The Origin of the Human DNA

[Akka]

Did he just try to prove that modern birds all came from the velociraptor?

Not necessarily the Velociraptor but dinosaurs.

 And not prove but simplified explain.

The Velociraptor is just the one where good feathered Remains have been found.

It sounds like you've read up a bit on dinosaurs but have some stuff confused. Birds descended from theropoda, okay. Not all dinosaurs.

Yes, I meant those. Of course not all Dinosaurs   are you serious? Nobody can't be that hairsplitting.

 Sorry I'm not looking up every exact name.

2. Dinosaurs on two legs (like all birds today are on two legs)

a suborder of bipedal saurischian dinosaurs

Birds evolved from Dinosaurs and are their direct descendants. In Fact a T-Rex is more closely related to a Turkey than to a Stegosaurus.

I'd love to see some scientific journals or something backing up such a bold claim. Or is that merely your conjecture?

http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

It not states the closer relation to the Turkey, but look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Taxonomy  ( Tyrannosauridae ; Aves ; and Stegosauria)



What better proof could there be than a xkcd about it  

[1715074643]

1715074643

[1715074643]

1715074643

[1715074643]

1715074643

[MrHempstock]

Evolution and Abiogenesis are NOT the same thing.

And, frankly, any definition of life is highly dependent on scale.

[Hawker]

"The Origin of the Human DNA"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2YnC0JmVfA

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it. What is the force behind evolution that attempts to decrease entropy as opposed to the laws of thermodynamics, which state that isolated systems eventually evolve towards the state of maximum entropy (complete lack of order). Is there an external influence on our system then? What might that be?

Answer: there is no such force.  Evolution is a series of accidents and a tiny minority of accidents improve the chance of a critter successfully reproducing. For example, in the North Sea, cod are shrinking because ones that are smaller are more likely to reproduce before being caught by a trawler.  If fishing stopped a few years, the advantage for reproducing would go to bigger cod and the small ones would disappear.  There is no "force" - just the collision of random mutations with the environment in which the critter has to reproduce.

The really interesting question is how did life start?  You'd think that there would have been umpteen examples of life starting in the billions of years the planet has been around but we know that it only happened once.

[interlagos]

Why didn't horses or cows or even pigs start to evolve wings?

Because their style of life, consumption, and reproduction does not require them to fly? They went the run fast and be big enough to fight things off route, instead of the fly away route. Plus they are not carnivores, and birds evolved from carnivorous dinos that needed to swoop down on top of their prey.

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

[solex]

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

[Mike Christ]

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

Actually, style of life is the biggest factor in deciding whether a random change in DNA will prove beneficial to the organism or not.  That is precisely what is being asserted; the organisms living today aren't the strongest or the smartest, they're only the most adaptable.  Of course evolution doesn't care about any of that because evolution is not an intelligent higher power.

[the joint]

I'd like to see a definition of "species" sufficient enough to account for all of life, without exception, before answering this question.

By the way, the best definition I can think of for a human is that "a human has two human parents," but that would be problematic for evolution (i.e. the first human would have to have come from non-human parents).  So...complicated question.

[DAN444]

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it.

I believe the answer to this is philosophical.
Why does anything have to exist at all?
Because, I believe, everything must have an opposite. Including "nothingness".
In order for there to be "nothing" there also has to be "something".
Likewise, in order for there to be darkness, there has to be light.
In order for the opposite of nothingness to exist, there has to be a creating intelligence behind it. Which is why intelligent life evolves in the universe.

the big bang, which came from where?

This intelligence, if it reaches the maximum intelligence possible, will be able to create other universes (big bangs) in which life will evolve in order for the perpetual creation of universes to be sustained.

In other words, DNA comes from a process originating from nothing at all.

[pedrog]

I'd like to see a definition of "species" sufficient enough to account for all of life, without exception, before answering this question.

By the way, the best definition I can think of for a human is that "a human has two human parents," but that would be problematic for evolution (i.e. the first human would have to have come from non-human parents).  So...complicated question.

That's because there is not such thing as the first human, every animal or plant is always "between" species...

[pedrog]

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

interlagos, sorry, but you lack even the minimum understanding of the laws of nature.

Go on Khan Academy and watch the Evolution videos, search the website I've already pointed you to...

It's pointless we try to explain you why pigs don't have wings when you lack the minimum understanding of how life works.

The animals you pointed are bad examples because they were artificially selected by humans.

Wings evolve separately in several species because it gave an advantage to the animal, and there is not something like a half-wing, it has always a purpose, wings in their earliest form (in some dinosaur) probably were useful for regulating temperature, slowly the animal was able to use those for 1) escaping predators 2) catching pray, and that characteristic was passed to the next generation and so on...

You can see this progression with every characteristic in the animal kingdom, how the eye evolved, how venom evolved, and so on.

We can't explain you everything case by case, but if you understand the fundamental laws of nature, you will understand why snakes do what they do, and why we walk on two feet.

[interlagos]

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

So, again, we got rid of the tail instead of growing a bigger one because it made sense, not because it reduced our ability to survive. I bet tails would make an office clerk's life troublesome

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

interlagos, sorry, but you lack even the minimum understanding of the laws of nature.

Go on Khan Academy and watch the Evolution videos, search the website I've already pointed you to...

It's pointless we try to explain you why pigs don't have wings when you lack the minimum understanding of how life works.

The animals you pointed are bad examples because they were artificially selected by humans.

Wings evolve separately in several species because it gave an advantage to the animal, and there is not something like a half-wing, it has always a purpose, wings in their earliest form (in some dinosaur) probably were useful for regulating temperature, slowly the animal was able to use those for 1) escaping predators 2) catching pray, and that characteristic was passed to the next generation and so on...

You can see this progression with every characteristic in the animal kingdom, how the eye evolved, how venom evolved, and so on.

We can't explain you everything case by case, but if you understand the fundamental laws of nature, you will understand why snakes do what they do, and why we walk on two feet.

It's intentional. It's good sometimes to dumb yourself down and revisit things that might seem obvious, because you might get an argument you didn't expect. That's how I evolve

And, by the way, I love Khan Academy, watched a few videos on biology a few years ago, priceless!

[pepto]

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it.

I believe the answer to this is philosophical.
Why does anything have to exist at all?
Because, I believe, everything must have an opposite. Including "nothingness".
In order for there to be "nothing" there also has to be "something".
Likewise, in order for there to be darkness, there has to be light.
In order for the opposite of nothingness to exist, there has to be a creating intelligence behind it. Which is why intelligent life evolves in the universe.

the big bang, which came from where?

This intelligence, if it reaches the maximum intelligence possible, will be able to create other universes (big bangs) in which life will evolve in order for the perpetual creation of universes to be sustained.

In other words, DNA comes from a process originating from nothing at all.

Pardon a beginners intrusion. I think that nothingness and anythingness only exist for humans, because we have a brain capable of juggling things beyond the basic drives to eat and reproduce, both of which exist in the 'brain' of the cockroach, and the lobster. Heck, in all living things flora or fauna. The  incentive to exist and move forward has nothing to do with a  brain. Those with a brain are partially cursed. To a rat, emptiness and fullness are rated by the gut, and the sinew in the tooth. If he then gets laid, and if he could or wanted to say anything at all, wouldn't it be 'life is sweet'?
Lightness and darkness don't need explaining to most animals. It's a given, we've adapted, I have more success eating at night than I do in the daylight, or whatever my (species) chosen strategy.
I say that nothingness exists except for the dead (who couldn't care), and for (living) humans as an abstraction, simply because we've got that 'capable of juggling things brain'.  When the juggling stops, we're animals again, but worse, we're the cat kicked out of the house  to become feral again or die trying.  Or the flushed turtle.
I ate well tonight, I'm (hopefully) gonna get laid, and when I'm satiated, emptied, and subsequently bored I'll see if I still have any weird phenomenological text books that I once enjoyed trying to understand, and the existential stuff that I tended toward because it suited my adolescent demeanor but still didn't understand. I outgrew itl. I was a sham. My endeavors were shallow and hopeless. I'm going to concentrate on getting laid
I'm glad to see that some people still think about things, but I don't envy you.

[DAN444]

Pardon a beginners intrusion. I think that nothingness and anythingness only exist for humans,

Sure, humans are the only ones who can perceive these things.
But it doesnt mean  these things seize to exist if humans arent there perceiving them.
Maybe I should have said that "nothingness" isnt more legitimate than "somethingness".
Therefore, both have to exisit for the sake of equlibrium.

[the joint]

I'd like to see a definition of "species" sufficient enough to account for all of life, without exception, before answering this question.

By the way, the best definition I can think of for a human is that "a human has two human parents," but that would be problematic for evolution (i.e. the first human would have to have come from non-human parents).  So...complicated question.

That's because there is not such thing as the first human, every animal or plant is always "between" species...

Yep.  I made reference to this being "problematic for evolution" because speciation is included in modern theories of evolution -- it answers the question, "What do we call this new thing that can no longer get it on with that other thing?"

[the joint]

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it.

I believe the answer to this is philosophical.
Why does anything have to exist at all?
Because, I believe, everything must have an opposite. Including "nothingness".
In order for there to be "nothing" there also has to be "something".
Likewise, in order for there to be darkness, there has to be light.
In order for the opposite of nothingness to exist, there has to be a creating intelligence behind it.  Which is why intelligent life evolves in the universe.

the big bang, which came from where?

This intelligence, if it reaches the maximum intelligence possible, will be able to create other universes (big bangs) in which life will evolve in order for the perpetual creation of universes to be sustained.

In other words, DNA comes from a process originating from nothing at all.

I mostly agree with these ideas.  But if nothingness and somethingness necessitate each other, then there must be some relational medium binding both nothingness and somethingness...a set containing both, or an archetype for all sets in general.

[Rassah]

You'd think that there would have been umpteen examples of life starting in the billions of years the planet has been around but we know that it only happened once.

Actually we don't. It could have happened billions of times, in millions of puddles around the world, and just died out before it could get anywhere.

[Rassah]

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

So, again, we got rid of the tail instead of growing a bigger one because it made sense, not because it reduced our ability to survive. I bet tails would make an office clerk's life troublesome

It wasn't because "it made sense," it was because our particular species of ape migrated to the grass plains for whatever reason, and had to rely more on running around than jumping around branches and hanging on trees. Long tails between our butt cheeks made running a tad inconvenient, and only gave predators something to grab on to.

[Rassah]

For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.

Isn't our reproductive drive still controlled by what we find attractive? Thus, we seek out women with big boobs and big hips, and women seek out slim, muscular men? I don't think there's a lot of free will in what we find attractive, eve if cultural biases change.

[the joint]

For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.

Isn't our reproductive drive still controlled by what we find attractive? Thus, we seek out women with big boobs and big hips, and women seek out slim, muscular men? I don't think there's a lot of free will in what we find attractive, eve if cultural biases change.

What I find attractive has morphed continuously over the years, and it's largely because of my choices and my lifestyle.  In times when I've made more reckless choices, I've been attracted to more 'reckless' women with a certain physical appearance.  Over the past few years when I've been trying to become a responsible adult, my tastes have changed.

[pepto]

Pardon a beginners intrusion. I think that nothingness and anythingness only exist for humans,

Sure, humans are the only ones who can perceive these things.
But it doesnt mean  these things seize to exist if humans arent there perceiving them.
Maybe I should have said that "nothingness" isnt more legitimate than "somethingness".
Therefore, both have to exisit for the sake of equlibrium.

I think it does mean that these things cease to exist when the last perceiving human stops perceiving. Animals   win by default, and were I one of them would chuckle at at the frivolous endeavors that humans seem so intent on persuing.