not in your case. Little thommy, nak nak, green, Rixie Trixie, Bozo Spazobo, Silver Heels and most liberals can see their offspring in the local zoo.

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

"Why We Don't Look Like Chimps"... or hamsters, anteaters or dogs-

Because we aren't on that branch of the evolutionary tree.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bazbo wrote:

OMG this is just asinine. No one (other than the creationists) believe that evolutionary theory says that we emerged from chimps. We evolved in parallel with chimps and the other primates.

Your great uncle is not your father and your second cousin is not your sibling.

Nobody in this article said we came from chimps. She was making the case that if we are so genetically similar to chimps, why do we look so different.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Racmanaz wrote:

Nobody in this article said we came from chimps. She was making the case that if we are so genetically similar to chimps, why do we look so different.

In an embarrassing facial recognition program, the first lady was "recognized" as ...well... I didn't make this up. And the program was looking for things and made an honest mistake. Frankly, I think Gorillas are better looking, so I don't consider it an insult expect perhaps to them- and I'd rather spend time with any of them then her- but that is beside the point.

I suppose the question could conversely be, why don't chimps look more like us? Why did their face undergo the evolution from our common ancestor on the path it did, when our ancestors, such as Neanderthals look so much like us?

Why do fetuses look exactly like other animals- even non mammals at a similar stage?

Why didn't aliens do it, I mean they built the pyramids after all.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/25/google.michelle.obama.controversy-2/

http://superselected.com/google-photos-identifies-black-people-as-gorillas-this-isnt-the-first-time-facial-recognition-software-has-struggled-with-black-features/

http://recode.net/2015/06/30/machine-learning-is-hard-google-photos-has-egregious-facial-recognition-error/

OldDoc Loc: New York

Evolution via changes in cis-regulatory changes (enhancers) hasn't been an important idea for 40 years, so knocking it down is like knocking down the idea that there is a homunculus in every cell - true, but pointless. Here is a link to a more current view: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826491/. What you are doing is the classic strawman tactic, and it won't work.

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the t***sition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural se******n have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html

Just another scientific evidence for Creation from... (show quote)

Corny and do I mean corny. Just another attempt by a puppet clown with an inferiority complex to push Design Institute's false propaganda to make him look important. Another failure.
_______
He does this "new post" thing every time a previous ridiculous post is hammered into the ground by rational individuals, and so he feels the need to start all over again to avoid the flack. He, and his posts, are truly embarrassments.

No one actually takes him seriously, as he is not believable.