Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[sfs]

All humans would be the same on that scale. In fact all apes would be in that same category as well.

And we've already done the test, so we know what family we're descended from.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This gives me an idea! I think I'll start a monkey ancestry DNA lab. I'll trace folks DNA all the way to their monkey ancestors and then I can tell them exactly what family of monkeys they come from.

You could call it 24andMe

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

What purpose does above post have?

No purpose except levity.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

All humans would be the same on that scale. In fact all apes would be in that same category as well.

I know enough about genetics to believe that this statement is scientific inaccurate. Could you please provide some scientific data to bolster your claim before I waste my time and resources?

 

[Shemjaza]

I know enough about genetics to believe that this statement is scientific inaccurate. Could you please provide some scientific data to bolster your claim before I waste my time and resources?

The same reason that you and your full siblings can't have different maternal grandmothers.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The same reason that you and your full siblings can't have different maternal grandmothers.

You speak of the genetics of 3 generations of a single family. I asked for scientific data to back your claim that everyone would be related to the same monkeys and this is the best you can do? Can you explain the mathematical possibilities of 10th generation ancestral genetics? On the subject of cross species evolution, just for what it's worth, the scientific evidence for evolution is based on the degree of modification of fossil bones from different eras. Of course that can't prove that evolution ever jumped species. While the DNA record can show the relative relation of one species to another and the evolution of their shared DNA, there's no proof that the shared DNA was due to evolution. That is speculation based on the similarities found in the fossil record and the global distribution of organisms and unique features of species found only on isolated islands That said, I'm not here to debate genetics or evolution but I'll recommend a couple of texts that explain the science of ancestral genetics. First is "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. Then there's "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford or if you would prefer something with more of a Judaeo-Christian take on the subject you might try "Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise" by Nathaniel Jeanson. While it doesn't go into quite as much detail, it's an interesting take on the matter.

 

[Shemjaza]

You speak of the genetics of 3 generations of a single family. I asked for scientific data to back your claim that everyone would be related to the same monkeys and this is the best you can do? Can you explain the mathematical possibilities of 10th generation ancestral genetics? On the subject of cross species evolution, just for what it's worth, the scientific evidence for evolution is based on the degree of modification of fossil bones from different eras. Of course that can't prove that evolution ever jumped species. While the DNA record can show the relative relation of one species to another and the evolution of their shared DNA, there's no proof that the shared DNA was due to evolution. That is speculation based on the similarities found in the fossil record and the global distribution of organisms and unique features of species found only on isolated islands That said, I'm not here to debate genetics or evolution but I'll recommend a couple of texts that explain the science of ancestral genetics. First is "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. Then there's "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford or if you would prefer something with more of a Judaeo-Christian take on the subject you might try "Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise" by Nathaniel Jeanson. While it doesn't go into quite as much detail, it's an interesting take on the matter.

So you understand that within our species we have common ancestors and that larger groups would have smaller groups of ancestors?

Using the mtDNA we can trace the lines of ancestry through the "7 daughters" back to mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor by maternal lines for all humanity,

Any ancestor before her would be identically related to all of us because we already have "Eve" as a common ancestor. (Using mtDNA in this example).

I don't understand why you think there would be different principles at play with separate related species than within a single species?

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The same reason that you and your full siblings can't have different maternal grandmothers.

Actually I did a little research on the latest data and here are the results. We share 99% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee, 98% with the Bonobo and the Gorilla, 97% with the Orangutan. Those are the top 4. Now to show the rest of the story, we share 99% of our DNA with lettuce, 90% with cats, 98% with bottle nosed dolphins (we share more of what are thought to be the intellect genes with dolphins that with primates) and 98% with pigs. Of course the pitfall of the simplistic idea that we have shared DNA with every living thing and ranking those shared genes by percentage is that when you compare only the protein-encoded portion of DNA , as these numbers represent, is that only 1 to 2% of our DNA actually encodes proteins. Most of the rest is transcribed into RNA. Some RNA is translated into chains of amino-acid that make up proteins and Some RNAs that don't carry the plans for proteins have important structural or functional roles in their own right. Transfer RNAs, for example, ferry specific amino acids into a growing protein, while ribosomal RNA constitutes part of the factories in cells that manufacture proteins. So, when you take that into account, based on the most recent analysis, scientists say we most certainly share a distant ancestor with the Lemur and have a relative with the mouse closer back in time than the one we share with a Chimpanzee. That said, the parts of the genome that don't encode proteins tend to evolve rapidly, so you can have significant regions of the genome where there's no discernible similarity between species, so most sequences will not line up when you compare genomes between species and of course it's those sequences that make us different. In other words we share the actual genes but sequencing is what makes the difference between humans and lettuce. So, with that in mind, you see that cross species DNA analysis has very little in common with your simplistic example. It's analogous to the difference between 3rd grade math and calculus.

 

[Bradskii]

Paragraphs are good...

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

So you understand that within our species we have common ancestors and that larger groups would have smaller groups of ancestors?

Using the mtDNA we can trace the lines of ancestry through the "7 daughters" back to mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor by maternal lines for all humanity,

Any ancestor before her would be identically related to all of us because we already have "Eve" as a common ancestor. (Using mtDNA in this example).

I don't understand why you think there would be different principles at play with separate related species than within a single species?

See, my updated reply to your previous message for the answer. I went ahead and did a little research to explain the difference and I'll no longer engage in this discussion as I never intended to go into a discussion about genetics (or evolution) for that manner. I simply posted a off hand reply to interject a little levity into a discussion that is really much more complex than anything that can be unraveled in a forum such as this and then people took it to heart instead seeing it as the the flippant humor that it was intended to be.

 

[sfs]

I asked for scientific data to back your claim that everyone would be related to the same monkeys and this is the best you can do?

The mean time to the most recent common ancestor(Tmrca) for different stretches of our DNA is approximately 4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size. That is, that the average time you have to go back until all modern copies of that piece of human DNA descend from a single copy in a single individual. Based on our genetic diversity and mutation rate, our long-term effective population size is approximately 20,000, so the mean time to the Tmrca is 80,000 generations, or roughly 2 million years. The variation in the Tmrca across the genome is large, however, with a standard deviation that is also approximately 4Ne. Apes first appeared around 25 million years ago, which is more than 10 standard deviations. Which means that every bit of our genome will have a single ancestral genome well after the first apes, which in turn means that we all have exactly the same relationship to our monkey ancestors who preceded the apes.

On the subject of cross species evolution, just for what it's worth, the scientific evidence for evolution is based on the degree of modification of fossil bones from different eras.

Much the best evidence for cross-species evolution comes from genetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

This gives me an idea! I think I'll start a monkey ancestry DNA lab. I'll trace folks DNA all the way to their monkey ancestors and then I can tell them exactly what family of monkeys they come from.

Some people got caught in a loop though!

 

[Hans Blaster]

You speak of the genetics of 3 generations of a single family. I asked for scientific data to back your claim that everyone would be related to the same monkeys and this is the best you can do? Can you explain the mathematical possibilities of 10th generation ancestral genetics? On the subject of cross species evolution, just for what it's worth, the scientific evidence for evolution is based on the degree of modification of fossil bones from different eras. Of course that can't prove that evolution ever jumped species. While the DNA record can show the relative relation of one species to another and the evolution of their shared DNA, there's no proof that the shared DNA was due to evolution. That is speculation based on the similarities found in the fossil record and the global distribution of organisms and unique features of species found only on isolated islands That said, I'm not here to debate genetics or evolution but I'll recommend a couple of texts that explain the science of ancestral genetics. First is "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. Then there's "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford

If you use the same techniques not only do all of the human mtDNA lineages converge to a single line, but the branches mtDNA from other apes and other primates show the same pattern that demonstrates our relation to those species.

or if you would prefer something with more of a Judaeo-Christian take on the subject you might try "Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise" by Nathaniel Jeanson. While it doesn't go into quite as much detail, it's an interesting take on the matter.

Creationist take. I don't think you should burden all Jews and Christians and the faith with that stuff.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The mean time to the most recent common ancestor(Tmrca) for different stretches of our DNA is approximately 4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size. That is, that the average time you have to go back until all modern copies of that piece of human DNA descend from a single copy in a single individual. Based on our genetic diversity and mutation rate, our long-term effective population size is approximately 20,000, so the mean time to the Tmrca is 80,000 generations, or roughly 2 million years. The variation in the Tmrca across the genome is large, however, with a standard deviation that is also approximately 4Ne. Apes first appeared around 25 million years ago, which is more than 10 standard deviations. Which means that every bit of our genome will have a single ancestral genome well after the first apes, which in turn means that we all have exactly the same relationship to our monkey ancestors who preceded the apes.


Much the best evidence for cross-species evolution comes from gen

Some people got caught in a loop though!

Thanks, AVA1611VET. Most of the replies I've received have been of the nature of the one I have included here, leading to exhaustive discussions of genetics and evolution when all I posted was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to interject a little levity into the conversation. As for the tune, I'm very familiar with it as I'm an old time fiddle and mandolin player. It's an old Grandpa Jones tune and it's quite inventively catchy. As I've already stated I'm bowing out of the more serious discussion on subjects of genetics and evolution as there's no point in trying to discuss it in any depth on a forum such as this. Unfortunately, I'll now be less inclined to post humorous replies. Thanks again, I needed a break!

 

[Astrid]

No purpose except levity.

Opposite of gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks, AVA1611VET. Most of the replies I've received have been of the nature of the one I have included here, leading to exhaustive discussions of genetics and evolution when all I posted was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to interject a little levity into the conversation. As for the tune, I'm very familiar with it as I'm an old time fiddle and mandolin player. It's an old Grandpa Jones tune and it's quite inventively catchy. As I've already stated I'm bowing out of the more serious discussion on subjects of genetics and evolution as there's no point in trying to discuss it in any depth on a forum such as this. Unfortunately, I'll now be less inclined to post humorous replies. Thanks again, I needed a break!

God bless you, my brother!

 

[Shemjaza]

Actually I did a little research on the latest data and here are the results. We share 99% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee, 98% with the Bonobo and the Gorilla, 97% with the Orangutan. Those are the top 4. Now to show the rest of the story, we share 99% of our DNA with lettuce, 90% with cats, 98% with bottle nosed dolphins (we share more of what are thought to be the intellect genes with dolphins that with primates) and 98% with pigs. Of course the pitfall of the simplistic idea that we have shared DNA with every living thing and ranking those shared genes by percentage is that when you compare only the protein-encoded portion of DNA , as these numbers represent, is that only 1 to 2% of our DNA actually encodes proteins. Most of the rest is transcribed into RNA. Some RNA is translated into chains of amino-acid that make up proteins and Some RNAs that don't carry the plans for proteins have important structural or functional roles in their own right. Transfer RNAs, for example, ferry specific amino acids into a growing protein, while ribosomal RNA constitutes part of the factories in cells that manufacture proteins. So, when you take that into account, based on the most recent analysis, scientists say we most certainly share a distant ancestor with the Lemur and have a relative with the mouse closer back in time than the one we share with a Chimpanzee. That said, the parts of the genome that don't encode proteins tend to evolve rapidly, so you can have significant regions of the genome where there's no discernible similarity between species, so most sequences will not line up when you compare genomes between species and of course it's those sequences that make us different. In other words we share the actual genes but sequencing is what makes the difference between humans and lettuce. So, with that in mind, you see that cross species DNA analysis has very little in common with your simplistic example. It's analogous to the difference between 3rd grade math and calculus.

If you're going to throw around insults it's best to first make sure there aren't significant errors in your information or interpretation.

If you have a listing of percentage of similarity between two genomes it is important that firstly your data is correct and secondly you are using the same metric to measure.

I am confident you have done none of these things.


My explanation is simple because the complexities are not relevant to the discussion. Ancestry is ancestry, the fact that you don't believe evolution and common descent occurred are irrelevant to the conceptual relatedness of creatures who have a common ancestor.

 

[Astrid]

You speak of the genetics of 3 generations of a single family. I asked for scientific data to back your claim that everyone would be related to the same monkeys and this is the best you can do? Can you explain the mathematical possibilities of 10th generation ancestral genetics? On the subject of cross species evolution, just for what it's worth, the scientific evidence for evolution is based on the degree of modification of fossil bones from different eras. Of course that can't prove that evolution ever jumped species. While the DNA record can show the relative relation of one species to another and the evolution of their shared DNA, there's no proof that the shared DNA was due to evolution. That is speculation based on the similarities found in the fossil record and the global distribution of organisms and unique features of species found only on isolated islands That said, I'm not here to debate genetics or evolution but I'll recommend a couple of texts that explain the science of ancestral genetics. First is "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. Then there's "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford or if you would prefer something with more of a Judaeo-Christian take on the subject you might try "Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise" by Nathaniel Jeanson. While it doesn't go into quite as much detail, it's an interesting take on the matter.

"Prove that evolution ever jumped species"

Those few words dempnstrate with unmistakeable
that the "little research" you elsewhere speak of doing
was indeed little. Very.

Neither of the concepts even exist in science, not the
" prove", not the "jump species".

You literally dont know what you are talking about.

 

[sfs]

Most of the replies I've received have been of the nature of the one I have included here, leading to exhaustive discussions of genetics and evolution when all I posted was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to interject a little levity into the conversation.

I didn't reply to your initial attempt at levity. I replied because of your later posts in which you made scientific statements that were inaccurate, complained about the lack of scientific response, and suggested that you had superior scientific knowledge.

As I've already stated I'm bowing out of the more serious discussion on subjects of genetics and evolution as there's no point in trying to discuss it in any depth on a forum such as this.

The problem with your comments was not lack of depth. They were simply wrong.