You can't argue with DNA

[snazzyjazzy]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

 

[Bombila]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

I'd be just as sanguine about being related to giraffes or armadillos, but that's not how it works. Just the facts, man, just the facts. We are Apes and we are related to every ape out there. All the evidence points that way. If it were evidence of a crime committed, the perp would have been locked up for over a century now and the CSIs would still be finding more and stronger evidence of his guilt.

 

[BananaSlug]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

In all honesty, I'd much rather be derived from Velociraptor or something like that. However, what we want is different from what is. We are still apes, we are still monkeys, we are still primates, we are still mammals, etc.

 

[Skaloop]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

I don't "desparately want" to be related to monkeys. I just am. Do you desparately want to not be related to monkeys?

Just like in my family tree; there are some people I am thrilled to be related to, some I hate being related to, and some who are neither here nor there. But despite my positive, negative, or indifferent opinions about them, there are nonetheless undoubtedly my relatives. It's just a fact.

 

[atomweaver]

I don't "desparately want" to be related to monkeys. I just am. Do you desparately want to not be related to monkeys?

I don't think that creationists in general want to not be related to monkeys, so much as they want to perpetuate the notion that they were specially and separately created. Being "in this world, but not of this world" heavily reinforces the Christian doctrine of dominance over the earth, just as it mitigates their stake in making sure they don't mess up the planet in the process of attempting to gain dominance over it. The commonality of heritable molecules to all life and the very systematic behavior that those molecules follow from generation to generation refutes the notion of human separateness from the rest of life/nature on a very fundamental level.

 

[Hespera]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

Why do you think this and why do you ask?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

What I wanna know is..

Why do people so desperately want to be related to monkeys?!?!

Who said that he wants to be related to monkeys? We said we are related.

 

[AirPo]

Right, so? I guess it is interesting, that there was a way for the genes to transfer in the far past, that allowed this to happen. Whether by acts of evil pre flood men, or some other means of transference post flood. Guess we'll never know just how, since all we have to work with is how it now works. At least it will not be through science of man, that we one day find out.

There is, of course nothing in a relation with chimps, that says that man is not a special creation. And that is the crux of the matter, after all.
Relax, we are not beasts.

You can argue anything with the HI Theory.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Well, I'll admit, this may surprise you, but I'm not qualified to agree with ERVs like [by the sheerest of Plutonian coincidences] everyone else here is.

They just may attach to the same place everytime (like you guys would know [rolls eyes]), but that, to me, does not mean Genesis 1 is wrong.

oh dont bag on evolution and common descent so much. there are plenty more scientific reasons why Genesis 1 is wrong.
photosynthesis and the solar system can take a hike.

 

[sfs]

Give me a break --- do you honestly believe 99% of these "scientists" here who just sit and nod their heads in agreement about these ethno-retro virii (or whatever you call them) could even spot one attached to DNA without an arrow pointing to it?

Some could, some couldn't. Lots of them are capable enough of reading and understanding the scientific papers of those who do the research. In any case, what matters most to me is that I understand the evidence, and I do. (And ERVs don't attach to DNA -- they are part of the DNA.)

Does it bother you that they will automatically agree (by faith, I might add), as long as it disproves Genesis 1?

If I see one of them flagrantly ignoring evidence in order to dismiss Genesis 1, I will be happy to criticize them loudly for it. At the moment, however, you're the one ignoring the evidence, so why are you changing the subject?

 

[LightHorseman]

oh dont bag on evolution and common descent so much. there are plenty more scientific reasons why Genesis 1 is wrong.
photosynthesis and the solar system can take a hike.

Big Bang Expansionism and C can take a hike too.

 

[Tenka]

God choose to make us with 2 arms 2 legs ect.... and he made monkeys similar. DNA is a blueprint and if the creatures are alike the plans are alike as well. if 2 houses look similar of course their Blueprints will look alike, this points to the same architect not a "common ancestor"

The "common designer" argument fails because intelligent architects do not design houses with fundamental flaws as seen in almost all animals bodies and certainly in humans.
Engineers design machines with shared modular parts because they are under constraints of time and budget, I don't think you want to argue that your God is similarly limited.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Is anyone else enjoying the MASSIVE irony in this statement as much as I am?

Hey, AV, apart from anything else, even having eyes in common is empirical EVIDENCE - which you delight in reminding us that your seemingly superior literal interpretation lacks.

Ok does anyone here actually not know that AV is playing with you?
I know im guilty of playing with trolls occasionaly (im not suggesting AV is one) But seriously dont feed the fire. Leave him be and ignore.

Or if you enjoy have fun with the fire just dont take it seriously.

 

[LightHorseman]

The "common designer" argument fails because intelligent architects do not design houses with fundamental flaws as seen in almost all animals bodies and certainly in humans.
Engineers design machines with shared modular parts because they are under constraints of time and budget, I don't think you want to argue that your God is similarly limited.

See "the Fall". Everything that works is evidence of a divine designer. Anything that is flawed is the direct result of "the Fall". Don't ask who designed things like mosquito mouth parts or the digestive tracts of carnivores.

 

[BananaSlug]

See "the Fall". Everything that works is evidence of a divine designer. Anything that is flawed is the direct result of "the Fall". Don't ask who designed things like mosquito mouth parts or the digestive tracts of carnivores.

But the "re-design" of such things such as the digestive tract of carnivores suggests God did more creating after he rested from his creation. Plus I don't see how this:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Means God cursed his entire creation. He only cursed the serpent, Eve, and Adam.

 

[Hespera]

Musta been just that one serpent, because snakes seem to be a very successful type of animal! In fact some lizards have lost their legs completely, or have legs as reduced as what you see on a python. So there is no design problem.

And if those three were the only ones who got cursed, then why should the rest of us be paying for it. Aint fair.

I sometimes think about the massive scale of re engineering all of life on earth in order to have predator / prey. I guess, if you could make it all in the first place you could totally redo it, but its still a pretty strange concept.

Deep sea fish sure dont look like vegetarians in any detail and of course the only possible food down there is from animal sources.

The oldest fossils you can find still show teeth and other structure suited to predation and defense, not to the nibbling of carrots etc.

Anyway... the meaning of cursing the serpent seems metaphorical... is it not?

 

[BananaSlug]

Probably. The serpent is either a metaphor for Satan, or like all other religions, it gives an explanation to why snakes do not have legs. I'm sure snakes are the only land animals the ancient Hebrews saw without legs.
People-legs
Cows-legs
Birds-legs
Sheep-legs
Dogs-legs
Lizards-legs
Snakes- no legs! What gives?!

 

[mark kennedy]

In the same way and for the same reasons that DNA is incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two people are related it is also incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two species are related. Similarities in DNA are derived through inheritence. This is a FACT of NATURE!!!

humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genes! the process of replication is the same in chimpanzees, both the act itself and what occurs in the cells.

humans and chimpanzees are related. This is not opinion or conjecture or a guess, it is a FACT.

The analysis of modest-sized insertions reveals 32 Mb of human-specific sequence and 35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence, contained in 5 million events in each species...

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23%

Nature 2005​

It's 95% at best and that's not counting the chromosomal rearrangements that include some 77 million bases. First of all you statistic argument is based on a false statement and you have failed to accept the inverse logic. If simularities indicate common lineage then do differences indicate seperate lineage?

 

[Hespera]

The analysis of modest-sized insertions reveals 32 Mb of human-specific sequence and 35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence, contained in 5 million events in each species...

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23%

Nature 2005​

It's 95% at best and that's not counting the chromosomal rearrangements that include some 77 million bases. First of all you statistic argument is based on a false statement and you have failed to accept the inverse logic. If simularities indicate common lineage then do differences indicate seperate lineage?

Could you maybe do the research for us since you thought of the question?

Why not take some other less controversial lineage, like say the domestic cow. There are a number of related species, such as our American bison.

There are bound to be studies that could be looked up easily enough.

Or do you feel that bison and domestic cattle are each the product of a unique creation?

 

[Bombila]

Bison and domestic cattle might be a poor example - maybe moose and white tail deer or some other related pair.

The problem with American Bison is that almost all of them carry domestic cattle genes. John Hawks talks about it a little in this posting.

http://johnhawks.net/taxonomy/term/362