Mouse Genome Proves Humans Evolved From Mouse!

[John MacNeil]

Hmmmmm......Well....I can't say I'm surprised at the type of responses I aroused from the admitted evolutionists. So I guess I'll post a reply to their feeble non-argument, since, after all, I initialed this thread and therefore I feel somewhat responsible for maintaining it.

Let's see....what's the first issue they brought up? Ohh..yes, state where they said mice were the closest living organism to humans. Well...I wrote that twice didn't I? The part about -- "we are essentially mice"-- and "99 % identical"? Is there some other interpretation that could be drawn from that than closest living organism to human? Or are you inferring that there is another organism whose DNA is even more similar to ours than is the mouse's?

And the next one: I said 97 % and you say it is 98 % for apes. Isn't 98 % less than 99 %? Doesn't that still make the not-so-lowly mouse genetically closer to humans than all other identified species? And the next point is classical obfuscation. If there is only 100 % of genes and 99 % are identical, then where are the different 98 % that you are referring to? Do you even read your own posts? Do you think there are somehow more than 100 % of genes? Why even make such a dumb statement? But...of course, ....that's classic wacky theory methodology--as soon as your theory is shown to be bogus, you invent something even more outlandish than before to try and prop up your crumbling theory. Why don't you just get with the program and try digesting the new science...and deal with it.

And what was that last response about....trolling, wasn't it? Why is it that every time you evolutionists are out-manouvered you resort to attack posts? Isn't that a childish response? Isn't this a science forum? Why then, aren't you evolutonists capable of dealing with reality? Some of you mention that you are students of science. Do you think the scientific way is to be closed minded about new information?

And you're finally deciding that I'm not a creationist? Well...DUH! How perceptive of you to finally come to that conclusion. Now I know I'm dealing with the sharpest kids in class. What gave you the first clue? It couldn't have been that I said so about a month ago, or does it just take a month for you evolutionists to process new information? Which means that the light will finally go on again in a month and you'll realize that 99 % is really 99 % and that, gee, we really do share a lot of genes in common with the mouse and they use the mouse for experiments not because they breed like rabbits, but because they really are genetically similar to humans. Wow! Is that ever going to be a good day for you guys!

I'm really disappointed that you guys never pick up on the interesting aspects of the discussion, such as that there is a fundamental genetic sequence that is required for life and which is inherent to all species, and instead always focus on the negative. Just because your "theories-of-everything" are rapidly being eclipsed by the science is no reason to retreat from discussion. After all, everyone is going to abandon such all encompassing theories before long and you should be pliable enough to entertain alternate theories. If not, then you don't have the right attitude for science.

 

[notto]

Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges
Apples and Oranges

 

[MSBS]

Don't feed the troll!

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
In an astounding new revelation, scientists released their findings in the study of the mouse genome and confirmed that humans evolved from mice. They have stated that humans are genetically closer to mice than to any other living organism. They fully share 99 % of genes. Out of 30,000 genes in common, only about 300 are unique to either organism. The scientists at the Sanger Institue said, "It might be said that we are essentially mice without tails--but we even have the genes that could make a tail." This groundbreaking information can be found at this website;

www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2002/021205.shtml

This fantastic information will be a boon to evolutionists, who will now have a viable ancestry to trace us back to. No longer will they have to endure ridicule from scientists who are realists and who always said we couldn't possibly have evolved from a monkey, because now everyone knows that can't possibly be true as science has confirmed that our closest living relative is the mouse. This may initially cause some homology problems for the evolutionists, but the way they make up connections they are sure to find a common ancestor soon.

It's a joke right?

If you believe in total evolution, you would believe that we all originated from one celled organisms.

 

[chickenman]

john, you either can't read, or you're stupid, or you're a troll

I don't know which one, take your pick

its been explained why the value given for human/chimp similarity is different to that referred to in the article;

the value for chimp/human represents the similarity between nucleotides across the entire genome - including the bits which aren't genes

the mouse human comparison compares the number of genes which are similar between mice and humans

okay? they measure different things.

You're right that humans and mice are genetically very similar at the level of protein sequence. Which means a designer , if they exist - is doing a lot of copying and pasting in their creations (including non-functional DNA as well for some strange reason)

 

[John MacNeil]

The science is real, Badfish. The Sanger Institute is part of a consortium which is researching genomes and they actually deciphered a little over 30 % of the human genome as their part of the Human Genome Project. If you go to their website they have links to their other partners such as the Wellcome Trust and one or two others. The mapping of the DNA has proven that there is a fundamenal sequence of genes which are required for life to exist and that the differences between species require a relatively small number of genes to formulate those differences. Since the mouse and human both have about 30,000 genes and only 300 are intrinsic to each organism, then they are nearly perfect examples to highlight the nature of gene sequences as they relate to requirements for life to exist.

And, yes, I was originally posting the "human evolved from mouse" scenario as a joke to draw attention to the impracticability of humans evolving from another species, whether that be a monkey or a mouse or whatever. The fact that genes which are entirely different are needed to determine individual species indicates that they can't metastasize spontaneously, which would be required for the first sequence of changing from one species to another. So, of course, I certainly do not believe in evolution, although I do believe individual species refine their kind through the progression of natural selection.

For clarification, and since some members do not seem to understand the significance, I will state that I believe that all matter, and all systems which are constructed of and defined by matter, are ultimately describeable empirically. This scientific view does not allow me to believe in God as an entity greater than myself without my seeing the physical proof. But I have no doubt, based on the physical evidence of our existing ecosystem and the descriptions given in the Bible, that someone of considerable power had a significant influence on how we came to be the way we are.

The Bible has information in it about us and our ecosystem which is pertinent to our known reality, and, even if people do not believe in God, they must acknowledge that the Bible has significant historical implications and is therefore one of, if not the, most important text about antiquity that we possess. To disregard it would be non-scientific. This gives great weight to the Christian view.

The evolutionists take disparate observations of natural selection and try and concoct a scenario that interweaves all the observations. Where the theory of evolution breaks down, they simply imagine connections and state those imaginings as fact. This is voo-doo science and has no place in empirical description. The science is rapidly progressing and the evidence clearly shows that evolution theory is not viable, therefore evolution theory must be discarded and more practical scientific views must be entertained. As with all out-moded theories, there will be die-hard hangers-on to the evolution theory simply because they are not capable of assimilating the new science data, or because their indoctrination is so complete that they simply refuse to entertain new data which is contrary to their previous learning. In any event, those type of slow learners will have no effect on the actual science, which is determined by facts and not by opinion.

 

[chickenman]

do me a favour john, look up "evolution" and then "intelligent design" on pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) - an index of most of the scientific journals dealing with biology

then come back and correct your last paragraph about outmoded theories and the "actual science"