• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,833
7,855
65
Massachusetts
✟393,431.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
what is the different if you look at the chimp genome compare to the human genome or just at the human genome alone?
The effect of mutation rate variation is much more pronounced when you compare between species, since variation in genealogical age makes a smaller contribution to variation in divergence.

[Staff edit].

In this case, what "assumption" meant was that it was an approximation. A fraction of the genome really has been under selection, and the time to the common ancestral genome of chimps and genomes really does vary, but for our purposes we could ignore those things.

[Staff edit].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

JoeP222w

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2015
3,360
1,748
57
✟92,175.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As to the original question, it is completely irrelevant.

Watermelons are more than 60% water, humans are more than 60% water , does that mean we have a close ancestor to watermelons? No, of course not. But that is what the question is suggesting if you follow the logic.

To compare Chimpanzee DNA to Human DNA is nonsense. Humans were created in the image of God, Chimpanzees were not.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
The effect of mutation rate variation is much more pronounced when you compare between species, since variation in genealogical age makes a smaller contribution to variation in divergence.

so if we will take human population that is about say 10my old (theorically speaking)we can get even more accurate result then human compare to chimp. so we basically dont need to believe in a common descent to do this research. as i said.


In this case, what "assumption" meant was that it was an approximation. A fraction of the genome really has been under selection, and the time to the common ancestral genome of chimps and genomes really does vary, but for our purposes we could ignore those things.

its just one assumption out of several. you also assume common descent is true. when its not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
As to the original question, it is completely irrelevant.

Watermelons are more than 60% water, humans are more than 60% water , does that mean we have a close ancestor to watermelons? No, of course not. But that is what the question is suggesting if you follow the logic.

To compare Chimpanzee DNA to Human DNA is nonsense. Humans were created in the image of God, Chimpanzees were not.
its important to note that even according to evolution some similairty isnt the reslut of a common descent. so basically according to evolution both similarity and non simillarity is evidence for evolution. funny logic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
its important to note that even according to evolution some similairty isnt the reslut of a common descent. so basically according to evolution both similarity and non simillarity is evidence for common descent. funny logic.

Yes, because it is the PATTERNS of similarity. So when there are patterns of dissimilarity where they should be, then of course it supports evolution. Basic logic. Not funny logic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
so basically according to evolution both similarity and non simillarity is evidence for common descent. funny logic.

Not mere similarity. Patterns. There is a difference.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,833
7,855
65
Massachusetts
✟393,431.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
so if we will take human population that is about say 10my old (theorically speaking)we can get even more accurate result then human compare to chimp.
What human population that's 10 million years old?
so we basically dont need to believe in a common descent to do this research. as i said.
So you're saying that we could get the same result if we pretended to have some other source for the information?
its just one assumption out of several. you also assume common descent is true. when its not.
Again, sorry. We're going to stick with scientific conclusions, not the dicta of some guy on the internet.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I don't see how such comparisons could be useful.

There's a whole world of science based around genomic comparisons: Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

Here's an example whereby primate DNA sequence comparison (including humans) was used to identify functional regions in the human genome:

We used sequence comparisons of an extensive set of Old World and New World monkeys and hominoids to identify functional regions in the human genome. Analysis of these data enabled the discovery of primate-specific gene regulatory elements and the demarcation of the exons of multiple genes. Much of the information content of the comprehensive primate sequence comparisons could be captured with a small subset of phylogenetically close primates. These results demonstrate the utility of intraprimate sequence comparisons to discover common mammalian as well as primate-specific functional elements in the human genome, which are unattainable through the evaluation of more evolutionarily distant species.
(emphasis mine)

Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. - PubMed - NCBI
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
...... 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.
I appreciate the perspective that a Professor Jordan Peterson brings to the evolution of the hemispheric brain. The left hemisphere is adapted to best deal with the aspects of our universe that are known and knowable. For example, if we got ten pieces of candy and three people to share it with, this is a problem of logic. Processes of the left brain can fix that kind of problem.
But the greater part of our world is unknown, and even unknowable. And what we do not know, what lurks in the shadows and the dark recesses that lie ahead, can very much hurt us. That is information that needs to be processed too, and beings who have evolved mechanisms to deal with the unknown are more adapted to survival in the world as it is, than beings that have not developed such mechanisms.
As important as engineers are to this society, so too do artists have an instrumental roles to play. Good art is at least as necessary as good bridges. It is the artist who is capable of preparing us for tomorrow's world of the unknown through drawing out and presenting us with the hidden truths that are yet hidden around the next bend, and then creatively presenting those truths to us symbolically so that we are better able to anticipate what lies ahead. A whole half of the human brain has been adapted to deal with creating and understanding the type of information that has been designed to understand the unknown, the world that has not yet materialized in front of us.

People have a whole hemisphere of the brain dedicated to dealing with the world of the unknown, the world that lies just beyond the ability of our rational brains to grasp.

The Bible and religion in general are systems developed over the millennia that deal with exactly that, that is, with the unknown world and the unknowable.

"Just the facts ma'am, nothing but the facts" is an attitude that leaves us uniquely unprepared.
Because what we don't know is even more ominous and deadly than what we do know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Noxot
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
What human population that's 10 million years old?

i talk about theoretical case.

So you're saying that we could get the same result if we pretended to have some other source for the information?

why not? human vs human comparison. or human vs animal with a similar genome, say a rat.

Again, sorry. We're going to stick with scientific conclusions, not the dicta of some guy on the internet.

great. lets talk about science. do you agree that if we will find two different self replicating cars, the best conclusion will be a common design rather then a common descent? its a very simple question with a scientific implication about evolution.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
i talk about theoretical case.



why not? human vs human comparison. or human vs animal with a similar genome, say a rat.



great. lets talk about science. do you agree that if we will find two different self replicating cars, the best conclusion will be a common design rather then a common descent? its a very simple question with a scientific implication about evolution.

Um...talking about self-replicating cars is not talking about science.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
its only a belief rather then science. since we cant test it.
Well, I am certainly no expert on the science of evolution, and I do take Dr David Berlinskis criticisms of evolution to heart.

But I still think that evolutionists are correct in understanding themselves as scientists.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
great. lets talk about science. do you agree that if we will find two different self replicating cars, the best conclusion will be a common design rather then a common descent? its a very simple question with a scientific implication about evolution.

Pretty sure that made up fantasy objects like "self replicating cars" don't have scientific implications for anything.

Though maybe you could write the plot for the next Transformers movie...
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Well, I am certainly no expert on the science of evolution, and I do take Dr David Berlinskis criticisms of evolution to heart.

But I still think that evolutionists are correct in understanding themselves as scientists.
fair enough. but do you agree that a scientist who believe in id is also a scientist?
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
just replace "cars" with "creatures" and here you go...


giphy.gif
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0