Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[dad]

"The retrotransposons in humans and chimps behave very differently, which makes two otherwise extremely similar genomes create two species that look almost nothing alike."

http://io9.com/5853228/the-difference-between-humans-and-chimps-is-all-in-the-junk-dna


In times gone past, it is probable that differences in how genes worked (due to the different past laws and nature) MAKE COMPARISONS BASED ON PRESENT SAY GENETIC REALITIES IMPOSSIBLE.

What today is unused stuff was used in the past one assumes. It is significant also that it is this now unused dna that really make chimps and humans seem vastly different. So much for the so called science routine that chimps and man are so alike!

same link.."These days, junk DNA is more accurately referred to as noncoding DNA. These sequences were once dismissed as pointless because they had no obvious biological function and didn't code protein sequences — meaning they didn't directly affect how an organism's genes are expressed"

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Have you not seen the Jungle Book?

They speak English and even do funky little musical numbers. We seem pretty similar to me.

 

[brinny]

"The retrotransposons in humans and chimps behave very differently, which makes two otherwise extremely similar genomes create two species that look almost nothing alike."

http://io9.com/5853228/the-difference-between-humans-and-chimps-is-all-in-the-junk-dna


In times gone past, it is probable that differences in how genes worked (due to the different past laws and nature) MAKE COMPARISONS BASED ON PRESENT SAY GENETIC REALITIES IMPOSSIBLE.

What today is unused stuff was used in the past one assumes. It is significant also that it is this now unused dna that really make chimps and humans seem vastly different. So much for the so called science routine that chimps and man are so alike!

same link.."These days, junk DNA is more accurately referred to as noncoding DNA. These sequences were once dismissed as pointless because they had no obvious biological function and didn't code protein sequences — meaning they didn't directly affect how an organism's genes are expressed"

Thank you.

 

[Davian]

Have you not seen the Jungle Book?

They speak English and even do funky little musical numbers. We seem pretty similar to me.

dad, defeated.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interestingly, this has an historical antecedent. Huxley, defending Darwin's theory in a debate with Owen, used Owen's own research to show that there was no structure in chimpanzees that didn't have a corresponding structure in humans, and vice versa.

History repeats itself.

 

[dad]

Have you not seen the Jungle Book?

They speak English and even do funky little musical numbers. We seem pretty similar to me.

I understand many evilutionists feel that they share a lot in common with the banana also. Worms...you name it! The point that matters here is that they have tried to read the 'book' of present state DNA and then assume that Adam and Noah and co all would have been in that book also. No. The darn things is that the forces that affect atoms and charge, and spin, and etc etc...all affect how DNA works. That means that if the nature was different we could expect the DNA to be different in many ways also. For example passing down in other ways than heredity! Replicating in other ways...faster...etc. The way it looks in the bible is that things indeed did evolve faster. Why? One reason is that the flood had all animals on earth in it. From that ark, in the last say, 4500 years or whatever we have all the vast variety that we NOW see! That means evolving and adapting HAD to be different.

The whole trick of Satan is so called science has been to try to peg everything...DNA, radioactive decay, etc etc..TO THE PRESENT STATE! All modelling of the past is based on that and only on that and on nothing else at all whatsoever but that.

That helps one look at DNA in a different light.

 

[ecco]

The darn things is that the forces that affect atoms and charge, and spin, and etc etc...all affect how DNA works.

One reason is that the flood had all animals on earth in it. From that ark, in the last say, 4500 years or whatever we have all the vast variety that we NOW see! That means evolving and adapting HAD to be different.

That helps one look at DNA in a different light.

Much, much, much faster working DNA. That makes a lot of sense!

That explains how just two of the kind feline became lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and cute little pussycats all in just a short couple of years (4500 years ago until the beginning of the Egyptian empire 4498 years ago). Faster DNA means they could also run much, much, much faster so that they could get all over the earth in just a couple of years.

 

[dad]

Much, much, much faster working DNA. That makes a lot of sense!

No. Different working that took less time than the adapting process in today's nature.

That explains how just two of the kind feline became lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and cute little pussycats all in just a short couple of years (4500 years ago until the beginning of the Egyptian empire 4498 years ago).

That date is not quite right. And there is no reason to assume that there was not a tiger and a lion on the ark. The groupings system of science is flawed.

Faster DNA means they could also run much, much, much faster so that they could get all over the earth in just a couple of years.

No. But a fast continental separation means that the animals on a moving continent got far away real fast! Nice try.

 

[Gottservant]

Please, Dad - it seemed appropriate to me to ask: is there actually anyway to differentiate between animal and man that is both mysterious and science and (which evidences ____)?

My thought is basically, that: there is no way that three times the mystery for an animal - can ever agree with merely double the mystery ____ ____ ____ ____ for a man made (compelling ____ ____- - - - - - - -).

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Look 'almost nothing alike' is clearly set in a context. If we look at men and chimps in the context of all animals (let alone all living things) they look very similar.

And the head is probably the bit that looks most different. Look at photos of naked chimps, and how similar they are to humans.Compared to, say, a centiped. A centipede and a human look very little alike, though both have heads and legs (albeit different numbers), so there is some similarity even there.

 

[freezerman2000]

Let's not get political here...lol

 

[The Barbarian]

I understand many evilutionists feel that they share a lot in common with the banana also.

Maybe geneticists. You have more genes in common with a banana, than you have genes that aren't present in you or a banana. So you and banana trees are much more similar to each other than either of you are to most of the world's organisms.

For example passing down in other ways than heredity! Replicating in other ways...faster...etc.

Interesting. Show us that.

The way it looks in the bible is that things indeed did evolve faster. Why? One reason is that the flood had all animals on earth in it. From that ark, in the last say, 4500 years or whatever we have all the vast variety that we NOW see! That means evolving and adapting HAD to be different.

That or the flood wasn't really worldwide (the Bible doesn't say that it was worldwide). There is no evidence whatever for hyperevolution. And that would mean new species popping up every month. And no one at the time thought it was remarkable enough to mention it?

Sorry. That kind of "just so" story won't work. If you imagine that things worked differently then, that's a problem for you. With no scriptural support, and with evidence indicating that you're wrong, you're kind of out on that limb by yourself.

 

[ecco]

No. Different working that took less time than the adapting process in today's nature.

Yeah, that's what I said "Faster DNA". {Less time = faster}

ecco:
"4500 years ago until the beginning of the Egyptian empire 4498 years ago".

That date is not quite right.

Of course that date is not quite right. But, you said:
"One reason is that the flood had all animals on earth in it. From that ark, in the last say, 4500 years or whatever"

I know the Egyptian Empire is older than 4500 years. I was just trying to fit all this into your concept of reality.


ecco: "That explains how just two of the kind feline became lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and cute little pussycats"

And there is no reason to assume that there was not a tiger and a lion on the ark.

The ark would have been pretty crowded with just two of every KIND. Are you assuming there were lots more? Please tell more about this view.

The groupings system of science is flawed.

KIND is not a scientific grouping system. KIND is a biblical grouping system.

But a fast continental separation means that the animals on a moving continent got far away real fast! Nice try.

1. You believe in continental drift?
2. They still had to get all the way across one continent in just a few years before the split -that's pretty durn fast. But, of course, it's explained by your faster DNA - right?

 

[dad]

Please, Dad - it seemed appropriate to me to ask: is there actually anyway to differentiate between animal and man that is both mysterious and science and (which evidences ____)?

Get a picture, and ask a 6 year old. I doubt that would ever fail.

 

[dad]

Look 'almost nothing alike' is clearly set in a context. If we look at men and chimps in the context of all animals (let alone all living things) they look very similar.

2Co 10:7 -Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

You look more like a department store mannequin than a potato. Yet which one do evilutionists claim we are related to?

 

[dad]

Maybe geneticists. You have more genes in common with a banana, than you have genes that aren't present in you or a banana.

But man is not a banana. Neither is man a chimp.

So you and banana trees are much more similar to each other than either of you are to most of the world's organisms.

Meaningless. You could turn out the bedroom light at night and someone might think you look a lot like outer space...dark.

Interesting. Show us that.

That is like asking us to show you a man living 1000 years. It doesn't work that way now in this state.

That or the flood wasn't really worldwide (the Bible doesn't say that it was worldwide).

Does too. You can't kill all mankind with a flood covering a city block.

There is no evidence whatever for hyperevolution.

Where are you looking? This state!!?? Get serious.

And that would mean new species popping up every month.

Maybe. Or maybe every year...who knows? That would be in the former state not here.

And no one at the time thought it was remarkable enough to mention it?

Better late than never.

With no scriptural support, and with evidence indicating that you're wrong, you're kind of out on that limb by yourself.

Here is a test for scriptural support for you. All animals were on the ark about 4500 years ago. We now have a fantastic array of species. The changes HAD to have happened differently that the way we see evolution go on today.

Bing and a bam and a boom.

 

[dad]

Yeah, that's what I said "Faster DNA". {Less time = faster}

But it was not less time for the way evolution or DNA now works. It just took less time then for the changes to happen because it was not this present state.

ecco:
"4500 years ago until the beginning of the Egyptian empire 4498 years ago".

No. Show the basis for the date!

Of course that date is not quite right.

Let's see you prove that, I disagree. Egypt was post flood.

But, you said:
"One reason is that the flood had all animals on earth in it. From that ark, in the last say, 4500 years or whatever"

I know the Egyptian Empire is older than 4500 years.

You only thought you knew. You didn't. I kid you not.

ecco: "That explains how just two of the kind feline became lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and cute little pussycats"


The ark would have been pretty crowded with just two of every KIND. Are you assuming there were lots more? Please tell more about this view.

No. I am assuming there were the basic created kinds on the ark. Later, after they got off the ark, still in that former nature...they rapidly evolved and adapted!

KIND is not a scientific grouping system. KIND is a biblical grouping system.

Why would kind be a science group?? Science is of this nature! Kinds pre dated this!

1. You believe in continental drift?

I assume it happened fast and probably at the time of the nature change a few hundred years or whatever it was after the flood.

2. They still had to get all the way across one continent in just a few years before the split -that's pretty durn fast.

No. They had a few hundred years!

Now...any tough questions?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

2Co 10:7 -Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

You look more like a department store mannequin than a potato. Yet which one do evilutionists claim we are related to?

Sorry, I've only been back on the forum for a short while. I think I've learnt to read level 1 obsure dad posts, but this is a level 3 at least. It's still beyond me and I have no idea what it means.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Maybe geneticists. You have more genes in common with a banana, than you have genes that aren't present in you or a banana.

But man is not a banana.

Yep. Evolution, you know. The same genetic analysis that can trace paternity or even distant descent (and this can be checked with organisms of known descent) shows that all eukaryotes have a common ancestor. That's why you and bananas share so many genes.

Neither is man a chimp.

True, but again genetic analysis shows them to be our closest living relative. We have many more genes in common with chimps than we do with bananas. And the topper is that such analyses produce the same family tree as that worked out by Linneaus, long before we knew about such things.

And when we can test the record of fossil transitionals, we find that it again affirms evolutionary theory. Would you like to hear about some very cool examples?

Barbarian observes:
So you and banana trees are much more similar to each other than either of you are to most of the world's organisms.

Meaningless.

Nope. In fact, it confirms evidence from other, independent sources.

You could turn out the bedroom light at night and someone might think you look a lot like outer space...dark.

I'm sure if you had thought about it for a bit, you'd have realized how that looks to anyone who would read it, and you would have deleted it.

For example passing down in other ways than heredity! Replicating in other ways...faster...etc.

Barbarian suggests:
Interesting. Show us that.

That is like asking us to show you a man living 1000 years.

So just another creationist fairytale, with nothing support it. We get it.

Barbarian obeserves:
That or the flood wasn't really worldwide (the Bible doesn't say that it was worldwide).

Does too.

Sorry, it doesn't. That's a creationist addition. Feel free to post what you think does that, and I'll show you.

Barbarian observes:
There is no evidence whatever for hyperevolution. And that would mean new species popping up every month.

Maybe.

No maybe about it. Millions of species from a few thousand on the Ark. Not possible. And no one mentioned this amazing evolution.

Barbarian observes:
With no scriptural support, and with evidence indicating that you're wrong, you're kind of out on that limb by yourself.

Here is a test for scriptural support for you. All animals were on the ark about 4500 years ago. We now have a fantastic array of species. The changes HAD to have happened differently that the way we see evolution go on today.

And you've come full circle, now assuming what you proposed to prove.

Bing and a bam and a boom.

Indeed. Next time, think more carefully.

 

[Davian]

Sorry, I've only been back on the forum for a short while. I think I've learnt to read level 1 obsure dad posts, but this is a level 3 at least. It's still beyond me and I have no idea what it means.

That's okay, no one does.