Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human - Chimp split 4 million years ago?
Carson O'Genic
Junior Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 20
From: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 16 of 33 (408684)
07-04-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by whaler777
05-25-2007 11:02 PM


I'll try to steer back on topic here.
"And as far as the Chimp theory goes, what force was in place to decide so many chimps would become human and are there angry chimps out there because they weren't selected? If this force was evident then why doesn't it do it again?"
4 million years is the estimate for the common ancestor for chimps and humans. In that time chimps and humans have both evolved. My understanding is that there is not a lot of fossil record for chimps and apes, mostly due to the fact that animals that live in tropical forests are not as likely to fossilize well. If anyone knows of a good candidate for the common chimp/human ancestor I'd like to know. I've found Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis at wikipedia which are a bit older than 4 million years. Some of the Australopithecus species are about 4 million years old, so maybe they were the common ancestor or closely related. Either way, none of these fossil species are like modern chimps. Chimps did not become humans is the point.
Second, the force that made us is still at work- natural selection. It laid waste to many species of humanoids, and probably a good number of apes, over the last 4 million years. Meanwhile today, humans are still breeding like mad and most of the apes are having a hard time surviving. Mother Nature can be a real bitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by whaler777, posted 05-25-2007 11:02 PM whaler777 has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 17 of 33 (409568)
07-10-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by zcoder
03-20-2007 11:25 AM


On Theory
quote:
Here theory was use I think a recap of the meaning of theory is in odyer.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
But it is obvious that in the posts you are quoting, the term theory is not given its common useage meaning, but its scientific meaning. That is: a theory is the the accepted best possible explanation of the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 11:25 AM zcoder has not replied

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 18 of 33 (419141)
09-01-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-24-2007 11:17 AM


Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? So does that mean that humans are chickens?
Yet that's the reasoning of evolutionists. They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share these things:
1)A heart
2)A brain
3)A digestive system
4)A stomach
5)Arms and legs
6)A circulatory system
7)A nervous system
8)A reproductive system
9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth
10)An endocrine system
Amd many MORE COMMON TRAITS THAN DIFFERENT TRAITS. But evolutionists say; "Duh, why do animals and humans have similar DNA. Dat must mean dat animals turned into humans, uh-huh, uh-huh." LOL
Needless to say, that kind of impossible leap to conclusion only proves that evolutionists not only can't see WHY animals can't turn into humans, but it excludes the real reason why the DNA of anials and humans are so similar. So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2007 11:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2007 10:19 AM Refpunk has not replied
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 09-01-2007 10:34 AM Refpunk has not replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2007 10:36 AM Refpunk has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 33 (419143)
09-01-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 10:06 AM


repeated fallacy
Did you know that posting the same erroneous message you started with shows you haven't learned a thing? That is troll type behavior.
See responses to Message 68 for some comments relating to your claim here.
Please note that you need to substantiate your claim with the evidence -- something you have not done -- and that without substantiation all you have are words blowing in the wind.
Cite your sources.
...animals and humans have to share these things:
1)A heart
2)A brain
3)A digestive system
4)A stomach
5)Arms and legs
6)A circulatory system
7)A nervous system
8)A reproductive system
9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth
10)An endocrine system
Sponge - Wikipedia
quote:
The sponges or poriferans (from Latin porus "pore" and ferre "to bear") are animals of the phylum Porifera. They are primitive, sessile, mostly marine, water dwelling, filter feeders that pump water through their bodies to filter out particles of food matter. Sponges also excrete sperm cells through these holes. Sponges represent the simplest of animals. With no true tissues (parazoa), they lack muscles, nerves, and internal organs.
You are so easily proven wrong about such a simple claim, could it be that your whole post is pure fabrication?
This specifically was pointed out on the previous thread linked above, and your failure to learn from it is noted as troll behavior.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sponges
Edited by RAZD, : last p

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 10:06 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 33 (419146)
09-01-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 10:06 AM


Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? So does that mean that humans are chickens?
Source? I am a fan of comparative genomics to a certain extent. Here are the genes (amino acid sequences) for cytochrome b (not all of them complete):
Human:
MTPMRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH
YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL
YSETWNIGIILLLATMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ
WIWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIIAALAALHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD
KITFHPYYTIKDALGLLLFLLSLMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYTILRSVPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAMIPILHMSKQQSMMFRPLSQSL
YWLLAADLLILTWIGGQPVSYPFTIIGQVASVLYFTTILILMPTISLIENKMLK
Mouse:
MTNIRKTHPLFKIINHSFIDLPAPSNISSWWNFGSLLGICLMIQIITGLFLAMH
YTSDTMTAFSSVTHICRDVNYGWLIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHVGRGMYYGSYT
FMETWNIGVILLFAVMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTTLVE
WIWGGFSVDKATLTRFFAFHFILPFIITALVIVHLLFLHETGSNNPTGLNSDSD
KIPFHPYYTIKDILGVILMIMFLMTLVLFFPDLLGDPDNYTPANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYAILRSIPNKLGGVLALILSIMVLMLLPFLHTSKLRSLMFRPITQTL
YWILVANLLVLTWIGGQPVEHPFIIIGQLASISYFSIILIFMPIAGIIEDSLLK
FD
Chimpanzee:
MTPXRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH
YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL
YLETWNIGIILLLTTMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ
WVWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIITALTTLHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD
KITFHPYYTIKDILGLFLFLLILMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYTILRSIPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAAIPVLHTSKQQSMMFRPLSQLL
YWLLATDLLILTW
Feel free to compare them yourself, I used some handy dandy software and it gave me:
Human-Chimpanzee: 95.25%
Human-Mouse: 76.19%
Which would seem to contradict your statement. What evidence do you care to bring to the table?
They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share {list of things}
Right - but that doesn't explain why the animals which the fossil record and morphology strongly agree with genetic evidence with regards to the degree of seperation between any two things. According to your reasoning - the marsupial mole would have very similar DNA with that of a placental mole. According to evolutionary reasoning they should be very different. We have done this test, and found that evolutionary reasoning gets the conclusion we see in reality.
The fact is - that there are billions upon billions upon billions of different ways to genetically create any of the traits you described and the evidence is that if we compare genomes we end up with a nested hierarchy of relatedness which is astonishingly similar to what the fossil record would suggest.
So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions.
The science of evolutionary biology is incredibly difficult. It would be best to admit that you don't understand it, rather than to suggest you know biology better than the biologists. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed page width

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 10:06 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 33 (419147)
09-01-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 10:06 AM


Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps?
Did you know that it's actually not, and that creationist websites regularly invent falsehoods and palm them off as truth?
They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share these things:
The similarities we compare in the genome are similarities that appear in non-functional sequences; as a result, an explanation of concordinance from morphological similarity is eliminated.
But evolutionists say; "Duh, why do animals and humans have similar DNA. Dat must mean dat animals turned into humans, uh-huh, uh-huh." LOL
Evolutionists are actually quite a bit smarter than you are. So much so that not only did they anticipate your "explanation", they were able to eliminate it by careful selection of exactly what kinds of sequences we wind up comparing.
Common function would certainly explain some similarities in functional genetic sequences, and evolutionists are just as aware of this as you are.
As a result, the regions where we compare similarities are in non-functioning sequences, and the only explanation for those similarities is common ancestry, which we observe universally to varying degree among all living things.
So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions.
In fact, many evolutionists are animal and plant breeders; additionally, many of them have their own children and are thus intimately acquainted with human reproduction.
Yet, they find that evolution and not creation is the most parsimonious explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth, at the same time that many of them are Christians.
You might ponder why that is so rather than assuming that scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of living things somehow along the way never actually encountered one. The level of ignorance you assume among biologists is simply untenable. Your ignorance, on the other hand, is amply demonstrated every time you post. Don't you think it's about time you stopped saying stuff that's so fucking stupid and actually educate yourself about the science?
Or are you convinced that all science, even that done by Christians (which is probably most of it) constitutes an atheist conspiracy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 10:06 AM Refpunk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:32 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 24 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 12:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 22 of 33 (419154)
09-01-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
09-01-2007 10:36 AM


Sorry, but since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!! So as jesus says; "HE who exalts himself will be humbled."
And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2007 10:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 09-01-2007 11:51 AM Refpunk has not replied
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 09-01-2007 12:02 PM Refpunk has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2007 12:30 PM Refpunk has replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2007 9:25 PM Refpunk has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 33 (419162)
09-01-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 11:32 AM


Try to actually answer posts please
Your post is a simple assertion of what you think is fact. You do not support it. (Hint: find out what an "animal" is defined as in the biological context).
You don't answer any of the specific claims made in the post that you replied to. You have been told that several things are out right lies.
You either agree with that, in which case a comment to that effect would be appropriate or you disagree in which case you should take each one and give facts and reasoning to support your disagreement.
This is a chance for you to learn about biology and how to carry on a reasoned discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:32 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 24 of 33 (419164)
09-01-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
09-01-2007 10:36 AM


Do you know how many "scientists" in the 19th century devoted their lives to studying how bleeding can cure people??
Do you know how many "scientists" in the 19th century devoted their lives to studying why brain size determines intelligence??
Do you think that just because some people have devoted their lives to prove nonsensical theories, that makes their theories true? History has hown the opposite.
So since one of the msot favorite phrases of scientists is; "We now know that what we once thought ws true is not true", then the ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNORANT are those who can't think for themslves but believe ANY prevailing theory in any generation no matter how impossible and ludicrous it is.
Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2007 10:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AdminNosy, posted 09-01-2007 12:04 PM Refpunk has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 33 (419166)
09-01-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 11:32 AM


Sorry, but since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!!
What children know shouldn't be a benchmark of knowledge since they are so frequently wrong. However, in this case they are right - as are the biologists who state likewise (including evolutionary biologists). Of course animals can give birth to humans, and this is witnessed around the world many times a second. That is to say, humans are animals.
However, many children know that animals can change into significantly different animals (caterpillar->butterfly for example) - but this is not evolution!
Evolution is about changes to populations - and population changes are not something we should turn to children to discuss since children generally struggle with basic arithmetic. What evolutionary biologists know is that populations mostly remain the same, but slight pressures can quite quickly change the genetics (and appearance) of the population as a whole.
And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are.
As a side note - baring what you said in mind, we should be careful what we teach children. We have to teach them some things of course, but we should be very sure of their veracity. Science gives us methods for quantifying the likelihood of some statement about the world as being true - so we take the likely things and we teach them to kids. We should avoid teaching them things that we cannot be sure are true since we have no way of quantifying their truth probability. After all - children cannot resist the stronger adults teachings as well as adults can.
I take it you agree with the reasoning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:32 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 26 of 33 (419168)
09-01-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 12:01 PM


Non sequiters do not a refutation make
Exactly how this answers the post you are replying to continues to escape me. Could you take a bit more time and actually respond to the points made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 12:01 PM Refpunk has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 33 (419174)
09-01-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 11:32 AM


Erroneous thinking repeated again
... animals don't turn into humans ...
Sorry, but humans are animals. Denial of this basic fact of biology does not change the fact that humans are animals. We are also mammals and primates and apes.
an·i·mal -1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
This definition applies to humans.
Animal - Wikipedia
quote:
Animals are a major group of organisms, classified as the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. In general they are multicellular, responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms or parts of them. Their body plan becomes fixed as they develop, usually early on in their development as embryos, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on.
The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal, of which animalia is the plural, and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, when the word "animal" is used in a biological context, humans are included.
Note the last line in particular. We are discussing the biology of humans and chimps on this thread, this is a science thread, and we use the scientific meanings of words to discuss science.
Human - Wikipedia
quote:
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2]
(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens
And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are.
Ah yes the world wide disinformation conspiracy concept again. Please respond to How can Biologists believe in the ToE?, where your presence is requested to deal specifically with the ramifications of this claim. Be prepared to submit facts to substantiate your claims (something you seem particularly unable to do).
... since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!!
Since evolution does not claim that animals "turn into" other animals, to say nothing of turning into humans, this is a straw-man argument, a falsehood, that even a child can comprehend leads to false conclusions. This too has been pointed out to you before.
There are four basic reasons for posting false information:
  1. stupidity - you just don't comprehend that it is false,
  2. ignorance - you don't know that it is false,
  3. insanity - you believe it is true, and
  4. maliciousness - lying, you know it is false but post it anyway.
We can also include delusional as a being between ignorance and insanity - in the context of having been mislead by others using false information that you then believe to be true because you trust those sources.
de·lu·sion -noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
The test to distinguish ignorance (being deluded, a false belief, the state of being deluded) and insanity (fixed false belief resistant to reason or confrontation with fact) is the response to evidence that contradicts the belief in question.
We can eliminate ignorance by the presentation of information, as has been done. That leaves stupidity, insanity and lying (malicious) as possible alternatives.
So as jesus says; "HE who exalts himself will be humbled."
This thread is about the genetic difference between humans and chimps. Your original post was relevant to that topic, but this is not.
You were asked to substantiate your claim (Message 18) "that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps" and you have not done so. This is a violation of forum guidelines.
Please cite your sources for the DNA information. Failure to do so will be construed as inability to do so, with the implication that your claim is false and you know it.
Please limit your posting to chimp and human DNA comparisons. That is the topic of this thread.
Anything else will be construed as disruptive troll behavior.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:32 AM Refpunk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 1:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 28 of 33 (419192)
09-01-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
09-01-2007 12:30 PM


Re: Erroneous thinking repeated again
Sorry but calling a human an animal because it's popular to do so no more makes a human an animal than calling a human a tree makes him a tree.
And these two statements: For years, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees was put at 98.5%. The figure was then revised down to less than 95%.
And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans."
But I notice that the variations in DNA differs all over the web depending on who you talk to. So since scientists don't know, then obviously, no one can know.
But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2007 12:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 09-01-2007 1:43 PM Refpunk has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2007 1:52 PM Refpunk has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 29 of 33 (419196)
09-01-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 1:26 PM


Do NOT repeat yourself
You have a 4 hour suspension for not being able to follow suggestions.
And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans."
It has been pointed out to you that this is incorrect. You have never backup up this assertion. That is one thing that is required here.
You have a very short 4 hour break to work on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 1:26 PM Refpunk has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 33 (419198)
09-01-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 1:26 PM


Source Please (request #3)
And these two statements: For years, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees was put at 98.5%. The figure was then revised down to less than 95%.
And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans."
I repeat: what is your source?
Either link a webpage or cite the relevant scientific journal article. Until you do so all you are doing is repeating an assertion that is unsubstantiated, and this is a violation of forum guidelines.
This is the third time I have asked for this information, and the conclusion I have to reach is that you do not have substantiation and are intentionally posting false information (whether you know it to be false or not is another question).
Failure to do so is a continued violation of forum guidelines.
Sorry but calling a human an animal because it's popular to do so no more makes a human an animal than calling a human a tree makes him a tree.
Popularity has nothing to do with it. A human is a animal because it has the characteristics of an animal. I'll put it a different way: there is no characteristic of "animal" that doesn't fit humans.
But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century.
This is off-topic. Again, your presence is requested on How can Biologists believe in the ToE? to discuss this absurd allegation of yours.
But I notice that the variations in DNA differs all over the web depending on who you talk to. So since scientists don't know, then obviously, no one can know.
That would by why you should refer to scientific journal articles rather than websites, and also why you should pay attention to what specifically is being compared. When you look at structural DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 99% similar, but when you look at regulatory DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 95% similar.
Your source is probably comparing structural DNA between mice\chicken and human versus regulatory (or overall) DNA between chimp and human: this is apples and oranges.
So pony up your source and lets see where the problem lies eh?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : anglois

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 1:26 PM Refpunk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 09-01-2007 3:28 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024