Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0618091572/104-3891083-2303158Steve Olson, "Mapping Human History" (2002)Page 16: "We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and
some of the banding patterns are subtly different.

​

On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
onto both ends, or some is missing."We also know DNA comparisons are a "tricky task." But since the above evidence is from a Darwinian source the matter is moot.Ray

Sorry for the long absence - I've been very busy writing my soon to be posted Internet article about Darwin and why the Emperor has no clothes. Whether chimp DNA and human DNA support ancestry claims.My Darwinian source has confirmed the alignments are at least 5 million years apart in difference. IOW, there is no match, unless of course you ignore the massive gap and assert it supports your claims anyway.Concerning your image:It is useless.Mine or your opinion concerning genetic and DNA issues and evidence is utterly worthless since the only views that count are men and women who have Ph.D.'s or are academicians qualified to speak and establish facts.Darwinist Steve Olson admits chimp and human DNA are as far apart as we are from 5 million years ago. Which begs the question: how far must the gap go until Darwinists consider the gap falsification of the claim ?Ray

Mark:The point is one of your own admits the similarities are at least 5 million years apart.IOW, they are disimilar. Now here is the kicker; presto.... 5 million years is exactly what we claim as to when the split occurred. IOW, only by outlandish assumption and you guys call it evidence.The Creationist model is better supported. Any similarity supports one Almighty Creator working from a common design.Your error is the assumption that similarity = evidence for the resolve. Its also called rhetoric.Human evolution is absurd - an extraordinary claim lacking any credible evidence much less extraordinary evidence.Ray

Hi DT !This is Ray Martinez/Willowtree I want everyone to know that Darwin's Terrier is my all time favorite Darwinist. He can be charmingly funny while he attempts to refute and tear you apart. I am very glad to hear from you DT !Where have you been ?How are you ?IF I remember correctly, the LAST time you and I mixed it up at another site....oh yeah....I remember....don't you ? DT...you DO remember don't you ? Tell me you remember what happened the last time we had intercourse ? The Creationist Model is:What the Bible says (when it is ascertained what that is) plainly corresponds with reality = fact.For example: Genesis says God created Adamkind = perfectly corresponds with reality. Can't see design ? The Bible explains why some cannot but that is another subject.Glad to see you DT. Oh yeah...I just remembered what happened the last time you and I debated.....as we say in America: "your secret is safe".RayPS: If you forgot just ask your friend Graculus - it was a three-way remember....we both took turns....remember ?LOL !RM/WTThis message has been edited by Herepton, 11-22-2005 05:15 PM

Lets get back to business.My Darwinian source (Steve Olson) admits chimp DNA and modern human are far from similar.But lets assume contrary to the evidence - that they are similar.How does similarity support the resolve (human evolution) ?I bet you and I are very similar from the shoulders down, yet we are not related in the slightest.I can post DNA evidence proving a Jewish Cohen lineage descends from Aaron the High Priest. This Priesthood ONLY EXISTS in a context of having been created and instituted by the God of Genesis/Exodus, which only exists in a context that declares the origin of living things was sudden supernatural special creation acts.Any objective non-prejudicial observer looking at both sets of data must conclude that the DNA evidence of the Aaronic Priesthood far out weighs any chimp/human DNA similarities; the latter then being ascribed to one Almighty Creator working from a common design = His m.o.But since chimp/human are not similar - the issue is moot and further proves a major Biblical claim and its context.Ray

Then neither does any alleged chimp/human DNA similarity. You cannot have it ONE way, this is called *special pleading*; also known as an exemption of evidence not meaning what it means at face value.If the Cohen lineage in question descends from the Aaronic Priesthood (and it does) THEN the only context that Priesthood exists in enjoys the benefit of the evidence. Atheists always ask for evidence proving Biblical claims. When it is posted they *special plead*. Fine. Then any Darwinist who asserts chimp/human DNA similarity supports apes morphing into men resolve gets the same treatment.You are also the person who asserted that if Christ rose from the dead as He predicted prior to His death that this miracle has no affect towards the veracity of anything else He said = astronomic illogic and nonsense. Although I will recognize that your illogical abilities are "system wide" since you actually believe apes morphed into men. You do believe in miracles - ones that support your worldview.Ray

Be assured the evidence I am alluding to is already posted in a human evolution debate by me over at Talk Origins.But we are NOT discussing the actual evidence, rather we are discussing what alleged chimp-human DNA similarity MEANS. I have already posted evidence from a Darwinian source acknowledging the similarities are at least 5 million years apart. How far apart must they go before we conclude not similar ? However, I have agreed to assume they are similar (whatever that really means). Then from this "concession" I seek to WEIGH this data against DNA evidence which supports a major Biblical claim - a claim that ONLY exists in a context that says God initiated and instituted.In response, Ringo has evaded and special plead, arguing DNA evidence which MIGHT prove the Biblical claim in question DOES NOT support the context from which it exists.Now I seek to engage you WK.My proposition:We assume chimp-human DNA is similar and it supports human evolution claims.We assume the Cohen DNA evidence confirms the Aaronic Priesthood - a Priesthood that was instituted by God - the only context that it exists in.We are assuming both are true.Now, which one outweighs the other IF both are true ?But we know chimp-human are not similar.What I want is an opponent to agree that if similarity is established, then the similarity of the Priesthood far outweighs a similarity 5 million years apart since the former is only several thousand at the most. If you don't you are special pleading like YEC do about the observed geological formations of the Earth not meaning an immense age of the Earth.Ray Martinez

Where is WK ?Time is ticking away....if he defaults I will then press my claims by engaging Pink Sasquatch.Ray

Trivialization of ultra-complicated scientific investigation. What you are alluding to, though, is the fact that "some human and chimp chromosomes cannot be visually distinguished from one another.":http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapOlson concludes: "These differences embody the evolutionary distance between our species. Our lineages have been separated for so long that the structure of our chromosomes has diverged. (page16). Or at face value NOT related unless human evolution MUST be true = philosophical conclusion acting like the difference is not a problem. How much farther must the differences be god fucking dammit ?On page 19 Olson declares the common ancestral spilt occurred between 4 and 6 million years ago depending on how one interprets his deliberately ambiguous terminology.He (like you) has assumed the "fact", THEN from this "fact" even 4 million years of chromosomal difference does in no way even suggest a falsification thought in his preprogrammed (brainwashed) evolutionary mindset. This is naturalist philosophy concluding for the resolve despite the evidence under the color of objective science.What preexisting objective standard is in place that lays out the parameters and criteria of what constitutes similarity for the resolve and vice-versa ?Everyone has an opinion....the only ones that count are persons with Ph.D.'s - we have to draw the line somewhere.Either identify yourself as such with confirmation or have a qualified source, otherwise you are enthroning subjectivism, which means I aint interested in talking with you.I have posted a Darwinian source who admits chimp-human are NOT similar. In response you are making claims without any source and have implied do-it-yourself DNA comparisons are as easy as cutting pie or piecing together a jigsaw puzzle: LOL ! Entire comment contains an assumption that predetermines the conclusion.You have assumed human evolution a fact - I stress assumed. Then from this "fact" the only thing left to do is find which animal has the most similarity = evidence for your "fact".Objectively pursued; enquiry must first establish what criteria constitutes evidence for the resolve and falsification of the resolve - not as you have defined it, that is the resolve is resolved and the blanks are filled in with whatever is closest. Epitome of special pleading.Deliberate nonsense. You have the ability to deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as your worldview needs them to be but DNA evidence confirming the Aaronic Priesthood/major O.T. claim does not support the claim = moronic atheist evasion.The O.T. says God called Aaron and his sons to be High Priests.That is the only context and source of the claim. The claim is now proven by modern science. The context of the claim (God instituted) is also supported.WK you are subjective and an idiot wasting my time.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical PaulinistThis message has been edited by Herepton, 12-08-2005 11:30 AM

Because you are a Darwinist, that is the Fundamentalists of Science - your disapproval of me only supports my rightness. Your approval would have shown my wrongness.I also am comforted to read you evaded everything I wrote = inability to refute, and have had to abandon one of your own (Steve Olson).Regardless, we know evolution claims/assumes the ancestral split occurred anywhere from 4 to 7 million years ago depending on who you trust as a source. It is calculated that one random mutation per every one thousand years = the difference in similarity of ape DNA and human using a 5 million year split figure. In other words, whatever the facts = proof of the resolve no matter how far apart and ridiculous.The point is human evolution is assumed - a previously decided philosophical assumption packaged as scientific fact so it is hopefully viewed as neutral objective science.My forth-coming paper will prove the Bible accounts for all of the evidence unlike Naturalism which claims neutrality to the Divine on one hand then allows its conclusions to be seen as falsifying the Divine on the other.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist

Pinkie:Now that WK is disposed of I will reply to you starting with your previous post to the one I am responding to here - ASAP.Ray

In other words, the Darwinian source of claim and evidence that I posted is not evidence. You are obviously confused. I made a claim and provided the source cite. This is why I ignore your posts Mangy.Ray

Dr. King you know this is not true. You know that I did as you have read it and disagree. To say its not there is dishonest. This is a Darwinist attempting to signal Darwinian Mods to deliver him or her a handicap victory and a face saving.You are also attempting to throw your perceived weight around because I will not accept your sourceless assertions as fact. This is how you "won" against JAD. If EvC says WK's assertions must be accepted as fact then I will comply and quit the debate as their will then be nothing to debate. Being a Darwinist your assertions will be entirely predictable at this point.Ray

I agree. Never said otherwise. Negative.The evidence CONFIRMS the veracity of a major Biblical claim.Once the evidence confirms the literal existence of the Priesthood - the only source for the Priesthood obviously benefits.The evidence says the Priesthood is true. The only source and claim for the Priesthood is in a context that God Himself instituted and ordained.The only correct OBJECTIVE view of all parties here is to say "score one for the Bible."If not you are special pleading, evading, spamming the debate with nonsense in order to poison the well etc.etc. If you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as your worldview needs them to be then this is much easier. The only context the fossils exist under is a culturally entrenched "preexisting story" (Henry Gee) that assumes human evolution is true. The Aaronic Priesthood only exists from a Biblical source and the Bible claims to be God's word. Pink: I have already MADE this point.Now I ask: with both being true which one outweighs the other ?AP only exists from a supernatural source having been called by God. Do you want me to post the O.T. verses ? To say the context should be separated is special pleading. Atheists ask for evidence proving the Bible and when it is given just read what you and WK say = nonsense (with all due respect).In reality I am not asking for your approval. The AP evidence confirms a major Biblical claim whether you guys admit or not. The claim also supports the existence of the Deity. To what degree is debateable but it DOES.Chimp-human DNA "similarity" is at least 5000, (thats five thousand) points different from human.Tell me by what objective preexisting standard constitutes similarity for the resolve and vice versa ? At this point you guys are saying whatever closest supports the resolve = resolve assumed true/conclusion predetermined.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 12-10-2005 12:17 PM

RAY: http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapSteve Olson, "Mapping Human History" (2002)Page 16:"We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and some of the banding patterns are subtly different.On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
onto both ends, or some is missing."RAY: http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapOlson concludes: "These differences embody the evolutionary distance between our species. Our lineages have been separated for so long that the structure of our chromosomes has diverged. (page16).WK: http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapWK: "You mean like the reference to the primary literature I have just provided, rather than a reference to a book written by a science journalist? Do you have some evidence to suggest that Steve Olson has a Ph.D? The blurb from his publisher states he has a BA in physics, so much for your much vaunted 'Darwinian source'."The LAST two links show WK knows about all 3 links above.My position is I have a Darwinian source. WK disagrees - okay. THEN he or she produces this post:WK: http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap....saying this: I conceded THAT claim and the Milton wolf skulls remember ?I am evidenced to be objective.Although I am almost ready to withdraw the LLM concession since my research has finally paid off. When I am ready I will PNT.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 12-10-2005 12:24 PM