What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Psalm 27]

What about the differences between all mammals

 

[Psalm 27]

Humans/chimps/etc

Humans and chimps share a common dna, as do all mammals.
All mammals do not have identical genomes-but there is 98% in all mammals.

The Bible says, The The Lord created ‘animals according to their kind’.

(Hu)Man was made in The Lord’s image.

The actual differences are not completely analysed. Only selective data is. Certain data, eg. proteins, which are similar in all mammals, are also very different. The differences are ignored.

Science talks of Junk dna-there’s no such thing.
The Agenda-
To make the data work, science says that universe must be 13.8 billion years old.

Evolution believes that we have common ancestry...
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps have 24 pairs.

Because there a chromosome difference, Science teaches ‘Fusion theory’, a lie. Scientists even say they have definitive proof. They don’t!
There is no evidence for fusion, or common ancestry between humans and chimps.
These theories are All taught as fact- its a lie.
Chromosome no.2 is ‘the fusion theory’.

Telomeres and centromeres cannot fuse together!

Genes are never located in the telomeres. Telomeres prevent chromosomes from sticking together.

Also, genes are never in centromeres.

There’s a similarity in genomes because they are the ones that work in certain organs eg brain, heart etc. (Organs in humans, chimps and all mammals)
84% similarity 16% different.
Mutations cannot change, they degrade, over time.

Genesis 1:27 so God created man (A)in His own image; in the image of God He created him; (B)male and female He created them.

Similarities yes they’re both mammals but with 20% sequence of differences.

 

[driewerf]

Dismiss all research centers! Burn the textbooks! Use the fossils to pave the streets!
We have the final nail on evolution's coffin. The most refined, articulate balanced argument ever. Humble_Disciple has posted a meme. Has science ever recovered from such an argument?

 

[Ophiolite]

Dismiss all research centers! Burn the textbooks! Use the fossils to pave the streets!
We have the final nail on evolution's coffin. The most refined, articulate balanced argument ever. Humble_Disciple has posted a meme. Has science ever recovered from such an argument?

Of course they may be conceding, acknowledging that at the heart of Truth we find Darwin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Welcome to the thread. Your post is a little all over the place and includes some off topic items. Here I consider the rest...

Humans/chimps/etc

Humans and chimps share a common dna, as do all mammals.
All mammals do not have identical genomes-but there is 98% in all mammals.
[bible snip]

The 98% figure is for Chimps-Humans, not all mammals.

The actual differences are not completely analysed. Only selective data is. Certain data, eg. proteins, which are similar in all mammals, are also very different. The differences are ignored.

This is several claims made without references. Can you support these assertions? I find it unlikely that differences are ignored. Much of science is about studying differences between similar things.

Science talks of Junk dna-there’s no such thing.

While non-coding DNA might have been over characterized as "junk" by some geneticists, there are chunks of your DNA that almost certainly are useless junk such as complete copies of viral genomes inserted during ancestral infections.

The Agenda-
To make the data work, science says that universe must be 13.8 billion years old.

Cosmologists have determined, by measurement, that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, but this fact is irrelevant to biology, evolution, or human-chimp differences.

Evolution believes that we have common ancestry...

Common ancestry is one of the fundamental claims of evolutionary theory. It is not a "belief" but rather a central hypothesis of the theory.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps have 24 pairs.

Because there a chromosome difference, Science teaches ‘Fusion theory’, a lie. Scientists even say they have definitive proof. They don’t!
There is no evidence for fusion, or common ancestry between humans and chimps.
These theories are All taught as fact- its a lie.
Chromosome no.2 is ‘the fusion theory’.

Telomeres and centromeres cannot fuse together!

Genes are never located in the telomeres. Telomeres prevent chromosomes from sticking together.

Also, genes are never in centromeres.

The Chromosome 2 merger is well established by the genomic sequence of humans and chimps including the remnants of the pre-fusion telomeres and centromeres in our Chromosome 2. If you would like to claim otherwise (as you just did) evidence to the contrary is indicated.

There’s a similarity in genomes because they are the ones that work in certain organs eg brain, heart etc. (Organs in humans, chimps and all mammals)
84% similarity 16% different.
Mutations cannot change, they degrade, over time.

[bible snip]
Similarities yes they’re both mammals but with 20% sequence of differences.

Now you've switched from a 2% difference claim for all mammals (when it is really for Humans/Chimps) to a 20% difference claims specifically between Humans and Chimps.

Whether a mutation degrades, improves, or is neutral it is still a change.

 

[driewerf]

I know you're not talking about me, but I even believe Paul Bunyan was real.He drew me.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

He's drawing you too.

Hmm, no. I am still very firmly on Terra
*biblical fail*

 

[o_mlly]

If you're referring to (pseudo)random events, their unexpectedness or unpredictability doesn't make any difference to the nature of their causality, either in Aristotlean philosophy or any other.

? Can you rephrase or elaborate as I don't see your point. Yes, Aristotelian causality does not depend on the randomness one way or the other in the 4 causes.

It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.

What is the difference between the above and, "We just do not know what causes these effects (yet)"?

There's no conflict with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emergence is inherently deterministic.

No, "emergent property" and its synonym "brute fact" contradict the PSR - an effect cannot have a property or attribute not present in one or more of its causes.

The modifier 'undirected' is to distinguish the self-organisation I'm describing from the directed form you suggested in #753. As I said, the idea of self-organisation carries the implication of being the result of intrinsic rather than extrinsic influence.

Yes, the self-organizing principle is a law of nature. I've already posted Who that Lawgiver is.

So, I ask again - what are these other theories of evolution? I can't make any comment about them unless you tell me what they are. If you're unwilling or unable to name or describe them you can point to them with a reference or link.

Whichever one you are willing to defend as science. Of course, if you hold to no theory the question is moot.

Also, in #486 you said you were a scientist - can you say what kind of scientist? can you say what field you work in?

I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.

 

[o_mlly]

A Ph.D. is a degree, not an award. It is earned, not given.

You might want to run your search engine on that again.

Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural/material causes, expecting science to study your favorite supernaturalism is not reasonable.

Who said such a stupid thing? Take his/her lab coat immediately!

 

[Astrid]

Humans/chimps/etc

Humans and chimps share a common dna, as do all mammals.
All mammals do not have identical genomes-but there is 98% in all mammals.

The Bible says, The The Lord created ‘animals according to their kind’.

(Hu)Man was made in The Lord’s image.

The actual differences are not completely analysed. Only selective data is. Certain data, eg. proteins, which are similar in all mammals, are also very different. The differences are ignored.

Science talks of Junk dna-there’s no such thing.
The Agenda-
To make the data work, science says that universe must be 13.8 billion years old.

Evolution believes that we have common ancestry...
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps have 24 pairs.

Because there a chromosome difference, Science teaches ‘Fusion theory’, a lie. Scientists even say they have definitive proof. They don’t!
There is no evidence for fusion, or common ancestry between humans and chimps.
These theories are All taught as fact- its a lie.
Chromosome no.2 is ‘the fusion theory’.

Telomeres and centromeres cannot fuse together!

Genes are never located in the telomeres. Telomeres prevent chromosomes from sticking together.

Also, genes are never in centromeres.

There’s a similarity in genomes because they are the ones that work in certain organs eg brain, heart etc. (Organs in humans, chimps and all mammals)
84% similarity 16% different.
Mutations cannot change, they degrade, over time.

Genesis 1:27 so God created man (A)in His own image; in the image of God He created him; (B)male and female He created them.

Similarities yes they’re both mammals but with 20% sequence of differences.

You will appreciate that we in China are not
impressed with what your Bible is believed to say.

Nor with falsehoods or errors masquerading as science.

Some of yours-
"Mutations can not change"
A mutation is a change

"These theories are all taught as fact"
No theory could ever be a fact.
Profound ignorance could account for this error.
"It's a lie". . Just your mistake, don't be hard
on yourself.
"No evidence of common ancestry"
We will be generous here too, as you
may believe this falsehood.

"Scientists even say they have definite proof "

Thar is just silly. There is no such thing as proof in
science. Nobody in science would ever say as
you claim.

There's way more error in your post than that.

You cannot make a good case for your beliefs
with insults against people you don't know and
silly beginner misstatements.

Try to do better,,svp.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm, no. I am still very firmly on Terra
*biblical fail*

I'd say that's just about the extent of your understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will appreciate that we in China are not
impressed with what your Bible is believed to say.

No, actually, we won't.

Religious Persecution in China Intensifies With Brainwashing Camps for Christians

 

[Astrid]

I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.

Nobody could track a person down
If they identified themselves as, say, chemist" or
"molecular biologist".
Refusal to even say that much could easily
be taken as unwillingness to either tell a very
blatant lie, or to admit that it's a definition
for "scientist" that would bring down scorn.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might want to run your search engine on that again.

I don't care what colloquial usages are. A Ph.D. is a degree that is earned by completing certain coursework and (critically) a research dissertation project. I most *certainly* earned mine; it was not a gift.

Who said such a stupid thing? Take his/her lab coat immediately!

Are you claiming that science studies the supernatural?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nobody could track a person down
If they identified themselves as, say, chemist" or
"molecular biologist".
Refusal to even say that much could easily
be taken as unwillingness to either tell a very
blatant lie, or to admit that it's a definition
for "scientist" that would bring down scorn.

This is precisely why I only identify as "physicist" on this site. I do not specify a sub-field, part of the US, or even my current job classification.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've reached my self-imposed limit on posting to a thread. Thanks to all who engaged with me and thanks to the OP.

Given that :

• You did not, to my knowledge, give any advance warning of that practice
• You have left one or more posts unaddressed

This leaves me with the impression you were not discussing in good faith. I trust you will adjust your self imposed limit to deal with those matters and reverse that impression.

In closing, here's the real difference between us:

That parting shot is a playground trick and quite out of place here.

 

[Astrid]

This is precisely why I only identify as "physicist" on this site. I do not specify a sub-field, part of the US, or even my current job classification.

And that is plenty, nobody needs your specialty or
the institution you work for.
That you are a scientist is as clear from your posts
as it is clear that our creationist is at best a "scientist".

I've given away the highly personal info of "Hong Kong"
so that I'd be easily spotted among several hundred thousand
my general size and age. As if anyone cared to.
I don't necessarily live in HK
at this time tho...

Anyway, bogus excuse from our friend.

 

[Astrid]

Given that :

• You did not, to my knowledge, give any advance warning of that practice
• You have left one or more posts unaddressed

This leaves me with the impression you were not discussing in good faith. I trust you will adjust your self imposed limit to deal with those matters and reverse that impression.

That parting shot is a playground trick and quite out of place here.

Right on with the "not in good faith"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

? Can you rephrase or elaborate as I don't see your point. Yes, Aristotelian causality does not depend on the randomness one way or the other in the 4 causes.

IYou mentioned Aristotle's 'four causes', with particular reference to the material cause, but since you didn't quote what that was a response to, I took a guess.

What is the difference between the above and, "We just do not know what causes these effects (yet)"?

The difference is that we do know what causes the effects, but they are not predictable from the properties of the subsystems without actually simulating the ensemble.

No, "emergent property" and its synonym "brute fact" contradict the PSR - an effect cannot have a property or attribute not present in one or more of its causes.

'Brute fact' obviously isn't a synonym for 'emergent property' (the clue is in 'emergent'), and the Principle of Sufficient Reason stipulates only that "everything must have a reason, cause, or ground" i.e. "For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emergent properties are caused and explained by the interactions of the subsystems involved.

Yes, the self-organizing principle is a law of nature. I've already posted Who that Lawgiver is.

OK; it sounds like you're equivocating 'directed', suggesting that if laws of nature are set by a lawgiver, processes involving those laws are 'directed'. Yes?

If that's what you mean, then since everything in nature proceeds according to natural laws, then everything must be 'directed'... which makes distinctions between 'directed' and 'undirected' in nature moot. So, meh. However, I'd like to see some evidence or justification for the claim that what we categorise as 'Laws of Nature' are the products of a lawgiver.

Whichever one you are willing to defend as science. Of course, if you hold to no theory the question is moot.

I already told you, I only know of one scientific theory of evolution. You claim there are others, but seem unwilling or unable to name, describe, or provide a link or reference to them.

I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.

OK; that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Astrid]

IYou mentioned Aristotle's 'four causes', with particular reference to the material cause, but since you didn't quote what that was a response to, I took a guess.

The difference is that we do know what causes the effects, but they are not predictable from the properties of the subsystems without actually simulating the ensemble.

'Brute fact' obviously isn't a synonym for 'emergent property' (the clue is in 'emergent'), and the Principle of Sufficient Reason stipulates only that "everything must have a reason, cause, or ground" i.e. "For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emergent properties are caused and explained by the interactions of the subsystems involved.

OK; it sounds like you're equivocating 'directed', suggesting that if laws of nature are set by a lawgiver, processes involving those laws are 'directed'. Yes?

If that's what you mean, then since everything in nature proceeds according to natural laws, then everything must be 'directed'... which makes distinctions between 'directed' and 'undirected' in nature moot. So, meh. However, I'd like to see some evidence or justification for the claim that what we categorise as 'Laws of Nature' are the products of a lawgiver.

I already told you, I only know of one scientific theory of evolution. You claim there are others, but seem unwilling or unable to name, describe, or provide a link or reference to them.

OK; that doesn't surprise me.

Too late, he fled the interview

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?

Currently I am beginning to think that he may be the ultimate poe. He may be trying to refute Christianity by exposing all of the flaws in it.