Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

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

Thats funny, I would have thought that you actually having some evidence might have shown your rightness. I see that your reading comprehension of my work is as poor as I suspect your comprehension of Olson was. I don't know anything about Steve Olson's book outwith what you yourself have relayed to me.My objections were based on you petty claim that one needed a Ph.D. in order to 'count', compounded with your repeated pushing of quotes from Steve Olson as the be all and end all of Darwinism, when he doesn't have a Ph.D. and indeed his degree is in physics.I haven't 'abandoned' Mr. Olson, I know nothing about him, I have no reason to doubt that his book is an enjoyable popular science book on human origins. I also have no reason to doubt his understanding of evolutionary theory.All I have objected to is your presenting him as some sort of ultimate authority and claiming that you know what he is stating, even though it doesn't accord with the quotes you present. Please provide references from the primary literature to support your claim that this is the methodology used. Naturalism's conclusions can also be seen to support the divine, just not the demented.Where can we expect to see your paper published?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-Dec-2005 11:09 PM

Herepton, I directly and devastatingly refuted your assertion that differences in chromosome structure make common ancestry impossible here.I am still waiting for a response countering that refutation. I can only assume that your refusal to respond to my arguments in this thread are due to your inability to respond to them, and thus your argument has indeed been shown incorrect. Wow! So that's how facts are established! By the approval of random people in an online forum!If you think that the approval/disapproval you receive from anyone on this thread establishes scientific fact, then you have no idea whatsoever how science proceeds.

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

What? You disposed of me without using any evidence? Using only the power of your repetition of baseless assertions?You wouldn't rather actually come up with some evidence to support some of your claims?If you just plan to insult and evade everybody on the forum your stay here might be a short one.TTFN,WK

You do know that Herepton is WILLOWTREE right?His standard of evidence is essentially "I quoted this part of a book so it must be right". There's no concept of the book backing up the claim with evidence or anything like that.Oh and "you've had your God-sense removed like it says in Romans x.y so your worldview blinds you to the truth".Your Ph.D. has got no chance against that level of intellectual rigour.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

That sounds like the rules of Calvinball!

Rigour mortis, more like.

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

A more devestating response here might be to link to and/or copy some of the evidence that you have supplied. WK (and others) may not have noticed where you did this.Simple making an assertion that it isn't true does look very convincing given your past history. ( I just can't resist asking if you've learned to read a map yet. )

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

It's been tackled several times now, but I'm confused as to what you think this is saying. All your source is saying is that chimpanzees are less genetically similar to humans than humans are to humans. Are you trying to say that the source you posted doesn't actually agree with the conclusion you are trying to demonstrate?What you seem to be saying is that there are large genotypical distance between humans and apes. I agree, there is. The evidence of common ancestry lies in the relative distance from us compared with organisms which are morphologically less similar. The evidence comes from the astronomical number of ways that the DNA could be arranged to create any given chimpanzee, and how massively similar the two are given the number of ways they could be different. There's an absolute ton of literature on this, just hunt around for bioinformatics, the important thing lies in relative similarity - the genetic similarities confirm evolutionary pathways and relationships established through morphology and fossils. There is only one feasable and known mechanism for this - common ancestry/heridity.

So now we have a baseless claim that a completely irrelevant reference you provide, which you don't even seem to understand, is evidence in support of your previous baseless claim.I don't claim that reference might not be evidence, I don't disagree with what Olson says, it just isn't evidence relevant to any of the things we were discussing. you might recall that you brought that reference up on the, completely irrational, basis that it was the data I was talking about when discussing comparisons of human and chimp genomes, which it clearly wasn't.This entire bizarre arabesque riff about Steve Olson is completely irrelevant, all it is evidence for is your complete incomprehension of what we are actually discussing and your need for digression onto side avenues you think you can win some point over. No, it is a suggestion that common courtesy might be a better method to employ than confrontational bigotry, if having a productive debate rather than mere shit-kicking is your intended goal.I wasn't calling to the mods to rescue me, if I wanted to do such a thing I could do it in private by e-mail or on the Admin boards since I am a mod myself. I just know that you have been banned before and I think it would be better if you could self-moderate your approach to a level where productive debate might actually be possible. Are you suggesting that I personally did this to Salty? I don't recall our discussions going like that. I was always keen to engage Salty on the literature relevant to his hypothesis and to sugst to him papers which migh compliment or raise problems for his hypothesis, the only problem I ever had was that no matter what the papers said Salty always decided that they were supportive of his theories and that he became very reluctant to discuss how papers he refereenced as relevant recent research were suportive of his theories or to give us some idea of the other extensive current research whcih supported the PEH.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-Dec-2005 12:31 AM