m_nwankwo:

@tpaine
Since you appear to use scientific literature to buttress your points on evolution. I have a few questions for you

1. You claimed that their is overwhelming evidence to show that man evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. Please site scientific articles (not books) in peer refreed journals so that your claim can be checked out.

Humans and other apes share endogenous retroviral insertions. These endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) appear only in specific combinations that are only, reasonably, transferable through parentage.

The presence of chromosome no.2 in humans, is yet another evidence. There are others.

2. Does comparison of DNA between species show relatedness or evolution?

Thank you

Evolution. The incidence of nested heirarchies, amongst other things, indicates evolution has ocurred.

imhotep:

Evolution CANNOT explain the origin of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

um, yes it can. The specific interactions of neurons and prions in the brain, coupled with nerves serves for intelligence. Basically, the brain is key.

@KAG,

Thanks for your answers. Well, your qualified yor reference to ERVs by using the word "reasonably". Why will ERVs be transferable through parentage and not through Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)? The incidence of nested heirachies in a tree topology suggests a common ancestry. However it does not show as tpaine claims that humans decended from "pre-existing humanoid ancestors"

@KAG
I do not think you addressed Imhotep question. What he asked is how will you use evolution to explain human intelligence. Based on your answer, can one develop artificial intellegence comparable to humans ex vivo by putting neurons, prions, and nerves together. Secondary can you specifically define what you mean by interactions between neurons, prions and nerves?

m_nwankwo:

@KAG,

Thanks for your answers. Well, your qualified yor reference to ERVs by using the word "reasonably". Why will ERVs be transferable through parentage and not through Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)?

They have to occur in germline cells to become the genetic markers they have become. The odds of continued HGT causing the specific ervs in specific species in much the same way specified by the theory of evolution, is ridiculously astronomical and begs the question.

The incidence of nested heirachies in a tree topology suggests a common ancestry. However it does not show as tpaine claims that humans decended from "pre-existing humanoid ancestors"

Your queson wasn't specific to humans. In any case, yes, human beings fit in a nested heirarchy too.

m_nwankwo:

@KAG
I do not think you addressed Imhotep question.

Imhotep didn't ask a question.

What he asked is how will you use evolution to explain human intelligence. Based on your answer, can one develop artificial intellegence comparable to humans ex vivo by putting neurons, prions, and nerves together.

By mimicking the way they function and relate, yes, possibly.

Secondary can you specifically define what you mean by interactions between neurons, prions and nerves?

Too complicated and not definite enough yet.

KAG:

um, yes it can. The specific interactions of neurons and prions in the brain, coupled with nerves serves for intelligence. Basically, the brain is key.

@KAG
Elephants, whales, sharks, warthugs, apes etc etc also have brains. Can evolution explain WHY they have not been able to modify and dominate their environment the way humans have

imhotep:

@KAG
Elephants, whales, sharks, warthugs, apes etc etc also have brains.

Just so you know, humans are cladistically classified as apes.

Can evolution explain WHY they have not been able to modify and dominate their environment the way humans have

Yes. For most, there was no evolutionary pressure or physical attributes to help develop those mental skills. Further, the makings of what is comprised in the different brains tends to lead to different results.

However, human beings aren't the only ones that modify their environments. Badgers are a wonderful example of natural builders. They usually modify extensively. Birds, termites, and gorillas are also examples of animals that build nests comprising of materials from their habitats. Further, other animals, particularly chimps (which also possess a physical quality that encourages tool usage: opposable thumbs) have been known to use crude tools, probably like early humans did.

@KAG

Thanks again. Is it not possible that the various apes and humans independently acquired ERVs by HGT and then passed them on to offsprings by parentage? I think that Nested heirachy  shows genetic relatedness and nothing more. Genetic relatedness may or may not indicate evolution. To use genetic relatedness as an indication of evolution interprets the data beyound what the data says. I will be willing to examine citations that make you conclude that nested heirachy is indicative of evolution.

As per artificial intellegence ex vivo, I guess we wait for the time when it is done.  Much is known about the human brain and much more remain unknown.  The complexity of the human brain makes me to doubt that it will ever be created artificially.

I guess Imhotep has put his question very explicitely in his latest post. How does evolution explain the astronomicallly high difference between human intellegence and ape intellegence?

m_nwankwo:

@KAG

Thanks again. Is it not possible that the various apes and humans independently acquired ERVs by HGT and then passed them on to offsprings by parentage?

Highly unlikely. The odds of that happening, coupled with the agreement with the interrelatedness posited by the theory of evolution, are astronomical.

I think that Nested heirachy shows genetic relatedness and nothing more. Genetic relatedness may or may not indicate evolution. To use genetic relatedness as an indication of evolution interprets the data beyound what the data says. I will be willing to examine citations that make you conclude that nested heirachy is indicative of evolution.

Nested heirarchies indicates relations in unique genetic combinations between species. It's not just genetic similarities.

Out of curiousity, what is your explanation for genetic similarites?

As per artificial intellegence ex vivo, I guess we wait for the time when it is done. Much is known about the human brain and much more remain unknown. The complexity of the human brain makes me to doubt that it will ever be created artificially.

I agree with everything but the last statement. I suspect that in time artificial inteligence wil surpass that of humans. I also suspect that theprincipes of evolution will be used to bring that result. I dread that day.

I guess Imhotep has put his question very explicitely in his latest post. How does evolution explain the astronomicallly high difference between human intellegence and ape intellegence?

The same way the speed of cheetahs in comparison to house cats, for example, is explained.

@KAG

Hi again. I do not think the odds will be astronomical if humans and "apes" have sequences that enhances the the integration of ERVs into their genomes. ERVs are to some extent similar to retrotransposons with respect to mechanism of transfer and integration. Retrotransposons have been transfered by HGT among organisms as diverse as DNA viruses and reptiles.

Tree topology based on unique genetic combinations between species do not (in my opinion) qualify as the best way to examine evolutionary relationship. More robust inference should be made by examining the entire genome.

Genetic similarities shows that the two species are related. Technically it will not be incorrect to suggest that the two species might have a common ancestry.

Again, we have to wait and see what will happen with the "creation" of the artificial brain and how it will function in comparison to the human brain. I do not think it will ever happen.

Evolutionary principles can be used to explain why a Chetah runs faster than a house cat. However an explanation or explanations is not an evidence. To get an evidence, a proof of principle is required. I am not aware of any scientiofic evidence (not explanations or suggestions) demonstrating this proof of principle.

There is a famous philosophical saying - no one gives what he/she/it does not have

In latin ---> nemo dat quod non habet.

------------------------------
Now, how is it that randomly wandering monkeys, chimpanzees and apes were able to evolve into sound mathematicians, engineers, social scientists, politicians, mystics, artists, musicians, entertainers, administrators, theologians, philosophers, etc.

The list is endless.

imhotep:

There is a famous philosophical saying - no one gives what he/she/it does not have

In latin ---> nemo that quod non habet.

------------------------------
Now, how is it that randomly wandering monkeys, chimpanzees and apes were able to evolve into sound mathematicians, engineers, social scientists, politicians, mystics, artists, musicians, entertainers, administrators, theologians, philosophers, etc.

The list is endless.

That is why you are laughed at because only the ignorant creationist claim that we evolved from monkeys, apes and chimps. No scientist ever says that.

[/img]

[img]

tpaine:


That is why you are laughed at because only the ignorant creationist claim that we evolved from monkeys, apes and chimps. No scientist ever says that.

@tpaine
Do you want to cajole us? Please quit trying to take us for a ride.

www.allaboutscience.org:

The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago.


The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway.

Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution.

It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective.

Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

The theory of evolution posits that modern humans and apes share a common ancestor. Big difference. Don't even discuss evolution if you cannot understand this very simple fact.

m_nwankwo:

@KAG

Hi again. I do not think the odds will be astronomical if humans and "apes" have sequences that enhances the the integration of ERVs into their genomes. ERVs are to some extent similar to retrotransposons with respect to mechanism of transfer and integration. Retrotransposons have been transfered by HGT among organisms as diverse as DNA viruses and reptiles.

I don't think you get the point. shared ERVs appear in very specific locations of germline cells in the various species the theory of evolution posits share common ancestry. What's more the ervs appear in much the same sequence as given by the taxonomic classification of common ancestry. That ERVs will appear in those specific locations out of thebillions available, and then in the way suggested by nested heirarchy, is astronomical.

what sequenes enhances the integratin of ERVs, and are those "hot spots" located in specific cells?

By the way, transposons have a different method for functioning.

Tree topology based on unique genetic combinations between species do not (in my opinion) qualify as the best way to examine evolutionary relationship. More robust inference should be made by examining the entire genome.

I think you've misunderstood my post.

Genetic similarities shows that the two species are related. Technically it will not be incorrect to suggest that the two species might have a common ancestry.

So how are they related? What is to be made of unique combinations that are shared?

Again, we have to wait and see what will happen with the "creation" of the artificial brain and how it will function in comparison to the human brain. I do not think it will ever happen.

Considering current AIs can do calculations faster and more precisely than humans, and are being taught complex skills like humour and feelings, I'd say it's only a matter of time before the evolutin paradigm is fully implemented in teir continued development.

Evolutionary principles can be used to explain why a Chetah runs faster than a house cat. However an explanation or explanations is not an evidence. To get an evidence, a proof of principle is required. I am not aware of any scientiofic evidence (not explanations or suggestions) demonstrating this proof of principle.

Proof is for math and alcohol. As for evidence, it's the way the genes are combined, relate with each other, etc, that usually typifies differences.

Edit: and the type of genes, i.e. differences

tpaine:

The theory of evolution posits that modern humans and apes share a common ancestor. Big difference. Don't even discuss evolution if you cannot understand this very simple fact.

@tpaine

1) How did this ancestor become a randomly wandering, dumb ape?
2) How did this same ancestor become wonderfully creative, intelligent humans?

Does this mean that this ancestor was BOTH intelligent and dumb at the same time

--------------------------------------------------------
No one gives what he/she/it does not have.

@KAG

Thanks again. Sure trasposoons have different method of function. However I did not mention transposons. I said retrotranposons (correctly spelt as retroposons). Retroposons method of transfer and integration is similar to ERVs. The only difference with ERVs is that they former donot carry in itself the enzymes for reverse transcription. Reverse transcription with regard to retroposons is mediated by an autonomous partner called long intersparsed elements (LINE).

I will check out the regions of integrations for the ERV in humans, and "apes" and see if such flanking sequences facilitates integration. Among DNA viruses though, their are hotspots for such integration. However I cannot extrapolate what obtains with viruses to humans and apes. Will get back to you on this issue once I have analysed the sequences flanking the regions of integration in humans and "apes"

Shared characteristics might be suggestive of evolution but it is only a suggestion, not a proof. I do not agree that proof is reserved only for the field of mathematics and alcohol (lol).

Current AIs may be programed to do calculations faster than the human brain. However such AI are not intelligent in itself. It is purely an extension of the intelligence of the programmer. I will not call such computers intellegent since thay are dependent on the programer or was programmed to program itself. I do not think there will come a time when neurons will be able to think, imagine and postulate scientific theories. Simpler things like artificillly engineering a kidney, a heart, etc have so far proved elusive, not to talk of the brain.

m_nwankwo:

@KAG

Thanks again. Sure trasposoons have different method of function. However I did not mention transposons. I said retrotranposons (correctly spelt as retroposons).

Same thing.

Retroposons method of transfer and integration is similar to ERVs. The only difference with ERVs is that they former donot carry in itself the enzymes for reverse transcription. Reverse transcription with regard to retroposons is mediated by an autonomous partner called long intersparsed elements (LINE).

Yup, my point n transposons holds.

I will check out the regions of integrations for the ERV in humans, and "apes" and see if such flanking sequences facilitates integration.

They don't.

Among DNA viruses though, their are hotspots for such integration.

The "hot spots" apply to relatvely rare areas of clumps of cells, as opposed to specific locations.

However I cannot extrapolate what obtains with viruses to humans and apes. Will get back to you on this issue once I have analysed the sequences flanking the regions of integration in humans and "apes"

No problem.

Shared characteristics might be suggestive of evolution but it is only a suggestion, not a proof. I do not agree that proof is reserved only for the field of mathematics and alcohol (lol).

Science doesn't do proofs. Evolution is the most parimonious explanation for the shared characteristics, especilly in their unique forms. The evidence bears that out.

Current AIs may be programed to do calculations faster than the human brain. However such AI are not intelligent in itself. It is purely an extension of the intelligence of the programmer. I will not call such computers intellegent since thay are dependent on the programer or was programmed to program itself. I do not think there will come a time when neurons will be able to think, imagine and postulate scientific theories. Simpler things like artificillly engineering a kidney, a heart, etc have so far proved elusive, not to talk of the brain.

Developing artificial intelligence is different from developing those organs (although, IIRC, there are versions of artificial organs). Several AIs are already capabale of "thinking" and evolvin in limited ways

KAG:

Science doesn't do proofs. Evolution is the most parimonious explanation for the shared characteristics, especilly in their unique forms. The evidence bears that out.

WOW! Interesting! I thot the whole culmination of science was to 'prove' observed phenomena?!

KAG:

Developing artificial intelligence is different from developing those organs (although, IIRC, there are versions of artificial organs). Several AIs are already capabale of "thinking" and evolvin in limited ways

Yes but they are not biological systems made of living tissue. They simply mimic the functioning of the human mind. As for 'thinkin' that they don't do because they are still incapable of imagination.