99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!

[McBell]

I am afraid not. The organic entities which turned into the Wiener Schnitzel with French fries I am eating, were not there, either, I guess.

By the way, if me and the Wiener Schnitzel belonged to separate trees of life, why am I not poisend by that?

Ciao

- viole

um...
You evolved an immunity?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am afraid not. The organic entities which turned into the Wiener Schnitzel with French fries I am eating, were not there, either, I guess.

By the way, if me and the Wiener Schnitzel belonged to separate trees of life, why am I not poisend by that?

Ciao

- viole

Good point!

But anyway, this means you're only reporting what others say as well because you consider it the truth. Sounds familiar?

 

[ftacky]

Its been more than one month now and we are still waiting for more secularists to present their analysis of the chimp genome study. So far only a few have done so.

The rest of you have made many comments, which is fine, but NO ANALYSIS.

WHERE IS YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY?

Does this mean the rest of the secularists are simply putting their faith into what scientists say, without any critical analysis?

Please note, there is nothing wrong with using our faith, but what IS wrong is when we use faith and then actively DENY using faith which is what many secularists do. This is simply dishonest.

Matthew 10:33: But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.

 

[sayak83]

Its been more than one month now and we are still waiting for more secularists to present their analysis of the chimp genome study. So far only a few have done so.

The rest of you have made many comments, which is fine, but NO ANALYSIS.

WHERE IS YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY?

Does this mean the rest of the secularists are simply putting their faith into what scientists say, without any critical analysis?

Please note, there is nothing wrong with using our faith, but what IS wrong is when we use faith and then actively DENY using faith which is what many secularists do. This is simply dishonest.

Matthew 10:33: But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.

Your continuous refusal to respond to substantive posts makes most of us uninterested.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/99-chimp-dna-similarity-not.190528/page-3#post-4889805

 

[ftacky]

Its been way over a month and still no analysis from so many secularists who put their faith in whatever scientists say about our supposed relationship to chimps.

Has no others even read the study?

Here's a question I would like the answer to (assuming those who put their faith in studies like this actually have an interest in reading it before putting their faith in it):

Question: What was the total size of the chimp genome in the study? How many Giga base pairs?

Let's first look at the size/length of the human genome:

1) "The human genome contains 3164.7 (3.1 Gb) million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G)." (ref: Human Genome News, 2001)
2) "The human genome is 3.3 Gb in length." (ref: Integrated DNA Technologies, 2011)
3) "The nuclear genome comprises approximately 3 200 000 000 (3.2 Gb) nucleotides of DNA." (ref: Genomes,, 2nd edition, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, Manchester, UK, 2002, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)

So the human genome size is about 3.1 to 3.3 Giga base pairs.

Since the chimp genome study compared the human and chimp genomes side-by-side, how many Giga base pairs of chimp did they compare to the human 3.1 to 3.3 Giga base pairs? Anybody know?

Thank you.

Verse for the day:
Matthew 7: 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

 

[viole]

Good point!

But anyway, this means you're only reporting what others say as well because you consider it the truth. Sounds familiar?

Well, of course I consider it the truth. Just by simple observation. You could actually infer evolution, even without scientists around. That is what some philosophers did before Jesus.

Ever seen a gorilla? Or a chimp? Do you think us and gorilla, and the gorilla and the chimps, and us and the chimps, developed their undeniable common traits independently from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

What do you think are the chances of that? I would say they are vastly lower than the Universe arising by chance, as you guys would put it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well, of course I consider it the truth. Just by simple observation. You could actually infer evolution, even without scientists around. That is what some philosophers did before Jesus.

Ever seen a gorilla? Or a chimp? Do you think us and gorilla, and the gorilla and the chimps, and us and the chimps, developed their undeniable common traits independently from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

What do you think are the chances of that? I would say they are vastly lower than the Universe arising by chance, as you guys would put it.

Ciao

- viole

You're not millions of years old to give a valid observation in this regard. I'm sure of it. Unless... um, never mind. I mean, we're talking about an evolution of organisms, not of let's say video games or cartoons that could happen in a matter of just years. So I believe observation is valid here. Unless it is observation (reported) by other people; e.g. scientists.

Ever seen a bear (has legs, lungs, eyes, etc.)? A fish (has eyes)? A traffic light (has eyes)? A chair (has legs)? Do you really think us and them, and the bear and the fish, and us and the traffic lights, developed their undeniable common traits independently (examples above) from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so not credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

Considering something truth, observation and the rest of what you said... those exact same arguments apply to any other beliefs, ma'am.

Putting the universe arouse by chance? Who believes such a thing? That's something you guys think about us guys

 

[viole]

Ever seen a bear (has legs, lungs, eyes, etc.)? A fish (has eyes)? A traffic light (has eyes)? A chair (has legs)? Do you really think us and them, and the bear and the fish, and us and the traffic lights, developed their undeniable common traits independently (examples above) from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so not credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

I hope you are joking. Traffic lights have eyes? Chairs have legs? I am not aware of traffic lights that suffer from myopia or a walking chair.

I mean. Ever been to a zoo? Have you looked close to a chimp? Or a gorilla? Do that please and make a list of what we and them have in common. Even a child would associate a gorilla to a person, when presented with alternatives, including traffic lights, chairs and butterflies.

I am afraid you are left with three choices:

1) we are all related by deriving from a common ancestor
2) they developed naturally and blindly all those common characteristics independently and on completely different trees of life
3) God likes apes so much to make them the pinnacle of His creation

Considering something truth, observation and the rest of what you said... those exact same arguments apply to any other beliefs, ma'am.

You mean something like beliefs in Apollo?

Putting the universe arouse by chance? Who believes such a thing? That's something you guys think about us guys

I cannot imagine an aroused Universe. That could be dodgy

And what do you mean with by chance? Are you addressing probability theory and statistics? You mean we believe there is a sort of cosmic roulette that randomly decides whether to spit Universes with certain properties or no Universe at all?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I hope you are joking. Traffic lights have eyes? Chairs have legs? I am not aware of traffic lights that suffer from myopia or a walking chair.

I mean. Ever been to a zoo? Have you looked close to a chimp? Or a gorilla? Do that please and make a list of what we and them have in common. Even a child would associate a gorilla to a person, when presented with alternatives, including traffic lights, chairs and butterflies.

I am afraid you are left with three choices:

1) we are all related by deriving from a common ancestor
2) they developed naturally and blindly all those common characteristics independently and on completely different trees of life
3) God likes apes so much to make them the pinnacle of His creation



You mean something like beliefs in Apollo?



I cannot imagine an aroused Universe. That could be dodgy

And what do you mean with by chance? Are you addressing probability theory and statistics? You mean we believe there is a sort of cosmic roulette that randomly decides whether to spit Universes with certain properties or no Universe at all?

Ciao

- viole

Yet you completely ignored the bear and the fish

Yes, the lights of the traffic lights are called eyes in come language because they open and close (turn on and off), and chairs have legs to "stand up" on. But since you want to be so technical, I won't use any more inanimate examples. Birds have legs and flies have eyes, roses are red and violets are... ah... purple? Erm... why aren't they our... or rather, believed to be someones' own ancestors?

You seem to be fixated on monkeys only (you know what I mean, and I know you didn't say monkeys). Think out of the box and look at other creatures (or things) with features like ours.

No comment on Apollo. Don't wanna hurt Apollo believes

Uh-oh, I checked the meaning of "arouse"... sorry about that

Um, you mentioned "chance" first. It is only fare that you tell what you mean by it first

 

[viole]

Yet you completely ignored the bear and the fish

Yes, the lights of the traffic lights are called eyes in come language because they open and close (turn on and off), and chairs have legs to "stand up" on. But since you want to be so technical, I won't use any more inanimate examples. Birds have legs and flies have eyes, roses are red and violets are... ah... purple? Erm... why aren't they our... or rather, believed to be someones' own ancestors?

You seem to be fixated on monkeys only (you know what I mean, and I know you didn't say monkeys). Think out of the box and look at other creatures (or things) with features like ours.

No comment on Apollo. Don't wanna hurt Apollo believes

Uh-oh, I checked the meaning of "arouse"... sorry about that

Um, you mentioned "chance" first. It is only fare that you tell what you mean by it first

Well, of course I am fixated with monkeys. Or apes to be precise. We just have to go beyond the first hurdle, before addressing the more advanced ones.

If you had more problems to believe that we have a common ancestry with bananas than with gorillas, I would move a step forward towards bananas.

But is that so? My impression is that you have a problem with gorillas, too. So, one step at the time.

So, unless you agree that we and gorillas have obviously a common ancestor, my question still holds. What is more likely:

1) humans and gorillas share a common ancestor
2) they naturally and independently developed all their similarities on indipendent trees of life. I call this the Star Trek hypothesis, on account of aliens on that show looking like us (and being proficient in English)
3) God is so proud of apes design so much that He made the main target of His creation look like them more than like any other living thing

So, what is, in your opinion, more plausible? The Star Trek hypothesys maybe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well, of course I am fixated with monkeys. Or apes to be precise. We just have to go beyond the first hurdle, before addressing the more advanced ones.

If you had more problems to believe that we have a common ancestry with bananas than with gorillas, I would move a step forward towards bananas.

But is that so? My impression is that you have a problem with gorillas, too. So, one step at the time.

So, unless you agree that we and gorillas have obviously a common ancestor, my question still holds. What is more likely:

1) humans and gorillas share a common ancestor
2) they naturally and independently developed all their similarities on indipendent trees of life. I call this the Star Trek hypothesis, on account of aliens on that show looking like us (and being proficient in English)
3) God is so proud of apes design so much that He made the main target of His creation look like them more than like any other living thing

So, what is, in your opinion, more plausible? The Star Trek hypothesys maybe?

Ciao

- viole

We've been thru all of this before!

Just put "bear" instead of "monkey" is all of the above and see that it won't make a difference. You talked about observation, and it applies the same here. It is a good thing you confirmed being fixated with monkeys (and the title says chimp, not ape, by the way); proves the point I mentioned before that observation is not a valid argument here and that you indeed just report what others said and you liked. A simple google search gives results that even mice have 90% similarity to human DNA. I sure am not a descendant of mice. We are all creatures. It's normal to have whatever one likes to claim means they are related to them. Wanna believe you have a great monkey grand parent, be my guest. I'm not trying to prove anything here except that my view is this and that. It's your belief

 

[viole]

We've been thru all of this before!

Just put "bear" instead of "monkey" is all of the above and see that it won't make a difference. You talked about observation, and it applies the same here. It is a good thing you confirmed being fixated with monkeys (and the title says chimp, not ape, by the way); proves the point I mentioned before that observation is not a valid argument here and that you indeed just report what others said and you liked. A simple google search gives results that even mice have 90% similarity to human DNA. I sure am not a descendant of mice. We are all creatures. It's normal to have whatever one likes to claim means they are related to them. Wanna believe you have a great monkey grand parent, be my guest. I'm not trying to prove anything here except that my view is this and that. It's your belief

I am sure you are not a descendant of mice, either. You share a common ancestors with mice. A pretty close one, since you are both mammals.

And I do not believe that we and gorillas have a common ancestor. I never did. I do not believe that the sun is a star, or that Napoleon existed, either.

I use beliefs for other things. For instance, I believe that there is life on other planets, because there is no evidence of life on other planets. Once I have the evidence, I stop believing and start to know.

Same with evolution by natural selection. The evidence is so huge, that not accepting it can only be explained by a-priori beliefs (the ones that not enjoy the same evidence, not even closely), that blocks it.

It is the equivalent of insisting that the earth is flat because I wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book that claims that God created the earth flat.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am sure you are not a descendant of mice, either. You share a common ancestors with mice. A pretty close one, since you are both mammals.

And I do not believe that we and gorillas have a common ancestor. I never did. I do not believe that the sun is a star, or that Napoleon existed, either.

I use beliefs for other things. For instance, I believe that there is life on other planets, because there is no evidence of life on other planets. Once I have the evidence, I stop believing and start to know.

Same with evolution by natural selection. The evidence is so huge, that not accepting it can only be explained by a-priori beliefs (the ones that not enjoy the same evidence, not even closely), that blocks it.

It is the equivalent of insisting that the earth is flat because I wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book that claims that God created the earth flat.

Ciao

- viole

Great! Thank you for stating the obvious

The earth is flat? Who says so?

 

[gnostic]

*head, meet wall*

Hey...I missed that smiley.

 

[gnostic]

So you believe what others say without an understanding of your own. I get it. Many of us operate in a similar manner.

Here is what I suspect. Most people believe and /or accept the theory of evolution or big bang theories as fact, based on:

That's funny. Actually, this whole reply of yours, is hilarious because of the irony.

You believe and accept what the bible say, WITHOUT EVER directly receiving the "revealed" message from God himself.

You believe in the bible without understanding on your own. And you believe in the bible without getting the knowledge first-hand from god.

Everything you say about evolution and the Big Bang, can also be said about the bible.

Did you witness when god supposedly created everything, including that man was made directly from dust or woman from man's rib?

How do know these are true, when you didn't get this "understanding" on your own?

Actually, nothing written within Genesis, from the beginning (creation) to Joseph's death, was ever eyewitness account of the author(s).

I understand that there are traditions that Moses was attributed to being the author of Genesis, as well as few other books, but "attributed" doesn't mean Moses was the actual author.

In fact, there is no evidences to support that Moses ever existed, as real historical person, let alone writing anything during the late Bronze Age.

None of the writings from Genesis to Numbers appear in the Bronze Age, all evidences of authorship point to the Iron Age, and judging by some inconsistencies, these books weren't written by one person.

And yet, for some Christians, certainly not all, believe in the creation to be a literal event, not an allegory one. But such acceptance is actually nothing more than blind faith.

It certainly not direct knowledge.

 

[omega2xx]

If there was any doubt about the link and similarities, the fossil record matched with what we do know about genome sequencing pretty much takes care of that. And if there's any group that has continually misinformed the public it's theists.

Gotta go for now.

The problems are not about the similarities, it is about the differences. As long as DNA can identify the specific species, there is no scientific link between apes and man. There is also no fossil record linking apes to man, not one. If one can't be found in over 100 years, it is because there are none. If evolution was true, the great number of fossils would be intermediates and again you have none.

 

[omega2xx]

That's funny. Actually, the whole reply of yours, is hilarious because of the irony.

You believe and accept what the bible say, WITHOUT EVER directly receiving the "revealed" message from God himself.

Not true. The revealed message is in the Bible.

]You believe in the bible without understanding on your own. And you believe in the bible without getting the knowledge first-hand from god.

Again not true. I get my understanding by accepting that the bible is true. and the Bible is first-hand knowledge from God Himself.

Everything you say about evolution and the Big Bang, can also be said about the bible.

Again not true. There is no evidence for a BB, and you cant provide one example of a species being changed. I can prove more in the first chapter of Genesis, than you can in the whole TOE.

Did you witness when god supposedly created everything, including that man was made directly from dust or woman from man's rib?

Have you witnessed a species being changed by a mutation or by natural selection?

How do know these are true, when you didn't get this "understanding" on your own?

Getting our under standing from God is better than getting it from Darwin.

Actually, nothing written within Genesis, from the beginning (creation) to Joseph's death, was ever eyewitness account of the author(s).

Actually nothing written by Darwin from abiogenesis to the present was ever eye witnessed by anyone.

I understand that there are traditions that Moses was attributed to being the author of Genesis, as well as few other books, but "attributed" doesn't mean Moses was the actual author.

The author is irrelevant. Only what is says is relevant.

In fact, there is no evidences to support that Moses ever existed, as real historical person, let alone writing anything during the late Bronze Age.

Moses is irrelevant. We have what God said in writing. That is enough unless you have evidence is was not from God.

None of the writings from Genesis to Numbers appear in the Bronze Age, all evidences of authorship point to the Iron Age, and judging by some inconsistencies, these books weren't written by one person.
Adam's sons have the ability to write. His son Jubal started music. His son Tubal-Cain invented the forge and made implements of bronze(Gen 4:21-22). The bronze age started long before the secular world says it did.

And yet, for some Christians, certainly not all, believe in the creation to be a literal event, not an allegory one. But such acceptance is actually nothing more than blind faith.

It certainly not direct knowledge.

What is blind faith is believing matter created itself out of nothing and life arose from lifeless elements. Since you nor science can explain how that is possible, you need more faith than Christians do. Of course you may know how that is possible. Why not tell us why your opinion is better than mine.

Please include where all the matter and the energy that caused the BB came from.

 

[omega2xx]

Since some here seem to be 'believers' in the 95-99% similarity between chimps and humans, and assuming this is an easily verifiable scientific fact with tons of literature on the studies, would any of you 'believers' like to provide us with a "non-fringe" article specifically stating/claiming that ALL 3 BILLION base pairs of the COMPLETE genome of both chimps and humans were compared?

As long as scientists can take DNA and identify what it came from, your belief that man descended from apes is still only part of a failed theory.

 

[omega2xx]

Except that in order for there to be "intelligent design", there has to be objective evidence that such "intelligence" actually exists, and blind belief is certainly insufficient in establishing that.

In order not to accept ID, there has to be objective evidence that matter can create itself out of nothing and that life can originate from lifeless elements. Do you have any or do you just accept it by faith alone? I don't need faith to see part of God's creation. You need faith to accept how it happened.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God.

 

[Milton Platt]

Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution. This falsely implied that a COMPLETE genome of both was compared. This is a false claim on so many levels:

1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.

2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.

3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.

4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?

5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.

Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:

1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.

2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.

3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
"...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute


This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

For more info:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40441/title/Human-Gene-Set-Shrinks-Again/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/fresh-look-human-chimp-dna-similarity/

Can you tell me what the point of this ramble is?????