- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't. That was never the case outside a small, cherry-picked area of the DNA. I believe we're down in the 80s percentage wise now, if not lower, counting junk DNA, which is anything but junk.
Forbidden Knowledge
Wrong. Try again. Nobody has proven anything is wrong with, much less misrepresented in that article.
We don't. That was never the case outside a small, cherry-picked area of the DNA.
I believe we're down in the 80s percentage wise now, if not lower, counting junk DNA, which is anything but junk.
Forbidden Knowledge
It isn't up to us to prove the legitimacy of your sources. It is up to you to show that the article is consistent with the science found in the primary literature.
No. Prove this one is wrong or outlandish and I will consider it.
Then it should be easy to show me proof. I think you have none, which is why all the whining about garbage.
Legitimacy, no. But unless you can prove it wrong factually or cannot be trusted for whatever reason, it stands as a source.
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
No, it doesn't. Secondary sources never stand as valid scientific sources.
Notice they begin with a big assumption. Two actually. The first being that we are related to chimps, and closely at that. And the assumptions go on:
"Because the chimpanzee lies at such a short evolutionary distance with respect to human, nearly all of the bases are identical by descent and sequences can be readily aligned except in recently derived, large repetitive regions."
So... what did they do with the "recently derived, large repetitive regions"? Ignored them, of course. Something that you can't do in science, but is regularly done when trying to prop up evolution.
No matter. If we accept such fantasies to restrict what sources we can use, then we will eventually be restricted to a few, pre-approved leftist or evolutionist sites. This is about content, not debating authorship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?