The subject is a question that strikes me whenever I walk around my neighbourhood. It occurred to me that there may be a way to quantify the rate of human evolution.
The human genome consists of 3 billion base pairs. A base pair is the fundamental element of our DNA. For a long time the conventional scientific thought was that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98% similar. Newer studies claim the figure is far lower, at most 81%, and maybe as low as 70%.
The fossil record suggests that homo sapiens and the primates diverged from a common ancestor around 4.4 million years ago.
Let's assume that apes and humans evolved at the same rate, with no identical mutations. Then, according to conventional scientific thought, human DNA differs from "missing link" DNA by 1%. That is, our DNA has changed by 30 million base pairs over 4.4 million years
Therefore the rate of evolution is 7 base pairs per year.
If we use the 80% or 70% figures, then the rate is 70 or 100 base pairs per year, respectively. The latter amounts to 1 incremental change in our DNA every 3.5 days.
Does that sound plausible?
Bunkerbob said
04:31 PM Jan 13, 2014
You are feeling sleepy, sleepy, you are falling into a deep sleep. Dorian, please, you're hurting me. What prompted this deep thinking. Crack a half decent red, try a cabernet from the Grampians. Nice drop and prevents you feeling sleepy, you are feeling sleepy. lol
Bob
Back to the subject matter. Surely if there were these incremental changes in DNA from ape to man, all the selective changes wouldn't all dry up at the same time and therefore we would still have version 3 and 4 and 400 and 4000, etc. What people struggle with is this is how it was from the start. The whole world is too simple in its being and to complex in its origin to be a selective process. Don't have a problem with selective evolution but cannot accept a "Big Bang" as a start point. Can only be created as it is.
Kooroorinya Kelpie said
05:28 PM Jan 13, 2014
I am suitably confusiated thank you all. Please my I have anudder banana and a small paper cup of peanuts.
03_troopy said
06:18 PM Jan 13, 2014
I think environmental influences play a very big part in evolution/devolution, go to some of your western suburbs and observe to verify this.
Now I'm ducking for cover with a sturdy tin hat on my head.
:)
dorian said
06:40 PM Jan 13, 2014
Mark 2 would have killed off or outperformed Mark 1, and Mark 3 would have done likewise to Mark 2. That's how natural selection works. So IMHO it should be no surprise if most of the numerous intermediary versions have disappeared. That said, I don't see how that would affect my overall calculation.
As for the Big Bang, I have my own theory/prediction on that subject, too. AISI, we could use Moore's Law as our figure for the rate of technological evolution, and then apply it to determine where humans will be in 100 years time, 1000 years time, etc.
Moore's Law states that technology doubles every 18 months. If we use a conservative figure of 2 years, then in 100 years technology will have advanced by a factor of 2^50. That's about 10E15, ie 1000 trillion times. In 200 years it will be 2^100, ie 10E30. That's 1 million trillion trillion. Eventually we will have the technical knowhow to create our own Big Bang, and it will take only one individual who is as p*ssed off as I am to restart the universe.
Bunkerbob said
07:03 PM Jan 13, 2014
Dorian, IMHO, you need to find a hobby. You're doing my head in. lmfao
03_troopy said
07:11 PM Jan 13, 2014
dorian wrote:
Mark 2 would have killed off or outperformed Mark 1, and Mark 3 would have done likewise to Mark 2. That's how natural selection works. So IMHO it should be no surprise if most of the numerous intermediary versions have disappeared. That said, I don't see how that would affect my overall calculation.
As for the Big Bang, I have my own theory/prediction on that subject, too. AISI, we could use Moore's Law as our figure for the rate of technological evolution, and then apply it to determine where humans will be in 100 years time, 1000 years time, etc.
Moore's Law states that technology doubles every 18 months. If we use a conservative figure of 2 years, then in 100 years technology will have advanced by a factor of 2^50. That's about 10E15, ie 1000 trillion times. In 200 years it will be 2^100, ie 10E30. That's 1 million trillion trillion. Eventually we will have the technical knowhow to create our own Big Bang, and it will take only one individual who is as p*ssed off as I am to restart the universe.
Can you imagine how much Icrap that means?
barina said
07:13 PM Jan 13, 2014
Well I have plenty of neanderthals in my area even carry clubs, and the only sounds they omit are very low guttural grunts, barely a word you can understand. I reckon the apes are more graceful and pleasant to watch.
Kooroorinya Kelpie said
08:09 PM Jan 13, 2014
Hey barina the country is littered with them. Most of the ones I encounter seem to have an IQ not exceeding 2 and they tell us it takes an IQ of 3 to grunt.
Biologically there may be little difference, but there's a large difference between humans and apes psychologically. Apes are gentle, environmental friendly beings, never go to war and only destroy foliage. Humans on the other hand are the complete opposite, always warring over stupidly dumb things and destroy or wipe out just about everything they touch.
Kooroorinya Kelpie said
11:31 AM Jan 14, 2014
Aw gee native pepper thems harsh words to a gentle fella like me. I'm environmentally friendly , only this morning I hugged two trees, yes two, one in each paw I had, and if I had'nt hugged those trees I would've fallen into the flaming dam. I never war over anything these days, uses to much energy, but you watch me fire up if some b****ard knocks off my last roo tail. And as far as wiping out just about everything I touch, yeah you are right, that bunny rabbit I caught up with this morning didn't have to cark it just because I tried to shake the burrs out of his coat. And those feral cats I keep trying to be nice to, well if they didn't keep trying to shake hands with their claws out then ........Who knows.
native pepper said
12:00 PM Jan 14, 2014
Just pointing out some facts, wonder who brought rabbits and cats to Aus, apes. Happy to see cats rabbits, foxes and pigs wiped out, it also would the best outcome for our county to get rid of all the cows and sheep. Native meats are far superior in every way, especially for the land.
Won't happen though, just have to continue wondering why a species which claims to be superior to all other living beings, is so destructive and fatalistic in its approach to life and the future. That's not a superior, intelligent or even a logical approach to life, just the opposite.
Kooroorinya Kelpie said
02:47 PM Jan 14, 2014
native pepper if you want to only eat native meats then I suggest you get your vegan L plates as all native animals are protected
native pepper said
04:01 PM Jan 14, 2014
Haven't eaten imported cloven hoofed meats for more than 40 years and never really liked it, to greasy and constipating. Grew up on native meats, you can buy Kangaroo, ostrich steaks and other cuts in most places in Aus. In Tas it's called wallaby meat and our dogs get the bones from the suppliers, lots of people prefer it to imported meats. Health wise, you can't get any better meat, compared to the unhealthiness of cloven hoofed meats and by products. At least 2 pubs in Tas I know off regularly has wallaby steaks on the menu.
Not a vegan and never said I was, don't eat imported meats, diaries, processed foods, or junk. Eat sea foods regularly, had some fresh native black back salmon yesterday and our own organic ducks, or an organic chook when we find one on the road.
-- Edited by native pepper on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 04:04:09 PM
03_troopy said
06:15 PM Jan 14, 2014
native pepper wrote:
Haven't eaten imported cloven hoofed meats for more than 40 years and never really liked it, to greasy and constipating. Grew up on native meats, you can buy Kangaroo, ostrich steaks and other cuts in most places in Aus. In Tas it's called wallaby meat and our dogs get the bones from the suppliers, lots of people prefer it to imported meats. Health wise, you can't get any better meat, compared to the unhealthiness of cloven hoofed meats and by products. At least 2 pubs in Tas I know off regularly has wallaby steaks on the menu.
Not a vegan and never said I was, don't eat imported meats, diaries, processed foods, or junk. Eat sea foods regularly, had some fresh native black back salmon yesterday and our own organic ducks, or an organic chook when we find one on the road.
-- Edited by native pepper on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 04:04:09 PM
What species are these native pepper? do you know the scientific name?
bill12 said
06:48 PM Jan 14, 2014
Arrippis trutta- the Australian salmon. Not a salmonid or trout, but fight better, and are underrated eating fish , in my opinion, and I eat a lot of fish.
Bill
03_troopy said
07:03 PM Jan 14, 2014
Ah OK.. it's a Tassie thing. Firts time I have heard them called that. And yes I agree a very underrated fish. Not only do I eat them, but my dogs used to love them too.
native pepper said
08:29 PM Jan 14, 2014
bill12 wrote:
Arrippis trutta- the Australian salmon. Not a salmonid or trout, but fight better, and are underrated eating fish , in my opinion, and I eat a lot of fish. Bill
Glad someone knew the name, I didn't have a clue but they are wonderful eating baked.
Sheba said
10:18 PM Jan 14, 2014
native pepper wrote:
Apes are gentle, environmental friendly beings, never go to war and only destroy foliage.
Not all Apes native pepper. Chimps are known to wage war on each other, steal each others' babies, and Cannibalise each other.
Cheers,
Sheba.
johnq said
01:11 AM Jan 15, 2014
bill12 wrote:
Arrippis trutta- the Australian salmon. Not a salmonid or trout, but fight better, and are underrated eating fish , in my opinion, and I eat a lot of fish. Bill
Bill,
Great sporting fish. Not my favourite to eat by any means.
My best was hot smoke and eat cold with Greek salad or Tabouli and tartare sauce on the fish chunks. Extra lemon helped.
What do you do?
native pepper said
10:52 AM Jan 15, 2014
Sheba wrote:
native pepper wrote:
Apes are gentle, environmental friendly beings, never go to war and only destroy foliage.
Not all Apes native pepper. Chimps are known to wage war on each other, steal each others' babies, and Cannibalise each other.
Cheers,
Sheba.
Apes, (gorilla) are herbivores, chimpansee are omnivores and have larger brain the apes, plus have very different living styles. Chimpansee are closer to humans, they fight, kill, cannibalise, rape and will eat just about anything they can get their hands on.
Recoup said
11:40 AM Jan 15, 2014
I think monkeys came from man , it's a lot easier to explain.
Cheers Hans
Brilliant photo, can imagine what sort of mischief these two blokes would get up to. It wasn't us, we just been sitting here cruising, we don't know where the steaks for the barby are, they are saying.
johnq said
06:09 PM Jan 15, 2014
Native Prepper, "can imagine what sort of mischief these two blokes would get up to"
You must be very intuitive or something to suss out that they are male and gay. Very New Age!
I was only at the stage of reflecting that both a Drover's Dog and a Ranga have held senior political positions in the Land of Oz. One could do better, but which one?
native pepper said
06:30 PM Jan 15, 2014
johnq wrote:
Native Prepper, "can imagine what sort of mischief these two blokes would get up to"
You must be very intuitive or something to suss out that they are male and gay. Very New Age!
I was only at the stage of reflecting that both a Drover's Dog and a Ranga have held senior political positions in the Land of Oz. One could do better, but which one?
Don't know what to say about that weird reply, thoughts like that woudl neve enter my head. Can oly imagine why they would enter yours. Didn't really read my post did you, just jumped to a macabre conclusion.
I see those in the photo as mischief children and my post reflected that only.
The subject is a question that strikes me whenever I walk around my neighbourhood. It occurred to me that there may be a way to quantify the rate of human evolution.
The human genome consists of 3 billion base pairs. A base pair is the fundamental element of our DNA. For a long time the conventional scientific thought was that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98% similar. Newer studies claim the figure is far lower, at most 81%, and maybe as low as 70%.
The fossil record suggests that homo sapiens and the primates diverged from a common ancestor around 4.4 million years ago.
Let's assume that apes and humans evolved at the same rate, with no identical mutations. Then, according to conventional scientific thought, human DNA differs from "missing link" DNA by 1%. That is, our DNA has changed by 30 million base pairs over 4.4 million years
Therefore the rate of evolution is 7 base pairs per year.
If we use the 80% or 70% figures, then the rate is 70 or 100 base pairs per year, respectively. The latter amounts to 1 incremental change in our DNA every 3.5 days.
Does that sound plausible?
Bob
Back to the subject matter. Surely if there were these incremental changes in DNA from ape to man, all the selective changes wouldn't all dry up at the same time and therefore we would still have version 3 and 4 and 400 and 4000, etc. What people struggle with is this is how it was from the start. The whole world is too simple in its being and to complex in its origin to be a selective process. Don't have a problem with selective evolution but cannot accept a "Big Bang" as a start point. Can only be created as it is.
Now I'm ducking for cover with a sturdy tin hat on my head.
:)
As for the Big Bang, I have my own theory/prediction on that subject, too. AISI, we could use Moore's Law as our figure for the rate of technological evolution, and then apply it to determine where humans will be in 100 years time, 1000 years time, etc.
Moore's Law states that technology doubles every 18 months. If we use a conservative figure of 2 years, then in 100 years technology will have advanced by a factor of 2^50. That's about 10E15, ie 1000 trillion times. In 200 years it will be 2^100, ie 10E30. That's 1 million trillion trillion. Eventually we will have the technical knowhow to create our own Big Bang, and it will take only one individual who is as p*ssed off as I am to restart the universe.
Can you imagine how much Icrap that means?
Well I have plenty of neanderthals in my area even carry clubs, and the only sounds they omit are very low guttural grunts, barely a word you can understand. I reckon the apes are more graceful and pleasant to watch.
science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider7.htm
Won't happen though, just have to continue wondering why a species which claims to be superior to all other living beings, is so destructive and fatalistic in its approach to life and the future. That's not a superior, intelligent or even a logical approach to life, just the opposite.
native pepper if you want to only eat native meats then I suggest you get your vegan L plates as all native animals are protected
Haven't eaten imported cloven hoofed meats for more than 40 years and never really liked it, to greasy and constipating. Grew up on native meats, you can buy Kangaroo, ostrich steaks and other cuts in most places in Aus. In Tas it's called wallaby meat and our dogs get the bones from the suppliers, lots of people prefer it to imported meats. Health wise, you can't get any better meat, compared to the unhealthiness of cloven hoofed meats and by products. At least 2 pubs in Tas I know off regularly has wallaby steaks on the menu.
Not a vegan and never said I was, don't eat imported meats, diaries, processed foods, or junk. Eat sea foods regularly, had some fresh native black back salmon yesterday and our own organic ducks, or an organic chook when we find one on the road.
-- Edited by native pepper on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 04:04:09 PM
What species are these native pepper? do you know the scientific name?
Bill
Glad someone knew the name, I didn't have a clue but they are wonderful eating baked.
Bill,
Great sporting fish. Not my favourite to eat by any means.
My best was hot smoke and eat cold with Greek salad or Tabouli and tartare sauce on the fish chunks. Extra lemon helped.
What do you do?
Apes, (gorilla) are herbivores, chimpansee are omnivores and have larger brain the apes, plus have very different living styles. Chimpansee are closer to humans, they fight, kill, cannibalise, rape and will eat just about anything they can get their hands on.
Cheers Hans
Orangutans are my favorites...
You must be very intuitive or something to suss out that they are male and gay. Very New Age!
I was only at the stage of reflecting that both a Drover's Dog and a Ranga have held senior political positions in the Land of Oz. One could do better, but which one?
Don't know what to say about that weird reply, thoughts like that woudl neve enter my head. Can oly imagine why they would enter yours. Didn't really read my post did you, just jumped to a macabre conclusion.
I see those in the photo as mischief children and my post reflected that only.