Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 72075993" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>But orangutans aren’t an outside group, if you add chimps and apes inside.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html" target="_blank">National Geographic News and Latest Stories</a></p><p></p><p>“The authors base their conclusion on a close physical resemblance between orangutans and humans, which they say has been overshadowed by genetic evidence linking us to chimps.</p><p></p><p>What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed. (Get a <a href="https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/overview.html" target="_blank">genetics overview</a>.)</p><p></p><p>John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes.</p><p></p><p>What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.</p><p></p><p>By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.”</p><p></p><p>But then why don’t we just go ahead and use that “hypothetical” body plan, you all ate quite adept at using non-existent things already in your imaginary relationships.</p><p></p><p>But that orangutans DNA isn’t what you thought it was.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/orangutan-genome-full-surprises" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/orangutan-genome-full-surprises</a></p><p></p><p>Full of surprises indeed, surprises that just might make all your claims and cladograms worth less than the paper they are printed on.</p><p></p><p>Why just look at your outside species. Perhaps we ought to put chimps on the outside instead?</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm</a></p><p></p><p>Hmm, maybe your claims of chimps might not be as sure as you think, you think? And if that entire sequence relationship versus fragments with chimps, why there goes your entire cladograms you rely on, just poof.....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 72075993, member: 332164"] But orangutans aren’t an outside group, if you add chimps and apes inside. [URL='https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html']National Geographic News and Latest Stories[/URL] “The authors base their conclusion on a close physical resemblance between orangutans and humans, which they say has been overshadowed by genetic evidence linking us to chimps. What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed. (Get a [URL='https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/overview.html']genetics overview[/URL].) John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes. What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals. By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.” But then why don’t we just go ahead and use that “hypothetical” body plan, you all ate quite adept at using non-existent things already in your imaginary relationships. But that orangutans DNA isn’t what you thought it was. [URL]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/orangutan-genome-full-surprises[/URL] Full of surprises indeed, surprises that just might make all your claims and cladograms worth less than the paper they are printed on. Why just look at your outside species. Perhaps we ought to put chimps on the outside instead? [URL]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm[/URL] Hmm, maybe your claims of chimps might not be as sure as you think, you think? And if that entire sequence relationship versus fragments with chimps, why there goes your entire cladograms you rely on, just poof..... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
Top
Bottom