Humans and Chimp, its True...

[Man of Faith]

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?

Busy right now working on my reply to Gabe. If a scientist was hunched over working on a nuclear fusion experiment would you tap him on the shoulder and ask him questions?

 

[Autodidact]

I understand that avoiding reality and certain questions is important to maintaining your faith, Man. This is a debate thread, open to all. If you want to PM Gabe and avoid anyone else's questions, feel free.


Gee, you'd almost get the impression that creationism means you have to be evasive and dishonest. That's not true, is it, Man?

 

[Man of Faith]

I understand that avoiding reality and certain questions is important to maintaining your faith, Man. This is a debate thread, open to all. If you want to PM Gabe and avoid anyone else's questions, feel free.


Gee, you'd almost get the impression that creationism means you have to be evasive and dishonest. That's not true, is it, Man?

Good point. I'm just not used to being a scientist, it takes a lot of brain power.

 

[Autodidact]

And you're going about it very badly.

So, for the fifth time or so, do you or don't you want to learn what ToE says? Or are you going to try to investigate a theory about which you know nothing?

 

[Man of Faith]

And you're going about it very badly.

So, for the fifth time or so, do you or don't you want to learn what ToE says? Or are you going to try to investigate a theory about which you know nothing?

Hang on, Rush Limbaugh is on, be back.

 

[Autodidact]

ManofFaith does demonstrate one of the skills that YECs (or, as Dawkins calls them, history-deniers) are good at--evasion.

 

[Man of Faith]

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?

Let me make sure I understand this because it will help on my response to Gabe. I am glad you tapped me on the shoulder. Humane and chimp DNA is 95% similar, and 98% similar? That is a difference of 90 million base pairs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let me make sure I understand this because it will help on my response to Gabe. I am glad you tapped me on the shoulder. Humane and chimp DNA is 95% similar, and 98% similar? That is a difference of 90 million base pairs.

Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Man of Faith]

Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks but that is a little bit complicated. I wish people would understand that all scientists like myself and Darwin don't have a degree in biology.

 

[Man of Faith]

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?




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.



See above.



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?



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?



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:

I can tell from your post that you are not satisfied with my testing ideas. My thought pattern when it comes to DNA testing came from observation of what is done today. For example how is DNA used today to determine relationship beyond a reasonable doubt? What happens is a persons DNA is compared to their parents or someone in their family. If what you are saying is true, in that we don’t know the creatures that humans and chimps came from then we have a problem. There is no way to know if evolution or creation is true, how closely the DNA should match. We don’t know if a 95-98% match points us to a common ancestor of human and chimps or it points us to separate creation of human and chimps. Do you have any recommendations on how we can do this testing, that would satisfy that part of our experiment?

 

[MSizer]

Let me make sure I understand this because it will help on my response to Gabe. I am glad you tapped me on the shoulder. Humane and chimp DNA is 95% similar, and 98% similar? That is a difference of 90 million base pairs.

They're both correct actually, because it depends on how you measure it. There are different ways to break down DNA, each which defines a slightly different increment, or "unit" so to speak of DNA. That's why sometimes we hear "humans and chimps are %98 similar" and other times we hear "humans and chimps are %95 similar". They're both correct, it's just that each uses a different unit of measurement, which skews the percentage value a bit.

 

[Tristesse]

Thanks but that is a little bit complicated. I wish people would understand that all scientists like myself and Darwin don't have a degree in biology.

What does a degree in biology have to do with understanding science? I don't have a degree in biology either, and I understand the basics of evolution. Newton didn't have a degree in physics, and yet he was able to understand and use science to the best of his ability. A degree is a piece of paper, sure it might come in handy sometimes, but it doesn't have any baring on whether or not you're a better scientist because of it. There are plenty of people with degrees in science who use their degree just to promote false ideas of science and other such nonsense.

 

[Man of Faith]

They're both correct actually, because it depends on how you measure it. There are different ways to break down DNA, each which defines a slightly different increment, or "unit" so to speak of DNA. That's why sometimes we hear "humans and chimps are %98 similar" and other times we hear "humans and chimps are %95 similar". They're both correct, it's just that each uses a different unit of measurement, which skews the percentage value a bit.

I will keep that in mind, the best I can.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you or do you not want to learn what the theory of evolution is?

 

[Gabethewiking]

....For example how is DNA used today to determine relationship beyond a reasonable doubt? What happens is a

persons DNA is compared to their parents or someone in their family......... We don’t know if a 95-98% match points us to
a common ancestor of human and chimps or it points us to separate creation of human and chimps....

It seems that this is the response you settled with so I will give a comment now.
I apologize for the cut and paste but I included "..." to show where the remarks come from in your above quote. The reason
for this is that I need to explain some things before I respond to specific comments that I feel needs to be addressed.

It seems that somewhere between the steps we currently follow something went wrong. It seems at after point 4 (or 5 depending
on how you count) called "Test with Experiment" you decided to go astray from our current topic.

I asked you, specifically, because you would be a possible adversery "Scientist" in this scenario that would not agree, I asked
you to supply me with something that could falsify my Hypothesis as well as asking what could possible prove it, it ended there.

My demand is not a difficult one, as well as I thought, and I apologize if you did not get the impression, that I made it clear that
you could ask for assistance in figuring out this step, you said you would have a look around and read up about it, and you came
back with complete nonsense. This troubles me because I am taking some time to talk to you, not to "be right" or think I am
"better" then you, but I want to show you how we learn about things and general Science is conducted.

If you feel that this discussion will not benefit you or that you have issues with accepting any facts supplied, please inform me
and I will not take up your time, no doubt you have other things to do as well. Other members here would gladly speak to you
about various issues you taken up and is related to the topic, so please inform me and the rest if you really want to take the time
to discuss this and learn about the Theory of Evolution, Evolution and Human Ancestry.

Now to some specific remarks.

I can tell from your post that you are not satisfied with my testing ideas.

No, it makes no sense and it seems you are just not taking this serious. I will consider this a possible "cultural"
misunderstanding from my part and hope you will give me a serious response or continue in a suitable way.

My thought pattern when it comes to DNA testing came from observation of what is done today.

If it did, you should have a good understanding of how it works and you would not have supplied the 1 to 5 list previously
as you would be able to take DNA from a Chimpanzee and Human and test.

But you did not supply this alternative, Why? You said your thought pattern came from observation done today, I do not
understand how your previous conclusion could then make you ask the 1 to 5 questions.

There is no way to know if evolution or creation is true, how closely the DNA should match.

This demands that I explain what is meant by "match" and the various strings we have, this is not suitable as we first
need to solve other issues about your current knowledge.

The main problem is here that you are not actually showing any Scientific scrutiny. Why are you talking about Creation?
How is Creation relevant to our current topic and testing? It is like suddenly mentioning how bad the weather is outside
when you are suppose to explain the economic situation..

If what you are saying is true, in that we don’t know the creatures that humans and chimps came from then we have a
problem.

Why would we have a problem? Explain.
And to respond, No, we wouldn't, but we can take that later.

Do you have any recommendations on how we can do this testing, that would satisfy that part of our experiment?

Yes, but this is not relevant as you currently do not understand the Scientific progress we are suppose to go by. We need
to step back and take point nummer 4 (or 5 depending on how you count) again as you do not seem to understand it.

 

[Man of Faith]

It seems that this is the response you settled with so I will give a comment now.
I apologize for the cut and paste but I included "..." to show where the remarks come from in your above quote. The reason
for this is that I need to explain some things before I respond to specific comments that I feel needs to be addressed.

It seems that somewhere between the steps we currently follow something went wrong. It seems at after point 4 (or 5 depending
on how you count) called "Test with Experiment" you decided to go astray from our current topic.

I asked you, specifically, because you would be a possible adversery "Scientist" in this scenario that would not agree, I asked
you to supply me with something that could falsify my Hypothesis as well as asking what could possible prove it, it ended there.

My demand is not a difficult one, as well as I thought, and I apologize if you did not get the impression, that I made it clear that
you could ask for assistance in figuring out this step, you said you would have a look around and read up about it, and you came
back with complete nonsense. This troubles me because I am taking some time to talk to you, not to "be right" or think I am
"better" then you, but I want to show you how we learn about things and general Science is conducted.

If you feel that this discussion will not benefit you or that you have issues with accepting any facts supplied, please inform me
and I will not take up your time, no doubt you have other things to do as well. Other members here would gladly speak to you
about various issues you taken up and is related to the topic, so please inform me and the rest if you really want to take the time
to discuss this and learn about the Theory of Evolution, Evolution and Human Ancestry.

Now to some specific remarks.




No, it makes no sense and it seems you are just not taking this serious. I will consider this a possible "cultural"
misunderstanding from my part and hope you will give me a serious response or continue in a suitable way.



If it did, you should have a good understanding of how it works and you would not have supplied the 1 to 5 list previously
as you would be able to take DNA from a Chimpanzee and Human and test.

But you did not supply this alternative, Why? You said your thought pattern came from observation done today, I do not
understand how your previous conclusion could then make you ask the 1 to 5 questions.



This demands that I explain what is meant by "match" and the various strings we have, this is not suitable as we first
need to solve other issues about your current knowledge.

The main problem is here that you are not actually showing any Scientific scrutiny. Why are you talking about Creation?
How is Creation relevant to our current topic and testing? It is like suddenly mentioning how bad the weather is outside
when you are suppose to explain the economic situation..



Why would we have a problem? Explain.
And to respond, No, we wouldn't, but we can take that later.



Yes, but this is not relevant as you currently do not understand the Scientific progress we are suppose to go by. We need
to step back and take point nummer 4 (or 5 depending on how you count) again as you do not seem to understand it.

I am going to assume that when two scientists work together for the first time, there is always some conflict or misunderstanding. When you asked me what would falsify or prove the hypothesis I assumed you were asking me which test would falsify or prove it. That is why I came up with the testing scenarios like I did. See I am trying to stick with the scientific method and that step was test, so my mind was on test. I will go back to your post and try to respond in a different manner now that I think I have a better understanding of what you are looking for.

 

[Autodidact]

So I'm guessing you want to keep rejecting the Theory of Evolution without ever finding out what it is?

 

[Morse]

Microorganisms.

End of the Story.

 

[Autodidact]

I am going to assume that when two scientists work together for the first time, there is always some conflict or misunderstanding. When you asked me what would falsify or prove the hypothesis I assumed you were asking me which test would falsify or prove it. That is why I came up with the testing scenarios like I did. See I am trying to stick with the scientific method and that step was test, so my mind was on test. I will go back to your post and try to respond in a different manner now that I think I have a better understanding of what you are looking for.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that calling yourself a scientist makes you one. It takes a lot more than that. For starters, you might want to learn something about how to do science.

 

[Man of Faith]

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that calling yourself a scientist makes you one. It takes a lot more than that. For starters, you might want to learn something about how to do science.

That's what I am doing, I am following the scientific method, that makes me a scientist.