What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Humble_Disciple]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?

Can we now provide a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?" Not at all! Comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has not yet offered any major insights into the genetic elements that underlie bipedal locomotion, a big brain, linguistic abilities, elaborated abstract thought, or any other unique aspect of the human phenome.
Thoughts on the future of great ape research - Document - Gale Academic OneFile

But those hoping for an immediate answer to the question of human uniqueness will be disappointed. "We cannot see in this why we are phenotypically so different from the chimps," says Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, a co-author on one Nature paper and leader of a study in Science comparing gene expression in chimps and humans (see www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1108296). "Part of the secret is hidden in there, but we don't understand it yet."
Chimp genome catalogs differences with humans - Document - Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity before Darwin was even born:

From 1780 many Anglicans supported the rising science of geology and some of the most significant world geologists before Darwin were Anglican clergy like Adam Sedgwick, William Buckland and William Conybeare. In the period 1800 to 1855, over 80% of Anglican clergy accepted geology (an approximate figure from my reading as many writers as possible). A small and vociferous minority did oppose geology; for example the Revd Henry Cole calling the evangelical Sedgwick an ‘infidel scoffer’. However, these devout anti-geologists were savaged by clerical-geologists like Sedgwick and disappeared by 1855 only to re-appear, Phoenix-like, in the 1980s.

The reaction to Darwin was varied. Some happily accepted evolution: Frederick Temple, R. W. Church, Hort (but Westcott was wary), Baden Powell, Liddon, Pusey (just!), Symonds and two evangelicals – H. B. Tristram of Durham and Prof C Babbington of Cambridge. Within decades most thinking Anglicans had accepted evolution but often insisted on the direct creation of humans. Some Anglicans opposed evolution, archetypically Samuel Wilberforce, but all opponents accepted geological time. Some of the main opposition to Darwin came from physicists and geologists.
Charles Darwin: a Fulcrum Appreciation | Fulcrum Anglican

 

[HitchSlap]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?





In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity long before Darwin was even born.

I’m sorry you’re so confused. I feel your pain. Let me know if you want me to clear up your misconceptions. My gut tells me you’re ok with your ignorance because of your insular views. But I could be wrong.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I’m sorry you’re so confused. I feel your pain. Let me know if you want me to clear up your misconceptions. My gut tells me you’re ok with your ignorance because of your insular views. But I could be wrong.

Actually, the quotations provided were from mainstream scientific journals. It's okay to be honest about the limitations of what science has been able to explain through natural mechanisms.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, the quotations provided were from mainstream scientific journals. It's okay to be honest about the limitations of what science has been able to explain through natural mechanisms.

Limitations notwithstanding, it’s the only way we know anything about anything.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Limitations notwithstanding, it’s the only way we know anything about anything.

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

 

[pitabread]

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Well let's try that then.

How were humans and chimps designed? What is the mechanism for that design? Why, if humans and chimps were designed separately, do they have so many similarities? How does common design explain things like phylogenetic patterns for things like retroviral insertions, etc? How would common design be applied in applications like comparative genomics?

In a nutshell, what does common design provide in explanatory power that common descent doesn't?

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly. No one in science thinks design is a thing.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I am a white person who attends a predominantly black church, and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.

If the Descent of Man is a legitimate science text, then racism is perfectly okay. Should I quote Darwin's work again, like I have elsewhere on this forum?

In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

 

[Shemjaza]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?





In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity before Darwin was even born:

I wouldn't describe the differences between humans and chimps as particularly vast.

We're smarter, more upright... but the body plan is extremely similar.

An evolutionary answer is a better explanation than common design is that we have common genetic scars of ancient viral insertions and common atavistic genetic remnants.

In addition to examining the modern humans and chimps, the extinct hominid species fill out the spectrum between the two families demonstrating that we come from a much more similar ancestor.

 

[pitabread]

In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

You know that the science of evolution has moved on since Darwin's time, yes?

Anyway, do you want to explain what explanatory power "common design" brings to the table or are you abandoning that topic?

 

[Shemjaza]

I am a white person who attends a predominantly black church, and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.

If the Descent of Man is a legitimate science text, then racism is perfectly okay. Should I quote Darwin's work again, like I have elsewhere on this forum?

In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

Given the history of Creationists lying about quotes from evolution proponents in general and Darwin in particular, I am dubious about your summary.

But it is also completely irrelevant.

Darwin could have lied about every bit of evidence in his books and written them only as a part of his Satan worship and that wouldn't do anything to remove all the scientific evidence for common descent.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am a white person who attends a predominantly black church, and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.

If the Descent of Man is a legitimate science text, then racism is perfectly okay. Should I quote Darwin's work again, like I have elsewhere on this forum?

In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

So what?

 

[Gene2memE]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?

Yes. There are rather good understandings of what makes us, us, and what makes chimpanzees, chimpanzees and where the differences lie between them.

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Because descent has been demonstrated, design is just an unjustified assertion.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a nutshell, what does common design provide in explanatory power that common descent doesn't?

Gestaltism.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am a white person who attends a predominantly black church, and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.

If the Descent of Man is a legitimate science text, then racism is perfectly okay. Should I quote Darwin's work again, like I have elsewhere on this forum?

In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

White southern ‘good Christian folk,’ used the Bible and misused Darwin’s theory to justify slavery and white privilege. But you already knew this.

 

[AV1611VET]

White southern ‘good Christian folk,’ used the Bible and misused Darwin’s theory to justify slavery and white privilege. But you already knew this.

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• the South was pro-slavery
  
• the North was anti-slavery
• God broke the tie

 

[HitchSlap]

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• the South was pro-slavery
  
• the North was anti-slavery
• God broke the tie

You history like you theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

You history like you theology.

You bet!

 

[HitchSlap]

You bet!

Which is why I never take anything you say seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why I never take anything you say seriously.

It shows.