Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Yes. You are correct. It confirms "a" claim of the Bible."A" claim. As in "one" claim - the claim that a patrilineal priesthood was started roughly 3000 years ago.It says nothing to the claim that God exists, nor does your following logic: Negative. Though the research suggests that the Priesthood exists, it does NOT IN ANY WAY suggest that the Priesthood was put in place by God, or that the "only" context for the Priesthood is through a supernatural being. Another, simpler source exists: culture. No supernatural force needed.Let me put it to you another way - Countless religons abound all over this planet, each with their own God(s), and their own religious leaders and history and texts.Presumably you think these other religons are false, and their followers are worshipping false Gods.But they have Priesthoods (or equivalents), so by your logic their Gods necessarily exist as well. Does every God exist that was ever worshipped with an organized religious leadership?

​

or

​

Do you understand how silly your jump from Priesthood to God is now? You didn't make whatever point you think you made.They are both true. Neither "outweighs" the other. That makes no logical sense.Human DNA is more similar to other human DNA than it is to chimp DNA, yes, but that is the prediction of evolution theory and does not negate the fact that human DNA is still similar to chimp DNA. WOW! You got me there. Since the human and chimp genomes are about 3,000,000,000 bases long - let's see - according to your numbers - human and chimp DNA is 99.99833% similar. Egads! Chimp and human DNA has nothing in common!!!In any case, you argued earlier that chromosomal structural differences make common ancestry of humans and chimps impossible. I suggest you respond to my previous post here, where I devastatingly refuted that point.Thanks.

I see you are still using this as evidence that chimps and humans cannot share common ancestry, even though I thoroughly refuted it here.More than one out of a thousand perfectly healthy human beings have a different chromosomal structure than their parents.By your assertion they therefore cannot be related to their parents.They are.Your assertion thus refuted.This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 12-10-2005 07:15 PM

That is much more like it. Thanks.It makes the different positions much clearer. We'll see what WK has to say about it.

I was aware of that reference, it just isn't a reference which refers to anything in the discussion.Herepton just assumed that reference, or the data upon which it drew, was the basis for my claims of available data on the similarity of chimp and human genomes, which of course they weren't.TTFN,WK

Since Hep seems to be confused about that maybe you can be clearer?

I interpret Olson as saying the genetic difference between chimps and humans BINGO is just where we claim the ancestral split occurred - 4 to 6 mya.IOW, Olson, a Darwinist, admits the "similarity" is THIS FAR APART. I then take this claim/fact and ask: how is this SIMILARITY ? IOW, as I have now repeated at least three times in violation of Forum rules; the resolve is assumed as fact; whatever facts prove the resolve = arguing in a circle. It should be a rule that if a point is ignored the reminding of it should not be an infraction.I am sorry I have to cut this reply short.Ray

In message #59 I provided a link to the full text of a paper from the Chimp Genome issue of Nature which discussed a number of different genetic comparisons extensively.In fact I'll give him a sentence from the abstract to replace his feeble Olson reference. I think that is a much more dramatic demonstration of the differences between humans and chimps than his measly karyotypic data and his '5000 points'. One more nugget for the quote mines. Its a very impressive number of differences, provided you know absolutely nothing about the sort of scales of genetic divergence expected according to evolutionary theory and observed in comparison to other organisms whose genomes have been sequenced.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-Dec-2005 01:05 AM

For the 2nd time:I already agreed the research says nothing about God - never did.I said the research proves a major Biblical claim. The context of the claim is a context where God instituted the AP. You have now evaded and misrepresented for the third time = proof evidence for God will never be recognized = atheist philosophy proving their claim to be open for evidence of God a lie and a sham.We have one atheist-Darwinist who thinks his assertions are evidence and a board full of Mods playing favorites and dumb.I am out of here leaving a group of Darwinists playing with themselves unable to have any meaningful debate. If apes morphed into men then there should be clear, abundant, and objective evidence for everyone to see. Instead hominid evolution is assumed (no evidence) supported by the Emperor's new clothes metaphor insulated by anonymous persons claiming to have Ph.D.'s.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 12-11-2005 02:51 PM

Actually, that is what Kumar and Hedges paper (that I referred to in my last post) is saying, supported with a paper outlining the methodology for drawing their conclusion.Olson was not presenting evidence for the Chimp-Human split. He was actually saying that no matter how similar it is said Humans and Chimps are, it is nothing compared with how similar even the most dissimilar humans are. Read the chapter from the book you reference, I promise you that is what he is saying.On page 14 he is talking about the characteristic Bush men of Africa.On page 15 he discusses the nature of some of these differences can be seen by looking into chromosomes and says that 'banding patterns' are basically the same for all people in the world (with some exceptions)On page 16, the page you quoted, he says that because of this, we find no clues to the Bushmen in the chromosomes. He then spends all of one paragraph saying that these banding patterns can be different from species to species, example, the Chimp, which whilst very similar to human chromosomes, contains some fundamental differences. After that he starts talking about DNA.On page page 17 he continues talking about DNA and comparisons (but the context is clearly human/human comparison, though he spends one paragraph talking about inheritance from our pre-human ancestors.Finally on page 18 he finishes his point about DNA and moves back to his original topic, Africa and the beginnings of homo sapiens.The paragraph on Chimps wasn't part of a developing argument about Human/Chimp divergence, it was merely used as an example to an aside/tangent. Ask anyone on these boards and they will that there is a gap between the genome of a Chimp and a Human. Naturally, the parts that are different are not the same. However, the majority of the genome is identical - the Chimp genome does display massive similarity to humans. Its not. The similarity is clear, most of a Chimps genome is identical to a humans. There are differences. Of all tested species, Chimps are the most similar, one can look at the next most similar and the next and the next, and so on - you will find the results from this experiment seem to be strikingly similar to the conclusions scientists reached from morphology, and follow the same pattern as the fossil record. Its quite fascinating really.

I haven't evaded or misrepresented at all, Ray. Only you have done that.Okay, let's say I agree. The existence of the Aaronic Priesthood means that God exists.Of course, than every other God, set of Gods, or Abstraction also exists that has a religious following with a priesthood-equivalent leadership.It's fine if you want to believe that "existence of Priesthood" = "existence of God", but then you must believe that a heck of a lot of different kinds of Gods exist. It is easier to cut-n-run for you than to stand up to simple logical refutation, I suppose. I engaged in honest debate with you - for that you cast aspersions, refuse to back up your points, and leave. Sad really.

Thought these advanced on-line reports in Nature Genetics are pertinent to this thread: Conrad, et.al.
Hinds, et.al.
McCarroll, et.al.Basically all three groups describe what seems to be a fairly significant amount of deletion polymorphism within the human population.I bring it up here because a common (illogical) criticism of human-chimp DNA similarility is that the percent similarity score dropped a few points when insertion/deletion polymorphisms were considered. The same is undeniably the case for comparisons within the human population, that is, when both sequence and indel polymorphisms are considered, similarity between two humans is lower than when only sequence polymorphisms are considered.note: Reply to WK simply because he's a human geneticist (I think) and would be most likely to have further analysis/comment.

Not me, you must be thinking of some other guy. Certainly Mammuthus is the man when it comes to ERV's.These reference show very nicely however that the sources of genetic distance within the human species are exactly the same sort as those between humans and chimps, they only differ in degree.TTFN,WK

Agreed - I have read the book.Enroute to his larger/target point that you have sufficently outlined above, Olson *admitted* how *disimilar* chimp-human DNA are, that is the disimilarities are actually in the range of the claimed ancestral split. Do you agree ? But he did incidentially. How is it not ?Here is what I see:A Darwinian element does not like how candid Olson is. He bluntly admits the similarities between c/h DNA are 5 million years apart. In response, the element here is involved in damage control. Why ? You all claim the split occurred 5 mya ? This purported objective scientific fact is DOA.It fails on philosophy alone: Resolve is assumed true (human evolution). Only thing left to do is discover which animal is most similar = proof of a philosophically accepted resolve. The assumption predetermines the conclusion.Ray

He discussed the dissimilarities, nothing ground breaking there. He doesn't really say that. He just says that our lineages have been seperated for so long that the chromosome structure has diverged. He didn't at all. He simply said humans and chimps have been diverged for so long that there chromosome structure has differences. That's not presenting evidence. An example of presenting evidence would be in the Kumar-Hedges paper I linked. Compare and contrast. Human and Chimp DNA has differences. Plenty of them. Everyone on this thread 'Darwinian' or otherwise is perfectly comfortable with this concept. Olsen is not saying anything dramatic or shocking. If he did do that, then I wouldn't see the problem. He didn't say that though, and I am baffled *see subtitle* as to why you think he does. He mentions no time frame for the divergence. I'm entirely baffled. You claim that an evolutionist says that the c/h split occurred 5 mya, you say other evolutionists agree. (He doesn't say that, but that's not too important right now.) So erm, what's your point? It is a perfectly testable fact. What percentage of a chimpanzees genome is the same as humans? If it is more than 50%, then my purported fact that 'most of a Chimps genome is identical to a humans' is not dead.Tell me the identity of a species that has more a similar genome to us, if you can my purported fact that 'Of all tested species, Chimps are the most similar' would be falsified.Show me it is DOA, it is easy if you are right. If evolution occurred then the species most like us morphologically should share not only morphological dna similarities but non-morphological dna similarities too. Things which are closer related in morphology (fossil record helps here) should be closer related genetically.All primates share more similar DNA with one another than they do with other mammals, all mammals share more similar DNA with one another then they do with reptiles. Reptiles are likewise more similar to one another genetically than they are to amphibians. And so on. And one need not just look at such large groups. The same test can be done on sub groups, cetaceans, marsupials (Kangaroos DNA is closer genetically to a marsupial mouse, than the marsupila mouse is to a placental mouse) , carnivores, snakes etc. Simply not the case, the hypothesis (human/chimp divergence) leads us to a test. The conclusion of the test in this case strengthens the hypothesis. Am I mistaken in thinking this is straightforward science?

I completely agree, and have, through-out this entire discussion. Which leads me to ask why YOUR Darwinian brothers (WK/Pink S.) have resisted this self-evident point in the Olson text ? In context Olson does. A few pages forward from the 16th he lists the sequencial facts of hominid evolution, including the ancestral spilt 4 to 6 million years ago. Herein is the problem: suddenly, evidence is only that which is written in a scientific paper. Olson's book is not a work of fiction (even though we Creationists know it actuallly is); it is work of claimed evolutionary facts. Anyone can disagree, but to say it is not evidence creates a host of problems for your position. I am quite surpised to see you take this ignorant position. Please do not be offended since the only other option besides ignorance is wickedness.ToE CLAIMS to be ***public revelation**** available for everyone to see and confirm. By deferring evidence as existing only in the primary sources is saying the contents of such papers has never been re-communicated to the public via a book like Olson's. The point is that what Olson has written, at some point and place, originated from papers. I am baffled that you cannot understand this. Again, I agree which begs the question as to why other Darwinian debaters have portrayed themselves resisting these well known facts ? Now you have retreated back.The context of the chromosomal difference is the conclusion a few pages later declaring the time frame of the ancestral spilt 4 - 6 million years ago. My point: the disimilarity or similarity of c/h DNA is at least 4 million years apart = disimilar is more accurate description. Yes, you are mistaken. Darwinism/ToE is not science. It is packaged as science attempting to objectify atheist philosophy. You guys philosophically assume the resolve is true. Assumptions are not evidence. Then from the "fact"/assumption assert whatever facts exist = support of the resolve/assumption = all conclusions are predetermined. I sense you have very little philosophical training, although you are the most reasonable and honest Darwinian debater I have come across in quite some time.Ray