Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[dad]

The sense of "created" that you're talking about seems very brittle in the face of overwhelming evidence from the natural world. Why stick with this clunky idea that "created" means everything was designed and built in one grand singular act? "Created" could have so many other different senses to it, one's that dont force you to retreat from reality in their defense.

Creation was not in this nature. Of course it seems different.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OK, that sounds reasonable and basically what I am getting from multiple sources.

That mystery is indeed something science should be concerned about.

It's an area for continuing research. Science is on the case, as the article you linked to in the first post shows.

To recap then, what science has done is to take the whole genome, including the 91% junk DNA, and compare it. Let's look for a minute just at this junk DNA portion. Science doesn't even know what it does or what it is for basically for the most part. Mystery packets of DNA that is unknown as to what it really is all about.

Now, if that is most of the DNA in mankind, this unknown 91 plus percent then what we have is science comparing they know not what with what they know not what! Any similarity or difference is due, therefore to...they know not what!!!

We don't need to know the exact function of DNA to use it to measure relatedness. You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here, but the non-coding DNA implies relatedness, as does the coding DNA. Similarities are due to DNA that hasn''t mutated to be different, and vice-versa.

I better not dare hear anyone try to use that to claim there was no creation and that mankind is not a special creation.

Chimp to man comparison...R.I.P.!!

You are going to hear people using DNA to claim that Chimps and man had a common ancestor and that we both evolved from it. As there is very good evidence that this is the case.

 

[dad]

It's an area for continuing research. Science is on the case, ..

Science is flying blind. They have no idea how DNA originally was or nature was, so all they can do is stab in the dark, looking for present state explanations. No wonder they have no clue at all what 91 percent of the dna even does!

We don't need to know the exact function of DNA to use it to measure relatedness. You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here, but the non-coding DNA implies relatedness, as does the coding DNA. Similarities are due to DNA that hasn''t mutated to be different, and vice-versa.

No. The unknown part implies nothing at all but you not knowing. The bible implies that God created, so all the dna has to either have uses we don't know about, or once did in the former state...or both! It implies that man is not related to chimps.

You are going to hear people using DNA to claim that Chimps and man had a common ancestor and that we both evolved from it. As there is very good evidence that this is the case.

No. There is absolutely no evidence for that. The idea that heredity has to be the way DNA used to be passed down in the former nature is impossible to prove. That is just a belief based on how it now works.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Science is flying blind. They have no idea how DNA originally was or nature was, so all they can do is stab in the dark, looking for present state explanations. No wonder they have no clue at all what 91 percent of the dna even does!

We have an awful lot of information about what DNA does and how it changes over time. 'Stabbing in the dark' is hyperbole, and a complete mischaracterisation of the situation, as I will explain.

No. The unknown part implies nothing at all but you not knowing. The bible implies that God created, so all the dna has to either have uses we don't know about, or once did in the former state...or both! It implies that man is not related to chimps.

Since we are discussing evolution versus creation, what the Bible says only characterises the creationist view. It doesn't in any way limit the evolutionist view. 'It implies that man is not releated to chimps' is a non-sequitur, I cannot see any link to the previous statements.

The considerable similarity of human and chimp DNA is very strong objective evidence that we are related. Note that this is backed up by mitochondrial DNA, etc.

No. There is absolutely no evidence for that. The idea that heredity has to be the way DNA used to be passed down in the former nature is impossible to prove. That is just a belief based on how it now works.

We have a lot of evidence that DNA is the main part of heredity for pretty much all living and near to living thigns. (RNA viruses are an exception). This is true for the most advanced organisms (higher plants and animals) to the most primitive (archaea, prokaryotes). It is a reasonable belief, backed by that evidence, that DNA has been the main part of heredity since at least these organisms evolved.

Since these organisms evolved well before chimps and humans diverged, that is good evidence that the common ancestor of chimps and humans also had DNA which was the main part of heredity, and that what makes chimps and humans different is mainly down to the changes that have occurred in DNA.

I believe that you are doing what creationists often do. Which is to leap on any form of uncertainty anywhere, and try to amplify the consequences of the uncertainty to repudiate much more than is logically reasonable. Your argument looks to me to be 'We don't know everything about DNA, therefore we know nothing and can make no conclusions.' It doesn't, we are unsure about some things but much more sure about other things. It's the other things that we are very sure about that allows us to use DNA to measure relatedness.

We don't know the function of all DNA. However, we do know that DNA is involved in heredity, codes for proteins, transposons, messenger and other RNA etc. We also know how it mutates over time, is conserved or not by selection. Hence, looking at the raw DNA base sequences allows us to measure relatedness between species, and estimate the time of the last common ancestor.

I'll give you an analogy. In the old days before printing, books were copied by hand. Occasionally mistakes or other changes would be made during copying, and copies of the copies would likely repeat the same changes, as well as add other ones. From this, it is possible to put books into a 'family tree' based on how they were copied.

Now, imaging that the book is in Arabic or some other language that you don't understand. (If you understand Arabic, please substitute another language). Even though you would have no idea what the words of the book mean, you would still be able to find changes and form copies of the book into a family tree. The same applies to DNA of humans, chimps, and other things. What the function of all the DNA is, is not all known. However, we can read the code (see previous links for genetic code for organisms), and this is sufficient to put organisms into a family tree.

If you think it isn't sufficient, then could you please explain why. Just using hyperbole such as claiming that science is stabbing in the dark is not sufficient. We know a lot, not everything, about DNA, it's role in life, and how it is affected during evolution. The family trees and measures of relationship are based upon very good information, and labelling it 'stabbing in the dark' does not work unless you can come up with a strong argument as to why it should be seen as so.

 

[dad]

We have an awful lot of information about what DNA does and how it changes over time. 'Stabbing in the dark' is hyperbole, and a complete mischaracterisation of the situation, as I will explain.



Since we are discussing evolution versus creation, what the Bible says only characterises the creationist view. It doesn't in any way limit the evolutionist view. 'It implies that man is not releated to chimps' is a non-sequitur, I cannot see any link to the previous statements.

The fact that almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast vast majority of it, means that the evilutionist view is limited severely. Also, since you cannot prove what state the past was in, you cannot limit DNA to this state, and how it now works. In fact only the 8% 'works' here anyhow!

The considerable similarity of human and chimp DNA is very strong objective evidence that we are related. Note that this is backed up by mitochondrial DNA, etc.

No. It is evidence that you do not know what lurks within the 91% that actually makes men men and unlike chimps!

We have a lot of evidence that DNA is the main part of heredity for pretty much all living and near to living thigns. (RNA viruses are an exception).

Irrelevant. We know heredity is the big way DNA is passed down now. That is only here in the present...in this present nature though. ...Unless you forthwith prove that you also KNOW that it worked the same at the dawn of man?!

This is true for the most advanced organisms (higher plants and animals) to the most primitive (archaea, prokaryotes). It is a reasonable belief, backed by that evidence, that DNA has been the main part of heredity since at least these organisms evolved.

No. It is a present state based belief and totally unreasonable unless you first prove a same state past existed!

Since these organisms evolved well before chimps and humans diverged, that is good evidence that the common ancestor of chimps and humans also had DNA which was the main part of heredity, and that what makes chimps and humans different is mainly down to the changes that have occurred in DNA.

Circular. You assume a same state past and therefore you believe that some organisms evolved before others! No. Based on what???? Fossil record?? If man and most creatures could not fossilize in that former state then you have no way of knowing that something came before us!

I believe that you are doing what creationists often do. Which is to leap on any form of uncertainty anywhere, and try to amplify the consequences of the uncertainty to repudiate much more than is logically reasonable.

Come on now...I would hardly call over 91% some form of uncertainty...it is the glaring elephant in the room!

Your argument looks to me to be 'We don't know everything about DNA, therefore we know nothing and can make no conclusions.' It doesn't, we are unsure about some things but much more sure about other things. It's the other things that we are very sure about that allows us to use DNA to measure relatedness.

No. You know NOTHING at all about 91% of it! You also know nothing about what laws and state existed. You also know nothing at all about what life really existed first or concurrently in the far past. You should admit you know nothing about 95% of the universe that you call dark stuff. And nothing at all about 91% of DNA!

We don't know the function of all DNA.

Better to phrase it like this...you know nothing about almost all dna!

However, we do know that DNA is involved in heredity,

Now...yes. Not in Noah's day that you can prove. Evolving may have happened to the living creature not (just) the offspring!

codes for proteins, transposons, messenger and other RNA etc.

Irrelevant when that only involves the present nature and 8% of the DNA!

We also know how it mutates over time,

False! Not over that much time. The issue in the creation debate is how much time.

is conserved or not by selection.

More present state observations.

Hence, looking at the raw DNA base sequences allows us to measure relatedness between species, and estimate the time of the last common ancestor.

False. Only as long as this state existed!

Now, imaging that the book is in Arabic or some other language that you don't understand. (If you understand Arabic, please substitute another language). Even though you would have no idea what the words of the book mean, you would still be able to find changes and form copies of the book into a family tree. The same applies to DNA of humans, chimps, and other things. What the function of all the DNA is, is not all known. However, we can read the code (see previous links for genetic code for organisms), and this is sufficient to put organisms into a family tree.

You cannot read the book of the past. Nor will you read God's book of the past.

If you think it isn't sufficient, then could you please explain why. Just using hyperbole such as claiming that science is stabbing in the dark is not sufficient. We know a lot, not everything, about DNA, it's role in life, and how it is affected during evolution.

No. You do not. You know NOTHING about almost all DNA, the 91%. You know nothing of how genes worked in the far past. You know nothing about how DNA was involved or affected in the actual evolution in the actual past.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The fact that almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast vast majority of it, means that the evilutionist view is limited severely. Also, since you cannot prove what state the past was in, you cannot limit DNA to this state, and how it now works. In fact only the 8% 'works' here anyhow!

You have a long argument in this post, but it is based on the wrong information presented in this first paragraph, so I will concentrate on this.

You say 'almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast majority of it.'

This is incorrect. I've already given you links where you can download both the DNA of humans, and the DNA of chimps. We know the entire code. You can download it and read it if you want.

We also know the exact chemistry and form of DNA. We also know a lot of how it is used in cells, how it is transcribed, replicated, etc. We can make artificial DNA and put it into cells, where it will function normally. We can even make artificial different DNA, put it into living things, and it will be replicated. I did link to the HowStuffWorks site, their page on DNA, to help you understand more about DNA.

As I said, claim that 'almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast majority of it.' is clearly wrong. We know an awful lot about it, including the entire DNA sequence for examples of humans and chimps. We also can sequence mitochondrial DNA, which is an independent check of relatedness. You say that 'our view is limited', but the topic in discussion is the degree of relatedness between humans and chimps. We know absolutely plenty enough to make reliable statements on that. Your claims that we don't are, as I've shown, unsupported and based on hyperbolic descriptions of our uncertainty concerning DNA.

You also go on to claim that I don't know that DNA wasn't used for a different purpose at the time that humans and chimps diverged. Since the overall purpose of DNA is the same for all living things that have it, it is a reasonable hypotheses supported by that evidence that its overall purpose was the same for the common ancestor of chimps and humans. We can infer a lot of the genome for that creature by observing the genes that are common to chimps and humans (a lot). There is nothing in all this evidence to suggest that DNA served a different purpose then, and everything to support that it played the same overall role in the biology of that creature. You might as well claim that I have no idea whether the sun provided the earth with light and warmth in the 1600s as I wasn't here. To believe otherwise is going against all evidence and reason. Same for the overall role of DNA in the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

You cannot read the book of the past. Nor will you read God's book of the past.
No. You do not. You know NOTHING about almost all DNA, the 91%. You know nothing of how genes worked in the far past. You know nothing about how DNA was involved or affected in the actual evolution in the actual past.

We can read the book of the past by reading the evidence that has been left behind. There is plenty of evidence left behind in genomes.

And even more hyperbolic statements about our level of knowledge of DNA. We know a lot, and I've pointed out to you how you can go and verify that we do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good answer.
I typed any letters...it wasn't a statement!


So I am starting to form an opinion on all this...

"Because of the overwhelming similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes (and the even greater similarity when examining only their protein-coding regions) it has long been hypothesized that changes in “where and when” genes are transcribed will be a major player in what makes our two species different (in contrast to the idea that we are different because of the relatively tiny changes in the coding regions of our genes)."
http://biologos.org/blog/becoming-human-new-insights-from-genome-wide-functional-genomics

What causes the difference in gene regulation is mutations in the coding genes, transcription factors, and the DNA promoter regions that proteins bind to. This includes recombination events that move genes and promoters around.

It seems that the similarity in man and chimps is not so great when we look at the non coding dna.

It isn't as great. The shared part of the genomes that have function in both chimps and humans will have more similarity than the junk DNA. However, we are only talking about a few percentage points overall. Afterall, the overall similarity is 96% if we included indels, and that includes the junk DNA. Within coding genes it gets closer to 99%.

Even then, there is a lot at work science doesn't understand in the where and when of transcribing. The similar letters do not tell the real or whole story.

Then what do you think produces the difference in transcription between the two species?

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast vast majority of it, means that the evilutionist view is limited severely.

More than 95% of chimp and human DNA is known.

Also, since you cannot prove what state the past was in, you cannot limit DNA to this state, and how it now works. In fact only the 8% 'works' here anyhow!

If you are just going to ignore evidence, then don't ask for it.

 

[dad]

You have a long argument in this post, but it is based on the wrong information presented in this first paragraph, so I will concentrate on this.

You say 'almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast majority of it.'

This is incorrect. I've already given you links where you can download both the DNA of humans, and the DNA of chimps. We know the entire code. You can download it and read it if you want.

That is not what is unknown, what is unknown is whhat 91% of that code does if anything, or did! Strawman.

We also know the exact chemistry and form of DNA. We also know a lot of how it is used in cells, how it is transcribed, replicated, etc. We can make artificial DNA and put it into cells, where it will function normally. We can even make artificial different DNA, put it into living things, and it will be replicated. I did link to the HowStuffWorks site, their page on DNA, to help you understand more about DNA.

You cannot make something work when you do not know how it works. That is a bit like looking at cars in a used car lot. You can give us a number for the model, and make and color and year, but that doesn't tell us who will drive it! That is unknown. Who drove the 91% DNA in the days of Noah? You don't even know what it does NOW!

As I said, claim that 'almost all the DNA is unknown to science..the vast majority of it.' is clearly wrong.

False, it is 100% correct. You know the gook it is made of, and how it comes in sequences...etc. You DO NOT know what 91% of it does. You could hardly BE more ignorant if you tried.

We know an awful lot about it, including the entire DNA sequence for examples of humans and chimps. We also can sequence mitochondrial DNA, which is an independent check of relatedness.

False. Relatedness is not something we can determine past a certain point. Because genes are now passed down almost strictly through heredity, you look at similarities and call that relatedness!!

You say that 'our view is limited', but the topic in discussion is the degree of relatedness between humans and chimps. We know absolutely plenty enough to make reliable statements on that.

As I just mentioned no no no. Releatedness only applies as long as the present nature affected the DNA. You have no idea how long that was. If all you are talking about is parents being related to a kid now...fine. Enter the creation debate, and you are lost in space, dr.

Your claims that we don't are, as I've shown, unsupported and based on hyperbolic descriptions of our uncertainty concerning DNA.

Either show us here and now what exactly all this 91% DNA does and did, or you stand seriously corrected.

You also go on to claim that I don't know that DNA wasn't used for a different purpose at the time that humans and chimps diverged.

They never diverged. That is a belief based deduction, based on the way DNA behaves now.

Since the overall purpose of DNA is the same for all living things that have it,

Maube. Maube not. Maybe man has something special in that 91% unknown to you DNA! Or maybe it used to do something special also...or both. Stop the grandiose claims and speculation already!

it is a reasonable hypotheses supported by that evidence that its overall purpose was the same for the common ancestor of chimps and humans.

There was no common ancestor, that is baseless belief.

We can infer a lot of the genome for that creature by observing the genes that are common to chimps and humans (a lot).

Only within strict limits and only in this nature. Period.

There is nothing in all this evidence to suggest that DNA served a different purpose then,

Since you admit abysmal ignorance of 91% of the DNA as to what it does if anything, and because you do not know the state in the past, you are very very unqualified to even comment on what the unknown stuff was doing in the unknown past!!!!!!

You might as well claim that I have no idea whether the sun provided the earth with light and warmth in the 1600s as I wasn't here.

The sun stood still in Joshua's day. What the sun will do in the future nature we don't know, but we won't even need it.

To believe otherwise is going against all evidence and reason.

The creation debate is mostly further back than the 1600s.

We can read the book of the past by reading the evidence that has been left behind.

Absurd, you can't even read what 91% of DNA does in the book of the present!!
There is plenty of evidence left behind in genomes.

How sweet it is.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That is not what is unknown, what is unknown is whhat 91% of that code does if anything, or did! Strawman.

You cannot make something work when you do not know how it works. That is a bit like looking at cars in a used car lot. You can give us a number for the model, and make and color and year, but that doesn't tell us who will drive it! That is unknown. Who drove the 91% DNA in the days of Noah? You don't even know what it does NOW!
False, it is 100% correct. You know the gook it is made of, and how it comes in sequences...etc. You DO NOT know what 91% of it does. You could hardly BE more ignorant if you tried.

We are not trying to 'make it work', we are just measuring difference. Like my analogy of the copying of Arabic books We don't need to know what it does, we just need to look at the base sequences (the letters GCTCAATCG...) and compare them. If you think we need to know more, please explain.

False. Relatedness is not something we can determine past a certain point. Because genes are now passed down almost strictly through heredity, you look at similarities and call that relatedness!!

As I just mentioned no no no. Releatedness only applies as long as the present nature affected the DNA. You have no idea how long that was. If all you are talking about is parents being related to a kid now...fine. Enter the creation debate, and you are lost in space, dr.

Either show us here and now what exactly all this 91% DNA does and did, or you stand seriously corrected.

I don't have to, because I'm not making any claims which rely on knowledge of exactly what all the DNA does. I'm only using the similarities in the base sequences as evidence (very good evidence) of relatedness.

They never diverged. That is a belief based deduction, based on the way DNA behaves now.

Maube. Maube not. Maybe man has something special in that 91% unknown to you DNA! Or maybe it used to do something special also...or both. Stop the grandiose claims and speculation already!

We are more intelligent than chimps, and this has allowed us to go far beyond them in terms of art, culture, science, technology. And yes, that will be due to something in the DNA, more likely in the coding DNA, plus perhaps some cytoplasmic inheritance. But what has that got to do with measuring relatedness?

There was no common ancestor, that is baseless belief.

If you want to counter well established theories with plenty of evidence behind them, you generally need to have a bit more of a sophisticated argument than simply calling them 'baseless beliefs'. So, do you have evidence of there being no common ancestor.

Only within strict limits and only in this nature. Period.

Why?

Since you admit abysmal ignorance of 91% of the DNA as to what it does if anything, and because you do not know the state in the past, you are very very unqualified to even comment on what the unknown stuff was doing in the unknown past!!!!!!

It's not me commenting on it, it is people who are more qualified and knowledgeable than me. The most qualified people in the world to say this. And not just one of them, there is a very significant scientific consensus that Chimps and Humans are closely related and have a common ancestor. Who is it that disagrees with this, and what are their qualifications to do so? What is their evidence?

Absurd, you can't even read what 91% of DNA does in the book of the present!!

We can read the base sequence, and know a lot of what DNA does. Can you explain why we need to know more in order to have strong evidence of relatedness? Because the scientific consensus is that we now enough. You can't counter a scientific consensus by just dismissing it, you need evidence and a sophisticated arguemnt.

BTW: Mitochondrial DNA does not have any junk dna in it. And is also used to measure relationship between animals. Here is an example where mitochondrial DNA is used to estimate the time of common ancestor between humans and chimps. And no junk dna in sight. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not what is unknown, what is unknown is whhat 91% of that code does if anything, or did! Strawman.

91% of the human genome accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which means that it has no impact on fitness.

If you want to claim that this 91% of the human genome has function, then you need to explain how not a single mutation can change that function.

You cannot make something work when you do not know how it works.

We do know how it works. DNA sequences that have function which impacts fitness show evidence of negative and positive selection. 91% of the human genome shows no evidence of selection. Instead, it accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with the rate of their appearance.

That is a bit like looking at cars in a used car lot. You can give us a number for the model, and make and color and year, but that doesn't tell us who will drive it! That is unknown. Who drove the 91% DNA in the days of Noah? You don't even know what it does NOW!

DNA is not driven by a driver.

False, it is 100% correct. You know the gook it is made of, and how it comes in sequences...etc. You DO NOT know what 91% of it does. You could hardly BE more ignorant if you tried.

We do know what 91% of it does. 91% of our genome accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which is evidence that it doesn't have function. We don't think it is junk DNA because of what we don't know about it. We think it is junk DNA because of what it does do.

False. Relatedness is not something we can determine past a certain point. Because genes are now passed down almost strictly through heredity, you look at similarities and call that relatedness!!

False. We look at the PATTERN of relatedness. If humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other primates then the human genome should fall into a well supported phylogeny with other primates. That is exactly what we observe.

As I just mentioned no no no. Releatedness only applies as long as the present nature affected the DNA. You have no idea how long that was. If all you are talking about is parents being related to a kid now...fine. Enter the creation debate, and you are lost in space, dr.

You are going to need evidence for those claims.

 

[dad]

What causes the difference in gene regulation is mutations in the coding genes, transcription factors, and the DNA promoter regions that proteins bind to. This includes recombination events that move genes and promoters around.

You talking about the paltry 8%!!!? Well, that little bitty bit of the DNA pie of course will work a certain way now in this state. Just do not dare try to claim it worked that way in the days of old.

It isn't as great. The shared part of the genomes that have function in both chimps and humans will have more similarity than the junk DNA. However, we are only talking about a few percentage points overall. Afterall, the overall similarity is 96% if we included indels, and that includes the junk DNA. Within coding genes it gets closer to 99%.

Meaningless since you have NO CLUE what the 91% does! The question is whether the junk DNA also affects the coding DNA in ways we do not yet know, or whether it did in the past!? You may be looking at the surface of the pimple only.

Then what do you think produces the difference in transcription between the two species?

Who knows? These folks seem to think junk DNA affects the coded DNA.

"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. But they can have an indirect influence, and researchers at Georgia Tech believe noncoding DNA is responsible for why humans and chimps look so different."

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

Since you do not know what the 91% does, hey maybe it does affect things.

 

[dad]

More than 95% of chimp and human DNA is known.

Interesting. Since you do not know what 91% if DNA does, you do NOT know what 95% of it is!

 

[dad]

We are not trying to 'make it work', we are just measuring difference. Like my analogy of the copying of Arabic books We don't need to know what it does, we just need to look at the base sequences (the letters GCTCAATCG...) and compare them. If you think we need to know more, please explain.

You do need to know how it works. Otherwise you do not know what is responsible for the base sequences in their entirety.

I don't have to, because I'm not making any claims which rely on knowledge of exactly what all the DNA does. I'm only using the similarities in the base sequences as evidence (very good evidence) of relatedness.

Yes you are IF the 91% does something you do not know about....and you do not know what it does!! The relatedness assumes that heredity is responsible for what is existing...no?

We are more intelligent than chimps, and this has allowed us to go far beyond them in terms of art, culture, science, technology. And yes, that will be due to something in the DNA, more likely in the coding DNA, plus perhaps some cytoplasmic inheritance. But what has that got to do with measuring relatedness?

You are guessing. Flailing in the dark. God did not say kinds exist because of some gook in them. He said He created kinds, gook and all. The DNA is not responsible for the kind. It is not something in the DNA that makes man what He is. It is the breath and spirit of God in man.

If you want to counter well established theories with plenty of evidence behind them, you generally need to have a bit more of a sophisticated argument than simply calling them 'baseless beliefs'. So, do you have evidence of there being no common ancestor.

There is no evidence for one. No need to smack strawmen. Other posters have said that without heredity there is no evolution basically. They attribute what we see to ancestors. But that cannot be assumed deep in time, because evolving peobebly happened to the living creature, not (just) through heredity. Therefore NO link to a common ancestor is the far past can be claimed!

Why?

Because for one thing, as I just said, you cannot assume heredity is responsible for the DNA we see! Not in the far past.

It's not me commenting on it, it is people who are more qualified and knowledgeable than me. The most qualified people in the world to say this. And not just one of them, there is a very significant scientific consensus that Chimps and Humans are closely related and have a common ancestor. Who is it that disagrees with this, and what are their qualifications to do so? What is their evidence?

They are totally unqualified unless they know the state of the past from where the DNA came from. They don't. Might as well ask a chimp!

We can read the base sequence, and know a lot of what DNA does.

A lot meaning 8 percent!!! And only what it does in this nature! That is a severely limited perspective. As I say we might as well ask a chimp.

Can you explain why we need to know more in order to have strong evidence of relatedness?

Yes I can. You need to prove the past was this same nature we are in where heredity is the way things are passed down.

Because the scientific consensus is that we now enough. You can't counter a scientific consensus by just dismissing it, you need evidence and a sophisticated arguemnt.

Consider it countered.

BTW: Mitochondrial DNA does not have any junk dna in it. And is also used to measure relationship between animals. Here is an example where mitochondrial DNA is used to estimate the time of common ancestor between humans and chimps. And no junk dna in sight. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157

They use fossil calibration and radioactive decay and other things that are all present state only...to project into the far past.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You do need to know how it works. Otherwise you do not know what is responsible for the base sequences in their entirety.

There is no need to know 'how it works' (which basically we do) if we're using DNA to evaluate relatedness. And even if we did, we know how mitochondrial DNA works.

Yes you are IF the 91% does something you do not know about....and you do not know what it does!! The relatedness assumes that heredity is responsible for what is existing...no?

'heredity is responsible for what is existing...no?' What does that mean?

You are guessing. Flailing in the dark. God did not say kinds exist because of some gook in them. He said He created kinds, gook and all. The DNA is not responsible for the kind. It is not something in the DNA that makes man what He is. It is the breath and spirit of God in man.

It is quite clear, through huge amounts of evidence, that DNA is overwhelmingly responsible for 'the kind', i.e. the form and function of organisms. You have demonstrated that you don't understand DNA, have shown no evidence of wanting to learn, but still wish to make pronouncements on it that go against all science and we're supposed to accept that ... because you say so?

Do you have any evidence for 'the breath and spirit of God in man'?

There is no evidence for one. No need to smack strawmen. Other posters have said that without heredity there is no evolution basically. They attribute what we see to ancestors. But that cannot be assumed deep in time, because evolving peobebly happened to the living creature, not (just) through heredity. Therefore NO link to a common ancestor is the far past can be claimed!

Other posters may say that without heredity there is no evolution. But that is meaningless as we know full well that there is heredity and that DNA is the vector of the vast majority of it.

Because for one thing, as I just said, you cannot assume heredity is responsible for the DNA we see! Not in the far past.

Do you have any evidence for or reasoning for claiming that DNA was not responsible for heredity in the far past. I submit my evidence in that primitive organisms still exist in the modern world (bacteria, archaea) and they all rely on DNA for heredity. Your evidence for claiming that DNA might not have been responsible for heredity in the past is...?

They are totally unqualified unless they know the state of the past from where the DNA came from. They don't. Might as well ask a chimp!

A lot meaning 8 percent!!! And only what it does in this nature! That is a severely limited perspective. As I say we might as well ask a chimp.


Yes I can. You need to prove the past was this same nature we are in where heredity is the way things are passed down.

Consider it countered.
They use fossil calibration and radioactive decay and other things that are all present state only...to project into the far past.

And, not only have you created a bizarre argument that DNA might not have been involved in heredity at the time that chimps and humans diverged, you also completely ignore mitochondrial DNA which is an independent measure of relatedness, and has no 'junk DNA'.

 

[dad]

There is no need to know 'how it works' (which basically we do) if we're using DNA to evaluate relatedness. And even if we did, we know how mitochondrial DNA works.

What works only applies to now. What worked is what matters. Also, since you made another grandiose claim, explain simply in your own words how mitochrondrial dna 'works'?

So, what we have is man and animals and plants all coming from the ground. (created that way from the ground)



Ge 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ge 2:9 -And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Ge 2:19 -And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

'heredity is responsible for what is existing...no?' What does that mean?

That means you think DNA only comes about through heredity?

It is quite clear, through huge amounts of evidence, that DNA is overwhelmingly responsible for 'the kind', i.e. the form and function of organisms.

Not true for the original kinds. Also not true for all that is now in DNA! There are insertions for example, that happened..likely inserted in the former state when things could insert other ways than heredity by the way.

Do you have any evidence for 'the breath and spirit of God in man'?

Yes. Man is more than dirt and DNA. Music is as much what makes a man as DNA! Thoughts..inspiration...spirit
...a connection with the divine...at least a potential connection. Since all creatures were created from the ground, it is natural that God, wanting us all somewhat different, would change the mix somewhat! That means we should have similar DNA to some extent. You got nothing.

But that is meaningless as we know full well that there is heredity and that DNA is the vector of the vast majority of it.

It is not meaningless to the creation debate. What is meaningful also is that you obsess on present state heredity and try to formulate a past largely based on your obsession. Lurkers beware, leaving God and creation out of your knowledge leads to madness.

Do you have any evidence for or reasoning for claiming that DNA was not responsible for heredity in the far past.

Do you have any evidence for or reasoning for claiming that DNA was responsible for heredity in the far past?

I submit my evidence in that primitive organisms still exist in the modern world (bacteria, archaea) and they all rely on DNA for heredity.

Overruled. Not admissible. They also live in this state now. Let's see you show us DNA from a primitive organism itself in the fossil record? Then it will be admissible. I submit the word of the One who created all organisms...and if that is not admissible to you, then you cannot proceed toward any knowledge of the truth.

And, not only have you created a bizarre argument that DNA might not have been involved in heredity at the time that chimps and humans diverged,

Chimps never diverged from anything but dirt. Well, possibly some post flood evolving/adapting from chimp like thingies of the past, but that is as far as you get.

you also completely ignore mitochondrial DNA which is an independent measure of relatedness, and has no 'junk DNA'.

I am eager to demolish that fable. However I was trying to keep it simple in the first round of the DNA demolition derby.

 

[Loudmouth]

You talking about the paltry 8%!!!? Well, that little bitty bit of the DNA pie of course will work a certain way now in this state. Just do not dare try to claim it worked that way in the days of old.

Evidence?

Meaningless since you have NO CLUE what the 91% does!

Yes, we do. I already showed you what it does.

Who knows? These folks seem to think junk DNA affects the coded DNA.

"These days, junk DNA is more accurately referred to as noncoding DNA.

That's already wrong. There is noncoding DNA that is not junk DNA. They are not interchangeable terms.

Perhaps you should find a source that knows what they are talking about.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

What works only applies to now. What worked is what matters. Also, since you made another grandiose claim, explain simply in your own words how mitochrondrial dna 'works'?

Why should I explain how mitochondrial dna works? The point here is that there are gradual mutations in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down from mother to child across generations and through evolution, without recombination. By comparing the DNA base sequences of different species, we can estimate how related they are, e.g. by estimating the time of their most recent common ancestor. If you want to know more about mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA, even though it's not relevant to this thread, you can look here:

http://www.newcastle-mitochondria.com/mitochondria/what-do-mitochondria-do/

And you'll find some nice animations here:

https://www.dnalc.org/view/15974-Chimp-and-human-mtDNA-.html

So, what we have is man and animals and plants all coming from the ground. (created that way from the ground)

Here we are talking about man and chimps having a common ancestor, quite recently in terms of evolutionary time. How does 'coming from the ground' have any relevance?

Ge 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ge 2:9 -And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Ge 2:19 -And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
That means you think DNA only comes about through heredity?

I have read those verses a number of times recently. Do you have any objective evidence that specifically supports these claims that God made all these living things out of the ground.

Not true for the original kinds. Also not true for all that is now in DNA! There are insertions for example, that happened..likely inserted in the former state when things could insert other ways than heredity by the way.

You have repeated your claims that DNA was not responsible for heredity for 'original kinds'. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yes. Man is more than dirt and DNA. Music is as much what makes a man as DNA! Thoughts..inspiration...spirit

Bacteria are much more than dirt and DNA.

...a connection with the divine...at least a potential connection. Since all creatures were created from the ground, it is natural that God, wanting us all somewhat different, would change the mix somewhat! That means we should have similar DNA to some extent. You got nothing.

How do you explain the distribution of DNA in all the species in the world? Why would a God create us with DNA to appears to be exactly what we would expect to find if all the creatures of the world weren't created but evolved from primitive ancestors?

It is not meaningless to the creation debate. What is meaningful also is that you obsess on present state heredity and try to formulate a past largely based on your obsession. Lurkers beware, leaving God and creation out of your knowledge leads to madness.

I'm quite happy for any lurkers to read my posts and come to their own conclusions about whether I am posting sane arguments.

Do you have any evidence for or reasoning for claiming that DNA was responsible for heredity in the far past?

The far past we are talking about is about six million years ago when humans and chimps diverged from a common mamallian ancestor. Since even very primitive organisms such as bacteria and archaea, and all mammals even those most distantly releated to us, use DNA as their primary unit of heredity, it is the best hypothesis supported by this evidence that our common chimpman ancestor would also have DNA as its primary carrier of heredity.

Let me guess, you're just going to baldly dismiss this without providing any argument or evidence of your own.

Overruled. Not admissible. They also live in this state now. Let's see you show us DNA from a primitive organism itself in the fossil record? Then it will be admissible. I submit the word of the One who created all organisms...and if that is not admissible to you, then you cannot proceed toward any knowledge of the truth.

We don't need to. Every living mammal uses DNA for heredity, hence that is strong evidence that the common ancestor of chimps and man did as well.

Chimps never diverged from anything but dirt. Well, possibly some post flood evolving/adapting from chimp like thingies of the past, but that is as far as you get.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

I am eager to demolish that fable. However I was trying to keep it simple in the first round of the DNA demolition derby.

You are eager to demolish that 'fable'. However, you need to demolish it with strong argument and strong objective evidence. Simply claiming that something is wrong with no explanation isn't going to demolish anything. I suggest you start with this wikipedia page and try to learn how to 'demolish' things with an argument more sophisticated than the blue face thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Nail... Head! Kudos.

 

[dad]

Evidence?

Let's see you show us that you know how DNA worked in the early days of man. Your imminent fail is evidence.

That's already wrong. There is noncoding DNA that is not junk DNA.

What does it do exactly, besides not code?

Perhaps you should find a source that knows what they are talking about.

Maybe since I can't find a poster.