What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[mark kennedy]

Why would a fixed adaptation or mutation be a "very big deal?"

Because that's what's called evolution.

 

[46AND2]

Because that's what's called evolution.

Oh...yeah...well, that hasn't been a very big deal in over 100 years.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Please reflect on what the flaming and goading rules mean to you,​

and amend your posting behaviour accordingly.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[JoeP222w]

Hmmm, water = DNA? I don't think so.

It was an analogy. I was not saying water is the same as DNA.

 

[sfs]

That's never been my argument

Weren't you the one who wrote, "That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host"?

my argument is that mutations are either neutral or when they have an effect strong enough for selection to act the overwhelming majority of the time they are deleterious.

Most of the large indels or CNVs (which is what large indels are called these days) that distinguish humans and chimpanzees probably were neutral. A few were probably beneficial. I've never seen you offer a coherent argument for why this should be a problem for evolution.

Stepping back for a moment. . . Look at this article. The rate at which genes duplicate or are deleted (per gene) is roughly a thousand times the rate at which single base pair mutations occur (per base-pair). Every gene in the genome has been duplicated and deleted many, many times over the last 6 million years; the duplications and deletions that stuck around are ones that didn't do much harm or that actually helped.

 

[mark kennedy]

Weren't you the one who wrote, "That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host"?

That's right, I had never seen it.

Most of the large indels or CNVs (which is what large indels are called these days) that distinguish humans and chimpanzees probably were neutral. A few were probably beneficial. I've never seen you offer a coherent argument for why this should be a problem for evolution.

With billions of people on the planet they still only diverge by 1/10th of 1% as far as I can tell. It's not that they don't happen, more like they are not cumulative and at some point you have to look at effects like adaptation on an evolutionary scale.

Stepping back for a moment. . . Look at this article. The rate at which genes duplicate or are deleted (per gene) is roughly a thousand times the rate at which single base pair mutations occur (per base-pair). Every gene in the genome has been duplicated and deleted many, many times over the last 6 million years; the duplications and deletions are ones that didn't do much harm or that actually helped.

Its familiar, seems to be focused on gene duplication. Apparently gene duplication are orders of magnitude higher then CNVs. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing here, all very interesting.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

at some point you have to look at effects like adaptation on an evolutionary scale.

Why use ungodly terms to describe godly life ?

We who follow Jesus don't "have to look" at ungodly ways - He commands us not to even study them, ever.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It was an analogy. I was not saying water is the same as DNA.

Go ahead and say it : "water is the same as dna" .....

there, that wasn't hard, was it now ?

Same as all the other things they say about dna -
it's not hard to say at all......


until judgment day, of course.....

then the difference between those who live right vs those who live wrong =

those who do righteously vs those who do not do what is righteous

will be seen, just as God's Word Says from Genesis thru Revelation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why use ungodly terms to describe godly life ?

We who follow Jesus don't "have to look" at ungodly ways - He commands us not to even study them, ever.

That's just silly, there is nothing wrong with learning more about the life sciences.

 

[rjs330]

This basically sums up my take away from discussions with creationists. God apparently made life with the appearance of evolution. Why? Creationists can't seem to tell us...

No God made life with common design. The appearance of evolution is a man devised belief system. If man never thought up common ancestry and simply always believed in common design there would be no discussion. As I said before. Evolution from common ancestor is not needed for any scientific breakthrough. Common design is all that is needed for any breakthrough. Evolution is man created "science" because if you believed in common design you have to ask who the designer is. It's much easier to believe in evolution because a designer is irelevant.

 

[46AND2]

No God made life with common design.

That is correct. Glad we could agree.

 

[rjs330]

Describing the difference with respect to a particular interpretation of a particular religious text isn't particularly useful. Especially since yours is hardly the only interpretation and many are able to reconcile the concept of biological evolution with the Christian scriptures.

What you need to do is describe the differences with respect to biology. Can you do that?



Have you ever been to a city?

I can't speak to where you live, but where I live I see all sorts of variety in my city that hardly points to "common design". Whether it's different construction techniques, materials, architectural designs, you name it, it speaks to changing building standards and construction processes over time and, get this, different designers.

Of all the things you could have picked as an analogy for "common design" buildings and architecture is probably one of the worst.

Do not your buildings have Windows and doors? Are their not foundations and frames to the buildings? Don't the windows and doors need certain architectural structures in order for them to hold to square? I've built structures and have friends who are architects and contractors. It a building is to stand and remain functional they must all have proper trusses and foundations. Electrical wiring must be used to have electricity and have to be wired in a certain fashion. Same with plumbing and piping. Yet you could look at the outside of a building and not realize that they all need the same common designs in order to work. Just like you would look at a bear and a human. They don't look anything at all alike except for a few things like we both have noses and eyes and tongues. Yet we are made with common designs such as bones and blood, hearts and lungs. We have DNA.
We are far more complex than a building. Yet we would never look at a city and say there is no design or designer.

But we are happy to when it comes to the bear and human.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

That we have 96% chimp DNA.

And I'm not gong to make a federal case* out of it, like the Antichrist lovers did in 1925.

* Okay, state case.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution from common ancestor is not needed for any scientific breakthrough. Common design is all that is needed for any breakthrough. Evolution is man created "science" because if you believed in common design you have to ask who the designer is. It's much easier to believe in evolution because a designer is irelevant.

You're just stuck in a loop of denial, unable to substantiate your claims. I've already demonstrated examples of applied biological evolution; you've still got nothing in response.

 

[mark kennedy]

You're just stuck in a loop of denial, unable to substantiate your claims. I've already demonstrated examples of applied biological evolution; you've still got nothing in response.

In response to what, an ad hominem taunt.

 

[USincognito]

No God made life with common design. The appearance of evolution is a man devised belief system. If man never thought up common ancestry and simply always believed in common design there would be no discussion. As I said before. Evolution from common ancestor is not needed for any scientific breakthrough. Common design is all that is needed for any breakthrough. Evolution is man created "science" because if you believed in common design you have to ask who the designer is. It's much easier to believe in evolution because a designer is irelevant.

I posted this on Tuesday regarding "common design".

Common design is as hoc, unfalsifiable and doesn't actually explain anything. For instance it would need to explain why:
- humans and chimpanzees share 203,00 endogenous retroviruses
- all haplorhine primates including humans share a broken GULO gene
- whales have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway
- eutherians and marsupials have VTG pseudogenes

 

[pitabread]

In response to what, an ad hominem taunt.

You're jumping in a bit late. Read some of the history of my responses to him and you'll see where I'm coming from.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

. . . Look at this article. The rate at which genes duplicate or are deleted (per gene) is roughly a thousand times the rate at which single base pair mutations occur (per base-pair). Every gene in the genome has been duplicated and deleted many, many times over the last 6 million years; the duplications and deletions that stuck around are ones that didn't do much harm or that actually helped.

Excellent article! Thanks.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I prefer to be curious and inquisitive, thank you very much.

On morning television news right now, a rich tv show "beauty" products saleslady got curious and inquisitive.
The next day, she woke up sad and worried, and "had" to go to the doctor ("just in case" so her eyes didn't get worse) .....

People who are curious and inquisitive have a choice, --- (sometimes) ---- do, or don't, use a product that is harmful, or might be harmful, or test it first before using it, and don't use it if it is harmful.

When People Learn to avoid the things that are harmful, (regardless if the People are curious and inquisitive or not) ,
find to their surprise (OFTEN!) that they "lose the diagnosis" (various ailments/diseases).....

Learn Learn Learn ..... what is good , and what is harmful...... (BE INQUISITIVE) (BE SMART)

Chimpls learn while they are young what plants and what predators to avoid. Otherwise, they die.

Humans are not always that smart.

 

[bhsmte]

On morning television news right now, a rich tv show "beauty" products saleslady got curious and inquisitive.
The next day, she woke up sad and worried, and "had" to go to the doctor ("just in case" so her eyes didn't get worse) .....

People who are curious and inquisitive have a choice, --- (sometimes) ---- do, or don't, use a product that is harmful, or might be harmful, or test it first before using it, and don't use it if it is harmful.

When People Learn to avoid the things that are harmful, (regardless if the People are curious and inquisitive or not) ,
find to their surprise (OFTEN!) that they "lose the diagnosis" (various ailments/diseases).....

Learn Learn Learn ..... what is good , and what is harmful...... (BE INQUISITIVE) (BE SMART)

Chimpls learn while they are young what plants and what predators to avoid. Otherwise, they die.

Humans are not always that smart.

Word salad.