What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[Skreeper]

Do we get to declare victory and go home?

Only if your name is dad.

 

[xianghua]

If that isn't a human.....
Then why would an animal that resembles a car, be called a "car"?

because car is a more general term then human. again: you are welcome to not call this a car (if it has living traits):

i see no problem to call it a car.

 

[Jimmy D]

because car is a more general term then human. again: you are welcome to not call this a car (if it has living traits):

i see no problem to call it a car.

It is a car, it's a TVR by the looks of it.

The thing in your imagination isn't though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

because car is a more general term then human

The human is not analogous to the car.
The robot is. And I'ld say that robot is an even more general term then "car" as it can take up many many more forms. A car is always some thing with 4 wheels, a steering wheel and a driving mechanism, after all.

So, we can't call the robot a human and we can't call the human a robot.

But somehow, some (imaginary) animal that looks like a car, we should call it a car?
You really can't see how absurd this is?

Not even when you consider that we actually HAVE examples of robots that look exactly like humans, while we have no animals whatsoever that look even only remotely like a car?

. again: you are welcome to not call this a car (if it has living traits):

i see no problem to call it a car.

But you somehow DO see a problem with calling both of these humans or robots, apparantly:

You object to calling the one on the left a human and you object to calling the one on the right a robot....

But for some mysterious reason, the exact same logic doesn't apply to cars and (imaginary) animals that look like cars.
What's up with that?




ps: @Jimmy D and @Skreeper , see? exactly as I predicted........ ;-)

 

[doubtingmerle]

you are welcome to not call this a car (if it has living traits):

i see no problem to call it a car.

Again, how does your fictitious "car" reproduce?

If it reproduces biologically, then it is a living, multicellular thing. If it mechanically builds another car, it is probably the size of Detroit. So which is it? Either way, this fictitious self reproducing thing you talk about would never be identical to this car.

Again, how does your fictitious "car" reproduce?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Do you agree that no self reproducing thing will ever be identical to the car in your picture?

Then please quit posting this picture and pretending it is a picture of a self- reproducing thing. It is not.

 

[pitabread]

Again, how does your fictitious "car" reproduce?

Funny you should ask...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Funny you should ask...

Ow boy, I nearly peed my pants lol'ing........

 

[KWCrazy]

DNA contains genetic information about characteristics.
Two animals with 99% of the same characteristics would then have 99% of the same DNA.
If all living things came from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life by the same Creator we would expect to see similarities, which is why we share 25% of our DNA with daffodils.
Perhaps some of you were descendants of daffodils.
My family's ancestors were created by God.

 

[Skreeper]

DNA contains genetic information about characteristics.
Two animals with 99% of the same characteristics would then have 99% of the same DNA.
If all living things came from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life by the same Creator we would expect to see similarities, which is why we share 25% of our DNA with daffodils.
Perhaps some of you were descendants of daffodils.
My family's ancestors were created by God.

If all life was created by the same creator we would expect that the creator put a little more thought and effort in to his creation. This universe doesn't match what we would expect from a perfect creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

This universe doesn't match what we would expect from a perfect creator.

Ya ... I heard things die now.

 

[xianghua]

It is a car, it's a TVR by the looks of it.

The thing in your imagination isn't though.

its not if it has a living traits. at least according to some guys here.

 

[xianghua]

If it reproduces biologically, then it is a living, multicellular thing.

yep. thanks. so this isnt a car in this case. but do you also think that it doesnt show evidence for design in this case?

 

[PsychoSarah]

DNA contains genetic information about characteristics.
Two animals with 99% of the same characteristics would then have 99% of the same DNA.
If all living things came from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life by the same Creator we would expect to see similarities, which is why we share 25% of our DNA with daffodils.
Perhaps some of you were descendants of daffodils.
My family's ancestors were created by God.

35% daffodil, and from the book sources I can find, that's only for SNPs, or single nucleotide polymorphisms (when the DNA is counted base by base without taking any notice of which parts are genes and which aren't). -_- the only source I found that says 25% is from answers.com, and I am pretty sure it's a typo because the sentence stated is "1/3, or 25%", and we both know that 1/3 doesn't equal 25%. Yeah, it doesn't equal 35% either (1/3 is about 33%), but it's from answers.com, so I'm not expecting much here.

Also, if you were counting SNPs as the standard of similarity, two organisms that share, say, 50% of their DNA wouldn't necessarily also share 50% of their morphological traits.

For future reference, 25% genetic similarity is what would happen if two organisms with the same 4 base pair DNA and DNA length WEREN'T genetically related at all (25% similarity is what can happen by chance, which is part of what prompted me to look up how genetically similar humans are to daffodils).

 

[doubtingmerle]

yep. thanks. so this isnt a car in this case. but do you also think that it doesnt show evidence for design in this case?

Animals have "design" but it does not come from a person or God.

Again the apparent "design" in animals comes from the history of mutations and natural selection in the history of its ancestry.

Once again drawings come from engineers, DNA content comes from mutations and selection. How many times would you like me to repeat that?

 

[USincognito]

If all living things came from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life by the same Creator we would expect to see similarities, which is why we share 25% of our DNA with daffodils.

The problem with "common design" is it's ad hoc, is unfalsifiable and thus is not scientific and it doesn't explain observations that don't make sense with "common design" but do with common ancestry. Some examples:
- Why did the designer make humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 endogenous retroviruses?
- Why did the designer give all Haplorhine primates including humans a broken GULO gene for vitamin C production?
- Why did the designer give whales a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development?
- Why did the designer give all therian mammals non-functioning vitellogenin genes for egg yolk sac development?

 

[xianghua]

Animals have "design" but it does not come from a person or God.

Again the apparent "design" in animals comes from the history of mutations and natural selection in the history of its ancestry.

Once again drawings come from engineers, DNA content comes from mutations and selection. How many times would you like me to repeat that?

so you bascially saying that its looks design but its not. now about the mutations: even a single gene is about 1000 bp long. the s equence space is about 4^1000. what make you think that there is enough time to evolve a new structure in such a huge sequence space?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you bascially saying that its looks design but its not.

No, I am basically saying that genes look like they were designed by evolutionary processes.

what make you think that there is enough time to evolve a new structure in such a huge sequence space?

The evidence. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I notice that you still refuse to tell us how you think it came about. Are you ashamed of your view? Why spend months attacking another view when you appear to be ashamed of mentioning your own? As near as I can tell you think all species were created from thin air about 600 million years ago. (You refuse to answer questions about your view, so don't blame me if I guessed wrong. When it comes to your views all we can do is use our best guesses.)

The fossil record clearly says you are wrong. The fossils clearly show things developed with time. You have tried to blame this on dumb luck. Come on, do the math. If mammals and trilobites coincided, what are the odds that we would find perhaps a million trilobites, all in layers older than 250 million years old, and perhaps a million mammals, all in rocks younger than 250 million years old? You love statistics. Then do the math. What are the odds that your view is correct?

 

[xianghua]

No, I am basically saying that genes look like they were designed by evolutionary processes.

so you believe in design without a designer.

The evidence. See

what this suppose to be? where is the calculation?

I notice that you still refuse to tell us how you think it came about.

my view is simply design without evolution. it can be in millions of years too.

The fossil record clearly says you are wrong. The fossils clearly show things developed with time.

not realy. we can arrange many things in hierarchy but they doesnt prove any evolution.

You have tried to blame this on dumb luck. Come on, do the math. If mammals and trilobites coincided, what are the odds that we would find perhaps a million trilobites, all in layers older than 250 million years old, and perhaps a million mammals, all in rocks younger than 250 million years old? You love statistics. Then do the math. What are the odds that your view is correct?

again: even if it was true then its only show that mammals appeared after trilobites. it doesnt prove that they evolved.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you believe in design without a designer.

Yes.

Did your God layout the design for every single snowflake, or did he just put the process in place?

what this suppose to be? where is the calculation?

If you understood the process of evolution, you would understand the irrelevance of asking for the odds of a particular protein forming. You could read the file I linked to. There are many other books that give the basics. For instance, https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=evidence+for+evolution . The information is out there. I am not going to repeat it all here.

my view is simply design without evolution. it can be in millions of years too.

Why do you add the words "without evolution"? So far you have not given one piece of evidence that says another process is more likely than evolution. Not one. We have given you the evidence for evolution. You keep saying, no, perhaps some other process or timetable, but you refuse to even suggest a process or timetable that you think is more likely than evolution. I think that is because you know that we are right, that the view with the best evidence is that of evolution. If you think there is another process and timetable that you think is more likely, please state that process and timetable.

And saying "God did it" is not an alternative to evolution. Many believe in evolution, but believe that ultimately God was behind the process.

Saying it wasn't by evolution because you think God did it is like saying a car is not a car because it is a Ferrari.

not realy. we can arrange many things in hierarchy but they doesnt prove any evolution.

We have explained this to you many times. We are not digging up fossils and arranging them in a hierarchy. The hierarchy is already there. We look at the dates of the rocks, and arrange the fossils by the dates. That shows a sequence. (And yes, that comes with all the usual caveats of spotty fossil record and cousins of ancestors that we have explained to you ad infinitum. I predict that you will just ignore all that, and show us a picture of a cousin of a whale ancestor that is before a different cousin of a different whale ancestor.)

again: even if it was true then its only show that mammals appeared after trilobites. it doesnt prove that they evolved.

Please respond to what I actually write.

What I said is that the arrangement of the fossils in the fossil record shows that the view you have previously stated here is wrong. The fossil record shows that mammals have not created in the same era as trilobites.

My point was that simple statistics shows that your view that mammals and trilobites were created at the same time is false. You endlessly resort to statistics elsewhere, so why won't you do the simply calculation that shows that the findings of all mammal fossils at later dates than all trilobite fossils is statistically significant?

 

[xianghua]

If you understood the process of evolution, you would understand the irrelevance of asking for the odds of a particular protein forming.

its actually very relevant. otherwise we can just claim that a full functional gene can evolve at once. but no one claim this because the chance for this is very low. so they believe that many genes evolved from other genes. so we need to calculate the number of functional sequences among the sequence space and then we can calculate how much time it will take.

Why do you add the words "without evolution"? So far you have not given one piece of evidence that says another process is more likely than evolution.

the best explanation for the existance of a motor is of course design rather then a natural process or stepwise evolution. so its simply incorrect. also remember that till now in this thread no one gave any calculation or possible stepwise way to evolve even a single complex system. so again you have no evidence for that claim.

And saying "God did it" is not an alternative to evolution. Many believe in evolution, but believe that ultimately God was behind the process.

are you one of them or you believe in a natural evolution?

We have explained this to you many times. We are not digging up fossils and arranging them in a hierarchy. The hierarchy is already there

and i already showed that we can find such hierarchy in cars too:

. You endlessly resort to statistics elsewhere, so why won't you do the simply calculation that shows that the findings of all mammal fossils at later dates than all trilobite fossils is statistically significant?

as i said: i have no problem to claim that mammals appeared after trilobites. as you can see above: trucks were also designed after cars. but again: it doesnt prove any evolution. just a different creation event.