Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Genetic tests but one of the most ancient breeds the xolo (not the modern one which has been reconstructed) to 30k or more years. I can pm you a pdf if you want.
What most of the genetics suggest is that dogs have been domesticated multiple times in multiple places, not just one.
I don't doubt that is true, and I also believe that the dog was domesticated further back than we currently know with certainty. Yes, if you could pm the pdf, that would be great. Thanks.
The error of a blind mutation may change a factor for growth , but it not enough to build a complete homo sapiens from a complete neanderthal which is a different species and never came from a blind mutation of DNA which is a naturalism of atheism... but a divine selection of the Lord God created each of these species for different purposes ....like a horse and a donkey species
Really? And what purpose was that? (this should be good)
It is proven. Natural selection is a truth. By all probability we should have long been dead. Nevertheless, it is because that is a natural selection activity that life continues.
It is precisely disappointing that natural selection is a truth, not God, not laws of Nature which define the ordinary growth and decay of Becoming.
We may well be dead, and in fact (the evidence indicates) we came pretty close to it a couple of times. We can manipulate our environment and so largely eliminate those factors which would have led to near -extermination with the groups with the useful mutation being able to survive. But the time may come when our adaptation, technological or biological many not cope with conditions and it'll be bye- bye humankind.
And all the Bibles, churches and prayers won't do a thing to save us.
The error of a blind mutation may change a factor for growth , but it not enough to build a complete homo sapiens from a complete neanderthal which is a different species and never came from a blind mutation of DNA which is a naturalism of atheism... but a divine selection of the Lord God created each of these species for different purposes ....like a horse and a donkey species
Neanderthals were the same species as cro-magnon man (us).
The error of a blind mutation may change a factor for growth , but it not enough to build a complete homo sapiens from a complete neanderthal which is a different species and never came from a blind mutation of DNA which is a naturalism of atheism... but a divine selection of the Lord God created each of these species for different purposes ....like a horse and a donkey species
I can hardly understand what it is you're trying to say but it is quite evident you're arguing against that which you simply don't understand. The split between neanderthals and humans happened approximately 500,000 years ago and it is not thought that one came from the other. There is some proof that humans (homo sapiens) and neanderthals interbred with one another but those offspring did not appear to really "make it" and it's widely thought we eventually killed off the neanderthal species.
Furthermore, it would seem that most people don't understand codons and mutational changes. It's very simple really and a very basic expression would be the following:
DNA is made up of four chemicals (called nucleotides) - adenine, guanine, cystosine, and thymine represented as A,G,C,T. So, when researchers say they've "cracked the code" of our DNA or a certain species of animals' DNA, it's almost exactly equivalent to showing the 0's and 1's on a binary computer code. So, let's look at a sequence of DNA for the FOXP2 (forkhead box P2) gene, the gene many say is responsible for our language and thinking abilities:
As you'll notice, it's just like I said. AGCT is representative of the coding sequences for a specific gene. To further break things down, we can take a three letter sequence of that coding to determine what specific amino acids it is coding for. For example, the first three nucleotides in the FOXP2 gene are CTT. CTT is a codon for the amino acid leucine. Similarly, if there is a slight transcription error in the DNA coding, it is possible for CTT to become CTC and code for the same thing! In other words, CTT and CTC both code for leucine and this would be considered a synonymous mutation! Because they both code for the same thing (leucine) there would be no difference in the outcome.
In fact, any codon that starts with "CT" will ultimately code for leucine, meaning that any change to the amino acid at the final position will result in no change whatsoever.
However, it should be noted that changes at other parts of the sequence can become noticeably different. If, for example, CTT were to be mutated to TTT in an offspring, it would no longer code for leucine but for phenylalanine. This is what is called a non-synonymous mutation.
When geneticists look at mutational changes in a genome and associate it with population dynamics, this is what they're looking for. A change in the genetic sequence of non-synonymous mutations can either be positive or negative or neutral. By performing a "gene sweep" and looking at the prevalence of these non-synonymous mutations, one can determine if an alteration in the coding sequence had a positive or negative effect. If there were a better chance of survival for the organism coded for phenylalanine (TTT) rather than leucine (CTT) in that first spot of the FOXP2 gene, over time, the gene with that mutation would become more prevalent. That is what is called a positive ratio of non-synonymous mutation. If the presence of that codon had an overall negative effect on the organism, it would be considered a negative mutation... Or, if you prefer: a negative non-synonymous mutation. Similarly, if the change was neutral, negligible and showed no real difference between changes it would simply be called a neutral change.
The interesting thing about the FOXP2 gene is that humans and neanderthals both shared it, it is the same gene as far as we can tell, and it is considered to be largely responsible for rational thought and language in humans! Some claim that this made the neanderthals "human" enough to be considered human despite the other non-synonymous mutations in their genome.
See my above related post... For some reason the image link is no longer valid. This is just a repost of the image. Hopefully this one will stay.
I'd also like to note that this is not the full genetic sequence for the FOXP2 Gene. If I posted it, the image would probably take up a full page. But, if you're curious as to what it looks like, you can go here and search for "FOXP2 gene."
*I hope this question doesn't come across wrong, I don't have any bad intentions with it*
I think I understand the main mechanisms of evolution but there is one area that's a bit unclear to me, and that is the evolution (I don't know if that's the correct scientific term to use in this case) of humans into different ethnicities.
From what I understand, humans originate from Africa and later migrated to other parts of the world. I would assume these humans were black (or did they evolve to be that way later on?). I wonder how and why the physical features of these humans changed depending on the area they lived in, i.e. why did Europeans lose pigment and why do Asians have differently shaped eyes?
I can't think of a natural selection type of process that would explain it. What benefit does less pigment or narrower eyes (I mean the shape) bring to the survival of a species?
I am sure there is a logical explanation for it but I just haven't found it yet. Can anyone answer this for me?
P.S. Thank you Hueffenhart for writing such an eloquent explanation of evolution, that must have been a lot of work!
*I hope this question doesn't come across wrong, I don't have any bad intentions with it*
I think I understand the main mechanisms of evolution but there is one area that's a bit unclear to me, and that is the evolution (I don't know if that's the correct scientific term to use in this case) of humans into different ethnicities.
From what I understand, humans originate from Africa and later migrated to other parts of the world. I would assume these humans were black (or did they evolve to be that way later on?). I wonder how and why the physical features of these humans changed depending on the area they lived in, i.e. why did Europeans lose pigment and why do Asians have differently shaped eyes?
I can't think of a natural selection type of process that would explain it. What benefit does less pigment or narrower eyes (I mean the shape) bring to the survival of a species?
I am sure there is a logical explanation for it but I just haven't found it yet. Can anyone answer this for me?
P.S. Thank you Hueffenhart for writing such an eloquent explanation of evolution, that must have been a lot of work!
I believe that as humans migrated out of Africa to northern areas where there was less sunlight is what caused the pigment loss...Dark skin is a natural sunblock, and with less light they would not be absorbing enough vitamin D so gradually their skin lightened to compensate..
Asians have a characteristic narrow, almond-shaped eye shape. This adaptation probably evolved as protection against cold and windy conditions in northern Asia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
