Address the ones already given.
First, how anyone can honestly use an ungapped analysis to try and refute a gapped analysis. I would love to hear that one.
Upvote
0
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.
yeah, please keep exposing the lies. When you are done, let me know.
I will address all of them.
duplicate.
however here are some more info:
not to mention the early studies only tested approximately 1% of the genome and pulled figures from that small amount. Later studies show 90-95% and one study shows as low as 70%.
Now whats the big deal with a few percentage points off? Well...
Daniel Chriswell, molecular biologist at the Institute for Creation Research, explains:
"If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor.
Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations." (7)
so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?
you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't. In fact you beg the question as to the validity of this view.
Genome projects supporting human/chimp common ancestry typically refuse to accept the differences in the gene sequencing:
For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent,
above quote and graphic from I dont have faith enough to be an Atheist by frank turek and norman geisler
As you can see above, similiarities in genetic structure typically can mean that the designer allowed us to consume food within a certain food chain structure and resultingly designed various organisms with similar genetic structure to digest food easier.
we are less similiar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)
so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs . . .
72% is alot different than say 96-99% similiarity.
so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?
you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't. In fact you beg the question as to the validity of this view.
If you submit a scientific paper (peer review or other) we may examine it to see if it truly is homologous in content. Until then I will assume it unverified.
We already know the base to base comparison.
"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
For genes . . .
"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
So 29% of the proteins are 100% identical at the amino acid level, and only about 5 mutations in each gene (~2,000 bases per gene).
Has been proven.
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
Until you deal with the chimp genome paper instead of ignoring it, there is little I can do.
Loudmouth already posted EXACTLY what you are looking for, an hour and a half prior to your post to which I am now responding.
I assume you posted a peer review. well my invitation goes out.
read mine and I will read yours.
I have more than a couple peer reviews but I wont add to your plate responsible scientific papers till you digest whats been given regarding avian design.. let me know what you think of it after reading it in its entirety. until then you will have to prove your points in another way.
again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.
For kicks and all . . .
People may want to check out Homologene:
Home - HomoloGene - NCBI
It's a nice little tool that will compare the same gene across multiple species, exactly the type of thing gradyll is asking for. Just to start things off, we can check out the page for LDHA found here:
HomoloGene - NCBI
If you go down the left hand side, you will reach and option called "Show Pairwise Alignment Scores". That's the one you want. It will produce a matrix of sort, comparing one species to the rest of the species. Although F. catus is not on the list because the genome was only recently sequenced and annotated. However, some old friends are on the list P. troglodytes, C. lupus, B. taurus, and the species so great they had to name it twice, Gallus gallus.
For the LDHA comparison, I get the human to chimp at 99.5% identity for DNA sequence and the human to dog (closest to cat) at 93.2%. It is also interesting to look at the genetic equidistance. For example, human to chicken is 79.6% and dog to chicken is 80.4%, nearly the same as would be expected given that humans and dogs share the same common ancestor with chickens.
I saw that link while browsing. thanks for the input. but not sure that we evolved from cats.
I think the data supports a common designed foodchain more than universalcommon ancestry. for instance I dont meow when I am hungary.
You haven't given any scientific papers. Creationist websites are not peer reviewed papers. Your misunderstanding of tables in peer review papers is not science either.
I have shown you twice the peer review. just do a search on the thread for feathers and it will pop up. its from wit.org ibelieve. I am starting to believe that your lies are intentional. as they become very prominent in your posts.
nested heirarchies rely on phylogeny deta which itself is in question.
it is circular reasoning to prove nested heirarchy (evolution biased) with phylogenies (which too beg the question regarding macro evolution).
you have to prove your data using un biased sources. its not when one thing proves yor point that its true its when everything proves it.
My lies? You are the one trying to falsely claim that the cat genome is more like the human genome than the chimp genome. That's the biggest lie there is.
Also, this paper contains the same failed argument as all other ID arguments
http://journals.witpress.com/pdfs/abstracts/D&NE040201a.pdf
They claim that evolution can't produce complex specified information, and yet never support that claim. This is followed by an argument from ignorance:
"There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form."
Sorry, but ID isn't proven by not knowing of an evolutionary pathway right here and right now.
that was prior to being corrected. until then no one had the ability to find chimp homologous comparisons.
soooo now what do you do with your dishonesty. have you fessed up yet?
There were limited chimp sequences dating back to the 1980's.
Fessed up to what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?