What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[doubtingmerle]

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?
It means, You have seen to many Planet of the Apes movies.
ronandcarol

What percent chimp DNA do you have?

 

[xianghua]

Again, robots are not alive.

Animals are alive.

and the difference is? the ability to reproduce? organic components? let me put it this way: lets say that this watch has all the living things traits (self replication, organic components etc). can we still call it a watch?:

(image fromhttps://www.walmart.com/ip/Casio-Men-s-Classic-Digital-Watch-Black/117998329)

 

[Speedwell]

and the difference is? the ability to reproduce? organic components? let me put it this way: lets say that this watch has all the living things traits (self replication, organic components etc). can we still call it a watch?:

(image fromhttps://www.walmart.com/ip/Casio-Men-s-Classic-Digital-Watch-Black/117998329)

Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?

You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and the difference is? the ability to reproduce? organic components? let me put it this way: lets say that this watch has all the living things traits (self replication, organic components etc). can we still call it a watch?:

(image fromhttps://www.walmart.com/ip/Casio-Men-s-Classic-Digital-Watch-Black/117998329)

Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.

Your watch is a non- living machine that does none of this.

If you show me something that does all this, I would call it an animal.

 

[SolomonVII]

4% difference means the difference between complex language and grunts and eeks.
4% difference means the difference between music appreciation and experiencing a sense of beauty, and seeing the world strictly as tools and impediments.
4% difference means the difference between walking with God and being under the dominion of man.
When it comes to math scores the difference between 96 and 100% is still A+.
But when it comes to the difference between man and beast, even the most magnificent of beast, it is all the difference in the world

When Adam recognized the difference between himself and the beasts of the field, his reward was Eve, which pleased him very much.
When Eve was unable to recognize the words of the most magnficient of beast and wisdom, the world Fell apart.

I'd say that it is important for us to be able to recognize what that difference of 4% entails for our humanity.

 

[xianghua]

Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?

You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.

Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?

You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.

so this is not a watch if it has a living traits:

 

[xianghua]

Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.
If you show me something that does all this, I would call it an animal.

so if this object will be able to do all of those things it will not be a watch by this critieria:

do you think its a logical conclusion?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so this is not a watch if it has a living traits:

If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal.

If we ever find a new animal species that looks like a watch and tells time, we will call it whatever the person who discovers it calls it.

A name is just a name. It's characteristics will not change if we call this new species a watch.

Should I find such a species, I am thinking I might call it Horologium xianghua, based on the Latin word for sundial.

 

[xianghua]

If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal.

If we ever find a new animal species that looks like a watch and tells time, we will call it whatever the person who discovers it calls it.

A name is just a name. It's characteristics will not change if we call this new species a watch.

Should I find such a species, I am thinking I might call it Horologium xianghua, based on the Latin word for sundial.

so this isnt a watch if it has a living traits:

ok.

 

[rjs330]

No, we don't want to answer your question, because it's a nonsensical question. You can just say "common design explains that, too"

For literally any possible response. And I'll prove it to you.

Instead of requesting evidence of common descent explaining what common design can't, replace common descent with GRAVITY, and common design with "Godforce" in which he pushes things around as he likes..

what can gravity explain that isn't also explained by Godforce?

We are not talking about gravity. We are talking about evolution from a common ancestor. Common ancestry has nothing to do with gravity.

It's been said that you have to have common ancestry in order for biological applied science to work. I say no we don't. Since evolutionists cannot show it is necessary then my point stands. It's not needed. In fact it becomes glaringly obvious why evolutionists really need it. It's because they do not want to have to consider a designer.

 

[rjs330]

You overestimate the importance of "avoiding a designer" to evolutionary biologists. Most of them either believe in God already or don't care.

I think this thread shows otherwise as did the other one.

 

[rjs330]

Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?

You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.

And evolution is a man made theory that has no actual evidence of it ever occurring. You have no actual evidence of that watch being created either. Yet you would accept it was and didn't evolve because you understand design.

 

[Speedwell]

I think this thread shows otherwise as did the other one.

You can think what you like, but nobody is afraid of finding your "designer." If you treat us as if we are, you will just come across as offensive.

 

[rjs330]

Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.

Your watch is a non- living machine that does none of this.

If you show me something that does all this, I would call it an animal.

And yet all that complexity came from non design? DNA itself is evidence of common design. All things have it which makes things what they are.

 

[Speedwell]

And evolution is a man made theory that has no actual evidence of it ever occurring. You have no actual evidence of that watch being created either. Yet you would accept it was and didn't evolve because you understand design.

And because I understand design, I understand that functional complexity is not used as a proof of design except by IDists.

 

[rjs330]

You can think what you like, but nobody is afraid of finding your "designer." If you treat us as if we are, you will just come across as offensive.

Speedy you are no afraid because you already have found the designer. I'm talking to those who haven't. The issue with your belief in evolution is not about a designer. It's about buying into a man created theory that has no real evidence of it ever occurring instead of trusting what God said himself about how he created things and how long it took him. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I will continue to refute your understanding of scripture because it is unsupportable. You have also bought into liberal theology unfortunately.

 

[rjs330]

And because I understand design, I understand that functional complexity is not used as a proof of design except by IDists.

Why not? You understand it when it comes to everything else. Why not with creation. It's interesting to me that we would accept design for everything else but creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Speedy you are no afraid because you already have found the designer. I'm talking to those who haven't. The issue with your belief in evolution is not about a designer. It's about buying into a man created theory that has no real evidence of it ever occurring instead of trusting what God said himself about how he created things and how long it took him. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I will continue to refute your understanding of scripture because it is unsupportable. You have also bought into liberal theology unfortunately.

No, they're not afraid of your designer, either. What we are afraid of, if anything, is the ugly political agenda to which creationism is wedded. Otherwise we wouldn't care what you believed, any more than we care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underpants.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? You understand it when it comes to everything else. Why not with creation. It's interesting to me that we would accept design for everything else but creation.

I only conclude design where evidence of design is present.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so this isnt a watch if it has a living traits:

ok.

That is not what I said.