|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human - Chimp split 4 million years ago? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carson O'Genic Junior Member (Idle past 6142 days) Posts: 20 From: San Francisco, CA Joined: |
I'll try to steer back on topic here.
"And as far as the Chimp theory goes, what force was in place to decide so many chimps would become human and are there angry chimps out there because they weren't selected? If this force was evident then why doesn't it do it again?" 4 million years is the estimate for the common ancestor for chimps and humans. In that time chimps and humans have both evolved. My understanding is that there is not a lot of fossil record for chimps and apes, mostly due to the fact that animals that live in tropical forests are not as likely to fossilize well. If anyone knows of a good candidate for the common chimp/human ancestor I'd like to know. I've found Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis at wikipedia which are a bit older than 4 million years. Some of the Australopithecus species are about 4 million years old, so maybe they were the common ancestor or closely related. Either way, none of these fossil species are like modern chimps. Chimps did not become humans is the point. Second, the force that made us is still at work- natural selection. It laid waste to many species of humanoids, and probably a good number of apes, over the last 4 million years. Meanwhile today, humans are still breeding like mad and most of the apes are having a hard time surviving. Mother Nature can be a real bitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3845 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
quote: But it is obvious that in the posts you are quoting, the term theory is not given its common useage meaning, but its scientific meaning. That is: a theory is the the accepted best possible explanation of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? So does that mean that humans are chickens?
Yet that's the reasoning of evolutionists. They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share these things: 1)A heart2)A brain 3)A digestive system 4)A stomach 5)Arms and legs 6)A circulatory system 7)A nervous system 8)A reproductive system 9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth 10)An endocrine system Amd many MORE COMMON TRAITS THAN DIFFERENT TRAITS. But evolutionists say; "Duh, why do animals and humans have similar DNA. Dat must mean dat animals turned into humans, uh-huh, uh-huh." LOL Needless to say, that kind of impossible leap to conclusion only proves that evolutionists not only can't see WHY animals can't turn into humans, but it excludes the real reason why the DNA of anials and humans are so similar. So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you know that posting the same erroneous message you started with shows you haven't learned a thing? That is troll type behavior.
See responses to Message 68 for some comments relating to your claim here. Please note that you need to substantiate your claim with the evidence -- something you have not done -- and that without substantiation all you have are words blowing in the wind. Cite your sources.
...animals and humans have to share these things: 1)A heart 2)A brain 3)A digestive system 4)A stomach 5)Arms and legs 6)A circulatory system 7)A nervous system 8)A reproductive system 9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth 10)An endocrine system Sponge - Wikipedia
quote: You are so easily proven wrong about such a simple claim, could it be that your whole post is pure fabrication? This specifically was pointed out on the previous thread linked above, and your failure to learn from it is noted as troll behavior. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : sponges Edited by RAZD, : last p compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? So does that mean that humans are chickens? Source? I am a fan of comparative genomics to a certain extent. Here are the genes (amino acid sequences) for cytochrome b (not all of them complete): Human:MTPMRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL YSETWNIGIILLLATMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ WIWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIIAALAALHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD KITFHPYYTIKDALGLLLFLLSLMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP EWYFLFAYTILRSVPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAMIPILHMSKQQSMMFRPLSQSL YWLLAADLLILTWIGGQPVSYPFTIIGQVASVLYFTTILILMPTISLIENKMLK Mouse:MTNIRKTHPLFKIINHSFIDLPAPSNISSWWNFGSLLGICLMIQIITGLFLAMH YTSDTMTAFSSVTHICRDVNYGWLIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHVGRGMYYGSYT FMETWNIGVILLFAVMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTTLVE WIWGGFSVDKATLTRFFAFHFILPFIITALVIVHLLFLHETGSNNPTGLNSDSD KIPFHPYYTIKDILGVILMIMFLMTLVLFFPDLLGDPDNYTPANPLNTPPHIKP EWYFLFAYAILRSIPNKLGGVLALILSIMVLMLLPFLHTSKLRSLMFRPITQTL YWILVANLLVLTWIGGQPVEHPFIIIGQLASISYFSIILIFMPIAGIIEDSLLK FD Chimpanzee:MTPXRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL YLETWNIGIILLLTTMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ WVWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIITALTTLHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD KITFHPYYTIKDILGLFLFLLILMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP EWYFLFAYTILRSIPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAAIPVLHTSKQQSMMFRPLSQLL YWLLATDLLILTW Feel free to compare them yourself, I used some handy dandy software and it gave me: Human-Chimpanzee: 95.25%Human-Mouse: 76.19% Which would seem to contradict your statement. What evidence do you care to bring to the table?
They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share {list of things} Right - but that doesn't explain why the animals which the fossil record and morphology strongly agree with genetic evidence with regards to the degree of seperation between any two things. According to your reasoning - the marsupial mole would have very similar DNA with that of a placental mole. According to evolutionary reasoning they should be very different. We have done this test, and found that evolutionary reasoning gets the conclusion we see in reality. The fact is - that there are billions upon billions upon billions of different ways to genetically create any of the traits you described and the evidence is that if we compare genomes we end up with a nested hierarchy of relatedness which is astonishingly similar to what the fossil record would suggest.
So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions. The science of evolutionary biology is incredibly difficult. It would be best to admit that you don't understand it, rather than to suggest you know biology better than the biologists. That's my 2 cents anyway. Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed page width
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? Did you know that it's actually not, and that creationist websites regularly invent falsehoods and palm them off as truth?
They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share these things: The similarities we compare in the genome are similarities that appear in non-functional sequences; as a result, an explanation of concordinance from morphological similarity is eliminated.
But evolutionists say; "Duh, why do animals and humans have similar DNA. Dat must mean dat animals turned into humans, uh-huh, uh-huh." LOL Evolutionists are actually quite a bit smarter than you are. So much so that not only did they anticipate your "explanation", they were able to eliminate it by careful selection of exactly what kinds of sequences we wind up comparing. Common function would certainly explain some similarities in functional genetic sequences, and evolutionists are just as aware of this as you are. As a result, the regions where we compare similarities are in non-functioning sequences, and the only explanation for those similarities is common ancestry, which we observe universally to varying degree among all living things.
So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions. In fact, many evolutionists are animal and plant breeders; additionally, many of them have their own children and are thus intimately acquainted with human reproduction. Yet, they find that evolution and not creation is the most parsimonious explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth, at the same time that many of them are Christians. You might ponder why that is so rather than assuming that scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of living things somehow along the way never actually encountered one. The level of ignorance you assume among biologists is simply untenable. Your ignorance, on the other hand, is amply demonstrated every time you post. Don't you think it's about time you stopped saying stuff that's so fucking stupid and actually educate yourself about the science? Or are you convinced that all science, even that done by Christians (which is probably most of it) constitutes an atheist conspiracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Sorry, but since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!! So as jesus says; "HE who exalts himself will be humbled."
And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Your post is a simple assertion of what you think is fact. You do not support it. (Hint: find out what an "animal" is defined as in the biological context).
You don't answer any of the specific claims made in the post that you replied to. You have been told that several things are out right lies. You either agree with that, in which case a comment to that effect would be appropriate or you disagree in which case you should take each one and give facts and reasoning to support your disagreement. This is a chance for you to learn about biology and how to carry on a reasoned discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Do you know how many "scientists" in the 19th century devoted their lives to studying how bleeding can cure people??
Do you know how many "scientists" in the 19th century devoted their lives to studying why brain size determines intelligence?? Do you think that just because some people have devoted their lives to prove nonsensical theories, that makes their theories true? History has hown the opposite. So since one of the msot favorite phrases of scientists is; "We now know that what we once thought ws true is not true", then the ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNORANT are those who can't think for themslves but believe ANY prevailing theory in any generation no matter how impossible and ludicrous it is. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry, but since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!! What children know shouldn't be a benchmark of knowledge since they are so frequently wrong. However, in this case they are right - as are the biologists who state likewise (including evolutionary biologists). Of course animals can give birth to humans, and this is witnessed around the world many times a second. That is to say, humans are animals. However, many children know that animals can change into significantly different animals (caterpillar->butterfly for example) - but this is not evolution! Evolution is about changes to populations - and population changes are not something we should turn to children to discuss since children generally struggle with basic arithmetic. What evolutionary biologists know is that populations mostly remain the same, but slight pressures can quite quickly change the genetics (and appearance) of the population as a whole.
And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are. As a side note - baring what you said in mind, we should be careful what we teach children. We have to teach them some things of course, but we should be very sure of their veracity. Science gives us methods for quantifying the likelihood of some statement about the world as being true - so we take the likely things and we teach them to kids. We should avoid teaching them things that we cannot be sure are true since we have no way of quantifying their truth probability. After all - children cannot resist the stronger adults teachings as well as adults can. I take it you agree with the reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Exactly how this answers the post you are replying to continues to escape me. Could you take a bit more time and actually respond to the points made?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... animals don't turn into humans ... Sorry, but humans are animals. Denial of this basic fact of biology does not change the fact that humans are animals. We are also mammals and primates and apes.
This definition applies to humans. Animal - Wikipedia
quote: Note the last line in particular. We are discussing the biology of humans and chimps on this thread, this is a science thread, and we use the scientific meanings of words to discuss science. Human - Wikipedia
quote: And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are. Ah yes the world wide disinformation conspiracy concept again. Please respond to How can Biologists believe in the ToE?, where your presence is requested to deal specifically with the ramifications of this claim. Be prepared to submit facts to substantiate your claims (something you seem particularly unable to do).
... since even CHILDREN know that animals don't turn into humans, then evolutionists don't even know as much as children know!! Since evolution does not claim that animals "turn into" other animals, to say nothing of turning into humans, this is a straw-man argument, a falsehood, that even a child can comprehend leads to false conclusions. This too has been pointed out to you before. There are four basic reasons for posting false information:
We can also include delusional as a being between ignorance and insanity - in the context of having been mislead by others using false information that you then believe to be true because you trust those sources.
The test to distinguish ignorance (being deluded, a false belief, the state of being deluded) and insanity (fixed false belief resistant to reason or confrontation with fact) is the response to evidence that contradicts the belief in question. We can eliminate ignorance by the presentation of information, as has been done. That leaves stupidity, insanity and lying (malicious) as possible alternatives.
So as jesus says; "HE who exalts himself will be humbled." This thread is about the genetic difference between humans and chimps. Your original post was relevant to that topic, but this is not. You were asked to substantiate your claim (Message 18) "that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps" and you have not done so. This is a violation of forum guidelines. Please cite your sources for the DNA information. Failure to do so will be construed as inability to do so, with the implication that your claim is false and you know it. Please limit your posting to chimp and human DNA comparisons. That is the topic of this thread. Anything else will be construed as disruptive troll behavior. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Sorry but calling a human an animal because it's popular to do so no more makes a human an animal than calling a human a tree makes him a tree.
And these two statements: For years, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees was put at 98.5%. The figure was then revised down to less than 95%. And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans." But I notice that the variations in DNA differs all over the web depending on who you talk to. So since scientists don't know, then obviously, no one can know. But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You have a 4 hour suspension for not being able to follow suggestions.
And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans." It has been pointed out to you that this is incorrect. You have never backup up this assertion. That is one thing that is required here. You have a very short 4 hour break to work on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And these two statements: For years, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees was put at 98.5%. The figure was then revised down to less than 95%. And: "The similarities between mice and human DNA is 97.5 compared to 95 % between apes and humans." I repeat: what is your source? Either link a webpage or cite the relevant scientific journal article. Until you do so all you are doing is repeating an assertion that is unsubstantiated, and this is a violation of forum guidelines. This is the third time I have asked for this information, and the conclusion I have to reach is that you do not have substantiation and are intentionally posting false information (whether you know it to be false or not is another question). Failure to do so is a continued violation of forum guidelines.
Sorry but calling a human an animal because it's popular to do so no more makes a human an animal than calling a human a tree makes him a tree. Popularity has nothing to do with it. A human is a animal because it has the characteristics of an animal. I'll put it a different way: there is no characteristic of "animal" that doesn't fit humans.
But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century. This is off-topic. Again, your presence is requested on How can Biologists believe in the ToE? to discuss this absurd allegation of yours.
But I notice that the variations in DNA differs all over the web depending on who you talk to. So since scientists don't know, then obviously, no one can know. That would by why you should refer to scientific journal articles rather than websites, and also why you should pay attention to what specifically is being compared. When you look at structural DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 99% similar, but when you look at regulatory DNA elements the human and chimp DNA are 95% similar. Your source is probably comparing structural DNA between mice\chicken and human versus regulatory (or overall) DNA between chimp and human: this is apples and oranges. So pony up your source and lets see where the problem lies eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : anglois compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024