Fairytale?

[FishFace]

What does it take for you to be certain? Unless you can demonstrate, via empirical scientific evidence, that evolution is, without doubt, the process by which we originated, which I know you can't, then the acceptance of it as such is a matter of faith.

Unless you can demonstrate, via empirical scientific evidence, that physical human beings, without a doubt, are responsible for the posts under the labels "FoeHammer" and "FishFace," which I know you can't, then the acceptance of it as such is a matter of faith.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hawthorn fly

One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[8] (From Wikipedia)

THIS is the "evidence" that you give? This is it?

No. This is but one example of observed speciation. In my list, I gave quite a bit more evidence to support it.

This is no different than the title of this thread! Stories. Anyone could write whatever and you would say,

They could. The difference, however, is that the above comes with sources, links to actual scientific data that supports the 'story'. In case you missed it:

Berlocher, S.H. and G.L. Bush. 1982. An electrophoretic analysis of Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) phylogeny. Systematic Zoology 31:136-155; Berlocher, S.H. and J.L. Feder. 2002. Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy? Annual Review of Entomology 47:773-815; Bush, G.L. 1969. Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Evolution 23:237-251; Prokopy, R.J., S.R. Diehl and S.S. Cooley. 1988. Behavioral evidence for host races in Rhagoletis pomonella flies. Oecologia 76:138-147. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA - Vol. 94, pp. 11417-11421, October 1997 - Evolution article Selective maintenance of allozyme differences among sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly.

"Even a brief review of this evidence is enough to compel one to believe in Common Descent." Compel? Are you kidding? This is not evidence.

Do explain how it isn't.

This is a made up theory to go with some different creatures that have been found and put in some made up order to make it look like it fits into some type of ancestry.

The data gathered is preciesly what we'd expect to be gathered if Evolutionary theory is true. Therefore, it is evidence.

This is not proof or anything.

Whoever mentioned proof? This is evidence, my dear.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know the devils also believe in God. They, unlike you, even know there is a God BUT they do not understand the things of God even as you do not understand the things of Goad as your speech reveals. One needs to be born again to understand the things of God, which is obvious never happened to you. REASON #1 TO UNDERSTAND THE THINGS OF GOD

This, unfortunately is a nearly unfalsifiable argument. What you are claiming is that in order to understand God you have to be born again, otherwise you simply cannot understand God.

For an objective outside observer, then, there is no way to come to God except by random chance of being born again. Certainly it cannot, by definition, be an informed choice. Otherwise it would mean understanding of God could come before being born again.

Now I also have to ask how do you know that what you know about God is correct? Those who are born again could never prove any points to those not born again, so what good would it do to fulfill The Great Commission?

There are so many logical stumbling blocks in the "you can't understand God until you are born again" that it falls flat as a crevo or apologetics debate.

Again, Foe's point that "The Truth Doesn't Change" would seem to paint God as a UNIVERSAL, a concept that is universally true. But when you add the caveat that one must be "born again" to perceive this truth means it is hidden from some. That would seem to cut into it's being "Universal".

Atheism, a disbelief or lack of belief in a God, can be on any basis, or none at all, so it doesn't require rationalism.

(Well that's the truth! There isn't anything rational about atheism. )

Actually atheism is a "Null Hypothesis". When presented with the universe and the attempts to explain what is going on around you, one does not automatically default to: "There is a being who is invisible and omnipotent and omniscient, who is that being than which none greater can be conceived, who chose a small group of people on the East side of the Mediterranean about 5000 years ago to be his 'chosen' among all people on the planet, and later this same being decided that the only way to atone man to him was to appear on the planet in that small area on the east side of the Mediterranean sea and, in the form of another being who was simultaneously all-GOd and all-Man, and arrange to have himself sacrificed to himself through an act of betrayal which was necessary to complete the transaction so that later people, not of the original chosen group necessarily, would simply have to accept that said transaction occurred to be granted the grace of salvation and kept from eternal damnation."

Rather the atheist simply fails to reject the null hypothesis that there is no god.

The atheist can certainly allow that some day evidence will be presented that allows for the rejection of the null, but right now, there simply hasn't been enough evidence presented to the atheist to reject the null, certainly not in preference to the alternative hypothesis as stated above.

So indeed atheism is "hella-rational", if you will.

In these cases it is the "rejection of emotion", tradition or fashionable belief which is the defining feature of the rationalist perspective

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_movement

That is a good point to remember. Rational scientific analysis does require that we give up "gut feelings". Personally I've seen some of my favorite hypotheses crash and burn in the light of dispassionate analysis.

Why would I want any less brutal self-honesty in my pursuit of "spiritual knowledge"?

If you have to be "born again" to learn about God, then you've already plighted your troth to "emotionalism".

It is as if you are required to believe L.Ron Hubbard before you can learn about Scientology. How can you reject it if you already believe it?

What does that say about your "real belief"? Does it not merely say you simply "accept it", but don't really understand or believe?

Wrong! Faith is evidence.

Is that why it is called "faith"?

It is substance. More so than anything natural. Faith is produced from God's Word not religion.

But it is religion that tells us what "God's Word" is. So...

 

[Aron-Ra]

How does one determine that something is impossible? (arguments from personal incredulity don't count.)

(1.) When no precedent can be verified for the claim in question.
...its evidently never happened before.

(2) When no potential explanation of such events or the mechanisms behind them can even be provided to imply that they even should happen.
...there's no way it could have happened?

(3) When the critical elements of the claimed event can never be demonstrated in any number of trials by any number of applicants under any circumstances even hypothetically.
...it apparently doesn't happen.

(4) When the claim in question directly opposes findings which are consistently shown to be true, and thus falsify the claim.
...It can't happen because ___.

Even abiogenesis has (1) a precedent, a series circumstances showing that it apparently did happen, (2) a series of potential explanations for various aspects of it showing how it is possible, (3) a range of experiments showing how elements of it support how it likely happened, and (4) no scientific data counters any aspect of that process, so there's no reason to say that it couldn't happen.

Now, the worldwide flood, the firmament, reanimated corpses floating into the air, talking snakes and donkeys, living three days in a fish, incantations poofing complex matter out of nothing, wishing water into wine, willing the Red sea to part, or telling the sun and moon to stop in the sky -all with no explanations provided for anything other than the assumption of magic -all fail each of these criteria; thus all of them are impossible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yet I don't feel compelled, why is that?
FoeHammer.

I agree it is better when a post explains the science otherwise we just get into "citation shoot-outs", but indeed just a glance at that page would make me wonder why you aren't compelled.

You could read it right? I assume you could understand it? Were you able to follow the links to the external citations?

This is why scientists get frustrated with hard-core creationists. The Creationists simply seem to enjoy their own ignorance.

As I have said many time before, I love geology, and dedicated a full 12 years of my life to learning it. The science in it is very very neat and wonderful. The concepts are, largely, pretty accessible. We all live on this planet and we all have access to the primary source material (ie the rocks and surface outside), so we owe it to ourselves to understand it better.

If you quote the KJV you quote a few pages of paper written by people. If you quote the geologic record you quote the sum history of the entire earth.

Talk about "Rock of Ages". It simply says what it says. In some cases the evidence is so obvious that to deny the truth written in the rocks takes an act of willful ignorance so grand it would cause anyone's conception of God to cry.

If you believe God created this place, then you must believe that he gave you more than a dusty book to read. He gave you the entire planet to read.

The rocks don't lie. And the rocks are never wrong.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Evolution is an outlook on life. It says life derived from nothing. Please don't tell me that that is abiogenesis for evolution looks for the common ancester and therefore it must answer where that common ancester comes from.

Unfortunately you will have to be told this. It is true, evolution describes the change in life over time. NOT the beginning of life.

Think of it as the difference between STARTING the car and ACCELARATING the car.

Starting the car is a different process using the starter motor, whereas the starter motor doesn't help you
when you accellerate the car.

Chemically speaking, the start of life was probably the wholly non-life-based process of catalytic mineral surfaces and small template molecules that simply adsorbed the right things and arranged the right compounds together.

Beyond that simple cell membranes are an advanced and more complex version of micelles, a simple single-layer version of which form spontaneously everytime you wash your hands with soap.

Wholly non-living processes can account for much of what we see as the precursors to life.

ONCE life does form then it doesn't have to change unless there's a way to induce changes (ie "mutations") and a way to filter the changes into life forms that can survive or life forms that fail to thrive.

These processes of evolution are in no way necessarily related to the processes of abiogenesis.

So to complain that evolution must have something to do with abiogenesis is to fail to understand the meaning of the terms.

So, rest assured, evolution does not necessarily include abiogenesis.

It would be as if someone told you that you are not allowed to discuss Christianity without explaining all the tenants of Islam at the same time.

Two different things, two different processes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fallible in some things, yes, fallible in all things, not necessarily.
FoeHammer.

Actually, point of order here, fallible means prone to making mistakes or possibly capable of making mistakes or being mistaken.

While you may not be mistaken on every point, you are certainly "able to be mistaken" on those points.

We all are. Otherwise we'd be divine.


I just found this little philosophical school of thought I had not heard of before:

Fallibilism: "...the philosophical doctrine that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible; or at least that all claims to knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.

"... is an admission that because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false."

If you are infallible on some issues, Foe, I would be surprised.

But you may be a semi-divine being, I dunno.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The rocks don't lie. And the rocks are never wrong.

Here's another reason why creationism is a form of idolatry; they're unable to distinguish doctrine from deity. We all know that people tell stories, and mere fallable men write a lot of books. All of these books credit human authors, and none among them say they were written by a god instead. We know that all these books had human editors too, and we know of many revisions and omissions made by human scribes often for political reasons. Gods don't write books; people do. But -who wrote what we can all read in the rocks? Or mitochondrial DNA? Because mere humans couldn't be responsible for that.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Only to those with no hope.

FoeHammer.

Just to clarify (again), I'm talking about the debate. None of this changes how science is done.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Emperor's New Clothes.

FoeHammer.

As I've said a million times now, there's application in the fields intersecting modern genetics/genomics and evolutionary biology. Science has moved well beyond, "is this true?" to "how can we use this?". In particular, my recent thread on pharmacophylogenomics gave an example of how evolutionary biology is being used in drug discovery in the pharmaceutical industry. Anything to say to that?

 

[Split Rock]

Yet I don't feel compelled, why is that?

Because of your faith in the religious dogma you have tied yourself to.

Only to those with no hope.

FoeHammer.

Hope has Nothing to do with it!

What does "hope" have to do with what is true?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hope has Nothing to do with it!

What does "hope" have to do with what is true?

"Hope" can often blind us to truth!

"I HOPE that this chemical has this effect! I'm going to include it anyway!"

"I hope we are not related to apes, they live in zoos and smell!"

"I hope God wanted these innocent non-combatants murdered here in Amalek. Someone told us He wanted that!"

 

[Inan3]

And conversely, you don't see it as a viable truth only because you don't understand it.

There's the classic evo answer. "You don't understand it." Any child could understand evolution. There are pictures and lots of, "this is evidence" statements. The problem for you evolutionists is that anyone who is an independent "rational" thinker can see right through this propaganda. It's just a bunch of multiple theories and nice little stories about each one, strung together with illustrations about this and about that, and put into all these cute little trees, that in no way can EVER be connected to a multimillion year old ancestor (because of lack of physical evidence) and then all put under one big heading of the THEORY of Evolution. As this thread asks, Fairytale? Answer: YES!

Define what you think scientists are talking about, but that you haven't seen any "evidence" for yet.

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434

How could they know this when neither had been decoded a quarter of a century ago. It was just pulled out of the air and swallowed hook line and sinker by those who trusted them.

With the discovery of the new, well dated specimens from Ileret, H. habilis and H. erectus can now be shown to have co-occurred in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years. Previously, the most recent occurrence of H. habilis was at 1.65 Myr ago or older (OH 13). KNM-ER 42703 now provides a reliable and substantially younger age of 1.44 Myr. The earliest occurrence of specimens with affinities to H. habilis is at approximately 2.33 Myr ago at Hadar (A.L. 666), but H. habilis (sensu stricto) first appears in eastern Africa at about 1.9 Myr ago (for example, OH 24). Diagnostic evidence of H. erectus appears in the African record at about the same time (that is, KNM-ER 2598), and the youngest African fossils attributed to that taxon are dated to circa 1.0 Myr ago (for example, OH 12, Daka, KNM-OG 45500). Spoor, Leakey, et al., Nature, 9 August 2007, “Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya” pages 688-691

Press coverage regarding above news.

The fossils, discovered in eastern Africa, challenge the understanding that humans evolved one after another like a line of dominoes, from ancient Homo habilis to Homo erectus and eventually to Homo sapiens, or modern people. 2 Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters, August 8, 2007, “Fossils paint new picture of human evolution”

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution - that one of those species evolved from the other. And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man. 3Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, August 9, 2007,” Evolution revolution creates stir”


The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said. 4ibid

I read this twice, and I still can't tell. What is your problem with this?

The reason you can't see is you won't see. Someone told you that this is how it is and you fell for it hook line and sinker. When in actuality, the truth is that it is all theory. It might have happened this way or we predicted it happened this way or it probably happened this way. That's all evolution is a bunch of stories put together.

Well of course I didn't really know "the lord". I only believed I did, just like you do; Just like George Harrison so certainly believed he knew Krishna. He spoke very much as you do, you know.

"If there's a God, I want to see Him. It's pointless to believe in something without proof, and Krishna Consciousness and meditation are methods where you can actually obtain GOD preception. You can actually see God, and Hear Him, play with Him. It might sound crazy, but He is actually there, actually with you."

Now how could you argue with that? Are you now going to tell me that he didn't really know his god either?

I have read many testimonies from ancient times and from the modern day of people's "personal knowledge" and spiritual communion with Buddha, Muhammad, Ahura-Mazda, Guru Nanak, and the spirits of dead friends, lovers, and relatives. All of them claim confident knowledge of absolute truth, yet all of them cannot be correct. Would you tell me they're all deceived and only you know the real way?

Whether they are deceived or not is not up to me to decide BUT everything you have stated is indicative that there is another realm that is not the natural realm and that is the spiritual realm. People do have true encounters with real spirits some good some bad but nevertheless they are just as real as the natural realm.

Belief in God = belief in magic. You literally believe you can make dreams become matter if you could just make yourself believe it enough. You rave with disturbing lunacy wild ranting nonsense which cannot be justified. I find it disorienting as any sensible person would when surrounded by sycophants suffering from Orwellian dementia; "rationalism is irrational", "faith is reason", "intelligence is stupid", "gullability is wisdom", and "assuming your own subjective emotional conclusions for no reason counts as evidence".

A whole lot of twisting of what I said going on here and some of it could be considered flaming but don't worry I'm not going to report you like I've been reported because I'm not offended. I could only be offended if there was just the smallest bit of truth about what you have said, but obviously it is more about ranting and raving than any semblance truth.

Its all madness. Sanity is often defined as being rational, to be able to reason logically and to be reasoned with. But faith is irrational, illogical, unreasonable, and insane by definition.

Two definitions for the infamous Wikipedia:

Insanity, or madness, is a general popular and legal term defining behavior influenced by mental instability.

Sanity considered as a legal term denotes that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legalresponsibility for his or her actions.

Neither of these definitions fits your "opinion" of what sanity or insanity is. Just because you rant and rave and beat your chest and roar the loudest does not make your interpretation of things correct. I am very sane and so is my faith and the faith of millions of other believers. You may disagree with that but just because Aron Rah says it, does not make it so! Maybe in you neck of the jungle it does; where it seems the beating of the chest and loudest roar intimidates those within hearing range but here it falls on ears that are unafraid of your seeming prowess. I am not impressed so go back to you cave or tree and stop monkeying around because your fit has revealed or changed nothing!

And you know you do too; or else you would have answered my question in post # 256.

(see answer above) What I know is it's not rational to think that it is all about you, AR - I didn't answer this because quite frankly I didn't get to it and it just kinda left my mind after that, but I see it didn't leave yours - I'm not afraid of answering anything or anyone nor am I afraid to say I don't have the answer - so don't assume you know what's going on in MY head or heart unless I say it to you - gotta get rid of the bitterness, AR, it's going to eat you up and then spit you out if you don't

We both know why you can't. Its because we both know that the creationism movement is based entirely on falsehoods and deliberately dishonest propaganda. None of you cares for the truth if it is not what you wish it to be. That's why there has never been a single credible proponent of evangelical creationism anywhere ever.Nor has there ever been a single argument in favor of creationism which was verifiably accurate. Every claim creationists ever make in this debate falls into one of two categories; those things which can never be either vindicated or disproved, and those things which have already been disproved.

This is a bunch of blabbering which really doesn't warrant an answer.

I really can't continue trying to reason with someone who believes the voices in her head belong to demons and shadow spirits, and who can only vainly attempt to project her own faults onto those who have already rid ourselves of them, and will not bare them again.

Of course, the choice is all yours, AR, but don't deceive yourself in thinking your own reason is without fault. It's very obvious that you have your own demons to deal with.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

There's the classic evo answer. "You don't understand it." Any child could understand evolution. There are pictures and lots of, "this is evidence" statements. The problem for you evolutionists is that anyone who is an independent "rational" thinker can see right through this propaganda. It's just a bunch of multiple theories and nice little stories about each one, strung together with illustrations about this and about that, and put into all these cute little trees, that in no way can EVER be connected to a multimillion year old ancestor (because of lack of physical evidence) and then all put under one big heading of the THEORY of Evolution. As this thread asks, Fairytale? Answer: YES!

No, I think a lot of people might think they understand evolution, but for the most part, they barely have the basic ideas down. The problem is that lots of people simply don't have much in the way of education in evolutionary biology. After all, it's not exactly relevant to many people's immediate livelihoods. So when they think evolution, they think fossils, Darwin and natural selection, and if we're lucky, maybe something to do with inheritance. But a lot of this stuff that people think of when they think evolution is at least 50 years in the past, and at best, an extremely cursory overview.

Like I said before, much of the evidence for and subsequent application of evolutionary biology rests in genetics and genomics. However, one requires climbing that learning curve to get past the concepts and terminology in order to fully appreciate it and why it's important. After all, how many children are going to be able to define things like "orthologous genes", "phlyogenetic tree" or heck, even "allele". Can even you define any of those?

And also like I said before, science has moved well beyond "is evolution true?" to "how can we use it?" And yes, this includes common descent, which like the rest of evolutionary theory is an applied science with relevance in today's biological industries. It might be comforting to think that common descent and contemporary evolution is a fairytale, but the real world has demonstrated otherwise. It's a useful science and it ain't going away.

edited to add: One more issue with lay people and understanding of evolution is the media. Most of the media stories about evolution tend to be overly sensationalistic (i.e. "New fossil challenges scientist's understanding of evolution!", etc). And this is true of all fields (particularly when it comes to physics and Einstein). So the media really doesn't paint a particularly accurate picture of evolutionary theory either, largely relying on sensationalism and soundbites. To get the real picture, you have to dive into the published journal papers, but most people have neither the inclination or pre-requisite knowledge for that.

 

[Inan3]

No, I think a lot of people might think they understand evolution, but for the most part, they barely have the basic ideas down. The problem is that lots of people simply don't have much in the way of education in evolutionary biology. After all, it's not exactly relevant to many people's immediate livelihoods. So when they think evolution, they think fossils, Darwin and natural selection, and if we're lucky, maybe something to do with inheritance. But a lot of this stuff that people think of when they think evolution is at least 50 years in the past, and at best, an extremely cursory overview.

Like I said before, much of the evidence for and subsequent application of evolutionary biology rests in genetics and genomics. However, one requires climbing that learning curve to get past the concepts and terminology in order to fully appreciate it and why it's important. After all, how many children are going to be able to define things like "orthologous genes", "phlyogenetic tree" or heck, even "allele". Can even you define any of those?

And also like I said before, science has moved well beyond "is evolution true?" to "how can we use it?" And yes, this includes common descent, which like the rest of evolutionary theory is an applied science with relevance in today's biological industries. It might be comforting to think that common descent and contemporary evolution is a fairytale, but the real world has demonstrated otherwise. It's a useful science and it ain't going away.

edited to add: One more issue with lay people and understanding of evolution is the media. Most of the media stories about evolution tend to be overly sensationalistic (i.e. "New fossil challenges scientist's understanding of evolution!", etc). And this is true of all fields (particularly when it comes to physics and Einstein). So the media really doesn't paint a particularly accurate picture of evolutionary theory either, largely relying on sensationalism and soundbites. To get the real picture, you have to dive into the published journal papers, but most people have neither the inclination or pre-requisite knowledge for that.

Thank you for this explanation Pete, but I'm afraid I have some questions about it.

In the first paragraph you indicated "a lot of this stuff that people think of when they think evolution is at least 50 years in the past". I really never knew much about evolution because as you stated "it's not exactly relevant to many people's immediate livelihoods" and I agree with that, BUT since I have been on this forum my education by the evolutionists here and my search on the internet has been mostly about the past 50 years of evolution "fossils, Darwin and natural selection, and if we're lucky, maybe something to do with inheritance." And it seemed it was the intent of each poster to let me know how much they were educated in ToE and understood it. Possibly they are the people you were speaking of who might think that they understand evolution.

As to the second paragrah, "much of the evidence for and subsequent application of evolutionary biology rests in genetics and genomics", I don't see where the application of these has been any more enlightening for evolution than the past 50 years. I didn't say it hasn't been more enlightening but I said more enlightening for evolution. Please explain how so, if you know. I'm sure you can put it in layman's terms.

Third paragrah, so please tell me how it is used. How it iis needed in todays science. Please explain how is it "an applied science with relevance in today's biological industries" ? How "the real world has demonstrated otherwise"?

As to your fourth paragraph, I suppose that is true about the media but we also, know it is not always the case, such as when there is a scientific discovery then I'm sure they get it all right.

 

[Inan3]

Here's another reason why creationism is a form of idolatry; they're unable to distinguish doctrine from deity. We all know that people tell stories, and mere fallable men write a lot of books. All of these books credit human authors, and none among them say they were written by a god instead. We know that all these books had human editors too, and we know of many revisions and omissions made by human scribes often for political reasons. Gods don't write books; people do. But -who wrote what we can all read in the rocks? Or mitochondrial DNA? Because mere humans couldn't be responsible for that.

Well, who did then, Aron-Ra?

 

[NailsII]

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434

How could they know this when neither had been decoded a quarter of a century ago. It was just pulled out of the air and swallowed hook line and sinker by those who trusted them.

Whole genomic sequenceing has only been applied recently, but genes have been analysed since 1975.

With the discovery of the new, well dated specimens from Ileret, H. habilis and H. erectus can now be shown to have co-occurred in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years. Previously, the most recent occurrence of H. habilis was at 1.65 Myr ago or older (OH 13). KNM-ER 42703 now provides a reliable and substantially younger age of 1.44 Myr. The earliest occurrence of specimens with affinities to H. habilis is at approximately 2.33 Myr ago at Hadar (A.L. 666), but H. habilis (sensu stricto) first appears in eastern Africa at about 1.9 Myr ago (for example, OH 24). Diagnostic evidence of H. erectus appears in the African record at about the same time (that is, KNM-ER 2598), and the youngest African fossils attributed to that taxon are dated to circa 1.0 Myr ago (for example, OH 12, Daka, KNM-OG 45500). Spoor, Leakey, et al., Nature, 9 August 2007, “Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya” pages 688-691

Press coverage regarding above news.

The fossils, discovered in eastern Africa, challenge the understanding that humans evolved one after another like a line of dominoes, from ancient Homo habilis to Homo erectus and eventually to Homo sapiens, or modern people. 2 Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters, August 8, 2007, “Fossils paint new picture of human evolution”

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution - that one of those species evolved from the other. And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man. 3Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, August 9, 2007,” Evolution revolution creates stir”


The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said. 4ibid

Yes, each find completes a piece of the jigsaw and our knowledge increases. Sometimes it matches what we know, sometimes it challanges it.
If only an all-knowng deity would suddenly dictate a book of complete knowledge to his chosen one....
Jokes aside, the classic picture of human evolution being linear - one species directly to another - is largely unique. most animals are represented by many fragments and extinctions. This latest find doesn't refute evolution, it just offers a new insight into human evolution. It offers a path were multiple ancestors could co-exist, which is the logical conclusion really.

 

[Inan3]

Whole genomic sequenceing has only been applied recently, but genes have been analysed since 1975.

Yes but to say that we are 98% similar to chimps could not be known until recently. So it is a deception to say so. Also, even a child is not 98% similar to it's parent so why try to make people believe chimps are 98% similar when in fact they are much less similar? My point of that post was to tell why I believe scientists state one thing and really don't have the evidence they purport.

 

[NailsII]

Yes but to say that we are 98% similar to chimps could not be known until recently. So it is a deception to say so. Also, even a child is not 98% similar to it's parent so why try to make people believe chimps are 98% similar when in fact they are much less similar? My point of that post was to tell why I believe scientists state one thing and really don't have the evidence they purport.

So you don't think that by analysing x number of genes and finding a correlation which gives approx. 98% similarity is valid?
It appears that the estimate has been proven accurate after the entire genomes have been sequenced.
The point is statistics - an opinion poll does not base itself on every person being asked, just enough to provide a reliable estimate.
And a child can be more or less 98% genetically the same as its parent, there can be huge variation. Sex chromosomes being an obvious distraction....

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes but to say that we are 98% similar to chimps could not be known until recently. So it is a deception to say so.

But it's true. How is the truth a deception?

Also, even a child is not 98% similar to it's parent so why try to make people believe chimps are 98% similar when in fact they are much less similar?

Genetically speaking, a child is far more and 98% similar to the parents -- say, for the sake of argument, 99.99999% similar.

Of course, that .00001% difference is responsible for minor differences -- a gene here or there. The differences are cosmetic, but genetically inconsequential.

My point of that post was to tell why I believe scientists state one thing and really don't have the evidence they purport.

And you are, of course, entitled to your beliefs -- but if those beliefs are basedo n incorrect facts, people more in the know are going to call you out on them.