Is this for real?

[xianghua]

That figure shows common descent,

no its not. its just a tree of similarity\dissimilarity.

which is what you're disputing. You haven't answered the question(s): What's the fraction of human DNA that has been changed by these single-base mutations? What's the fraction of the chimpanzee genome? Of the baboon genome?

i can tell about human and chimp that we are talking about few percent. now, what is your point actually?

 

[sfs]

i can tell about human and chimp that we are talking about few percent. now, what is your point actually?

My point is that I want you to explain the data in a way that does not involve common descent.

i can tell about human and chimp that we are talking about few percent.

Since the total rate of single-base differences between humans and chimps is 1%, how can a few percent of each be the result of single-base mutations? Here are the questions: What's the fraction of human DNA that has been changed by these single-base mutations? What's the fraction of the chimpanzee genome? Of the baboon genome?

If you have a creationist explanation for these data, why can't you answer these basic questions?

 

[tas8831]

You then have to explain why every child born has around 60 new mutations compared with their parents and yet this accumulated mutation has only made humans less than your claimed 99% for humans and chimps???

60/3200000000 = 0.000001875%

To allow these 60 new mutations per generation to accumulate to add up to 1% of the genome, 1% = ~500,000 generations, or around 7 million years (if we use a low-ball 15 years per generation - and yes, I am ignoring all sorts of population-related things for simplicity).

What point did you think you were making?

Are chimps born with these same numbers of mutations?

Probably.

We must assume so I guess since we are only as you claim 1% different, so the random mutations must be randomly identical across generations.......

Or (supposing evolution is true - and I am going against truth here) most of the mutations are neutral and so have no overall affect, while the mutations in baboons had more effect.... Just because a mutation is neutral in one animal, does not mean a mutation will be neutral in another.

Er- do you think those 60 mutations we are born with (assuming for this thread that your numbers are accurate) are all beneficial or something?

And isn't the 1% a little optimistic???

"The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today."

And as stated, that is after you delete the non-coding regions.

Where is that stated?

The coding regions share only 29% similarity..... "At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans." So in the region which actually codes for proteins, what makes each animal distinct, we in reality are only 29% similar.

LOL!!!

So... you are not aware of several MORE things that a person who has been 'arguing' these general topics for years should actually, you know, at least have a basic handle on by now...

Given your quote, the intelligent interpretation, the sensible one, is that in terms of proteins, we are 29% identical. And that in 71% of proteins, we are not identical. But how 'non-identical' are we in those coding DNA sequences? Seems to me that your implication is that we are 71% different in the proteins, then we are 71% different at the coding nucleotide level. Do you think that is the case?

OK - only about 2% of the genome is protein coding - you did know that, right?

71% dissimilar in 2% of the genome (you aren't right about that, either, but one gaffe at a time) = 1.4% difference, not 29% (I know this math is off, but look at what I am dealing with here...)...

Back to your claim -

" The coding regions share only 29% similarity..... "At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans." So in the region which actually codes for proteins, what makes each animal distinct, we in reality are only 29% similar."

OK, so first, this:

"coding regions share only 29% similarity"

does NOT follow from this:

"At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans."

Let me see if I can break this down to your level, then I have to take a break...

This means that 29% of genes code for identical proteins. 71% of genes code for proteins that are not identical. Not identical is not the same as totally different. Agreed?

If in each case, the non-identical genes differed by 1%, do you really think we conclude that the total % difference is 71%? If these 71% of genes differed by 1% from each other, what would the overall percent difference be?

Look at it this way (for simplicity) - we have 100 100-word sentences. 29 are identical - same 100 words. 71 of them have 1 word different from the others, that is, they are 1% different from the others.
With me so far?
71% of the sentences are not identical to the other 29%. Does that mean that the 71 are 100% different from the other 29?

My head hurts...All for now..

 

[tas8831]

Just a number playing game....

And what about differences between human men and women? "If we look at base pairs, the difference between men and women would be 59 million divided by 3.2 billion or about 1.8%. This translates to men and women being 98.2% the same. Men and women are actually a bit more similar as the Y chromosome has about 5% of its DNA sequences in common with the X chromosome. This would change the number to 98.4% the same. If the 98.7% number for chimp-human similarity is right, then by this measure, men and women are less alike than are female chimps and women."

Great - now do a similar analysis for two taxa that creationists claim are related via descent from a Kind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'll go ahead and state the obvious: this is utter nonsense.
Perhaps I'll get on board with the idea of it being one of the most (not THE most) impactfull, in terms of shaping our western society and culture. It was dominant for the past 2000 years so obviously it has had impact. To the point of perhaps even not being able to understand our culture's history, language and even literature without some basic knowledge about the judeo-christian tradition.

But valuable? Nah.



Yes. Not because I had to, though.
I also read the quran and some other mythology.

Do you think the solutions to mankind's problems will be found in some computer program?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'll go ahead and state the obvious: this is utter nonsense.
Perhaps I'll get on board with the idea of it being one of the most (not THE most) impactfull, in terms of shaping our western society and culture. It was dominant for the past 2000 years so obviously it has had impact. To the point of perhaps even not being able to understand our culture's history, language and even literature without some basic knowledge about the judeo-christian tradition.

But valuable? Nah.



Yes. Not because I had to, though.
I also read the quran and some other mythology.

Science attempts to solve problems.
The bible shows how to prevent them in the first place.

"An ounce of prevention (bible knowledge) is worth a pound of cure (science)."

So bible knowledge is 16 times more efficacious than scientific knowledge when dealing with problems that can be addressed by either.

Science also often creates problems (side effects) along with their solutions that are absent when biblical principles are applied.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great - now do a similar analysis for two taxa that creationists claim are related via descent from a Kind.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dogs-99-percent-wolf/

So we can rule out your claim that our supposed relations millions of years ago are closer to us than we are to ourselves......

 

[xianghua]

Since the total rate of single-base differences between humans and chimps is 1%, how can a few percent of each be the result of single-base mutations? Here are the questions: What's the fraction of human DNA that has been changed by these single-base mutations? What's the fraction of the chimpanzee genome? Of the baboon genome?

human and chimp actually different by about 4%. but if we are talking only about single-base difference we indeed talking about less than 1% difference in their original state. so they both were about more than 99% similar in their original creation under this scenario. the baboon was even more different i guess.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think the solutions to mankind's problems will be found in some computer program?

Some of them might, sure. Especially with the coming of deep learning AI technology. It is pretty much a given that we'll be able to build AI's so powerfull that they'll be able to (help) solve certain problems in ways that we won't be able too.

It would depend on the subject matter.

However, I can tell you this: no bronze age story is going to help solve humanities problems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science attempts to solve problems.

Or prevent them.

The bible shows how to prevent them in the first place.

No, it doesn't.

"An ounce of prevention (bible knowledge) is worth a pound of cure (science)."

This is just a statement, with no grounding in truth.

So bible knowledge is 16 times more efficacious than scientific knowledge when dealing with problems that can be addressed by either.

No, it's not.

Science also often creates problems (side effects) along with their solutions that are absent when biblical principles are applied.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some of them might, sure. Especially with the coming of deep learning AI technology. It is pretty much a given that we'll be able to build AI's so powerfull that they'll be able to (help) solve certain problems in ways that we won't be able too.

It would depend on the subject matter.

However, I can tell you this: no bronze age story is going to help solve humanities problems.

That "bronze age" story describes the real "final solution" to our problems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That "bronze age" story describes the real "final solution" to our problems.

What problems and what solution?
Be specific.

Let's have you explain it, instead of just posting these meaningless one-liner statements.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What problems and what solution?
Be specific.

Let's have you explain it, instead of just posting these meaningless one-liner statements.

Our problems will increase (despite 'scientific advances') to the point of the destruction of all life (flesh) on earth unless God intervenes, sending Jesus Christ to end the destructive rebellion of mankind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Or prevent them.

Science is more interested in profiting from problems. Why would they 'prevent' them? Unless there's money or fame in it science generally ignores problems.

No, it doesn't.

Read the Proverbs.

This is just a statement, with no grounding in truth.

It's true on it's face.

The truth is that atheistic science cannot address problems caused by man's evil nature. They can only seek to profit from the aftermath.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some of them might, sure. Especially with the coming of deep learning AI technology. It is pretty much a given that we'll be able to build AI's so powerfull that they'll be able to (help) solve certain problems in ways that we won't be able too.

It would depend on the subject matter.

Will these AI programs be infused with Godly knowledge as well as secular knowledge as a knowledge base from which to address our problems? And what would be your reaction if such programs selected the biblical solutions instead of the secular ones?

 

[HitchSlap]

Will these AI programs be infused with Godly knowledge as well as secular knowledge as a knowledge base from which to address our problems? And what would be your reaction if such programs selected the biblical solutions instead of the secular ones?

Biblical knowledge? Like Ezekial 4:12...

And you shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

human and chimp actually different by about 4%. but if we are talking only about single-base difference we indeed talking about less than 1% difference in their original state. so they both were about more than 99% similar in their original creation under this scenario. the baboon was even more different i guess.

You don't really believe the junk science do you?

Similarity is based upon BLAST. What is done is that the genome is cut into bits. then any part found matching with any other part is considered similarity, regardless if they are not even on the same portion of the genome and may have completely different functions.

Now when comparing human genomes this is never done, one simply compares the two as they are for relatedness. that they are required to cut up the genome of chimps and humans and match any portion to any portion shows the pseudo-scientific aspect of their results.

Don't even buy into their fakery...... You can't compare a sequence with another in a different place on the genome which may have completely different functions and then claim similarity.... FAKERY.........

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Biblical knowledge? Like Ezekial 4:12...

And you shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung.

He used cows dung (verse 15).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He used cows dung (verse 15).

Doesn't sound as good if you finish out the passage

"Look,” He replied, “I will let you use cow dung instead of human excrement, and you may bake your bread over that.”…"

 

[HitchSlap]

He used cows dung (verse 15).

What's better advice? One comes from god, the other from Monty Python:

If you suspect your wife has been sleeping around, give her some water with dirt in it. If she doesn't get sick, then faithful.

If you suspect someone of being a witch, check to see if they float. If it floats, 'a witch, burn her!'