Proteins, Apes & Us (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 07, 2012, 22:14 (4614 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

1)How can they distiguish with any certainty ages of deviation, such as Apes seperated from hominids 20mya, particularly if they are not certain which came first?-This is done with retrograde study of DNA noting changes in species. DNA can be obtained from fossils. I cannot describe the methods any further. But this discussion starts at monkeys with tails. Then apes and us.
> 
> 2)If all members of a phenotype have to deal with roughly the same environmental conditions, why should we not expect to see a vast number of similarities in their genetic code? I.E. If all land animals breathe oxygen through lungs, then the basic genetic structure for lungs for all such creatures should exist and should be roughly identical. -Phenotype is much more than lungs. we differ 20% from chimps, when transpositions, etc., are all noted
> 
> 3)If a large portion of the genetic code deals with what happens before, or after a structure is in place, why should we not expect to see variations between them that would vary the rate of production and such? Obviously, an 800lb gorilla would need substantially more hemoglobin than a 200lb human.- I don't follow your question. If a human needs 5 quarts of blood, the gorilla needs 20. A small genetic variation will take care of that.
> 
> 4)If these variations are only to be expected, due to size, physiology, and environment, how do they explicitly imply genetic heritage from one group to another simply by the fact that they exist in each? I.E. If they are a requirement for life at a certain level, then no life could exist at that level without them.-I don't follow this at all. 
> 
> 5)How does any of this account for innovation in the genetic structure?-It is amazing how small the gene changes are in total to get a new species but there are a number of changes throught the genome.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120403140042.htm (same refrence I listed a couple days ago)-> 
> One of the things I often see used to support the theory of gradual change is when a scientist raises a culture of 5million(Or some similarly ridiculous number) generations of bacteria and notes a small single change. How does that work for creatures with longer life spans? 5 million generations of Hominid, or Canine would take significantly longer, and yet they proscribe the a greater variety and magnitude of changes to a drastically reduced population. Even IF you assume 20m years of human evolution and even IF you assume a lifespan of 35 years, you still only have less than 600k generations of homonid.-Wrong math, but you are correct about the small number of generations. Divide 20 million years by 12 years per reproducing generation, not lifespan. Consider 1.66 million generations. This is why puctuated equilibrium is so important to consider, and why epigenetics has reared its ugly head. Evolution is not gradual. And why I think it is directed.