Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 241 of 244 (283311)
02-01-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Cold Foreign Object
02-01-2006 6:35 PM


Relative gaps
The debate has accepted human and chimp DNA to be 97 to 98 percent similar.
Left as is - this fact is very deceiving since the debate has also accepted the disparity to represent 5 MILLION years since the hypothetical split.
The debate accepted that 5 million years is an evolutionists figure, and it has accepted that the evolutionary time frame is 4 billion years. It has been established, and not refuted, that 5 million is 99.9% of 4 billion, and that makes it very close in time indeed...relative to the age of life on earth.
But you are almost right when you say:
Left as is - this fact is very deceiving
It isn't very deceiving but it is not enough information. I compared the cytochrome b protien coding sequence in the DNA of various organisms. Here are the results I got for human comparisons:
quote:
Human-Chimpanzee: 95.25%
Human-Marsupial Mouse: 76.46%
Human-Kangaroo: 75.93%
Human-Alligator: 64.91%
This gives us an indication of evolutionary distances. Chimps are closer to us than mice than kangaroo than alligator, as predicted by the evolutionary model based on cladistics. This data is very simple, but it demonstrates the basic principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-01-2006 6:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
No crutch required
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 244 (283343)
02-02-2006 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Cold Foreign Object
02-01-2006 6:05 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
Herepton said "why must design be re - explained"?
Because it is'nt science, just a opinion driven by blind faith.
Science only results following rigourous investigation and general peer agreement.
Scientists did'nt give up when they had no understanding of electricity, they kept on experimenting to get at the truth. According to ID style 'science' those early scientists might just as well have said 'electricity results from ID because we cant find all the answers yet'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-01-2006 6:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5085 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 243 of 244 (283370)
02-02-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Cold Foreign Object
02-01-2006 6:35 PM


Re: What the Gap Means
Your constant repeat of the 5 MYA figure and your claims that it is contradictory to human-chimp similarity is highly deceptive. It falls quite in line with the expected time scales predicted by evolutionary biology. How is it inconsistent, exactly? I'm looking for something more than your personal incredulity here.
quote:
We also know the human female reproductive mechanism emits a scent that only attracts the sperm cells it was designed to attract: it cannot be fooled as is seen in the fact that a female has never been impregnated by an animal/ape. This scent mechanism could not have evolved step by tiny step. No Darwinist has ever produced one shred of evidence to base an argument on as to how a scent mechanism could have evolved, and been retained by selection while having absolutely no use. How did the female extend the genus unless it always worked ? I am sure the mechanism of science fiction (imagination), utilized by Darwinists, can invent something to explain away this fact.
  —Herepton
This, again, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I personally haven't studied sperm/ova interactions from an evolutionary perspective (as I doubt that you have), but if it's true that we don't yet have an explanation for how it evolved, that does not mean that a valid explanation is impossible.
quote:
Co-founder of Evolution - Wallace, departed from Darwin and said man could not have evolved from apes because the gap between our respective intelligences is far to great unless Mind was involved.
  —Herepton
This is another falsehood that gets propagated through the creationist websites. Wallace firmly believed in and defended the concept of human evolutionary descent from other species until his death. Where he diverged from Darwin was that he didn't think that natural selection alone could explain humankind's development of morality and intellect. Not that this development was inconsistent with the ToE; but rather that it was not addressed by it, in Wallace's opinion. Here's an interesting essay on the topic: Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay
Of course, that's a response to your argument from authority, which is fallacious; in modern times we don't accept evolution because Darwin or Wallace accepted it, but rather because of the evidence supporting evolution (and the lack of evidence contradicting it).
This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-02-2006 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-01-2006 6:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 244 of 244 (283923)
02-04-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object
01-31-2006 9:25 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
quote:
From the nature of error, the conception of which, as we have observed, includes as an essential element besides falisty the appearance of truth, there results the following important rule for the truth of our knowledge. In order to avoid errors - and no error is absolutely unavoidable, although it may be relatively so in cases where we cannot avoid judging even at the risk of falling into error - in order , then, to avoid errors we must try to discover and explain their source, namely, semblance.
quote:
I Kant Introduction to Logic p 47
If Mayr had used the analogy of the lethal in Lerner’s comparison between genetic and organismic homeostasis
EvC Forum: Is genetic homeostasis a barrier to 'macro' evolution?
then Wright’s reading of homeostasis
EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
remains but Mayr only expressed a semblance. I would have to verify this from Mayr’s writing directly. It is possible Mayr was operating with a different concept that lead him to misdegrade homeostasis. I have not investigated that directly however it appears Mayr was off the mark.
I will try to show how the two "squares"(or rectangles) I drew here
can retain where Mayr may have misentrained a discreteness that actually is the continuity of the butterfly catastrophe,
Butterfly Catastrophe -- from Wolfram MathWorld
Pages perso Orange - Domaine obsolte
thus providing a statistical breach that may be causal but might be an artifact of trying to dissect morphologies with cardinal rather than ordinal numbers. I will pick this up either in the thread on original sex or genetic homeostasis or in a thread on Wright.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-04-2006 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 9:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024