For Mark Kennedy. Why is a finch a bird? Why is a human not an ape?

[SLP]

That was written when everyone thought chimpanzee and human DNA was 99% the same. How does that change when it drops below 95%?

Hi Martyr,

How long are you going to continue to pretend that this has never been explained to you?

Or is it that you just ignored it the dozen or more times that it has been?

or are you hoping that nobody else will remmeber?

Or are you programmed to reject facts that counter your simplistic mantras?

The 'change' to 95% means nothing. Get that throuigh your neanderthalish skull.

 

[Edx]

Human is defined by a normal, healthy brain averaging 1350cc, exclusivly bipedal, precision thumb and the list could be a long one.

By your definition, any human born with a small brain (defined by your own criteria) that walks on all fours exclusively or that had mutated hands (just like the family with the mutated feet) would have to be called a non-human.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Martyr,

How long are you going to continue to pretend that this has never been explained to you?

Hi professor,

Feeling the need to get on your soapbox again I see, well, get on with it then

Or is it that you just ignored it the dozen or more times that it has been?

You know if I thought you were being honest about the evidence I would just take your word for it. I haven't been impressed with how the things evolutionists say square with the actual evidence. It's that annoying way I am constantly corrected, which isn't so bad, unless I know I'm right.

or are you hoping that nobody else will remmeber?

Or are you programmed to reject facts that counter your simplistic mantras?

The 'change' to 95% means nothing. Get that throuigh your neanderthalish skull.

You do realize that the difference between 99 and 95% is 100,000,000 base pairs don't you? Or were you hoping people would forget that you and the rest of the scientific mainstream has been telling us the DNA of chimps and humans is virtually identical for the last half a century?

 

[Tomk80]

You do realize that the difference between 99 and 95% is 100,000,000 base pairs don't you?

Really, so what Mark? As has been explained to you many times, for common ancestry the pattern is important, not the exact level of differences. The pattern hasn't changed. What is also important is the number of mutations events, not the number of base pairs. This has also been explained to you.

Or were you hoping people would forget that you and the rest of the scientific mainstream has been telling us the DNA of chimps and humans is virtually identical for the last half a century?

95% or 99%. Does that make the difference between very close and completely distant to you?

 

[Chalnoth]

Let's see if I'm getting your thought process down correctly, Mark.

First, scientists observe the human and chimpanzee genomes, and compare single substitution mutation differences. They find a differences of 1.23%. But this isn't all of the difference that there is: there are also indels, which make up about 3 times as many base pairs in difference between humans and chimpanzees, for a total difference of about 5%.

So your conclusion is that because single substitution mutations can only account for about 1/4th of the divergence, humans can't have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? And you seriously can't see the absurdity in this argument?

 

[Aron-Ra]

So your conclusion is that because single substitution mutations can only account for about 1/4th of the divergence, humans can't have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? And you seriously can't see the absurdity in this argument?

Dude, he said we weren't mammals because we had bigger brains than most mammals. Then he said we were mammals no matter how big our brains were. And he still says we're not apes because we have bigger brains than apes. How perceptive do you really think he is?

 

[Edx]

bump

 

[Edx]

bump