Monkey is 10% similar to human

[We Never Know]

No it is you that is misguided. Nobody is lying - except possibly you.

The link you refer to is about comparing the Y chromosome only.

The latest DNA comparison I have been able to find was done in 2005 and indicates that Man shares about 96% of DNA sequences with chimpanzees: Our DNA is 99.9% the same as the person next to us — and we're surprisingly similar to a lot of other living things

Humans are 96% similar with chimps and 90% similar with cats.

I wonder if they have ever had a study comparing the genetic similarity between a chimp and a cat?

 

[questfortruth]

Not nearly good enough. Not even close. You don't even know what "dark matter" is, and yet you have the gall to claim it is the "hand of the creator?" Demonstrate to me how it is directly linked to "the creator." If you can do that, then we have a start. You can't though - I have 100% confidence in the fact that you can't. If you can, then you can shock me. So go ahead... shock me. Until you can, I won't be giving a crap about anything you say like this. Seriously... without the evidence and no correlations or effects to the reality I experience- I simply don't care.

Believe me, it is easy to shock anyone. The satan can surely (negatively) shock, and God can (positively) shock. To begin with, you should understand, that without direct detection of Dark Matter it will remain a mystery forever.

 

[questfortruth]

Humans are 96% similar with chimps and 90% similar with cats.

I wonder if they have ever had a study comparing the genetic similarity between a chimp and a cat?

Genius. Simply genius.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

and God can (positively) shock.

So funny. You trying to put forth that God only "positively" shocks. How about the flood? I would imagine that was a pretty negative shock to just about every child born too late to get the news that it was coming. Give me a break. Don't make statements that are this intellectually depraved, please. Just don't.

To begin with, you should understand, that without direct detection of Dark Matter it will remain a mystery forever.

Perhaps! And yet YOU claimed you knew it to be the hallmark of a "hand of the creator!" Do you not see how directly these ideas conflict? Your admittance that we may never know what "Dark matter" is, and your claim to know exactly what it is? Do you not see why I might think you're not intellectually stable? Why I might easily decide to ignore you because you can't seem to make any sense? That's where we are at here. I wouldn't take a single thing you said at face value. I simply wouldn't believe it outright. Not even something mundane, like the idea that you own a cat. With as badly as you behave on a consistent basis with your propagation of ideas and misinformation, I wouldn't even believe you on something as simple as that. Seriously.

 

[questfortruth]

Your admittance that we may never know what "Dark matter" is, and your claim to know exactly what it is?

But I know what DM is. It is very easy:
1. After entering Black Hole there is no way out. Thus, nature is not time-reversible.
2. Nature must be time-reversible.
3. Thus, we need a fix to the Einstein Equations.

Author of idea: Dmitri Martila, [email protected]

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But I know what DM is. It is very easy:
1. After entering Black Hole there is no way out. Thus, nature is not time-reversible.
2. Nature must be time-reversible.
3. Thus, we need a fix to the Einstein Equations.

Author of idea: Dmitri Martila, [email protected]

That is nothing but an unfounded idea. You even admitted as much yourself. Remember this?

To begin with, you should understand, that without direct detection of Dark Matter it will remain a mystery forever.

YOU said that. YOU did. About two posts ago.

Are you beginning to understand yet why I cannot take you seriously? If not, then you are worse off than I thought. And believe me - I already thought that you were pretty bad off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With all love, but it is fact: there are segments in DNA, that have only 10% similarity between human and monkey.

There are also segments that are 0% similar if you select them carefully enough to get this "desired" outcome like a good intellectually dishonest creationist..

Overall though, no.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not rocket science to say "some parts of DNA are similar only to 10%."

And it certainly isn't rocket science to then ignore the rest of DNA and only zoom in selectively on that which you think provides you with your desired conclusion.

And the biggest reason for that is that rocket science requires intellectual honesty or the rocket won't fly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There was a huge fight in every state over equal time for teaching Evolution and Bible.

Curious how there was no such fight to teach Einstein's version of gravity instead of Newton's.

Certainly, it is good, that Science is afraid of the Bible.

It's the other way round.

If it would not be afraid, it would have left a story of Creation at least one tiny chance.

It has the same chance as any other idea in science.
And it failed miserably.

 

[gnostic]

With all love, but it is fact: there are segments in DNA, that have only 10% similarity between human and monkey.

In the OP, you talk about chimpanzees but here, in the above quote, you are talking about monkey.

Chimpanzees are not monkey in the sense they have no tails, and the chimpanzees (genus Pan) are closer to humans (genus Homo) than to all other primates.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But I know what DM is. It is very easy:
1. After entering Black Hole there is no way out. Thus, nature is not time-reversible.
2. Nature must be time-reversible.
3. Thus, we need a fix to the Einstein Equations.

Author of idea: Dmitri Martila, [email protected]

Does the world change because you disagree with how it physically works?

 

[tas8831]

But if the similarity is less than 70% indeed, God is there? I mean, there is nothing settled in Research.
The similarity can be just 10% after some careful research.

So when are creation "scientists" going to do their comparisons on creatures they claim are of the same "kind" to see what their divergence is?

I once emailed Jeff Tomkins asking that, and he ignored it. I know why they will not do this - because to do so we will see that creatures that creationists insist really are sister taxa diverge by an even greater amount than humans and chimps do, and this would make them truly look like the charlatans most of them are.
This a graph from an old Italian creationist website run by some 'scientists.' They did an analysis trying to show that human and chimp cannot be related because the % similarity was less than 5%, and that these trend lines show the differences between compared taxa when they extrapolated from a sampling of very short known DNA sequences available at the time (late 1990s). They concluded that the % DISsimilarities between compared taxa would only grow as more sequence date were accumulated.
About a year later, they scrubbed their site of the study. Luckily, I had downloaded the graph for entertainment purposes.
Can you tell why they deleted this study from their page?

 

[tas8831]

With all love, but it is fact: there are segments in DNA, that have only 10% similarity between human and monkey.

And?

I could take a segment of your DNA and compare it to a segment of your mother's DNA and find a 10% or less similarity. What would that mean to you?

 

[tas8831]

Can you tell why they deleted this study from their page?


View attachment 51858

Guess not...

 

[tas8831]

So when are creation "scientists" going to do their comparisons on creatures they claim are of the same "kind" to see what their divergence is?

I once emailed Jeff Tomkins asking that, and he ignored it. I know why they will not do this - because to do so we will see that creatures that creationists insist really are sister taxa diverge by an even greater amount than humans and chimps do, and this would make them truly look like the charlatans most of them are.
This a graph from an old Italian creationist website run by some 'scientists.' They did an analysis trying to show that human and chimp cannot be related because the % similarity was less than 5%, and that these trend lines show the differences between compared taxa when they extrapolated from a sampling of very short known DNA sequences available at the time (late 1990s). They concluded that the % DISsimilarities between compared taxa would only grow as more sequence date were accumulated.
About a year later, they scrubbed their site of the study. Luckily, I had downloaded the graph for entertainment purposes.
Can you tell why they deleted this study from their page?


View attachment 51858

Pity that so many YECs wander off from their own threads when they've been exposed. Can't even muster the integrity to retract false claims...