Your Great Great Granny Was A Chimp
I was recently sent an article Chimps are human, gene study implies (2003) that claimed “The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.”
Did you read that? I mean really read it? “of the most critical DNA sites” – This does not mean 99.4 percent when totally comparing all of man’s DNA with chimps DNA.
Of course, conveniently I ran across another article Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more (2003) stating that the number has dropped to only 95 percent. And remember this is not matching 100 percent of human DNA to 100 percent chimp DNA.
The following is from the article:
Did you read that? I mean really read it? “of the most critical DNA sites” – This does not mean 99.4 percent when totally comparing all of man’s DNA with chimps DNA.
Of course, conveniently I ran across another article Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more (2003) stating that the number has dropped to only 95 percent. And remember this is not matching 100 percent of human DNA to 100 percent chimp DNA.
The following is from the article:
The 98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared.
Specific examples of these differences include:
1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome.
Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
18 comments:
Jeez, you sound like that fraudster, Kent Hovind, who is now in jail for tax frauds, and is known to own a Doctorate from a diploma Mill.
I haven't read the latest DNA comparisons yet, but from what I read, 99.6% is the data presented by scientists.
In any case, its just a matter of figures and statistics. The truth is, we share a lot of genetic and behavorial instincts with apes. Hell, they even have morals like we do.
Ok, pardon me for posting again.
I got to check up your sources, and it seems you got your source from "Answers from Genesis". Kind of makes me wonder.......is that a scientific website?
Please, I won't even bother to check these sites out if I were you.
How do I sound like anyone when I simply post info from an article? I guess I would sound like the article. I don’t believe Kent Hovind wrote this article. Also whether or not he is in jail for taxes and/or has “fake” diploma(s) does not prove that evolution is true and that creationism is not.
Attack of a person or character really has no bearing of truth. Only on whether or not you use them as a source.
The truth is, we share a lot of genetic and behavorial instincts with apes. Hell, they even have morals like we do.
I am not disagreeing with your points here. But again, what we do have in common does not prove that we have a common ancestor, unless you consider that ancestor the Creator which created all things to His honor and glory.
Funny thing is female apes don’t try to abort their young. Only males trying to show their “manhood” or “beastly instincts” because of children that aren’t theirs might do this after the apes are born. I don't see male apes running around with male apes in "civil union" either.
I got to check up your sources, and it seems you got your source from Answers from Genesis". Kind of makes me wonder.......is that a scientific website?
So now sites have to be approved by you? It is documented with references and the link you sent simply states that scientist disagrees with this one’s report. Go figure – all scientist don’t 100% agree. Hmmm….
Well. True. Apes don't go around having abortions. They simply practice infanticide.
Well, of course they don't have civil unions, but come to think of it, I find it quite silly as well.
Like I said, "Answers In Genesis" is not a good website for scientific research. You might want to go somewhere else.
When I mentioned Kent Hovind, it was because your "My great great granny was a chimp" quote is similar to Kent Hovind, so I assumed you are a fan of his. And if you are, woe to you. He's as much a Doctor as an ass is a racehorse.
Hmm. Well, you can go on quoting from Kent Hovind's or some Creationist bull, but to me its a waste of time, because anyone who says the universe is 10,000 years old and the Earth is 6000 is going into the category of folks who believe the world is flat, or a teapot circumnavigates the sun.
Of course not all scientists agree 100%, that is how science works.
The idea of "Objective Falsifiability" does not make sense to you? I think not.
You might want to check this out: Its the latest comparison for human and ape DNA comparison.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm
Honestly, I picked the title because it sounded funny.
anyone who says the universe is 10,000 years old and the Earth is 6000 is going into the category of folks who believe the world is flat, or a teapot circumnavigates the sun.
Why? Just as God created Adam in scripture with maturity age and not as a new born baby, so then God created the earth and all that is with maturity.
Funny you would like to criticize Christians of old for their flat earth, etc. but don’t quite often mention the blunders of actual science and scientists throughout the years.
Of course not all scientists agree 100%, that is how science works.
This is why you nor any scientist can say 100% macroevolution exist and/or that humans and chimps have come from a single ancestor. You simply think and accept it to be true – not because you can see it, but because you accept it.
Just as you claim you can’t see God and no one was around when He created all things. You weren’t here when you say macroevolution started and you haven’t actually seen it in action. You only accept presented artifacts which could be argued as only mutations and/or other species and not actually macroevolution links.
You ask, where is God now? I ask, where is macroevolution now?
Simply this: If you wish to believe evolution you will take the “facts” presented slanted in that direction to accept evolution. If you wish to believe evolution is false you will take the “facts” presented slanted in that direction to deny evolution.
If there were no facts showing that common ancestry is incorrect, all scientists would agree in evolution. Interestingly they don’t.
Sigh. I am repeating this so many times i am sounding like a broken recorder.
No scientist of considerable repute will say that evolution, macro or otherwise is false. That is because the evidence we have suggests a pattern of evolution, and try as you might, all these evidences points towards two processes: evolution and natural selection.
What scientists debate, however, are the mechanisms behind evolution, what drives them,the exact interpretation of data, etc. It is not the wholesale rejection of evolution persay...........you get what I mean?
There is no doubt that macroevolution exists, the fossils are solid proof of earth's natural history, with DNA and carbon dating datas to collate with archaeological findings.
These are some solid discoveries, not some crackpot hallucinations of some morons pretending to be scientists.
As for God......my question is simple, can you provide me with empirical data of god?
Please do not make me repeat my answers to your questions. It seems to me you are losing your argument, and you are just trying to repeat everything I have refuted. Be constructive, talk science, not religion.
Another tip:
In science, all things are potentially falsifiable.
Even standard hard facts, such as the speed of light and the theory of gravity, are considered potentially falsifiable in the eyes of science.
This is because science is an institution of learning, not religion. If you think you have the data to prove a scientific fact wrong, present it to the satisfacton of the great scientific method, then wholla! Nobel prize winner.
This, my friend, is science. Its not perfect, but its way better than superstition and religion.
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas.
Interesting quote.
I thought I mention the idea of "potential falsifiability" to you?
Perhaps you should read what I have written, to prevent yourself from repeating my words.
By the way, giving me links to creationist websites for the basis of argument is mute. The Reason? Creationism is not science. I suggest you use scientific stuff, such as national geographic instead.
The comparison of DNA means very little. We are also closely related to mice as shown there and here.
Human and Animal DNA
Indeed, man's DNA shows close resemblance to mice, but that does not match with those of apes.
Mr Splinter: No Christians talking about science, please.
Science is science, religion is religion, and both are separate entities.
No Christians talking about science
So there can be no Christian scientist? Can there be theists and deists scientist or only scientist that do not believe in any Creator at all? That would be one way to ensure the proclamation of what you would like taught.
Well, there are christian scientists, to be sure, but what I really am specifically targeting are those pseudo scientists who believe in the Creationist nonsense, if you know what I mean.
Post a Comment