What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[Noxot]

The point is that it isn't just a 'crude factual explanation', it's plain wrong - it's not factual at all.

I just thought that was worth pointing out.

I disagree with you. it's not plain wrong, it is mostly wrong. parts of the brain on the right side typically have more to do with certain processes that the brain does which I was speaking about. and the left brain typically does certain things that are more useful for other processes which you could include logic in, because logic seems to be linked to individual pixel kinds of thoughts as opposed to big picture but fuzzy kinds of thoughts. at least that is what I get from most people who think they are logical. so probably the idea of logic for many is really only a certain kind of subset of logic or thinking.

logic uses both but I don't know a clear line between "logical thinking" and "symbolic thinking". most religious and atheist people don't seem to have a very good sense of symbolic thinking, probably because it is underdeveloped in them due to them focusing on working on other processes of the brain since the modern world tends to focus more on certain kinds of thinking. but the two have some differences.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what do things like the closeness of our dna to chimps, and the fact that we have certain body parts that we don't even need mean to you in regards to your belief in God or lack of belief?

God is Spirit. So that's the measuring stick to use.
We should measure the Spirituality of chimps to see
if we are related to them.

 

[xianghua]

Nested hierarchies are not arbitrary. They are constructs based on underlying data sets.

i asked you a simple question about nested hierarchy to test this idea: are you saying that if common descent is false (and common design is true) we should find cases that violate the nested hierarchy? (like a rabbit with a jellyfish gene in this case). yes or no?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree with you. it's not plain wrong, it is mostly wrong. parts of the brain on the right side typically have more to do with certain processes that the brain does which I was speaking about. and the left brain typically does certain things that are more useful for other processes which you could include logic in, because logic seems to be linked to individual pixel kinds of thoughts as opposed to big picture but fuzzy kinds of thoughts. at least that is what I get from most people who think they are logical. so probably the idea of logic for many is really only a certain kind of subset of logic or thinking.

There is some specialized functional lateralisation (e.g. limited parts of language processing, and handedness) but even these are not consistent between hemispheres. Your description is mistaken, and not consistent with any neurological studies I'm aware of.

I would be interested in any citations or references you have that support your description.

... logic uses both but I don't know a clear line between "logical thinking" and "symbolic thinking".

Logic requires symbolic thinking,i.e. it's a form of symbolic thinking, as it represents and manipulates axiomatic relationships between symbolic entities. Formal logic and mathematics explicitly manipulate abstract symbols.

 

[SkyWriting]

I like NASA's evolved antenna - looks like someone sat on it:

I am familiar with the trial and error method, though I will still call it the trial and error method.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since no one else is going to bring it up, the divergence indicates 90 million base pairs due to indels, 35 million base pairs due to single nucleotide substitutions. Among the indels there would be mutations in the form of insertions or deletions, some in the millions of base pairs. That's a problem Darwinian never want to talk about.

 

[xianghua]

It means that we share common ancestors with chimpanzees in our relatively recent past.

its only a belief rather then science. since we cant test it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

My take, DNA is how life is made, all animals have it. Evidently the closer the psychical bodies are, the closer the DNA, makes perfect sense. The "mind" is what makes the difference here.

And as far as all life having DNA, that's how God made it. Would we come up with the perfect materials for building, say, a house, like concrete/wood, then build some with that and some with a more flimsy material. It's ridiculous to think our physical body's wouldn't have similarities. Sure there are some differences, just as in the "house" scenario, but the basics are the same for the type structure intended

We are all made with what worked the best for God the inventor, has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Among the indels there would be mutations in the form of insertions or deletions, some in the millions of base pairs. That's a problem Darwinian never want to talk about.

It's not a problem at all, nor something that nobody talks about. Not sure where you get that idea.

(Also, please don't respond with your usual copy-paste. I've seen it already)

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not a problem at all, nor something that nobody talks about. Not sure where you get that idea.

(Also, please don't respond with your usual copy-paste. I've seen it already)

No body want to talk about indels millions of base pairs long, exactly what I expected. You don't know where I get the idea and you've seen my source material, typical...

 

[pitabread]

No body want to talk about indels millions of base pairs long, exactly what I expected.

Again, not sure what you mean by "nobody wants to talk about [it]", considering that people seem happy to talk about it every single time you bring it up. Which seems to be quite frequently.

You don't know where I get the idea and you've seen my source material, typical...

I don't know where you get the idea nobody wants to talk about it, nor where you get this idea it's a "problem". Considering y'know, you got this stuff from published scientific literature in the first place.

 

[sfs]

how exactly?

Example: in this paper, I had to assume common descent to estimate how mutation rates change along chromosomes.

and why you call it a fact when its not?

I call it a fact because it is a fact in the only useful sense of the word: something that is so well established that we can treat it as true.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again, not sure what you mean by "nobody wants to talk about [it]", considering that people seem happy to talk about it every single time you bring it up. Which seems to be quite frequently.

No they are not

I don't know where you get the idea nobody wants to talk about it, nor where you get this idea it's a "problem". Considering y'know, you got this stuff from published scientific literature in the first place.

Yes exactly, it comes from very important research scientific literature you have never read. When the indels come up you guys run to the hills.

 

[pitabread]

Yes exactly, it comes from very important research scientific literature you have never read. When the indels come up you guys run to the hills.

Wrong on both counts, but you keep telling yourself this.

 

[sfs]

Empirical includes observation. The common ancestor not observed. It is not empirical science. It is historical inference. An interpretation.

em·pir·i·cal
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

The conclusion of common descent is very much based on observation.

They demonstrated they knew about the similarities and applied it to their work far before evolution understanding from the 1800s.

Still nice, still irrelevant.

You said you do need it for the work you do. Me p.2

'Are you saying you cannot do your work without conceding to a belief in an imaginary extinct creature?'

Yes, I know what you said. And I told you that yes, I need to assume the existence of common ancestors for some of my work. That does not imply (here's the logic part) that I need to assume the existence of every ancestor for my work. I have needed to assume the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (among others). I have never needed to assume the existence of a common ancestor of sexually and asexually reproducing organisms for my own work. Clear now?

Now you are contradictng. As OWG pointed out. How did they do their work prior to their understanding of common ancestor or TOE?

Who is "they" here? You seem to be assuming that all scientists do exactly the same thing. For the work that I do, I have to rely on common ancestry. For the work that they were doing, some other people at some other time in the past did not have to rely on common ancestry.

Do you really believe the double helix would have never been discovered absent belief in a common ancestor?

No. Why on earth would you ask such a thing, since it has nothing to do with my statement? I'm not working on discovering the structure of DNA.

Deflection. Stay on topic.

Not deflection. Advice.

 

[xianghua]

Example: in this paper, I had to assume common descent to estimate how mutation rates change along chromosomes.

again how? we can check it even by looking at human population variation. they also assume many things like:

"assuming that in any genomic region the amount of sequence divergence that has occurred is
proportional only to the local mutation rate (This should be true if most mutations in the genome are not subject to natural selection and the time since the common ancestor is about the same across all loci.)"

I call it a fact because it is a fact in the only useful sense of the word: something that is so well established that we can treat it as true.

but again: its not. its just a belief. you believe that human and chimp share a common descent. you cant prove it.

 

[sfs]

As a christian biologist what do you and other christian scientists think of stephen meyers work?

Very little, I'm afraid.

Also just so I'm clear on macro evolution. Does macro evolution mean that humans today evolved from apes?

Yes. (A more detailed statement would be that humans and today's apes evolved from a common ancestor. But since that ancestor would be called an ape by everyone, your statement is correct.)

If so how do you believe in that and a creator of the universe? My best guess of how to believe in the God of the bible and evolution is to say something like well God initiated the big bang and set it up with all of the required precision to slowly evolve over time into the world we see including having animals around, and having us come from some of those animals? Is this how you view it?

I view any ideas (including mine) about how God works to be speculation about things that are likely beyond our knowing. You can believe that God set up everything at the Big Bang and let it follow a planned path from there. You can believe that God continues to act providentially through natural causes. You can also believe in direct divine intervention, including lots of miracles in the evolution of humans. None of these contradict the scientific evidence. What the evidence does say is that humans share a common ancestor with other species.

Most people don't have a problem with this kind of thing in other matters. For example, most Christians are comfortable saying that we are each God's creation, even though we know that we develop in our mothers' womb through natural processes.

 

[sfs]

again how?

How what? How did we estimate the mutation rate variation from the data?

we can check it even by looking at human population variation.

No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.

they also assume many things like:

"assuming that in any genomic region the amount of sequence divergence that has occurred is
proportional only to the local mutation rate (This should be true if most mutations in the genome are not subject to natural selection and the time since the common ancestor is about the same across all loci.)"

Yes, I know, since I was there when we wrote that.

but again: its not. its just a belief. you believe that human and chimp share a common descent. you cant prove it.

Sorry, but we're in a better position to determine what a fact is in biology than you are.

 

[sfs]

No body want to talk about indels millions of base pairs long, exactly what I expected.

We talk about them quite a lot; there's an extensive and ongoing body of research on large indels.

 

[xianghua]

No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.

what is the different if you look at the chimp genome compare to the human genome or just at the human genome alone?

[Staff edit].