Humans and Chimp, its True...

[Gabethewiking]

I am okay with this, but just so you know, I will have to ignore my own personal beliefs and have an open mind. I am willing to do this and accept the hypothesis as stated. I can use my imagination and say that there is no Bible or creator for now and I can see myself coming to the same hypothesis as you given that scenario. So, Hypothesis is accepted.

No MoF, you would not have to ignore any belief in a Creator or other beliefs you may have, this is a mere Hypothesis of the real world, your personal beliefs are irrelevant and if you feel you need to "throw out" some belief you have perhaps this is a sign that you believe in things that does not fit the world you live in. Either way we make no claims of gods, ufos or other things, I made a basic Hypothesis about our common descent.

This science isn't as hard as I thought it would be.

Perhaps you should not have biased views of things you do not know anything about and try to learn as much as possible about it before forming an opinion. This of course is just my suggestion.

I can see now how Darwin was able to do it without a scientific degree.

Charles Darwin came to his conclusion about the world by years of study of the world he lived in as well as he had to fight, possible similar to you, against the believes he was told to have versus what he learnt about the real world.

So we want to test our hypothesis. We want to test that a human and a chimp are cousins. How do you propose we do that?

There is many ways we could do that, I will take this chance to ask you MoF, with respect, how do you think we could possible Test claimed Hypothesis? Any ideas of what would falsify it and what would confirm it?

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

But it's true, anyone can do science. It's not about your degrees, but about the quality of your work--your methodology. If you use good methodology, your conclusions can be accepted.

I read about a single mum here in the UK, she had little by way of science education but what she did have was an over grown back garden, and she decided to explore its contents, turned out in the end that she found in the region of eight new species of insects,
In a place as well trodden as our islands it seems like there is little left to discover, but a bored mum with a set of pruners and a mothers patience proved that wrong.

I am no expert but I am willing to bet that there is a very healthy long list of great "scientists" through history that had little formal education in the subject, thing is that science is an endless very broad word for many, many things.
I think it very likely that if a human lives a decent length of life they will have done scientific research many times and probably not known it, even if its simple processes.
Science is as much a part of the day to day human fabric of life as anything imho.

To Man of Faith, you are my Christian brother and God willing I would look forward to spending an eternity getting to know you better, I am sure you are better educated than I am as it would be pretty hard not to be, but your understanding of evolution seems very limited, limited to a degree where by you are making me feel smart, which is never a good sign.
You need to understand what evolution is, what it does and does not do, and how it does what it does.
Added to that the extreme scrutiny it has endured over the last 150 years and the many strands of scientific evidence that back it up.
There is a YouTube User named DonExodus2 (a fellow christian) who has made lots of vids on the topic, really good and easy to follow, I advise you to watch them.
Infact anyone can learn atleast one thing from them.
Also there is another user call Aron-Ra, now he has a string of videos about YEC claims and religion in general but better than these is a series about a fossil lemur named Ida.
All the best NE

 

[Autodidact]

MoF:

Let's start here. Do you agree or disagree that populations can change over time? For example, the turkeys we breed and eat today are very different from the wild turkeys that Europeans first encountered when they came to America:

The corn we eat today

is quite different from ancient wild corn:

.

And so forth. You agree?

 

[Man of Faith]

No MoF, you would not have to ignore any belief in a Creator or other beliefs you may have, this is a mere Hypothesis of the real world, your personal beliefs are irrelevant and if you feel you need to "throw out" some belief you have perhaps this is a sign that you believe in things that does not fit the world you live in. Either way we make no claims of gods, ufos or other things, I made a basic Hypothesis about our common descent.



Perhaps you should not have biased views of things you do not know anything about and try to learn as much as possible about it before forming an opinion. This of course is just my suggestion.



Charles Darwin came to his conclusion about the world by years of study of the world he lived in as well as he had to fight, possible similar to you, against the believes he was told to have versus what he learnt about the real world.



There is many ways we could do that, I will take this chance to ask you MoF, with respect, how do you think we could possible Test claimed Hypothesis? Any ideas of what would falsify it and what would confirm it?

Well we have to test with an experiment in order follow the scientific method. I will have to do some research on this because this is probably the toughest part of doing science, the testing part. Let me see what I can come up with.

 

[Autodidact]

Well we have to test with an experiment in order follow the scientific method. I will have to do some research on this because this is probably the toughest part of doing science, the testing part. Let me see what I can come up with.

NO YOU DON'T. At least, not strictly speaking. You test by making a prediction about something you will observe only if your hypothesis is true. This could be an experiment, or an observation in the natural world.

Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[29] from the hypothesis or theory)

In any case, you don't have to think up a new experiment, when so many have already been done. Here's a wonderful one we can discuss. That is, if you're really interested in experimental evidence that supports ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

ManofFaith: You owe us:
A source for your statement that 98% of fossils have been found, or 98% of all life forms represented in fossils, or whatever you are saying about fossils. Your other option would be just to admit and retract your error.

That information again, the one that is reduced in dog breeds? What is that?

 

[Gabethewiking]

Well we have to test with an experiment in order follow the scientific method. I will have to do some research on this because this is probably the toughest part of doing science, the testing part. Let me see what I can come up with.

As Autodidact points out, "No you do not", but as we are flexible and everything seem to go fine so far I do not want to hinder our exchange as we are slowly going through selected processes and doing our best in this basic highschool type experiment.

Autodidact, I will draw the assumption that MoF understands that reasoning and logical deduction is part of making a type experiment, this was the main reason I asked him to specifically come up with a way of falsifying my Hypothesis.

Back to you MoF, this would give you a chance to, just as happens in real life, to question my claim by basic tests, does it hold up to known facts and current knowledge we have? What information do we have and do anything contradict my Hypothesis, what would flunk it and so on?

 

[Man of Faith]

As Autodidact points out, "No you do not", but as we are flexible and everything seem to go fine so far I do not want to hinder our exchange as we are slowly going through selected processes and doing our best in this basic highschool type experiment.

Autodidact, I will draw the assumption that MoF understands that reasoning and logical deduction is part of making a type experiment, this was the main reason I asked him to specifically come up with a way of falsifying my Hypothesis.

Back to you MoF, this would give you a chance to, just as happens in real life, to question my claim by basic tests, does it hold up to known facts and current knowledge we have? What information do we have and do anything contradict my Hypothesis, what would flunk it and so on?

I'm making progress on this issue. Of course we have both studied this extensively and the claim is that DNA proves humans and chimps are related. So that should be the area we test, DNA. Nobody knows what percent human and chimp DNA would be similar if evolution were true so we have a problem. Right now I am seeing some confusion as to what percentage chimp and human DNA is similar. I have seen anywhere from 95-99%. Do you have any updated information on that? I'm not sure if that will help me with my testing ideas but I am interested to see that.

I am seeing that human to human DNA is less than one-tenth of one percent different, about 3-million pairs, so the bar is pretty high for relationship. Like I said I am making progress but this could take some time to work out the testing needed to finish our experiment.

 

[johnhanks]

What design principle lay behind humans and chimps possessing an identically broken vitamin C gene?

Still waiting. What a surprise.

 

[footprints]

Well, what do you think? Has science contributed to our understanding of the world, the planet, the universe, atoms, electricity, our bodies, this computer...or not?

In about as much as the lay person has Auto.

 

[Man of Faith]

Okay Gabe, I think I have it sorted out on what testing we should do for the testing part of our scientific method. These are all areas of DNA mapping. With humans we test the two parents to determine relationship with the children. With cousins we would test the siblings of the parents to match DNA relationships. With that in mind I have outlined the DNA testing that we should perform in order to determine relationship between Chimp and Human. Let me know what you think.

1) We should test the DNA of the creature before the split of human and chimp. From the chart that you provided below it would be where it points to the common ancestor of human and chimp. That will give us a common DNA map of where we both came from.
2) We should test the DNA of each creature just after separation into different directions to compare to the common ancestor. Your chart shows the human lineage separating from the common ancestor at a point, we should test the DNA of that creature and the DNA of the creature of the chimp just after separation.
3) We should test the DNA of the creature that does not split off from the common ancestor. On your chart there is an arrow moving up between the chimp and human so we should test that creature.
4) We should test the DNA of the creatures along the line of evolution and before the creatures become chimp and human. As they continue to evolve and before they get the chimp and human we should be able to get some valuable DNA maps.
5) We should test the DNA of the creatures that were just before they became human and chimps.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay Gabe, I think I have it sorted out on what testing we should do for the testing part of our scientific method. These are all areas of DNA mapping. With humans we test the two parents to determine relationship with the children. With cousins we would test the siblings of the parents to match DNA relationships. With that in mind I have outlined the DNA testing that we should perform in order to determine relationship between Chimp and Human. Let me know what you think.

1) We should test the DNA of the creature before the split of human and chimp. From the chart that you provided below it would be where it points to the common ancestor of human and chimp. That will give us a common DNA map of where we both came from.
2) We should test the DNA of each creature just after separation into different directions to compare to the common ancestor. Your chart shows the human lineage separating from the common ancestor at a point, we should test the DNA of that creature and the DNA of the creature of the chimp just after separation.
3) We should test the DNA of the creature that does not split off from the common ancestor. On your chart there is an arrow moving up between the chimp and human so we should test that creature.
4) We should test the DNA of the creatures along the line of evolution and before the creatures become chimp and human. As they continue to evolve and before they get the chimp and human we should be able to get some valuable DNA maps.
5) We should test the DNA of the creatures that were just before they became human and chimps.

And while we are at it, we should test the DNA of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.....

That would be just as unlikely as what you propose. As DNA breaks up and is contaminated over time.
However, since DNA is passed on to modern humans and chimps from their common ancestors, that can be tested. Particularly viral pseudogenes that lose their ability to function millions of years ago, and mitochondrial DNA that are passed on to all common descendants. From this most recent common ancestor (MRCA) comes traces of genetic material that can be found in humans, chimps, and bonobos.

So, although your proposed test is an effort in futility, we can (and have) use current DNA to trace our ancestery back to our MRCA with chimps, and see the commonality in descendant DNA.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I read about a single mum here in the UK, she had little by way of science education but what she did have was an over grown back garden, and she decided to explore its contents, turned out in the end that she found in the region of eight new species of insects,
In a place as well trodden as our islands it seems like there is little left to discover, but a bored mum with a set of pruners and a mothers patience proved that wrong.

I am no expert but I am willing to bet that there is a very healthy long list of great "scientists" through history that had little formal education in the subject, thing is that science is an endless very broad word for many, many things.
I think it very likely that if a human lives a decent length of life they will have done scientific research many times and probably not known it, even if its simple processes.
Science is as much a part of the day to day human fabric of life as anything imho.

To Man of Faith, you are my Christian brother and God willing I would look forward to spending an eternity getting to know you better, I am sure you are better educated than I am as it would be pretty hard not to be, but your understanding of evolution seems very limited, limited to a degree where by you are making me feel smart, which is never a good sign.
You need to understand what evolution is, what it does and does not do, and how it does what it does.
Added to that the extreme scrutiny it has endured over the last 150 years and the many strands of scientific evidence that back it up.
There is a YouTube User named DonExodus2 (a fellow christian) who has made lots of vids on the topic, really good and easy to follow, I advise you to watch them.
Infact anyone can learn atleast one thing from them.
Also there is another user call Aron-Ra, now he has a string of videos about YEC claims and religion in general but better than these is a series about a fossil lemur named Ida.
All the best NE

I'm sure you are educated as well. My dad only had a sixth grade education and was one of the wisest and smartest men I've ever know. I'm probably being biased though because he was my dad. Where he lacked formal education he made up for it in street smarts and common sense. He was an excellent family man, provider and mentor. So don't put yourself down.

As far as DonExodus2...you're right. He's great and I think I've seen all of his vids. There are a few others on youtube who are great as well.

 

[Gabethewiking]

With that in mind I have outlined the DNA testing that we should perform in order to determine relationship between Chimp and Human. Let me know what you think.

Yes, I am very disappointed MoF.

I am interested in how you came to the conclusion that this is the way of determine the relationship between Humans and Chimpanzees, what was your thought pattern? How did you go through this? The reason I am asking is that we do not know the Animal(s) that our Chimpanzee and Human Ancestor came from, I can accept that you would not be aware of this but would also be very surprised. You just gave an entire 5 point scheme of how to test the Hypthesis without knowing that it is based on the lack of your knowledge of what remnants we have found.

This is really bad MoF, I assumed you would atleast find out some basic knowledge of this, you said earlier you would be doing some research on this and now you come with this? What happened?

1) We should test the DNA of the creature before the split of human and chimp. From the chart that you provided below it would be where it points to the common ancestor of human and chimp. That will give us a common DNA map of where we both came from.

How are you to find this 'Creature'?
I do not know about it, but I admit possible ignorance, please supply a link to the finding and if we have derived a DNA string from it.

2) We should test the DNA of each creature just after separation into different directions to compare to the common ancestor. Your chart shows the human lineage separating from the common ancestor at a point, we should test the DNA of that creature and the DNA of the creature of the chimp just after separation.

See above.

3) We should test the DNA of the creature that does not split off from the common ancestor. On your chart there is an arrow moving up between the chimp and human so we should test that creature.

Ah, I am happy you asked me that, it took awhile. My wife asked me the exact same thing and I was delighted (it was the first questions she asked), she did put it in a more appropriate way, she asked me: "Is this line Important?"

No MoF, this is just a graphical representation, this line does not really exist, in reality, it is a maze of Arrows constantly dividing. Evolution does not have a specific path or a plan. These are used to explain in as simple form as possible how the Branchings of Animals are, for us to give labels so we can define things in the first place. Do you understand?

4) We should test the DNA of the creatures along the line of evolution and before the creatures become chimp and human. As they continue to evolve and before they get the chimp and human we should be able to get some valuable DNA maps.

And how would you define when the none-chimp becomes a chimp, and when the none-human becomes human? What is your bechmark for this?

5) We should test the DNA of the creatures that were just before they became human and chimps.

What is your benchmark for what a human and chimp is, and what is your way of deciding what would be a none-chimp compared to a chimp?


I mentioned this in my initial post so I am very surprised to see it now, so late on.
From my initial post:

During one period, our Ancestor was "Not-Human" and then became "Human". This is mere labels we use to define things and does not work between one, two or even thousands of generations, but millions. One time the change had become so much that we no longer defined it as "None-Human" but as "Human".

 

[Man of Faith]

And while we are at it, we should test the DNA of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.....

That would be just as unlikely as what you propose. As DNA breaks up and is contaminated over time.
However, since DNA is passed on to modern humans and chimps from their common ancestors, that can be tested. Particularly viral pseudogenes that lose their ability to function millions of years ago, and mitochondrial DNA that are passed on to all common descendants. From this most recent common ancestor (MRCA) comes traces of genetic material that can be found in humans, chimps, and bonobos.

So, although your proposed test is an effort in futility, we can (and have) use current DNA to trace our ancestery back to our MRCA with chimps, and see the commonality in descendant DNA.

Thanks for your input but we are in a controlled scientific method experiment at this time. I can't go off half cocked chasing down something that is not part of this experiment. Scientists cannot get distracted by rumor, speculation and inuindo while busy working. If our experiment fails we can decide what is next.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thanks for your input but we are in a controlled scientific method experiment at this time. I can't go off half cocked chasing down something that is not part of this experiment. Scientists cannot get distracted by rumor, speculation and inuindo while busy working. If our experiment fails we can decide what is next.

It is your methodology that has failed.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm making progress on this issue. Of course we have both studied this extensively and the claim is that DNA proves humans and chimps are related. So that should be the area we test, DNA. Nobody knows what percent human and chimp DNA would be similar if evolution were true so we have a problem. Right now I am seeing some confusion as to what percentage chimp and human DNA is similar. I have seen anywhere from 95-99%. Do you have any updated information on that? I'm not sure if that will help me with my testing ideas but I am interested to see that.

I am seeing that human to human DNA is less than one-tenth of one percent different, about 3-million pairs, so the bar is pretty high for relationship. Like I said I am making progress but this could take some time to work out the testing needed to finish our experiment.

It depends on what you count, what measure of similarity you're looking at, so anything from 95-98% is correct.

But I think you're starting at the end of the story. I really think you would benefit from grasping what ToE is, basically, and why DNA is so important to it. Are you ready to learn?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay Gabe, I think I have it sorted out on what testing we should do for the testing part of our scientific method. These are all areas of DNA mapping. With humans we test the two parents to determine relationship with the children. With cousins we would test the siblings of the parents to match DNA relationships. With that in mind I have outlined the DNA testing that we should perform in order to determine relationship between Chimp and Human. Let me know what you think.

1) We should test the DNA of the creature before the split of human and chimp. From the chart that you provided below it would be where it points to the common ancestor of human and chimp. That will give us a common DNA map of where we both came from.
2) We should test the DNA of each creature just after separation into different directions to compare to the common ancestor. Your chart shows the human lineage separating from the common ancestor at a point, we should test the DNA of that creature and the DNA of the creature of the chimp just after separation.
3) We should test the DNA of the creature that does not split off from the common ancestor. On your chart there is an arrow moving up between the chimp and human so we should test that creature.
4) We should test the DNA of the creatures along the line of evolution and before the creatures become chimp and human. As they continue to evolve and before they get the chimp and human we should be able to get some valuable DNA maps.
5) We should test the DNA of the creatures that were just before they became human and chimps.

No, that's not necessary. If we want to figure out whether a given woman is my grandmother, we don't have to test my mother, just her and me. If we want to test whether someone is my cousin, we just test me and the putative cousin. Similarly, you can just test us and chimps and determine the degree of similarity.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks for your input but we are in a controlled scientific method experiment at this time. I can't go off half cocked chasing down something that is not part of this experiment. Scientists cannot get distracted by rumor, speculation and inuindo while busy working. If our experiment fails we can decide what is next.

It's not complicated. ToE + genetics predicts that if humans and chimps are closely related, they will:
(1) have more than 95% of their genes in common.
(2) have certain "copying errors" that come from events that happened in a common ancestor.

Those are the predictions we can generate from a hypothesis of a close relationship. Do you agree? If not, why not?

But, as I say, I think you'll be able to work with a theory a lot better if you understand what it says, so I would start there.

 

[Autodidact]

So, MoF, I asked you some specific questions.
Do you agree that domesticated animals and plants, (e.g. turkeys and corn) are different from their wild ancestors?

Or I can make it more broad. As I recall, you agree that new species arise from existing ones by descent with modification plus natural selection, correct? IIRC the only place you differ from ToE is that you posit that the process is limited to something called a "kind," which you can't define, right? You agree that new species emerge, but you assert that there is a limit beyond which this process stops. So while ToE says that all life is descended from a common ancestor in one huge tree, you assert that there is a forest rather than a tree, with a lot of common ancestors. Is that right?