Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Does that count for me as well?TTFN,WK

And while I genuinely appreciate you retracting your dishonesty claim, I am still waiting for your thoughts on the rest of the content of my post.

That's silly ray. I'm not going start listing examples, that's just childish. Your tone was on the line and carried the potential to go overboard. I was just politely reminding you. Well, it was mostly about human evolution, not ape evolution so it spoke of African bushmen. It did mention c/h divergence, but it wasn't building a case or presenting evidence for it. It merely stated it. Does this have a point? I simply stated that nobody has a problem with the c/h divergence time. Ray, please carefully read what I write. I said *just* said it. You didn't *just* say that science says we split 4 million years ago, you said other things too.Are you claiming that the only thing you have said on this thread is that humans and chimps diverged 4 million years ago? Irrelevant. He used what his theory said to predict our closest related species. The prediction was tested, and passed the test. That's what you asked. Irrelevant. You asked me to demonstrate that a prediction was made. I did. The claim maker is the author of that book of the Bible. I believe that he existed and corroborated historical information can help place when he existed. It does not lend support to his supernatural claims. Not really. The conclusion that humans and chimps diverged was already thought from the morphology. That was confirmed further by DNA evidence. The corroboration is related. A historical claim made in the bible is not related to a supernatural claim in the bible.Conflating the two is not a logical progression. That makes no sense, who is talking about embelleshed opinions? I said that a historical account embellished with supernatural explanations does not support the supernatural explanations when the history is corroborated. You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it a logical statement. Yes...if God created the heavens and the Earth then creationism is true. A logical statement, but slightly obvious. However, a corroboration of a historical event recorded by people does not corroborate that peoples religious beliefs. What on earth are you talking about, Ray? Ray, you told me that I was assuming radiodating was accurate. I did no such thing. I merely said that the dating methods agree with one another. If they are both wrong then they are both wrong by the same degree in a massive array of cases. The fossil record records that marsupial mice should be more closely related to kangaroos than they are to placental mice. The DNA evidence agrees with this. You cannot just say this falsifies evo arguments, you'll have to show it. I am not even sure where you got half of your response from, it seems entirely divorced from what I was saying.Once again, turning to Darwin's The Descent of Man, we see that even in his time the observation that placentals where a divergence from marsupials had been made. This is what Darwin said, the DNA evidence arrives at the same conclusion. Is this what you would call falsification? I did. You didn't actually explain how it falsifies any theory, just just said it did. Can you now show me how it falsifies the theory? Irrelevant. OK so my prediction that you will not do this has been tested and it passed. What is Kumar and Hedges' resolve? Where is it assumed to be true? That is ALL I am asking. Its a very short paper, should only take you a few minutes.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 18-December-2005 09:51 AM

Actually I did. You snipped most of what you seek in the original reply.I would like to engage you on this but it is off topic, rather I feel Admin heat ready to intervene if I stray. If an Admin approves then we can....Ray

Defending an innuendo = my observation is now confirmed correct. His prediction failed. There is no such thing as a transitional hominid fossil in existence. Either the fossil is wholly human or wholly ape. The only disagreement comes from a small corps of fanatics that each item retains - like the finder and his or her mother. Very predictable and ordinary atheist philosophy. Here we have a Darwinist, that is a person who actually believes apes morphed into men pretending he is capable of evaluating what makes sense and what is logical pertaining to his rival worldview. Your complete reliance on atheist ideology to dismiss any evidence that jeopardizes its validity exposes a closed mind. At least if you believed in God you would then have a subjective source for your ape to man miracle beliefs.Modulous:I suggest you learn more about what evidence is then apply the objective across the board. You spam endless amounts of biased philosophy into your replies. It is apparent you forget that this is a scientific topic. I must interpret this tactic of yours to be innocent caused by the inability to refute.Ray

Speaking of logic, this is a terrible straw man that does not describe evolutionary theory, and is an ad hominem argument to boot. Assertion requiring support. \
This is a non-response. Yes, this is a scientific topic, and therefore it is not sufficient to dismiss arguments simply because in your subjective view they indicate an "atheist philosophy." You need to provide evidence to support your points and/or to refute your opponents' points if you wish to be persuasive.

I agree with you on that. Truly I don't think a supernatural origin of the Aaronic Priesthood, or the philosophical/logical arguments for or against such an origin fit the topic either, especially since this is a science forum. Just taking into account the science, I think most here will agree to the following (I hope we both do anyway):1) Human and chimp DNA are roughly 95% similar.
2) Human and chimp DNA have different karyotypes (chromosome structure).
3) The DNA of distantly related humans is much more similar than human DNA is to chimp DNA.
4) Analysis of human of DNA of various priesthoods strongly suggests that the Aaronic Priesthood (but not other priesthoods) has been maintained as a patrilineal lineage for roughly 3,000 years.
5) DNA evidence of the Aaronic Priesthood matches historical/Biblical evidence.
6) DNA evidence itself does not directly confirm or falsify the existence of God.I think from our discussion thus far that we both agree on these six points - let me know if you disagree.That said, I think we should call a draw on whether the Aaronic Priesthood is evidence/proof of God; or at least save it for another more appropriate thread.Is there any points you wish to discuss related to the "chimpanzee-human genetic gap" separate of the Aaronic Priesthood?Let me know your thoughts...

This peculiar creature, here rendered in a 15th Century drawing, is both 100% human and 100% ape.

Ray, we weren't talking about transitional fossils. I said that the prediction was that apes were the closest relation to humans. The closest relation to humans should have less 'modifications' than any other species. The modifications that Darwin spoke of occurs to the DNA. The prediction should be that apes have DNA that is most similar to human. This was tested in the 1970s. You asked me to show that this prediction was made (Message 108, I did. So why bring up transtional fossils? Ray, I am trying to understand your position and I am giving you the oppurtunity to explain it to me. I am telling you ways that you can explain it to me. If you wish to hand waive away my attempts and call me closed minded, then just say so, we can stop debating since you aren't going to debate in good faith.Its interesting that when I was agreeing with your points you thought I was reasonable and honest, but when I started disagreeing with your points you suddenly thought I was closed minded.In order to keep things moving smoothly I must interpret this tactic of yours where you haven't addressed a single part of my post, instead asserting that is wrong or athiest philosophy without actually building a case You know how refutation works, Ray? It involves explaining why your opponent is wrong, or why their point doesn't actually refute your point because it is irrelevant or a bare assertion.

---

Back on topic

Let's actually try and review what we have discussed so far. I'm not going to sink to the level of insulting your ability as a debate opponent, but instead I'm going to put forward the argument you are facing in a straightforward manner. Feel free to reply with your refutation.

Science

We agree that science says that h/c split occurred some 4 million years ago.The radiodating suggests life has been around for four billion years.The fossils, combined with radiodating suggest the h/c split is 4-6 million years ago.If it is possible to calibrate a genetic clock, we should see said clock give about the same time for h/c split...Kumar and Hedges make it out to be 5.5 million years ago.We agree the word 'similar' is relative. Message 1004 million years, relative to the 4 billion years that life is purported to have existed is quite similar to 2 million years (modern human). We share 3,996,000,000 years of similarity and only 4,000,000 years of dissimilarity (in the context of years that's 99.9% closeness). In the context of years, this is easily quantifiable as similar. In the context of comparisons they are most similar species. The only time the two things might be considered dissimilar is if we compare the similarity of two humans and the similarity of humans and chimps. That is: chimp DNA is more different to humans than human DNA is to human DNA.It's a bit like saying brachiosaurus wasn't large because the blue whale is much larger.Finally, I've challenged you to demonstrate that Kumar/Hedges assume their resolve. All you have done is assert it over and over again, but you have failed to provide any logical construct which demonstrates this.

Bible

It is your opinion that if a person makes a historical claim and attributes the cause of that historical event to a supernatural entity and the historical claim is verified, that is support to the claim of a supernatural entity.You need to validate this logical step. Perhaps examples from other literature? The Iliad would be an interesting start, then perhaps the Quran which doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God, but the direct word of God dictated to a prophet word for word.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 19-December-2005 12:03 PM

Pertaining to point # 1:IF the infancy data is correct then I agree.The 5 percent disimilarity represents 5 million years ACCORDING to Darwinists - do you agree ?Points 2 thru 6 I agree but point 6 I would re-word: "The DNA evidence supports the existence of the claim-Maker; to what degree is debateable." Yes.The fact of Point # 1 does not support the resolve (hominid evolution) UNLESS a philosophical assumption is made. Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." We have similarity admitted to be roughly 5 million years apart. This fact does not support the conclusion: modern humans slowly evolved from an ape ancestor over millions of years. The Bible better explains the similarity as the work of a Master Creator. The only source for this Deity says He created Adam suddenly. Even the co-founder of ToE parted ways with Darwin here. Wallace said the gap between apes and humans is too great: Higher Intelligence involved. If you need the source cite let me know.My point is the evidence for this extraordinary claim is not there unless a previously decided philosophical assumption is made.Ray

Why not - its Christmas.Ray

Herepton, thanks for the reply. The similarity does support the conclusion, but isn't sufficient on its own to distinguish the conclusion from other possible conclusions, such as a Creator using common genetic plans. Other evidence (see below) is considered that supports common ancestry and falsifies separate creation. One strong piece of evidence that falsifies your above statement is that humans and chimps have many genetic "mistakes" in common - "broken genes" that serve no function, yet both chimps and humans have them, and "broken" in identical ways.A good example is the the GLO gene - it is broken/non-functional in humans, chimps, guinea pigs, and fruit bats. (The gene is required for vitamin C synthesis, and since it is broken in the above species, the above species must get vitamin C from their diet).Here's the interesting thing - the human and chimp GLO genes are mutated (broken) in the exact same way. The way the human and chimp GLO genes are mutated is different than how either the guinea pig or fruit bat GLO genes are mutated. This single gene example by itself doesn't necessarily indicate common ancestry, but there are numerous cases of non-functional psuedogenes that non-human primates and humans have in common, yet other species do not have. This is evidence for common ancestry, as much is DNA analysis of genome fingerprints used to establish paternity in court cases.How does this make sense in light of separate creation?I understand why a creator would use common functional parts in two similar species, but why would a creator use the same broken parts in two species, or even use broken parts to begin with?Thanks.

I can feel an agreement in the air. Let's try and get one! 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?If you agree that with our assumption, the DNA evidence gives us the above conclusions, we can then discuss the validity of the assumption. I hope you don't think that our assumption is assuming the resolve - the resolve is a) and the resolve is b), neither of which are the assumption we are making to arrive at those conclusions.

Again, how can one species turn into another without being able to breed with that species? Evolutionists are thus claiming that:1) brown-eyed genes can turn into blue-eyed genes on their own.
2) The gene for 4 legs can turn into the gene for 2 legs on its own.
3) The gene for brown or black hair can turn into the gene for blond hair on its own.
4) The gene to be able to talk develops on its own.
5) The gene to be able to form complex analyses develops on its own.
6) The gene to be able to build enormous structures develops on its own.All of the above contradicts the natural process of reproduction and instead, replaces it with the notion that animals don't need to breed with each other in order to pass along genes that they didn't acquire from a mate. Those genes can just themselves change into the genes of another species.Not only is this preposterous, but embarrassing to scientists as well. Either that, or evolutionists are suggesting bestiality between humans and apes because mating and breeding are the only way that one species can acquire the traits of another. They don't just magically appear. In fact, the word; "evolution" according to evolutionists means "change." Therefore, evolutionists are claiming that the genes of one species can simply change into the genes of another species on their own which contradicts the natural breeding process.There are countless websites on the internet of scientists who are coming out against the theory of evolution. One such website is:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org.They see the impossibility of the theory and are now declaring it a hoax. But the tragedy is that since so many people cannot think things through on their own, they have to look to scientists to see what they should believe. So when these scientists declare evolution a hoax, then it remains to be seen how many people will stick with the evolution theory or follow the scientists. That will show how little faith people had in the theory to begin with.

Carico,You are already discussing this topic on another thread. You have been given multiple warnings about this sort of cross thread topic spamming. If you continue to derail multiple threads with the same questions then you will end up having your posting privileges suspended.TTFN,AW