Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

SkyWriting said:

Um. Becasue you are defining "Closest relative" based on the DNA results, that's why.
Likely that's why they just shake their head.

Click to expand...

In addition to standards of evidence, special pleading, and science, it also appears that you have a hard time understanding what "circular reasoning" means.

tas8831 said:

In addition to standards of evidence, special pleading, and science, it also appears that you have a hard time understanding what "circular reasoning" means.

Click to expand...

Good to know.

SkyWriting said:

There are a large number of genes which are the same between humans and bananas.
Make your argument with bananas.

25% of our DNA is the same as rice. Make your argument with rice.

Click to expand...

i should have known that it would be too much to ask of a creationist that they actually understand basic biology in order to make intelligent commentary on issues like this.


Asking again - we are made of cells, right?

Worms are made of cells, right?

Rice plants are made of cells, right?

Bananas are made of cells, right?

Seeing a link here?

Or are you just going to troll more?

tas8831 said:

i should have known that it would be too much to ask of a creationist that they actually understand basic biology in order to make intelligent commentary on issues like this.


Asking again - we are made of cells, right?

Worms are made of cells, right?

Rice plants are made of cells, right?

Bananas are made of cells, right?

Seeing a link here?

Or are you just going to troll more?

Click to expand...

I think I see just what you're getting at.
Lots of Cells. That's quite the eye opener.

SkyWriting said:

Analysis of the two created beings shows that 100% of the building blocks
that form the features of the two beings include design elements capable
of forming the observed design features. This allows that have the same
designer during the construction.

Analysis of the final design might show a commonality that would
support the same designer theory.

Click to expand...

So you don't know what DNA is, either.

SkyWriting said:

I think I see just what you're getting at.
Lots of Cells. That's quite the eye opener.

Click to expand...

So no, you don't get it.

Again, high school level understanding of biology, at the very least, is a common sense prerequisite for trying to 'take down' a biological phenomenon.

As you are in Trump-mode, I think this will be a total waste of effort, so I will not put a lot into it, but here goes...



ALL eukaryotic cells have to perform the same basic functions, whether they are in bananas or worms or humans.

They have to have internal structure - the so-called cytoskeleton. For just one of several cytoskeletal proteins - tubulin - we have 23 genes (and maybe 48 pseudogenes). Another common cytoskeletal protein, actin, is produced by 6 genes.

They have to be able to transport water across their membranes. One way to use this is via a channel protein called aquaporin. There are 14 aquaporin genes.

Name a function that a eukaryotic cell has to perform, and there will be a bare minimum of 1 gene in any and all eukaryotic cells that produces a protein that is involved in that function, whether it is a worm or a bird or a banana.

Getting any clearer at all? Too many big words?

And there is a LOT of stuff IN the cell membrane of eukaryotic cells. About half, by weight, of eukaryotic cell membranes are proteins of various kinds. These include receptors, antigens, adhesion molecules, channels, etc. It is estimated that up to 30% of all genes in eukaryotic genomes encode cell membrane proteins. REGARDLESS of cell type. JUST for proteins in the cell membrane.

Clearer yet?

I know these are not Lego blocks, but this is an issue that you brought up and were clearly uninformed about.

The reason humans and worms and bananas have so many genes in common is because all are made up of cells, and cells all have to do the same basic stuff.

It is like looking at a Porsche and a garden tractor - both need wheels (and the means to connect them to the drive assemblies, etc.), an engine (and all of the things needed for an engine to run), etc. So a Porsche and a garden tractor are going to 'share' nearly all of their parts in one form or another.


Too much info this early in the morning?

You know what mark kennedy? I am sick and tired of mentioning mutations in brain related genes that do improve brain function, and having you entirely ignore them. Your assertion that brain related mutations always result in detrimental effects (aside from those that have no effect at all) is demonstrably false to the point that I feel you are purposefully ignoring people that present you with examples that disprove your assertion. It literally only takes 1 example of a benign brain mutation to debunk your assertion, and people have been listing dozens to you.

So I have a question: do you actually care if there are benign mutations in brain related genes?

SkyWriting said:

You invented the closest relative ordering based on observable features and functions.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't our closest relatives share the most observable features and functions? If this evidence isn't allowed, then what evidence should scientists use to determine which species is most closely related to us, and why?

Given that final form and function are dictated by DNA, your original ordering
should match well with the genetic ordering you create.

Click to expand...

That is completely false. You could use almost completely different DNA and still produce a species that is identical to humans. For example, you could use different tRNAs which would allow you to use very different codons for the same protein. To use an analogy, the Google Chrome browser looks very similar on both the PC and Mac, yet the computer code underlying those browsers is very different. The same concept applies to DNA.

DNA simply reflects the original ordering done by people with eyes. It adds little new
to the original ordering method.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

SkyWriting said:

They share a common designer so have the same DNA "machines".
How is this a problem for Creationists?

Click to expand...

A common designer could use completely different DNA machines for different species. That's the problem.

SkyWriting said:

Analysis of the two created beings shows that 100% of the building blocks
that form the features of the two beings include design elements capable
of forming the observed design features. This allows that have the same
designer during the construction.

Analysis of the final design might show a commonality that would
support the same designer theory.

Click to expand...

In this case, every organism alive today would be 100% identical because we all have the same building blocks: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine.

Do you agree that all species are 100% identical?

SkyWriting said:

Genes organize living systems. The more systems in common, the more likely similar DNA.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't a designer produce a species with a mixture of bird and mammal systems?

Loudmouth said:

A common designer could use completely different DNA machines for different species. That's the problem.

Click to expand...

That is one way to tell them apart if you choose. Good point.
You can even tell individuals apart that way, pretty well.

Loudmouth said:

Why couldn't a designer produce a species with a mixture of bird and mammal systems?

Click to expand...

A mammal that sees with electrical signals,
with no stomach, a bill, and venomous
webbed feet that lays eggs you mean?
Your subconscious got you on that one.
It remembered even if you didn't.

Loudmouth said:

Why couldn't a designer produce a species with a mixture of bird and mammal systems?

Click to expand...

Or are you asking if there is a mammal with wings that can fly?

The real point is that you invented the classification system
and there will inevitably be some crossover exceptions unless you are
arguing for immutable "Kinds" from scripture, which I doubt
you are.

Loudmouth said:

In this case, every organism alive today would be 100% identical because we all have the same building blocks: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Do you agree that all species are 100% identical?

Click to expand...

There is debate on the definition of life, so we can't be clear even on that point.


Slime mold is not a plant or animal. It's not a fungus, though it sometimes resembles one. Slime mold, in fact, is a soil-dwelling amoeba, a brainless, single-celled organism, often containing multiple nuclei.

Loudmouth said:

Shouldn't our closest relatives share the most observable features and functions? If this evidence isn't allowed, then what evidence should scientists use to determine which species is most closely related to us, and why?

Click to expand...

And my point is that DNA analysis will match form and function observations
not to confirm "relationships", but to confirm form and function similarities.

And DNA will transfer to similar organisms in various ways due to environment.
Or just eating them.

SkyWriting said:

That is one way to tell them apart if you choose. Good point.
You can even tell individuals apart that way, pretty well.

Click to expand...

So there isn't any expectation that individually created species of "kinds" should share any features since God could create them all from scratch without copying anything. Creationism can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy because there is no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy over any other pattern of shared features, or any shared features at all.

SkyWriting said:

And my point is that DNA analysis will match form and function observations
not to confirm "relationships", but to confirm form and function similarities.

Click to expand...

And that is wrong. There is absolutely no reason why DNA phylogenies should match phylogenies based on morphology, other than common ancestry.

And DNA will transfer to similar organisms in various ways due to environment.
Or just eating them.

Click to expand...

That is completely false. We aren't 98% chimp because we eat chimps.

SkyWriting said:

There is debate on the definition of life, so we can't be clear even on that point.


Slime mold is not a plant or animal. It's not a fungus, though it sometimes resembles one. Slime mold, in fact, is a soil-dwelling amoeba, a brainless, single-celled organism, often containing multiple nuclei.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

SkyWriting said:

Or are you asking if there is a mammal with wings that can fly?

Click to expand...

No. I am asking why God could not have created a species with bird and mammal features.

The real point is that you invented the classification system
and there will inevitably be some crossover exceptions unless you are
arguing for immutable "Kinds" from scripture, which I doubt
you are.

Click to expand...

Then show me a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features.