What a crock..

[YahwehLove]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html

May 20, 2003 — Chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of functionally important DNA with humans and belong in our genus, Homo, according to a recent genetic study. Previous studies put the genetic similarity between humans and chimps at 95 to 99 percent, so the new figure suggests chimps and humans are even more closely related than previously thought.

drops from what 98.5% or so to 95% and THAT is closer


What a deceiving load of trash.

Nothing but evolutionist propaganda

 

[versastyle]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html
drops from what 98.5% or so to 95% and THAT is closer
What a deceiving load of trash.
Nothing but evolutionist propaganda

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Did you even read it?

Recent study = 99.4%
Previous study PRIOR to the recent study = 95-99%

Are you ok?

For someone who thinks the bible is so "clear" on certain aspects of origins, you sure are having a hard time making a valid point using VERY clear studies.

Me thinks someone isn't too concerned with credibility.

 

[YahwehLove]

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Did you even read it?

Recent study = 99.4%
Previous study PRIOR to the recent study = 95-99%

Are you ok?

For someone who thinks the bible is so "clear" on certain aspects of origins, you sure are having a hard time making a valid point using VERY clear studies.

Me thinks someone isn't too concerned with credibility.

have you read anything?
we were taught 98.5% years back not 95%

This article is VERY misleading.
it is saying 99.4% but only that which is ''functionally important''

The new number is ~95%.
The old was ~98.4 or 98.5

Look around some at some for some science articles on it.
I did and that is why this article caught my attention.

You dont remember every saying we're 98.4% similar to chimps?

 

[versastyle]

Numerous other studies resulted in 95-99% similiarity. The newest study is 99.4%. That is all.

 

[Didaskomenos]

!? Different studies showed different things. Hence the 4% gap of 95-99%. The more publicized statistic was 98% (you heard it), only you didn't hang on to the fact that what they've always been referring to was functionally important DNA. A new landmark study shows 99.4% (+.04% from the highest earlier estimate. But you dismiss it out of hand, without knowledge to the contrary, as propagandic crockage. There ya have it, boys! Now that's empirical creation science debunking evilution!

 

[gluadys]

May 20, 2003 — Chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of functionally important DNA with humans and belong in our genus, Homo, according to a recent genetic study.

Which means the pre-Darwin father of taxonomy, Carl von Linne (aka Linnaeus) was entirely correct when he classified the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes in the first edition of his Systema Naturae. His peers found that classification so controversial that he changed it to Pan troglodytes in following editions.

 

[YahwehLove]

!? Different studies showed different things. Hence the 4% gap of 95-99%. The more publicized statistic was 98% (you heard it), only you didn't hang on to the fact that what they've always been referring to was functionally important DNA. A new landmark study shows 99.4% (+.04% from the highest earlier estimate. But you dismiss it out of hand, without knowledge to the contrary, as propagandic crockage. There ya have it, boys! Now that's empirical creation science debunking evilution!

well, I guess Ill have to dig thru the SCIENCE sites I just looked thru and POST what they said.

 

[grmorton]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html

drops from what 98.5% or so to 95% and THAT is closer


What a deceiving load of trash.

Nothing but evolutionist propaganda

I have a couple of articles published in the area of biostatistics examining the human genome. I have looked at the chimp genome and it is indeed very close to that of the human. It is observable fact. You don't have to like it but it is no different than believing that the sky is blue.

 

[YahwehLove]

Ah.
scratch this thread.
I just looked at the details some more and I can see how science will twist this one into saying they '''meant'' 98.4% of fuctionally important DNA and now its 99.4%.


As usual, this one is all in the interpretation again and we know which side science is on.

 

[Vance]

Which side science is on?

Science isn't a person. Science is a discipline, an area of study and a methodology. It can have no agenda. There are scientists who do have agendas, and the ones with the most dramatic agendas, and the ones that let that agenda effect their analysis and conclusions the most are Creation scientists. No need to dispute this since they admit it.

There are other Christian scientists who do not have this Creationist agenda to fulfill, but obviously do not have any agenda contrary to Christianity either. And they reach the same conclusions in almost every area as those who might have anti-Christian agendas. So, the agenda is obviously not driving the conclusion. Yes, those with an anti-Christian agenda will often attempt to use these conclusions to further their ends, but that does not mean the conclusions themselves are incorrect.

What I find odd is that every YEC will rely upon science and the results of the scientific method a hundred times every day. A dozen things within their very reach at a given moment are the products of science. They are kept healthy by science, communicate and travel via scientifically derived methods, etc, etc. And all these things they take for granted every day are developed using the exact same naturalistic methodology that is used to determine the age of the earth and the methods of evolutionary development.

But, somehow when it comes to the age of the earth and evolution, these scientific methods are obviously just scientific mumbo-jumbo, unreliable and incapable of reaching any trustworthy answers.

All very odd.

 

[1denomination]

propagandic crockage.

Totally off subject. I just thouht that was absolutely hilarious

 

[ab1385]

Surely evolutionary theory would predict that it would be the functionally important part of DNA that evolution would favour to be similar between species of common origin? I mean think about it, the functionally important DNA we have because there is positive pressure from our environment for that DNA to remain. Anything non-functional, and at the the same time not having negative function, would have no pressure to remain or to be got rid of by our environment, due to its very non-functional nature. Thus, over time, different species would acquire different non-functional DNA. Of course, there would have been non-functional DNA being added before the species went their separate ways, so there should also be a fair bit of common non-functional DNA too...

Of course, in my view at least even as an evolutionist, this common DNA means nothing to the YEC/TE debate, as either side would really give rise to common DNA, if you think about the common structure and function of humans and apes. If we look nearly the same (think big picture here!) and have almost entirely the same set of cell receptors etc (and why wouldn't we? - its a system that works) then I don't think that DNA similarity in any way disproves YEC. The variation in the non-functional DNA is far stronger evidence of this to my mind, if not just its presence in the first place. If it was there for a reason (which it would be if God specifically put it there, which He would have to have done if YEC is true) then why would it not be entirely the same in humans and apes? Of course it's a redundant question, as if YEC was true then non-functional DNA wouldn't be there at all would it?

Did any of that make any sense? I'm not sure myself, but feel free to comment...

 

[PaladinValer]

Folks, a quick refresher lesson on what science is:

For something to be science, it must be testable, reproducable, falsifiable, etc.

New data always (if not every time, but it does and will come eventually) arrives when it comes to various hypotheses and theories. This is inevitable. It is a part of science. Think of Newton's theories on gravity: much of Einstein's work replaced quite a bit of our previous knowledge on the subject. Does that mean that Newton is wrong? No! The basic theory still exists: that gravity does exist. The only thing different on our understanding is the how and why.

The same thing happens constantly with the theory of evolution. It is always in the state of flux. It always has and probably always will be. However, the basic idea that is evolution is still constant. And it has survived every single experience, test, challenge, and urban legend (I particularly find the "Lady Hope" one hilarious).

So this new data changes nothing on the basic idea of evolution.

 

[Gold Dragon]

A couple of points. The definition of "functionally important DNA" can be a vague descriptor.

It sounds like the research in the article is only looking at exons which are the portions of DNA that code for protiens.

The chosen genes are considered to be "functionally important" because they code for proteins, meaning that they can change amino acids in the body.

Introns are functional DNA that doesn't get translated to amino acids and is much more variable between species and within species. They are not included in the research.

An even larger portion of human DNA (97%) is Junk DNA where no known function currently exists and even greater variation exists between and within species. There are many theories about the potential "function" of Junk DNA but none which is really satisfactory at this moment.

I support some of the more critical scientists in the article who state that genetic similarities of coded regions (exons) should not be the primary criteria for taxonomy but it should definitely be a major criteria.

With that said it is without a doubt that humans share many exons in common with chimps as evidenced by our very similar physiological structure.

 

[Maccie]

I have just read somewhere - can't remember where - that so-called 'junk' DNA is actually vital for turning on and off various other bits of DNA.

Never throw junk out - it is sure to come in useful sometime!

 

[Space Ghost]

I don't suppose that i will ever understand what the hub bub is over the evolution thing is..... what if we were decended? How does that change you or your mission to follow God?

I have my personal views, but if someone wants to believe his ancestors played in the trees..... hey, knock yourself out...

but why it draws all this fire is interesting....

do you really find that the thought of ape relations deserve the effort people spend to refute it?

 

[songbird88]

Computer monitors are XX% like TVs.
I guess computer monitors evolved from TVs then.
Evolution is based on the most upside down inside out logic imaginable.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than the Bible.

 

[Tenacious-D]

Computer monitors are XX% like TVs.
I guess computer monitors evolved from TVs then.
Evolution is based on the most upside down inside out logic imaginable.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than the Bible.

Wow, never heard that canard before. Did you think this up yourself?

 

[songbird88]

Wow, never heard that canard before. Did you think this up yourself?

I like the one about the pile of iron ore that rolls down the hill and becomes a space shuttle.
Preach it o faithful ones.

 

[Tenacious-D]

I like the one about the pile of iron ore that rolls down the hill and becomes a space shuttle.
Preach it o faithful ones.

You know, bad analogies like this highlight more about the user of them than any slight against evolution. They are commonly called 'arguments from ignorance'.