razzelflabben said:
I feared this response to my question. When somthing is presented that might evidence or falsify the claims made by evolutionists, arguements are presented that require us to ignore the possibility of what is or is not. I have no interest in where littlenipper got his information or if the information was based on fact or fiction, I am interested however in somone who has access to the evidence, comparing the DNA of humans to the DNA of the butter bean. It would be interesting information to share. We can discuss what that evidence means when we have it.
Have you considered the serious possibility that, because the information on this claim is hard to find on the net, while most creationist claims and information on them is easily found, the information might not exist at all?
Because it could scientifically make your claims that shared DNA with apes is evidence of uca stronger.
Nope, it doesn't in any way. If Littlenipper is wrong, then all we know is that plants are very distantly related to humans, more distantly then apes. We already knew that. There is abundant literature on this subject. But not all organism in the world have been compared directly to humans, or have had their DNA sequenced. Littlenipper claimed that this information exists, than it is for him to provide it. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't exist at all. It isn't exactly a very interesting research question.
The article doesn't answer the question. We don't know if the claim is false because we havn't been shown the evidence. Where is the data the shows the DNA comparison of humans and butter beans?
But you already seem to want to treat the claim as some sort of evidence, when the evidence might not even exist. For all we know, it might not be there. The comparison might (shock horror) not be there, because it is completely uninteresting to research.
You are in fact asking us to go on a witchhunt on every bogus claim someone might make, while not requiring those persons to actually provide evidence on their claims. Sorry, but I have better things to do, and so have most others here on the board. If someone makes a claim and can't back it up, in my opinion we are justified to ignore it untill it is backed up by evidence.
However, even if we don't know if the information of the claim exists we can draw some inferences from what we do know based on the article I provided. If chimps have a certain protein, and this is completely the same as the human protein, than the DNA structure of this protein is probably very much the same. On the other hand, the butterbean does not have such a protein at all, but only has a sugar that has the same antigen binding properties. Since the protein that produces this binding in butterbeans does not exist, the DNA code for it will also not be present in butterbeans. So, we have chimps and humans who have the DNA coding of a protein which is the same in both, and we have butterbeans that do not have this protein at all. Which of the DNA codes would look more like the other?
