2 of 2
2
Can someone PLEASE help explain the “Out of Africa” theory?
Posted: 25 March 2012 05:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29

I am confused. There were no mammals around during Pangaea, but the first mammals appeared when the continents were still relatively close to each other for some of them follow a different evotionary path from the rest, like the marsupials for example. But all this happened tens of millions years ago so I don’t see what has to do with humans or even apes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2012 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29

Maybe I should add that monkeys did appear early enough to make it onto other continents but I am still not sure what we are actually discussing here. Maybe it’s me; I still feel pretty sick and I am kinda out of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2012 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 25 March 2012 05:08 PM

Maybe I should add that monkeys did appear early enough to make it onto other continents but I am still not sure what we are actually discussing here. Maybe it’s me; I still feel pretty sick and I am kinda out of it.

I see your point and I am no expert, but could we consider a certain inevitability?  The enormous variety that the DNA structure itself (refining the complexity allowed through fractals) made it possible for all existent life to develop. Question is at what point did the DNA structure (needing male AND female genes, which provides variety) become the preferred way to procreate as compared to simple division or fractal multiplication?

There are still species which use either, division in amoebas and fractals such as in ferns.

[ Edited: 25 March 2012 05:45 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2012 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7503
Joined  2007-03-02
George - 25 March 2012 05:02 PM

I am confused. There were no mammals around during Pangaea, but the first mammals appeared when the continents were still relatively close to each other for some of them follow a different evotionary path from the rest, like the marsupials for example. But all this happened tens of millions years ago so I don’t see what has to do with humans or even apes.

George, I didn’t say there were mammals.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2750
Joined  2011-11-04
Write4U - 25 March 2012 05:40 PM
George - 25 March 2012 05:08 PM

Maybe I should add that monkeys did appear early enough to make it onto other continents but I am still not sure what we are actually discussing here. Maybe it’s me; I still feel pretty sick and I am kinda out of it.

I see your point and I am no expert, but could we consider a certain inevitability?  The enormous variety that the DNA structure itself (refining the complexity allowed through fractals) made it possible for all existent life to develop. Question is at what point did the DNA structure (needing male AND female genes, which provides variety) become the preferred way to procreate as compared to simple division or fractal multiplication?

There are still species which use either, division in amoebas and fractals such as in ferns.

I heard a scientist being interviewed recently (I think on Colbert).  He was talking about the evolution of the Y chromosome.  Of the 23 pairs of chromosomes that each human has, one chromosome on one of the 23 pairs, is a Y chromosome in males.  since the Y chromosome came into being, I think he said sometime after reptiles evolved, it has diminished relative to the corresponding X chromosome, leading to the thought that human males would become extinct in a couple of million years.  But he said that this is not actually a concern as the Y chromosome that we have has remained the same as that of a rhesus monkey from 300,000 years ago.  The noteworthy point that I took from this is that the essential difference betweed human males and human females, is that human males are part rhesus monkey.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2012 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
TimB - 28 March 2012 11:39 AM
Write4U - 25 March 2012 05:40 PM
George - 25 March 2012 05:08 PM

Maybe I should add that monkeys did appear early enough to make it onto other continents but I am still not sure what we are actually discussing here. Maybe it’s me; I still feel pretty sick and I am kinda out of it.

I see your point and I am no expert, but could we consider a certain inevitability?  The enormous variety that the DNA structure itself (refining the complexity allowed through fractals) made it possible for all existent life to develop. Question is at what point did the DNA structure (needing male AND female genes, which provides variety) become the preferred way to procreate as compared to simple division or fractal multiplication?

There are still species which use either, division in amoebas and fractals such as in ferns.

I heard a scientist being interviewed recently (I think on Colbert).  He was talking about the evolution of the Y chromosome.  Of the 23 pairs of chromosomes that each human has, one chromosome on one of the 23 pairs, is a Y chromosome in males.  since the Y chromosome came into being, I think he said sometime after reptiles evolved, it has diminished relative to the corresponding X chromosome, leading to the thought that human males would become extinct in a couple of million years.  But he said that this is not actually a concern as the Y chromosome that we have has remained the same as that of a rhesus monkey from 300,000 years ago.  The noteworthy point that I took from this is that the essential difference betweed human males and human females, is that human males are part rhesus monkey.

I just watched that last night. It was interesting to learn that our ancestral reptiles had two sexes, but they both carried the same sets of chromosomes, and that the Y chromosome evolved after sex evolved.

Question is at what point did the DNA structure (needing male AND female genes, which provides variety) become the preferred way to procreate as compared to simple division or fractal multiplication?

Sexual reproduction evolved early on in a single-celled eukaryotic species. It is not necessarily the preferred way, since many other species still undergo asexual reproduction. (Here’s more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction )

Ferns have a fractal structure, but you wouldn’t call that reproduction. They reproduce via spores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fern

Some plants can reproduce asexually via vegetative reproduction, though (cloning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetative_reproduction

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2