Science vs. Evolution

[tanzanos]

i got youtube thanks anyway and why cant you answer the previous questions in my post to plindboe?Would of thought you guys would be well schooled in tackling fundies like me....

Did you read what I said about the common blood types we share with the Chimps? Did you watch the video?

Obviously not!

 

[Cassiterides]

Did you read what I said about the common blood types we share with the Chimps? Did you watch the video?

Obviously not!

You mean the blood types we share with chimps which was reduced from 99%, to 98.5% , to 97.5% to 95% and now is even more dropping in figure?

As science progresses, it proves we are lesser related to the chimp.

Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows - Caltech

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You mean the blood types we share with chimps which was reduced from 99%, to 98.5% , to 97.5% to 95% and now is even more dropping in figure?

As science progresses, it proves we are lesser related to the chimp.

Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows - Caltech

Huh, look at that, science doing what it does best: using better techniques to improve human knowledge, adapting old theories to better fit the new data, etc. You'll notice that 95% similarity is still very high, high enough to prove our point.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You mean the blood types we share with chimps which was reduced from 99%, to 98.5% , to 97.5% to 95% and now is even more dropping in figure?

He is talking about the antigenic proteins on red blood cells being so similar that you can do a transfusion if you use matching blood types.

As science progresses, it proves we are lesser related to the chimp.

Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows - Caltech

The difference is due to indels mostly in noncoding regions, though there are a few in coding regions but this is rather old news. Better to look at

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Tarjei S Mikkelsen; LaDeana W Hillier; Evan E Eichler; Michael C Zody; et al​

Nature; Sep 1, 2005; 437, 7055; Research Library pg. 69-87

Which is at least a little more recent and based on the entire genome of each species. I have the paper only as a pdf so I can't cut and paste but I will paraphrase​

They report that fixed divergence in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) amounts to only 1.06% between species.​

Indel events are fewer than SNPs but result in about 1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage specific​

Orthologous proteins in humans and chimps are extremely similar with ~29% being identical and the typical protein have only one or two amino acid changes. There are a few more changes that are synonomous, that is the nucleotide changes but the amino acid does not due to redundancy in the genetic code. These amount to about 1 per gene on average.​

 

[tanzanos]

You mean the blood types we share with chimps which was reduced from 99%, to 98.5% , to 97.5% to 95% and now is even more dropping in figure?

As science progresses, it proves we are lesser related to the chimp.

Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows

Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows - Caltech

DNA compatibility has nothing to do with the fact that chimp blood is totally compatible with human blood. Try again!

 

[sfs]

You'll notice that 95% similarity is still very high, high enough to prove our point.

More useful as evidence than the bare amount of divergence between humans and chimpanzees are the patterns that can be seen in that divergence. I described some of them in detail here. Creationists often say that the only difference between creationism and evolution is in the interpretation of the evidence. If that's the case, why can't they ever actually interpret this kind of evidence, rather than talking about interpreting it?

 

[AV1611VET]

More useful as evidence than the bare amount of divergence between humans and chimpanzees are the patterns that can be seen in that divergence.

Why then is the waiting lists for some organs so long, if chimps are supposedly so close to us?

Why not just go to the zoo and get a kidney?

 

[sfs]

Why then is the waiting lists for some organs so long, if chimps are supposedly so close to us?

Why not just go to the zoo and get a kidney?

Even the great majority of humans aren't suitable organ donors for an individual; that's why they do tissue typing before transplantation, to avoid transplants that will fail, and why they prefer to take kidneys from close relatives. Chimpanzees are much more distantly related to humans than any two humans are to each other (about 15 times as far), and organ transplants from them would almost certainly fail.

(Even if it would work, and if there weren't ethical issues, the suggestion would be hopelessly impractical. There are almost 25,000 organ transplants per year in the U.S., and only a couple of thousand chimpanzees in captivity here.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Chimpanzees are much more distantly related to humans than any two humans are to each other (about 15 times as far), and organ transplants from them would almost certainly fail.

So if chimpanzees are 99% related to us by DNA, yet that constitutes being 15 times distant than even our relatives, then I submit that that 1% is a good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use.

 

[Cabal]

So if chimpanzees are 99% related to us by DNA, yet that constitutes being 15 times distant than even our relatives, then I submit that that 1% is a good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use.

Quoting one example on the scale in isolation, that might seem like you have a point.

But to extend the analogy, there are species that exist that are as far away from us as Mars in terms of relatedness.

Suddenly that little ditch called the Grand Canyon isn't quite so significant.

 

[Split Rock]

So if chimpanzees are 99% related to us by DNA, yet that constitutes being 15 times distant than even our relatives, then I submit that that 1% is a good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use.

And if the number were 0.5%, you would say that is a "good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use."

And if the number were 0.1%, you would say that is a "good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use."

In other words, you would say whatever the number is, that is your "grand canyon." As usual, you guys fit the data to the dogma.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quoting one example on the scale in isolation, that might seem like you have a point.

But to extend the analogy, there are species that exist that are as far away from us as Mars in terms of relatedness.

Suddenly that little ditch called the Grand Canyon isn't quite so significant.

Unless we're fleas by comparison.

The closest DNA I've ever seen to clear a large gap like that is Evel Knievel's in 1974.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if the number were 0.5%, you would say that is a "good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use."

And if the number were 0.1%, you would say that is a "good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use."

Yes, that is true -- since the real gap is not a gap at all; it is a boundary that nature cannot pass.

I'm just using the Grand Canyon as a visual example; after all, we're talking DNA here.

 

[Cabal]

Unless we're fleas by comparison.

I.e. "aah, aah, backtrack! backtrack!"

Change us to fleas, and the scale can just be re-scaled

ANALOGY FIGHT WOO

The closest DNA I've ever seen to clear a large gap like that is Evel Knievel's in 1974.

Was he a flea?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was he a flea?

More than that, actually; since fleas can "only" jump 200 times their length.

But Knievel's goal was one mile -- do the math.

 

[Cabal]

More than that, actually; since fleas can "only" jump 200 times their length.

But Knievel's goal was one mile -- do the math.

I might, when mankind's ramping ability matches our scientific ability.

Till then, yawn.

 

[Cassiterides]

DNA compatibility has nothing to do with the fact that chimp blood is totally compatible with human blood. Try again!

So your saying a chimp blood transfusion to human is possible?

 

[Cassiterides]

Nice sock-puppet you have there Cassiterides. I especially like the lack of spaces between sentences, but the lower case "i" is a dead give away. Have fun trolling.

I don't know who that is, but i tried to pm them.

I guess you are just angry i refuted your nonsense with those links.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't know who that is, but i tried to pm them.

I guess you are just angry i refuted your nonsense with those links.

Are you talking about the easily refuted links to the false claim that Archeaopteryx is a fraud?
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery
Archaeopteryx - SkepticWiki

or to AiG's absurd and failed attempts to refute tiktaalik as a transitional fossil?
The Lancelet: AiG tries to respond to Tiktaalik

or the link to the dishonest creationist U-Tube video?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7471392-34/#post55039783

Or did you have some other links in mind?

 

[sfs]

So if chimpanzees are 99% related to us by DNA, yet that constitutes being 15 times distant than even our relatives, then I submit that that 1% is a good representation of the Grand Canyon example I always use.

Since, as you often tell us, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution and don't want to know, why in the world would anyone care what analogies you use to express your ignorance?