Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[PsychoSarah]

Minor correction - some non-coding DNA is functional, it just doesn't code for proteins, but may have regulatory functions in genome expression.

Fine, junk DNA was what I meant, but whatever.

 

[xianghua]

No, I'm saying that it makes no sense at all if we posit an intelligent and competent designer. As even the human and fallible Ferrari designers wouldn't do anything that stupid.

what is so stupid about parallel loss by a simple mutation?

 

[PsychoSarah]

first: other scientists basically agree with this position too base on some genetic evidence.

That's simply a false statement, in that you are implying that this is a mainstream, heavily evidenced position when it isn't. Last time you posted a source about it, you accidentally posted a source that didn't even agree with this position. I don't even understand why you like to bring it up; does it really make a difference to an ID proponent whether or not humans are more genetically similar to chimpanzees or orangutans?

second: you dont think that an ape is more similar to other ape then to human?

-_- humans ARE apes, so this is a nonsense statement. Chimpanzees definitely have more biological aspects in common with humans than, say, gorillas and orangutans. I'd go so far as to say that the only reason a human would think that a chimp looks more like a gorilla than a human is because humans have a specific structure in their brain dedicated to recognizing other humans, which causes humans to appear especially distinct to other humans.

 

[xianghua]

Based on common descent of humans and chimpanzees, I could predict how human and chimp DNA would differ.

realy? how?

 

[VirOptimus]

such as? fossil in the wrong place for instance?

Yes. I’m sure you can use google for more.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

what is so stupid about parallel loss by a simple mutation?

That bears no resemblance to anything I was writing about. I was talking about non-functional structures being preserved in a number of designs. It's not consistent with an intelligent and competent designer.

 

[xianghua]

That's simply a false statement, in that you are implying that this is a mainstream

i actually never said its a mainstream position.

I don't even understand why you like to bring it up; does it really make a difference to an ID proponent whether or not humans are more genetically similar to chimpanzees or orangutans?

you right. its not. its just off topic.

-_- humans ARE apes, so this is a nonsense statement.

actually in hebrew its a bit different and they called "קופי אדם" or "human monkeys". so or so, of course i refer to chimp, gorila and orangutan.

 

[xianghua]

Yes. I’m sure you can use google for more.

so if we will find a monkey-like creature date to a dino age (say 70 my) evolution is false?

 

[xianghua]

That bears no resemblance to anything I was writing about. I was talking about non-functional structures being preserved in a number of designs. It's not consistent with an intelligent and competent designer.

what is the problem? those genes were functional in the original state and then degenerated by a simple mutation.

 

[USincognito]

Can you outline those?

There are literally millions of potential observations that would falsify evolution.

- Truly out of place fossils like a Triassic tamarin, a Permian plesiosaur or a Silurian stegosaurus.
- Any number of "swapped parts" such as iguanas with mammary glands, colugos with feathers or shrimp with a backbone.
- Mixed up genetic similarity like humans being closer to armdillos than primates or snails being closer to crabs than clams.
etc.

 

[VirOptimus]

so if we will find a monkey-like creature date to a dino age (say 70 my) evolution is false?

If any creature would be found in the ”wrong” time yes, that would falsify the ToE as we know it.

But we havent. And not for a lack of trying, disproving the ToE would be huge, the person responsible would be insta famous, world known. Every scientists dream is to disprove a well established theory.

 

[USincognito]

Why would anyone watch a speech by a dishonest propagandist who only has a legitimate degree in psychology in order to answer a simple question about genetics?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

what is the problem? those genes were functional in the original state and then degenerated by a simple mutation.

They were then left in a number of different species, and are still there, in non-working form, today. As I have said, this would never be done by a competent, intelligent, designer.

E.g. it would never be done by Ferrari engineers that something non-working would be left in their cars and even copied, in its non-working state, to new models of cars.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

actually in hebrew its a bit different and they called "קופי אדם" or "human monkeys". so or so, of course i refer to chimp, gorila and orangutan.

Yeah, except the thread isn't about Hebrew. It's about asking Creationists/ID Proponents how, biologically, humans aren't apes.

 

[xianghua]

- Mixed up genetic similarity like humans being closer to armdillos than primates or snails being closer to crabs than clams.
etc.

some fish are actually closer to tetrapods then to other fish. so evolution is false now?

 

[xianghua]

If any creature would be found in the ”wrong” time yes, that would falsify the ToE as we know it.

actually we found many such fossils and no one claim that evolution is false. they just push back the species or claiming for convergent evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

actually we found many such fossils and no one claim that evolution is false. they just push back the species or claiming for convergent evolution.

Got an example?

 

[xianghua]

They were then left in a number of different species, and are still there, in non-working form, today. As I have said, this would never be done by a competent, intelligent, designer.

again: what is the problem? they were made with a functional gulo and then they got a mutations on it. how it have any connection to a bad design?

E.g. it would never be done by Ferrari engineers that something non-working would be left in their cars and even copied, in its non-working state, to new models of cars.

its not the same since we are talking about the same model\creature here and not about new once.

 

[xianghua]

Got an example?

sure. here are 2 cases:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.

or:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly". but evolution is science, right?

 

[VirOptimus]

actually we found many such fossils and no one claim that evolution is false. they just push back the species or claiming for convergent evolution.

Nope we havent.

There are examples where fossil finds have changed our understanding of timeframes for species but there has never been any findings that disprove or isnt inline with the ToE.