Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've just read the first few pages of that thread. It's not just that he makes the same refuted arguments in this thread that he made in that one, but the words are identical. It's an unthinking cut and paste as though that thread and the complete demolition of his ideas there had never happened. People like Kent Hovind do that over and over and over again. Same MO.

Cut and paste, interesting. Thank you for pointing this out, you and @sfs
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Okay. Now I would like you to please think about this with your truest honesty and objectivity. Here we have a real section of the compared genomes after being fed through one of the Algorithms intelligently designed to find areas of similarity. I am sure you are aware of the GIGO principle.

The programmers (already taught and convinced of the idea that humans ARE apes), designed a program that would ignore the obvious dissimilarity and focus on, in fact select, those areas where the sequence appears to be the same. However it is an unintentional deception and I will show you.

This is just plain wrong. And in fact, accusatory. You are literally accusing all biologists/geneticists involved in such studies to be forging the data.

The trees are output of mapping data. The algorithm just compares data and builds a data set of matches. The trees are visualisations of said datasets. The trees are what they are, not because they were "programmed", but because that happens to be how the data is organised. The algoritm doesn't organize the data. It just reflects how the actual data is organized.

The top line represents humans and the bottom apes. When the algorithms are applied, we can see that in some places they do not match and in others unnatural spaces are created. The spaces do not exist in reality (the actual data). Aside from the more obvious G A difference, after the following AGTC section if we take away all the intelligently contrived spaces the two genomes remain dissimilar for the remaining over 2 billion sequences of base pairs.

Hence in reality, the two genomes are actually almost totally different if we just compare the two as they naturally occur making these two different kinds of creatures. As for containing similar sequences so what. We can find many of these in other creatures as well, and even in some fruits.

In truth we have:

Humans: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Apes: AGTCATACCAGTCTACCG

Once again I will remind you that we KNOW that even a change or mutation of a few base pairs can cause incredible changes in form or function and mostly (if occurring within the same creature) can and often does cause horrific medical deformities and conditions (like from particular mental deficiencies, to cystic fibrosis or sickle cell, and so on).

Now in truth, at least in chimps, we see many “shared genes.” But what you are not taught is revealed in some of the studies I already referenced.

a) Many of these genes contain very different sequences in the two creatures (some are larger and some are smaller).

b) Some pf those that are exact have a totally different function and purpose (same gene functions differently). In other words same genes different effects.

c) Many products (particular proteins coded for) are produced from entirely different genes in each creature. In other words same effect from different genes.

I'll take the actual words of genetic experts who do this for a living, from a random armchair "scientist" with a religious agenda on a religious forum, any day of the week.

You are borderlining accusing geneticsists of massive conspiracy and deception.
You have no idea how silly this makes you look, it seems.

You think you know better? Write a paper and publish it. You'll get a nobel prize in return.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hello Jimmy.

I looked up two of the so called, 'templates', you provided as links above.

If you check the underlined phrase in two of these templates provided below, we seem to be extrapolating to the extreme.

Kenyanthropus platyops (Fossils)
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.

Australopithecus garhi (Fossils)
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)

I would not speculate on the basis of a partial skull.


Tell me about your anatomy expertise.

Answer these WITHOUT googling:


What is the petrous part of the temporal bone?

Where is the superior nuchal line?

Which 2 bones make up the zygomatic arch?

Do all humans have supraorbital foramina?

Point is, when you understand anatomy, you don't NEED completely intact skulls to know a lot about them.

This always makes me shake my head - creationists, desperate to prop up their failing beliefs, grasp at any straw they can, usually bolstered by their own ignorance. It is quite sad.

And it isn't just the internet evangelicals - even the "professional" creationists play this game. One of the first YEC books I read was one by Frank March - he tried to do the same thing, whining and hiding behind the notion that 'partial skulls' should not be used as evidence, since the fragments could be reassembled any way one wanted. To "prove" this, he took some drawings of bits of pottery, and showed how they could be arranged in any fashion, from a bowl to a vase.

Problem is, anatomists know the general shape of skulls. We know from the curve of fragments what the overall shape had to have been, etc.

But no, please explain, using your vast anatomical knowledge, how not having 100% intact skulls somehow negates those specimens as having merit.

This will be cute!
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This does not really constitute predictions. Based on an understanding of Chimp and Human DNA as they are you then "predict" that the ti/tv ratio is 2.1. But a real prediction is when you say that something that is not there now will emerge.

Right - so show us a real prediction based on the bible.

Also transitions and transversions mean that there are differences between chimp and human DNA which is my point really. 40 millions mutational differences are the difference between monkeys playing with sticks and grunting at each other and a space programme.

How many differences between descendants of the Created Kinds?

Claiming to understand something you cannot duplicate is the falsity of modern biological science. A theory explains something when it can identify the causation to make this thing occur so that is can be duplicated. I know someone who can do this is my position and the evidence while pointing to his handiwork is not something that can be systematised by scientists who claim they can explain something which they cannot do.

Interesting - so, you seem to think that science requires duplication? Of an event?

Because, weird, I always thought that one had to be able to duplicate observations or experiments, not phenomena.

So like if someone does an experiment and draws conclusion X based on the outcome of the experiment, others should be able to duplicate the experiment and get the same results.

But you are implying that if we cannot 'duplicate' some specific evolutionary event, then it is not real science or something.


Which is nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Because most of mutations replace cytosyne / guanine into thymine and if we are thousands of years old our DNA would be containing mostly thymine .

So... I guess you are unfamiliar with purines and pyrimidines and stuff?

Also there are spots which try to back off the mutation in our genes which means it was better before mutation occured that's impossible according to theory of evolution .


It seems 100% obvious that you have no grasp of evolution or genetics whatsoever.

Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I had a quick look at this. There is a claim that he is 'Jerry Bergman PhD'. However, it appears that his so-called 'PhD' is from a non-accredited correspondence college. To my eyes, that makes him a fraud for claiming that he has a PhD when he does not.

Then he starts off by defining evolution as 'From the goo to you by way of the zoo' and asking his audience to repeat it. So, he is engaging in the creationist pastime of coming up with ridiculous paraphrases of ToE instead of addressing the actual ToE.

At about 8 minutes in he starts talking about the probabilities of different base substitutions as mentioned here. And, Mr Bergman's analysis is no better than Wet Squirrels. He seemingly has no understanding (or pretends to not) that the filtering of the survival of the fittest means that the larger proportion of mutations to T do not mean in any way that the number of Ts in the genome of an evolving species will increase.

So, there's no need to watch the youtube video. It's no better than Wet Squirrel's post.


Nice summary.

Bergman does have 1 legitimate PhD - in something like 'testing and evaluation'. But his 'science' PhD is from a diploma mill.

He also sued Bowling Green U for not renewing his contract, claiming religious discrimination. Public records from the case, however, showed that it was really about him missing so much class time (to go to creationism conferences and meetings) that he was basically an absentee employee.

He is actually a nice fellow, I corresponded with him several years ago. But his "science" is simplistic garbage. Many years ago, a fellow on another forum had contacted him about some errors in his book about vestigials, and he actually showed up on the forum to defend himself - primarily by blaming his editor.

Sad, all the way around.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
sure. here are 2 cases:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.

or:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly". but evolution is science, right?

Yet not a single middle eastern sinner fossilized along with those dinosaurs in the flood... Miracle...
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
like those once?:



cafepress_biologicalrotarymotor_intro.jpg


(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

0619.jpg


(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

Wow! Colorful cartoons totally prove DESIGN!

It is almost as if you had never posted those before!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror?

According to your analogy, the next batch of Ferraris would also have to have broken mirrors.

Do they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
its like asking why, because some cars are designed you think they all must be?

The basal body of a cilium is not at all like a car.

Analogies are NOT evidence - how can you not understand this?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Indeed it is quite common for individual species to be able to hybridise and even produce viable offspring

thanks. so a better classification of the original creation "kind" is more similar to the family level rather than the species one.


And gibbons form four genera with different chromsome counts and there are no reports of fertile hybrids between genera. So in just these two families, even if we accept that some hybridisation can occur with viable fertile offspring, then you have a lot more than two "kinds".

see above. the fact that we do find that most of the cat species are able to interbreed prove that the family level is more close to the origianl creation "kind" than the species or genus level. the fact that we still didnt seen it happen in this specific case yet doesnt prove that its impossible.


its funny because even according to evolution all monkeys\apes shared a common monkey-like creature. so even according to evolution there is only a single original "kind". so in theory creationists only need to explain how it can happen twice : one in human and one in the original monkey.

And in any case, it's astronomically unlikely that even in a case of two taxa, say humans and chimps, that the same gene will be independently broken in the same way with an identical set of accumulated mutations.

since we have seen that micro bat and marmoset shared about 6 exon loss without a common descent this is incorrect.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hecd2

Mostly Harmless
Feb 5, 2007
86
112
✟12,796.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
thanks. so a better classification of the original creation "kind" is more similar to the family level rather than the species one.
Great - if that's the way you want to go, humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are a family, so they must all be one kind.

hecd2 said:
And in any case, it's astronomically unlikely that even in a case of two taxa, say humans and chimps, that the same gene will be independently broken in the same way with an identical set of accumulated mutations.
since we have seen that micro bat and marmoset shared about 6 exon loss without a common descent this is incorrect.
But they are not identical.

Marmoset and micro bat differ in these ways:
  • Exon 3 lost in marmoset and present in bat
  • A 5bp insertion on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (the exon's missing)
  • A splice donor site mutation on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (well the exon's missing)
  • Exon 4 lost in marmoset and not in bat
  • Exon 6 lost in marmoset and mostly present in bat
  • A frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
  • Another frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
  • Exon 9 present in marmoset but not in bat
  • A 2bp inserion in marmoset exon 9 not in bat (missing exon)
  • A 28bp insertion in marmoset exon 9 not present in bat (missing exon)
  • A splice donor site mutation on exon 9 in marmoset and not bat (exon missing in bat)
  • Exon 12 present in marmoset and not in bat
  • A stop codon mutation on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat
  • A 5bp deletion on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat
Human and chimp differ in these ways:
Give it up already.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Chimps are twice as small and their muscles are smaller as well, yet they are about three times stronger. Some of this had to do with where ape genetic plan causes the muscles to be attached (as opposed to the genetic plans for a human). I suppose the alleged foremost authority on such differences is Kevin Hunt, director of the Human Origins and Primate Evolution Lab at Indiana University. Now though I am sure he believes in the re-grouping of the two groups into one (now called hominidae) he cannot deny these biological differences. For example one of the factors may be due to their muscle fibers biologically being more dense.

Other biological discrepancies exist in our biochemistry. For one example consider “Identification of differences in human and great ape phytanic acid metabolism that could influence gene expression profiles and physiological functions” posted at NCBI

(Identification of differences in human and great ape phytanic acid metabolism that could influence gene expression profiles and physiological functions

Which concludes “We identified differences in the physiological levels of phytanic acid in humans and great apes and propose this is causally related to their gut anatomies and microbiomes. Phytanic acid levels could contribute to cross-species and sex-specific differences in human and great ape transcriptomes, especially those related to lipid metabolism. Based on the medical conditions caused by phytanic acid accumulation, we suggest that differences in phytanic acid metabolism could influence the functions of human and great ape nervous, cardiovascular, and skeletal systems.”
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sialic acids are one type of sugar molecule found on the cell surface of all primates, however apes are very distinct from humans in that they lack one oxygen atom. Insignificant? You think? Tell that to your cells. The Sialic acid molecules play an essential role in cell-to-cell communication and serve as binding sites for receptors on other cells. So even on this biochemical level we are distinct. There are also apparently stark noticeable differences in thyroid metabolism between humans (in all their varieties) and the great Apes (in all their varieties). So biologically, humans are not part of the great apes! We are two different groups, and will never be, and were never, and thus are not, the same.

Could have been the same in a common ancestor? Fine show me. One could have resulted from mutation? Fine did the ape mutate from the human or the human from the ape? Show me.

What would cause either entire group (each with their unique varieties) to lose an oxygen atom in this significant molecule, or gain one? In my opinion, the genetic plan in each unique creature’s DNA is already distinct at conception.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Chimps are twice as small and their muscles are smaller as well, yet they are about three times stronger. Some of this had to do with where ape genetic plan causes the muscles to be attached (as opposed to the genetic plans for a human).

Please explain how muscle placement affects strength - not how it affects mechanical advantage, but strength, since you wrote that chimps are three times stronger
Now though I am sure he believes in the re-grouping of the two groups into one (now called hominidae) he cannot deny these biological differences.

What are you implying?

Why is it that you people cannot bring yourselves to admit that you really don't know what evolutionists think or conclude?

NOBODY has EVER denied that there are differences between ANY 2 taxa. You frequently imply that we do. Why?

This is like how you claimed that a cladogram showed orangs giving rise to gorillas that gave rise to chimps that gave rise to humans, all while proclaiming that you know all about phylogenetics and evolution! Please just stop pretending.

For example one of the factors may be due to their muscle fibers biologically being more dense.

Almost certainly.

What of it?

Other biological discrepancies exist in our biochemistry.

My gosh - if there were no "biological discrepancies", they would BE us! Why do you have such a hard time with this?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So even on this biochemical level we are distinct.

Are giraffes and okapis of the same 'kind'? How do you account for THEIR discrepancies?
There are also apparently stark noticeable differences in thyroid metabolism between humans (in all their varieties) and the great Apes (in all their varieties). So biologically, humans are not part of the great apes!

Nice assertion. Pity that no actual anthropologists will be swayed by your proclamations.

We are two different groups, and will never be, and were never, and thus are not, the same.

Unsupported assertion.


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

Could have been the same in a common ancestor? Fine show me. One could have resulted from mutation? Fine did the ape mutate from the human or the human from the ape? Show me.
See above.

Were we separate creations made from dust? Fine. Show me - and sorry, ancient middle eastern tales are not evidence.

Woman made from a man's 'side'? Fine. Show me.

What would cause either entire group (each with their unique varieties) to lose an oxygen atom in this significant molecule, or gain one? In my opinion, the genetic plan in each unique creature’s DNA is already distinct at conception.

Wow - tell us all, oh master of all things scientific, how DNA via protein synthesis can remove an oxygen atom from a molecule.

Can't wait!
 
Upvote 0