Which came first? plants or animals?

[Loudmouth]

No, he is quite correct. Humans' DNA fits in a nested hierarchy of relationship with other mammals and our DNA is extremely close to that of chimpanzees and bonobos. Just a couple of percentage points worth of difference. We are just a little bit less related to gorillas and even more distant from orangutans.


You could try to debunk his claim, I don't think you will have any luck.

In fact, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with any other species, including gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. If you include chimps and gorillas in the same kind, then you must also include humans in that same kind because they are within the genetic variation seen between chimps and gorillas.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, he is quite correct. Humans' DNA fits in a nested hierarchy of relationship with other mammals and our DNA is extremely close to that of chimpanzees and bonobos. Just a couple of percentage points worth of difference. We are just a little bit less related to gorillas and even more distant from orangutans.


You could try to debunk his claim, I don't think you will have any luck.

You do realize that one of those "percentage points" add up to millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information?

 

[Kylie]

You do realize that one of those "percentage points" add up to millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information?

Citation needed that it is "millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information."

But it's all irrelevant anyway, because if those few percentage points of difference are worth millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information, then the many percentage points of similarity would be worth TRILLIONS of volumes of encyclopedia type of information.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do realize that one of those "percentage points" add up to millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information?

You do realize that you are making this up?

2% of 3 billion is still 2% of 3 billion. That is, on average, 2 bases different out of every 100. There are more differences between the chimp and gorilla genomes.

 

[EternalDragon]

You do realize that you are making this up?

2% of 3 billion is still 2% of 3 billion. That is, on average, 2 bases different out of every 100. There are more differences between the chimp and gorilla genomes.

You need to get updated on more current information.

But in any case, what you are describing and what scientists are studying are design similarities. You just assume they are from evolution because that is what you have faith in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to get updated on more current information.

But in any case, what you are describing and what scientists are studying are design similarities. You just assume they are from evolution because that is what you have faith in.

Again, you are misusing the word "assume".

Hmm, they managed to get AV's abuse of thalidomide into a reportable "sin" perhaps we can do the same with E.D.'s misuse of the word "assume".

And why do you claim we need to get updated in more current information? There are several ways of measuring similarity of genomes and the 98% figure stands. Actually it is 98.8% similarity. And the differences between Man and gorilla is about 1.6%:

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

ETA: And the difference between chimps and gorillas is the same as the difference between men and gorillas. Chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.

 

[SkyWriting]

And what about the similarities of non-coding DNA? For instance, endogenous retroviruses can insert themselves at random in chromosomes.

I'll go over this again. I first learned this from a pretty tall blonde i was
dating in 7th grade. There is no such thing as random. It's a word used
in place of "I AM Ignorant of enough details to explain what is happening".

How people get this idea they can use ignorance as proof of concept,
I'll never understand.

 

[[serious]]

Hi there.

So I got to thinking. If abiogenesis kick-started life on this planet, which did it kick-start first? plants or animals?

If it kick-started plants, are we plants?

If it kick-started animals, are plants animals?

How then did plants transition to animals, or animals transition to plants?

Maybe there were two abiogeneses: one for plants and one for animals?

Thoughts?

You would need to define your terms. using phylogenetic groupings, Plantae separated from eukaryotes before metazoa.

If you are meaning heterotrophs vs autotrophs, best data supports heterotrophs being the first life with autotrophs developing after.

 

[AV1611VET]

You would need to define your terms. using phylogenetic groupings, Plantae separated from eukaryotes before metazoa.

If you are meaning heterotrophs vs autotrophs, best data supports heterotrophs being the first life with autotrophs developing after.

Okay ... thanks.

 

[EternalDragon]

Again, you are misusing the word "assume".

Hmm, they managed to get AV's abuse of thalidomide into a reportable "sin" perhaps we can do the same with E.D.'s misuse of the word "assume".

And why do you claim we need to get updated in more current information? There are several ways of measuring similarity of genomes and the 98% figure stands. Actually it is 98.8% similarity. And the differences between Man and gorilla is about 1.6%:

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

ETA: And the difference between chimps and gorillas is the same as the difference between men and gorillas. Chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.

This article says man and gorilla are 98% identical on the genetic level.

Gorillas & Humans Closer Than Thought, Genome Sequencing Reveals | Gorilla Genes | LiveScience

And this says it as well....also mentioning that it creates a problem with the evolutionary tree.

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says

"Even if humans and gorillas actually were 98% genetically similar, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why 98% similarity is considered powerful evidence for common ancestry, and at what point does the comparison cease to support common descent? What about 97% different? 95%? 90%? 80%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here?"

- 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes - Evolution News & Views

So just as a computer has a keyboard and a cell phone has a keyboard for texting, design in nature has many similarities too. It does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

 

[USincognito]

This article says man and gorilla are 98% identical on the genetic level.

Gorillas & Humans Closer Than Thought, Genome Sequencing Reveals | Gorilla Genes | LiveScience

And this says it as well....also mentioning that it creates a problem with the evolutionary tree.

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says

"Even if humans and gorillas actually were 98% genetically similar, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why 98% similarity is considered powerful evidence for common ancestry, and at what point does the comparison cease to support common descent? What about 97% different? 95%? 90%? 80%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here?"

- 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes - Evolution News & Views

So just as a computer has a keyboard and a cell phone has a keyboard for texting, design in nature has many similarities too. It does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

We discussed the comparisons of the human and gorilla genomes previously. You even participated in that thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7790244/
It's very dishonest to pretend that the issue had not been addressed previously.

 

[EternalDragon]

We discussed the comparisons of the human and gorilla genomes previously. You even participated in that thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7790244/
It's very dishonest to pretend that the issue had not been addressed previously.

Pretending? How so?

It appears that thread quickly dissolved into talking about retroviruses.

 

[KWCrazy]

So what was this common ancestor? half-plant and half-animal?

It was a planimal.
It came about by unknown means and somehow contained the genetic information to become every species of plant and animal on earth. We know that it had to be schizophrenic and harbor hatred for itself, because it would have to yield predatory offspring to control its population before it consumed all of the available food in whatever body of slime it came from. The food of course is another problem, since living things eat only living things. Maybe it lived off photosynthesis and pooped salinity into the oceans. In any respect, it had to contain in its barely functional DNA the blueprint for all life on earth. The alternative is that there is a God. That brings with it implications of its own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This article says man and gorilla are 98% identical on the genetic level.

Gorillas & Humans Closer Than Thought, Genome Sequencing Reveals | Gorilla Genes | LiveScience

And this says it as well....also mentioning that it creates a problem with the evolutionary tree.

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says

"Even if humans and gorillas actually were 98% genetically similar, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why 98% similarity is considered powerful evidence for common ancestry, and at what point does the comparison cease to support common descent? What about 97% different? 95%? 90%? 80%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here?"

- 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes - Evolution News & Views

So just as a computer has a keyboard and a cell phone has a keyboard for texting, design in nature has many similarities too. It does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

Yes, Gorillas are very closely related to us too. You did not read my post or the article. And then you used at least one bogus article in responding to me. My article supported my claim that we are most closely related to chimps. It is also a better source than any of yours.

So read it again and then see if you have any complaints.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This article says man and gorilla are 98% identical on the genetic level.

There are several ways on how to measure genetic similartiy between species. You can't use the result of one way with a certain species and then compare that result to another way of a different species.

That's intellectually dishonest.

"Even if humans and gorillas actually were 98% genetically similar, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why 98% similarity is considered powerful evidence for common ancestry, and at what point does the comparison cease to support common descent? What about 97% different? 95%? 90%? 80%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here?"

It demonstrate ancestry in the EXACT SAME WAY as paternity DNA tests demonstrate that your dad is your biological dad. Or your sister your actual sister.

Also, as has been mentioned countless times to you by now (I know, because i was one of them), it's not just about being similar. It's about the pattern of the similarities, which Always (and I do mean ALWAYS) fits perfectly with the exact same phylogenetic tree. A hierarchy which is perfectly consistent with a family tree.

No matter which bone you trace, which gene, which genetic marker or even entire genomes... the exact same pattern emerges every single time.

And we know why... DNA is inherited by off spring with modification. These modifications accumulate and results in DNA strings that can be mapped in a hierarchical structure. Quite literally. You take a gene and you count which species have the gene. Those who have it are on the same branch, those who don't are on a different branch.

You can do this till you are blue in the face and you will be unable to find a single gene, marker or dna sequence which doesn't fit this tree like a glove.

We expect this in evolution theory. In fact, if a single species would break this tree, evolution as presently understood would be in tremendous problems (not to say falsified).

Creationists however... as a response to this FACT, all they can do is shrug their shoulders and say "that's how god made it", as if this god went through extra trouble to make it look AS IF everything evolved in truelly deceiving manner.

Wake up and smell the Obvious.

So just as a computer has a keyboard and a cell phone has a keyboard for texting, design in nature has many similarities too. It does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

The difference is that the similarties in life follow an extremely consistent pattern with NO EXCEPTIONS and which converge with plenty of independent research from completely unrelated fields like paleontology, geology, archeology, etc.

Genetic algorithms. It works.

 

[AV1611VET]

The alternative is that there is a God. That brings with it implications of its own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was a planimal.
It came about by unknown means and somehow contained the genetic information to become every species of plant and animal on earth. We know that it had to be schizophrenic and harbor hatred for itself, because it would have to yield predatory offspring to control its population before it consumed all of the available food in whatever body of slime it came from. The food of course is another problem, since living things eat only living things. Maybe it lived off photosynthesis and pooped salinity into the oceans. In any respect, it had to contain in its barely functional DNA the blueprint for all life on earth. The alternative is that there is a God. That brings with it implications of its own.

I wonder what you hope to accomplish by making such childish posts.

 

[EternalDragon]

There are several ways on how to measure genetic similartiy between species. You can't use the result of one way with a certain species and then compare that result to another way of a different species.

That's intellectually dishonest.

It demonstrate ancestry in the EXACT SAME WAY as paternity DNA tests demonstrate that your dad is your biological dad. Or your sister your actual sister.

No, it is not the same as a paternity test.

What you are looking at are design similarities in all life. Wake up and smell the obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it is not the same as a paternity test.

Except that it is.

What you are looking at are design similarities in all life. Wake up and smell the obvious.

Again: it's not about the similarities. It's about the pattern of the similarities

How many times must it be repeated?
Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

Is it a bit to devastating to your religious views?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wonder what you hope to accomplish by making such childish posts.

You're assuming it's deliberately childish -- this could be the height of creationist thinking around here.