Re: Polymorphism in genomics Re: subtract orangutan genome from chimpanzee genome to gain Throwing genes

From: Archimedes Plutonium (a_plutonium_at_iw.net)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:29:28 -0500

26 Jul 2004 20:32:50 -0700 Ray Audette wrote:

> Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
> > I wonder if the difference between throwing underarm by chimps and throwing
> > overarm by humans is due to some polymorph. And whether the underarm by chimps
> > and the non throwing of orangutans is due to a polymorphism.
> >
> But of course even chimps throw like girls. You'll never see one in a
> baseball game for this reason.
>
> The feature that most seperates humans from apes is our lopsided
> brains. A feature that is most pronounced in male specimins (
> explaining the failure of women's Major League Baseball). Hominid
> skulls are longitudinaly asymetrical even in the most primitive types
> thus allowing one to differenciate between ape and hominid skull
> remains. This results in extreme eye dominance giving hominids a
> unique evolutionary advantage - the ability to aim a thrown object,
> allowing a man with a rock or sharp stick to kill any animal on earth
> ( something a tiger cannot do). The major advantage of bipedialism is
> that it frees our hands to carry such projectiles and allows humans to
> run further than any animal except wolves ( the only others species
> capable of runing a 26 mile marathon). Our lack of fur and unique
> sweat glands provide the cooling system necessary to accomplish such a
> feat. In warm climates, humans can outrun even dogs because of this
> unique cooling system ( the reason the Iditerod must be run in Alaska
> in winter).
>

Well, you have to be able to distinguish in an environment, which is the driving
force for change in a species. In this case it is simple to distinguish.

On one side with have a new behaviour some 10 million years ago of Stone and Rock
throwing.

On the other side, Ray claims importance to brain shape and left and right
hemisphere.

I say easy, because, well, can brain shape force into existence Stone throwing or
drive throwing to various degrees of proficiency? No, of course not.

But can Stone throwing create and drive brain geometry? And here the answer is
resoundingly yes. So as the first apelike creatures some 10 million years ago
started the new Behaviour of throwing rocks and stones and gaining some advantage
from that new behaviour would lead to morphology changes in the anatomy of those
apes and start them on the road to becoming humanlike creatures.

So the question really is very simple. What is the driving force mechanism? Does
brain shape drive or force Stonethrowing behaviour or does Stonethrowing drive and
force morphology changes and shape the brain.

For me it is so simple to see that Stonethrowing came first and drove and forced
the apelike anatomy to become human anatomy.

The science of anthropology and paleontology and genetics will not end with silly
illogical assertions such as left and right hemisphere and brain shape, (just like
the silly Neanderthal debate) will not end their silliness until genetic evidence
quiets the silliness.

So, once we get DNA or genomics evidence that shows human DNA is different from
chimpanzee and orangutan and gorilla DNA because human DNA is coded for *superior
throwing behaviour*. Silliness in Neanderthal debate is quieted with the DNA
evidence. Silliness in how bipedalism and humans forged from ape-stock came
directly from Throwing behaviour will be quieted only after DNA evidence shows it
to be the case.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Answering creationists
    ... " ...given the recent claim repeating that DNA of humans and ... chimps is only 4% different. ... mutations to base pairs in humans and not in chimps, ... Most scientific evidence shows the bible account to be total rubbish. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some more Bull****! Whats the 1.2-5% dna Diff! (Chimp to man)
    ... lions are closely related to humans. ... Percentage of sequence similarity, on the other hand, is highly ... "If all carbon based life has DNA; Human DNA is closest to chimp DNA ... that one simple datum -- degree of sequence similarity between chimps ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some more Bull****! Whats the 1.2-5% dna Diff! (Chimp to man)
    ... lions are closely related to humans. ... Percentage of sequence similarity, on the other hand, is highly ... "If all carbon based life has DNA; Human DNA is closest to chimp DNA ... that one simple datum -- degree of sequence similarity between chimps ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some more Bull****! Whats the 1.2-5% dna Diff! (Chimp to man)
    ... lions are closely related to humans. ... Percentage of sequence similarity, on the other hand, is highly ... "If all carbon based life has DNA; Human DNA is closest to chimp DNA ... that one simple datum -- degree of sequence similarity between chimps ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some more Bull****! Whats the 1.2-5% dna Diff! (Chimp to man)
    ... lions are closely related to humans. ... Percentage of sequence similarity, on the other hand, is highly ... "If all carbon based life has DNA; Human DNA is closest to chimp DNA ... that one simple datum -- degree of sequence similarity between chimps ...
    (talk.origins)