Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I would suggest that it's incorrect although it depends on the context of the measurement. But at the same time, I'd hardly call it deliberate fraud or deception.
You really are grasping at straws you know that?
How many base pairs would you say the estimation is off when you are talking percentage points when if comes to base pairs? Grasping at straws? It's like this, if you want to make a homology argument then you either accept the inverse logic our you are being deceptive.
It's not just inaccurate and this has been evident in the fossil record as well. When I started looking at the actual fossils I was appalled at the way ape fossils were passed off as our ancestors. I get tired of the propaganda, we are not 99% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzees, that has got to be either a lie or there should be an explanation.
You are making me think it's the former.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
How many base pairs would you say the estimation is off when you are talking percentage points when if comes to base pairs? Grasping at straws? It's like this, if you want to make a homology argument then you either accept the inverse logic our you are being deceptive.
It's not just inaccurate and this has been evident in the fossil record as well. When I started looking at the actual fossils I was appalled at the way ape fossils were passed off as our ancestors. I get tired of the propaganda, we are not 99% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzees, that has got to be either a lie or there should be an explanation.
You are making me think it's the former.
Yes, mark it's all a lie. A big fat stinking lie. Because evolutionary biologists have nothing better to do than sit up there in their ivory towers cackling away as they scheme up new ways to get people to think we descended from apes.
Yeesh.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Yes, mark it's all a lie. A big fat stinking lie. Because evolutionary biologists have nothing better to do than sit up there in their ivory towers cackling away as they scheme up new ways to get people to think we descended from apes.
Yeesh.
It's like this Pete, either we are 99% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA or we are not. The actual evidence says not but they still put out this propaganda that we are. Why not just put the evidence on the table and let people decide for themselves? That's all I'm saying.
If after looking critically at the evidence I have no problem with concluding common ancestry. I have no issues, go in peace. My problem is that the evidence I have seen is not making the homology argument that is being thrown around so carelessly and for me it's a credibility issue.
Are we 99% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzee our not? It's a simple question with an awful lot of research confirming whether or not we are. Answer honestly and tell me how reputable scientists can still say that without any criticism from their peers.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
It's like this Pete, either we are 99% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA or we are not. The actual evidence says not but they still put out this propaganda that we are. Why not just put the evidence on the table and let people decide for themselves? That's all I'm saying.
If after looking critically at the evidence I have no problem with concluding common ancestry. I have no issues, go in peace. My problem is that the evidence I have seen is not making the homology argument that is being thrown around so carelessly and for me it's a credibility issue.
Are we 99% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzee our not? It's a simple question with an awful lot of research confirming whether or not we are. Answer honestly and tell me how reputable scientists can still say that without any criticism from their peers.
Their peers understand how that comparison was made. As it was described in detail in the scientific literature. Why should they offer crticism? If you would lkie to ask about critisizing jouralists who reduce complicated issues into quick soundbites, I can find plenty of critisism at our end. The problem is, no one reports it.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"It is a false religion that disguises itself as Christianity. It is an Orwellian construct that teaches that Reality is a Lie and that Lies are the Truth. That Science is Religion and Religion is a Personal Relationship; that Belief in the Mundane is Faith and that Atheists have more Faith than Christians. It perverts scripture into making Christianity look foolish, while all the while convincing its victims that they are the "True Christians." It is called Creationism." - Split Rock
It's like this Pete, either we are 99% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA or we are not. The actual evidence says not but they still put out this propaganda that we are. Why not just put the evidence on the table and let people decide for themselves? That's all I'm saying.
If after looking critically at the evidence I have no problem with concluding common ancestry. I have no issues, go in peace. My problem is that the evidence I have seen is not making the homology argument that is being thrown around so carelessly and for me it's a credibility issue.
Are we 99% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzee our not? It's a simple question with an awful lot of research confirming whether or not we are. Answer honestly and tell me how reputable scientists can still say that without any criticism from their peers.
It's like this mark, the actual % is irrelevant. Yes, irrelevant. Because you can use different metrics and come up with different %'s. What is really important here is the relative similarities or differences between species based on the same metric. If you started getting completely wonky numbers (i.e. if we were 99% similar to Felis domesticus but only 90% similar to Pan troglodytes based on the same metric), then you'd have a problem.
But you don't. Instead you have different metrics being tossed around and apparently you don't like it. Hell, maybe some of these scientists even get the numbers wrong now and then. Tough cookies, learn to interpret what these numbers mean and deal.
There's no secret conspiracy. There's no evil scientists in their ivory towers scheming up ways to deceive Christians. There's no big lie. Scientists have more important things to do.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
It's like this mark, the actual % is irrelevant. Yes, irrelevant.
Then why misrepresent them, why twist them, why lie?
Because you can use different metrics and come up with different %'s. What is really important here is the relative similarities or differences between species based on the same metric. If you started getting completely wonky numbers (i.e. if we were 99% similar to Felis domesticus but only 90% similar to Pan troglodytes based on the same metric), then you'd have a problem.
I have a problem because there are basic, fundamental differences and there is a genetic basis. The homology arguments never stand up to close scrutiny and that, more then anything else, makes the TOE mythology suspect.
But you don't. Instead you have different metrics being tossed around and apparently you don't like it. Hell, maybe some of these scientists even get the numbers wrong now and then. Tough cookies, learn to interpret what these numbers mean and deal.
The statement was straightforward and unambiguous, 99% the same in the DNA. This statement is simply false and you have a heck of a nerve to defend the statement by dismissing it as metrics. What is being measure is the DNA and what is at stake is comparative genomics. The actual science is indicating something a lot more different and your condescending tone indicates exactly what I have been saying. We are dealing with two assumptions, the first is that universal common descent can never be questioned and the second is that if you do you are ignorant.
I have read the literature and the fact is the statement is false and you support it. Not out of a love for science but a desperate need to ignore the actual facts unless convenient.
There's no secret conspiracy. There's no evil scientists in their ivory towers scheming up ways to deceive Christians. There's no big lie. Scientists have more important things to do.
Then why lie, I have the peer reviewed scientific literature backing me and all you have is this shallow rhetoric. Again, what is being compared is the DNA and saying the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is 99% the same is a lie or a factual statement off by hundreds of millions of base pairs.
Again, the direct comparison is the DNA, what is the percentage of similarity? If you say 99% then you are wrong and you know it, which is why you keep talking in circles. Deep down I think you know that the truth is being distorted and frankly, it's shameful.
Prove me wrong Pete, I will accept you invitation to a formal debate on the topic of the comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA. Bring it or let it rest because you can't win.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 12th May 2009 at 09:59 PM.
Their peers understand how that comparison was made. As it was described in detail in the scientific literature. Why should they offer crticism? If you would lkie to ask about critisizing jouralists who reduce complicated issues into quick soundbites, I can find plenty of critisism at our end. The problem is, no one reports it.
Their peers would simply not accept that statement in the peer reviewed literature. The statement is wrong and it's a common statement that they know is untrue. I understand that there is always room for interpretation when it comes to a general statement but this one was obviously wrong. I think it makes for good science to realize that the differences are considerable and to account for them. For some reason evolutionists are not being compelled to do that and that indicates that there is no critical discernment with regards to the most important question regarding our origins. How.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Then why misrepresent them, why twist them, why lie?
Because, I already told you. Scientists have nothing better to do than scheme up new ways to get the public to believe they are descended from apes. And eat kittens.
The statement was straightforward and unambiguous, 99% the same in the DNA. This statement is simply false and you have a heck of a nerve to defend the statement by dismissing it as metrics. What is being measure is the DNA and what is at stake is comparative genomics. The actual science is indicating something a lot more different and your condescending tone indicates exactly what I have been saying. We are dealing with two assumptions, the first is that universal common descent can never be questioned and the second is that if you do you are ignorant.
And what I'm saying is that what is really important is the relative makeup of the similarities and differences between species. Whatever percentage they slap on it is largely irrelevant. It's just a number which depending on the metric can be different.
Quite frankly, I don't know where this 99% that author is quoting comes from, since even based on single nucleotide subs, the difference is ~98.5%. Maybe they are talking about the single nucleotide differences within a single lineage, in which it would be better characterized as the differences between humans and the common ancestor of chimps-humans. Heck, maybe they just got it wrong (yes, scientists make errors). Without knowing the greater context of that quote, I can't say for sure.
But at the end of the day, it's just the writings of one author. Single authors don't make an entire scientific establishment.
Prove me wrong Pete, I will accept you invitation to a formal debate on the topic of the comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA. Bring it or let it rest because you can't win.
Nah mark, I've butted heads with you before and I know it will go nowhere.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Because, I already told you. Scientists have nothing better to do than scheme up new ways to get the public to believe they are descended from apes. And eat kittens.
They know the facts and deliberately misrepresent them. The OP makes a bogus statement that is clearly unsupported by the evidence yet no evolutionist corrects to error. I point out Pollard makes a statement repeating the same error and you find no fault, just make some lite quips.
And what I'm saying is that what is really important is the relative makeup of the similarities and differences between species. Whatever percentage they slap on it is largely irrelevant. It's just a number which depending on the metric can be different.
Then why not use the accurate metric unless it's nothing more then a bogus homology argument?
Quite frankly, I don't know where this 99% that author is quoting comes from, since even based on single nucleotide subs, the difference is ~98.5%. Maybe they are talking about the single nucleotide differences within a single lineage, in which it would be better characterized as the differences between humans and the common ancestor of chimps-humans. Heck, maybe they just got it wrong (yes, scientists make errors). Without knowing the greater context of that quote, I can't say for sure.
Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
About 5% of the proteins show in-frame indels
The indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Nature, 2005)
But at the end of the day, it's just the writings of one author. Single authors don't make an entire scientific establishment.
She is one of the most insightful researchers I have seen and I have read considerably on the subject. She cannot be misinformed and why this bogus statement was made remains one of the mysteries of TOE as an ongoing propaganda campaign.
Nah mark, I've butted heads with you before and I know it will go nowhere.
Which is why I don't bother with the more substantive points of interest.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
They know the facts and deliberately misrepresent them. The OP makes a bogus statement that is clearly unsupported by the evidence yet no evolutionist corrects to error. I point out Pollard makes a statement repeating the same error and you find no fault, just make some lite quips.
I make quips because I'm not taking it seriously. I know you subscribe to crackpot conspiracy theories about scientists and the ToE, but I'm not quite so concerned.
Then why not use the accurate metric unless it's nothing more then a bogus homology argument?
I don't know mark. I'm not the author. Here's an idea: If it bothers you that much, why don't you just, y'know, ask?
She is one of the most insightful researchers I have seen and I have read considerably on the subject. She cannot be misinformed and why this bogus statement was made remains one of the mysteries of TOE as an ongoing propaganda campaign.
More crack-pottery...
I just can't take you seriously, mark. You're really off the deep end with this stuff.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Linear Mode
