Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Carico, did you not see msg 147 in this thread? Its just three messages up from the one you just wrote. If this is the extent of your thread reading skills no wonder you are not understanding what anyone is saying. This is the last suspension warning.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 08:27 AM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Sorry, I didn't see this message. I thought we were talking about the genetic gap between humans and chimpanzees. I explained why it's there. But apparently this thread is about something else other than what it is entitled. It also appears that I have to agree with the contradictions on this thread in order to post on it because my posts are completely relevant to this topic. And the reason for the conflict between me and others on this thread is that they have no understanding of why one species cannot turn into another without being able to breed with that species. And until they understand that, we will always disagree. This will therefore, be my last reply to this thread.

Carico,If you are interested in understanding the theory, that is, if you really want to understand what the other side thinks - not just spout the same accusations over and over again - I will walk you through it in a 1 on 1 debate.But, you will have to actually read what I write, not just repeatedly ask questions which have been answered.Are you up for it?

I'm up for it as long as you don't take back statements and contradict yourself. You either claim that one species can turn into another without being able to breed with that species, or you claim that apes and humans can interbreed, because one or the other is how a human can come from an ape. So once you pick your scenario, you need to stick with it or the debate is over. We also need to agree on what a species is and I will stick with the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus which claims that one species has to be able to breed with its members or they are not the same species. So if you can provide proof that a species can simply change or "evolve" into another species without being able to breed with that species, I'd like to see that proof because it's never been witnessed anywhere in reality.

I'll go start the thread

WRONG! In fact, evolution says noting about god. The entire concept of god is COMPLETELY irrelevant to evolution. The theory of evolution is our best current explanation of the mechanism that explains how living things change over time. Nothing more, nothing less.Evolution says nothing about a creator(s) or deity(s).To get back to the OP. I believe evolution predicted a similarity between humans and chimps due to morphology before the advent of DNA research (please correct me if I'm wrong). The fact that the DNA evidence supports this is a slam dunk for evolution. In fact it makes it almost ridiculous to argue against the conclusion that chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

1. All fossils are transitional2. Humans ARE apesYou know, even you are technically a transitional creature!Cheers

That's OK Ray, I hope you had a nice Christmas. If you are still interested in the debate then I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on some of the outstanding posts: Message 129 and Message 133If not then take care and let me also thank you for the debate!

Why would anyone assume macroevolution true ? Answer: Because there is no evidence except by assumption. The assumption is based upon a worldview need for Genesis to be wrong.If all species share a common ancestor then there should be observational evidence ad nauseum in the fossil record which is an objective tamper proof time lapse natural photographic event.The crust of the Earth shows ZERO signs of species transitioning, plus the massive gaps has no effect on evolutionary dogma. IOW, lack of evidence does not get in the way.Transitional evidence is the reason for being of Darwinian evolution. There is none. Evolution proceeds unimpeded = Bible tells us why.Did you know Eugene Dubois and the entire Darwinian scientific establishment accepted a few scraps of whatever dug out of the ground by prison inmates as the decisive evidence FOR human evolution ?The most extraordinary claim of all time (actually 1 of 2) decided by a few obscure scraps. This shows what hard up frauds these lunk heads were desparately trying to validate atheist worldview.In this context: Ray

Rhetoric.The necessary hindsight assertions needed since there is no actual evidence, or any respectable amount, to support the claims.Ray

Like most scientists, my worldview has nothing to do with any such need.Ok, before you launch into this tack, you need to define macroevolution. I'm sure that with nearly 2500 posts, you've been around long enough for examples of observed speciation to be presented to you, although your subsequent use of the phrase "species transitioning" would suggest that speciation is the benchmark you're using. So, set your goalpost and stick with it. Again, there are several threads currently in play which explain why we do not have the expectation of a perfect fossil record. We are more interested in the evidence that we do have than the evidence that we don't (yet). However, again, I would ask you to define what goalpost you're setting: we have evidence of speciation ("species transitions") within modern organisms; the fossil record isn't necessary for that. We have evidence for broader changes in the fossil record, as well as in morphological cladistics and molecular analysis. Huh? Can you clarify? False. Again, I'm sure you've been provided with examples, so why don't you define what you mean by "transitional evidence." Clarification again needed. We have considerably more than a few scraps by a single researcher's crew. See above post, and scientists are not necessarily atheists. I certainly am not. I work with a guy who is as devout as anyone I've known (and my mother's an Episcopal priest and Franciscan sister, mind you). When we go out to do field research, he often openly and loudly praises God for the blessings he perceives, and always studies the bible on his lunch break. Like most Christians outside of the US, he's a theistic evolutionist (although he prefers to say, "evolutionary creationist"). You're making a false dichotomy. I apologize to the moderators and fellow members for allowing you to draw me into this off-topic point.

When trying to come to conclusions one needs to assume previous work is true. When calculating how to get to the moon, we started with 'Assuming Newton's laws of motion and gravity are correct'.If you want, we can discuss the validity of the assumption later, but for the moment, can we agree, that with the assumption the conclusions I listed would naturally follow? Just for the moment, let's leave the validity of the assumption out of the debate because we both are well aware that we disagree with one another on it, so reiterating that for 300 posts is wasting both our time. Instead, it would be more constructive to find areas of common agreement. To this end, I'll repeat the question(s):

quote:

---

But does the DNA evidence support the following conclusions, assuming all species share a common ancester:

​

a) That chimpanzees are the closest related species to humans, and share the most recent common ancestor?

​

b) That said recent common ancestor existed about 5 million years ago?

---

Think about it like this: If I said:Assuming that acceleration due to gravity is constant and that it is 10ms^-2 (and air resistance is negligible etc etc), we can work out how many metres an object has fallen after a given time using the following calculation:s=(v_o)t + 1/2at²The object started at 0ms^-1 and we calculate for 10 secondss=1/2 x 10 x 10²s=1/2 x 10³s=1/2 x 1000s=500 metres.Do you agree that the distance the object falls would be 500 metres, given our assumptions? Answering 'Why would anyone assume acceleration due to gravity is constant? Answer: Because there is no evidence except by assumption' doesn't really work. Sure, the assumptions validity is highly questionable, but we can get to that once we agree that the conclusions are accurate with the assumptions...one step at a time With me?This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 08-January-2006 09:24 PM

Like most philosophers and historians, we know this is an attempt to assert yourself objective. Everyone has a worldview, starting assumptions, and an axe to grind - not a matter of opinion. You would do well to let this tactic go. macroevolution: the belief that all living things evolved from previous living things and never originate from the Creator of Genesis. Darwinists have never been able to do so. They think they have but each and every example has turned out to be microevolution, like the intelligently designed beak of the finch which oscillates with the environment and weather. This is called special pleading.Anyone can produce an explanation. The only valid ones have evidence to back them up. But we don't need explanations to make an excuse for what we see not really meaning what we see.We can take what we see (fossil record) and match it with textual evidence. This means we have correspondence: literary corresponding with reality = FACT.This is why we are Creationists, because the facts of the Bible correspond with reality. Now you can see why I grind this axe. Macroevolution means all species have descent from previous, synonymously referred to as "transitional" or "intermediacy".Darwinian ToE and the synthesis says macro is a fact. Where is the massive evidence that should be prevalent if true ?It doesn't exist. It is assumed and adduced by inference - but it actually does not exist. This is where the fossil record comes into play. The repetitive visual evidence says: species suddenly appear, change slightly, then disappear, then massive gaps = no macroevolution. You know all of this. This is why Genesis is corroborated as true. NS is baloney - death cannot create life - no evidence for Darwinian transubstantiation. God creates new species and runs nature.Ray

Your stereotypical and unsupportable misrepresentation of scientists is known as a straw man. It is a logical fallacy that works against you. Okay, that's interesting. Do you think that God continues to poof new organisms currently, or do you mean that macroevolution postulates that a Creator was NEVER involved in creation of a living organism? Keeping in mind that in science (unlike Genesis) abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. That last bit is interesting, but we're already too far off-topic to follow it. You need to understand that biologists make no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. It's all "evolution." By your definition of macroevolution, EVERY observable instance of evolution is microevolution by definition, unless it would be possible to observe and document the evolutionary history of all life (past and present) on earth {ETA: and disprove the involvement of a Creator}. This is not possible, nor would a reasonable person expect it to be so. I've noticed you say that a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. We have no reason to expect the fossil record to be more complete than it is. If you think there is a reason, you should explain that and support your assertion. Yes, apparently this works especially well when you systematically discard evidence that contradicts your text, eh? Your terms are a little iffy, but the evidence for evolution in the history of life on earth is massive. Are you aware of all the evidence? I'm not, I'm not sure that any single person could actually know all of it. I know a fair bit about the evidence for a very small group of organisms that I work with (I'm an ecologist, not an evolutionary biolgist or paleontologist). If you'd like to learn more, the literature is out there for you.The evidence against a Creator (the other part of your "macroevolution" definition) is not there, nor is it sought. It would be impossible to disprove a Creator, and such is neither the goal of evolutionary biology nor important for its validity.In any case, my aim was not to derail this thread, but rather to get you to define your terms. Now that you have done so, I see that there is little need to worry myself with your arguments, which are against a series of straw men.This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-08-2006 08:34 PM{second edit: edited a typo im my previous edit}This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-09-2006 02:06 PM

Nuggin,With patience like that you should have taken the nick of "Job"!
No kidding, I'm awed.lfen