Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[dad]

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/

http://www.newcastle-mitochondria.com/mitochondria/what-do-mitochondria-do/ No. Just because now they are passed down does not mean they once were. Just because present state processes are slow and gradual does not mean anything if the past was different. Once again you peddle that old same state past religion.

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?

God made the animals from the ground. Your connection to an ancient common ancestor is religion as your claims of timescales, and what is recent or not.

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.

Do you have any objective evidence that specifically supports these claims that God has not made all these living things out of the ground? Don't think you can get away with sneaking in a same state past belief based model of the past where it is all based on how things work now.

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

prove it was or face the fact you are guessing. Period.

Bacteria are much more than dirt and DNA.

Was there bacteria in the dawn of life era?

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?

Get over that concept and way of looking at DNA. The only question is why is DNA similar on earth..? The answer is because God created us and we all live in this present state now, where life processes are affected by our laws.

The far past we are talking about is about six million years ago when humans and chimps diverged from a common mamallian ancestor.

False, it is more like about 4400 years ago real time.

Your imaginary time is wholly based on a belief system and soiling of evidence with that belief system. 100% So is your idea that heredity had to be the big player in ancient evolving. Common ancestor claims are no better than your belief that the present state existed in the far past.

Since even very primitive organisms such as bacteria and archaea, and all mammals even those most distantly releated to us,

No they are not in any way. The relation is strictly imaginary and religious.

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.

Inadmissable. You assume little bacteria are relatives, then you claim they now pass on info by heredity, so we must have in the past. Circular, and absurd.

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.

That is evidence this present state works that way. Nothing more.

You are eager to demolish that 'fable'. However, you need to demolish it with strong argument and strong objective evidence.

Your fable involves invoking belief that a present state in the past made DNA work the same as now, and yet you cannot prove this elusive claimed past state. You have no objective evidence for it. Nor have you any evidence against the true record of the state of the past...Scripture.

Yes I am demolishing your case, and I do not need to ask the demolished for some redefinition of the word demolish.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What does it do exactly, besides not code?

All kinds of stuff, such as:

• Protection of the genome
• Genetic switches
• Regulation of gene expression
• Transcription factor sites
• Operators
• Enhancers
• Silencers
• Promoters
• Insulators

It is also relevant to evolution: Non-coding DNA and evolution.

 

[dad]

All kinds of stuff, such as:

• Protection of the genome
• Genetic switches
• Regulation of gene expression
• Transcription factor sites
• Operators
• Enhancers
• Silencers
• Promoters
• Insulators

It is also relevant to evolution: Non-coding DNA and evolution.

Of course there are uses for the leftover so called junk dna. Not like God doesn't know what He is doing. While man is starting to guess at some of the uses, he basically does not know what this non coding stuff does.

"This swath of the genome was once considered “junk,” and though a good deal of it is still believed to be nonfunctional, it is now more respectfully referred to as “noncoding DNA.” It is still largely an unexplored wilderness — disorderly and mysterious, but researchers have found that some of this noncoding DNA is in fact essential to how our genes function and plays a role in how we look, how we act and the diseases that afflict us."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/junk-dna/

You do little more than walk on the edge of the wilderness of this majority of DNA, and notice that it seems to be part of the forest in some ways.

The connection to the past via imagined heredity is a link no stronger than the claim that the past followed the same rules and had the same nature..forces etc. There is NO effort shown to support that belief, or evidence for that belief.

They preach and preach for forty years, and now admit half of what they preached was wrong!

"�For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,� said lead author John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine.

�Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture,� he said."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28226

They don't know what this non coding DNA really does or how. They know a few things about some of the things they think it may do They are just starting to realize it does something after all!! Hilarious.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why would it work any different?

What does it do exactly, besides not code?

Frumious has a good list.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course there are uses for the leftover so called junk dna. Not like God doesn't know what He is doing. While man is starting to guess at some of the uses, he basically does not know what this non coding stuff does.

We already know what it does. It accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with a lack of function.

 

[dad]

Why would it work any different?



Frumious has a good list.

Because there are forces that affect how electrons and atoms behave. These determine how physical processes work!

 

[dad]

We already know what it does. It accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with a lack of function.

False. That is now, not then.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. That is now, not then.

Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because there are forces that affect how electrons and atoms behave. These determine how physical processes work!

Why would those be different in the past?

 

[dad]

Prove it.

All that needs to be done is show that you cannot support your claims about how dna worked in the past. Then we see whose guesses match God's word! How sweet it is.

 

[dad]

Why would those be different in the past?

The creator made some changes. You can't prove otherwise or deny it.

 

[Loudmouth]

All that needs to be done is show that you cannot support your claims about how dna worked in the past. Then we see whose guesses match God's word! How sweet it is.

Why would it work different in the past?

Also, those are man's word.

 

[As I was saying]

Have you not seen the Jungle Book?

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

Yes, I have seen it several times as it is one of my favourite films, especially the 1969 version. One thing I did notice is that the animals in the film were not animals, they were cartoons, produced by man for our entertainment so there is no comparison at all. Unless of course you consider mankind are cartoons. Mid you sometimes I think that atheists are a joke so you might be right on that one.

 

[As I was saying]

Why would it work different in the past?

Also, those are man's word.

Everything that is written is man's word except the bible as the writers of it wrote as the Spirit gave it to them.

 

[As I was saying]

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?

What transitional fossils? They don't exist.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What transitional fossils? They don't exist.

Not true. This is the most tiring argument ever. Every single fossil we find IS A TRANSITIONAL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Want to see the transitional fossil from fish to amphibian? We have it. It's name is Tiktaalik

You should stop using this argument. It's incredibly dishonest.

 

[durangodawood]

I demand a transitional fossil that gets me from Wednesday to Thursday.

 

[Shemjaza]

I demand a transitional fossil that gets me from Wednesday to Thursday.

Good point! What use is a half wednesday half thursday!

 

[dad]

Why would it work different in the past?

Also, those are man's word.

Who cares why? Either you know, or not. Your every post screams out to us...NOT.

You have NO way of knowing if they are man's word since you were not there to see the spirit in the men, and you can't see spirit anyhow. In all ways, ye be hooped.

 

[dad]

Not true. This is the most tiring argument ever. Every single fossil we find IS A TRANSITIONAL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Want to see the transitional fossil from fish to amphibian? We have it. It's name is Tiktaalik

You should stop using this argument. It's incredibly dishonest.

Either that or your classification system is skewed, blued and tattooed. God could have made fish that could also traverse land. The rapid evolving in the former times would allow a fish to adapt to land fast.... you have no way of knowing.