Noahs ark and the food chain

[Man of Faith]

Thats a complete nonsequitor.

Maybe but it is a good one.

 

[Tristesse]

You have failed to provide an official percent of genetic similarity that will show who is in the same biologic family. Humans to humans are 99.9% similar, human to chimp is not. How do we know what percentage should match to say which family we belong? Where is the standard?

We are about 96-97% similar in our dna sequence. And that makes us closer related to chimps than chimps to orangutans, or other primates.

 

[Tristesse]

Maybe but it is a good one.

A good what? nonsequitor? Yes, your irrelevant question is a good one.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

The fact is that this thread has made me realize that the reason that we no longer have dinosaurs is because Noah and the rest of the carnivorous animals on the ark ate them all in the course of forty days. It is only right that we carry on this tradition and eat other animals into extinction. :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have failed to provide an official percent of genetic similarity that will show who is in the same biologic family. Humans to humans are 99.9% similar, human to chimp is not. How do we know what percentage should match to say which family we belong? Where is the standard?

Well, if you don't like evolution-based cladistic taxonomy, you can always fall back on its precursor, Linnean taxonomy. His taxonomic system was based on physical characteristics of species, and he said that humans were primates, too.

 

[painted wolf]

The reason why humans are classified as primates is due to assumption that humankind has evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Take away that assumption and they aren't primates. They really aren't primates, we are in a classification on our own, humankind.

This is untrue... Carl Von-Linnaeus was a creationist and lived long before Darwin and the theory of Evolution... he is the one who classified us as primates.
He did it based on anatomy and physiology.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

You have failed to provide an official percent of genetic similarity that will show who is in the same biologic family. Humans to humans are 99.9% similar, human to chimp is not. How do we know what percentage should match to say which family we belong? Where is the standard?

Everything is related, which is why every organism has some match. We are most closely related to chimps because we have the highest percent in common with them, as they do with us. If we were a unique creation, there is no reason we would be more similar to any organism than another. Or that any "kind" would have anything in common with another.

In reality, however, we see increasing levels of similarity that follow nested hierarchies.
-Every organism uses the same processes at the cellular level for energy and reproduction.
-Only some organisms have nuclei. They are called Eukaryotes.
-No non-Eukaryotes fix there body plan as they develop, but some Eukaryotes do. Those that do are called Metazoans.
-No non-metazoans have a Notochord, but some metazoans do. Those that do are called Chordates. Some things Chordates have that nothing else has include a Notochord, Dorsal Nerve Chord, Post-Anal Tail, and Pharyngeal slit. No non-chordates ever have those, but all chordates have them at some point in development.
-No non-Notochords have mammary glands, sweat glands, hair/fur, three middle ear bones and a neocortex in their brain, but some Notochords do. Those that do are called mammals. All mammals have those things, nothing else has any of them. Also, am i the only one shocked to learn that our class is named for the fact that we have boobs?

As we get further down the specific levels become less meaningful (Linnaeus was full of crap). What we call Primates is not well defined, and i don't have the expertise to identify the clade. If Painted Wolf wants to tag in i'm sure she can help you. Nonetheless i hope this has been informative.

 

[Jose Fly]

Should humans be made of metal to make us different? What would metal eat, drink?

How 'bout giving us a genome that doesn't include the same disabled retroviral sequences in the same spots as other primates? How 'bout creating chimps with a genome that's more similar to gorillas than ours? How 'bout not creating australopiths and the other Homo species?

Why give "evolutionists" all the data and creationists none?

Your god must really not like you.

 

[Sirktas]

No they are not.

pri·mate   [prahy-meyt or, especially for 1, prahy-mit] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Ecclesiastical. an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country.
2.
any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability.
3.
Archaic. a chief or leader.

Primate | Define Primate at Dictionary.com

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

no they are not.

yes they are. I CAN WRITE BIG TOO

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You have failed to provide an official percent of genetic similarity that will show who is in the same biologic family. Humans to humans are 99.9% similar, human to chimp is not. How do we know what percentage should match to say which family we belong? Where is the standard?

Denying it won't make it any less true, our DNA is similar to that of chimps. It doesn't mean we're as dumb or as dirty as monkeys (some people are, but we have special homes for them). What's so bad about having similar DNA that you'll deny it so fanatically?

 

[painted wolf]

http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf
Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old... [Genetica. 1987] - PubMed result
HGSC at Baylor College of Medicine

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Again the acceptance that DNA is evidence of common descent depends on the assumption of common descent. Take away that assumption and similar DNA only means similar DNA, nothing more.

That phrase 'similar DNA' rolls very glibly off the keyboard, but the homologies are more deep-rooted than it suggests.

Do give us the creationist explanation for humans and chimps possessing not only the same broken vitamin C pseudogene as all the other primates, but versions that are less different from each other than from all the others. You might also like to explain the presence in human chromosome 2 of pre-telomeric, telomeric and centromere sequences at exactly the locations predicted by the theory that it has been formed by fusion of two chromosomes still separate in other apes

 

[Wotan]

Indeed MoF please cite for us the latest prediction about the natural world made by CS and the evidence that prediction has been proven true. ANY prediction will do. Any at all. And one will suffice.

Just one. Can't be THAT hard. (Can it?)

 

[painted wolf]

Again the acceptance that DNA is evidence of common descent depends on the assumption of common descent. Take away that assumption and similar DNA only means similar DNA, nothing more.

and that God is lazy, uncreative or a trickster/liar. I'm not keen on any of those options.

wa:do

 

[sniper762]

since we're on the subject of the flood, how would one interpret the scripture "fifteen cubits up and all the mountains were covered". FIFTEEN CUBITS?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

since we're on the subject of the flood, how would one interpret the scripture "fifteen cubits up and all the mountains were covered". FIFTEEN CUBITS?

Not sure what the issue is there:

17Then the flood came upon the earth for (P)forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

18The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, (Q)and the mountains were covered.

- the waters rose to some unspecified depth.
- the waters rose fifteen cubits more than that, and even the highest mountains were covered.

 

[sniper762]

why was fifteen cubits even mentioned. FIFTEEN FEET ABOVE AN UNSPECIFIED DEPTH?

IF FIFTEEN CUBITS WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO MENTION, WHY NOT THE UNSPECIFIED DEPTH?

furthermore, "the highest mountains that moses knew of were only 16,000 feet, not nearly the highest point on earth.

somethig is missing here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

why was fifteen cubits even mentioned. FIFTEEN FEET ABOVE AN UNSPECIFIED DEPTH?

IF FIFTEEN CUBITS WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO MENTION, WHY NOT THE UNSPECIFIED DEPTH?

Heh... when it comes to the logical consistency of the flood story, the mention of apparently irrelevant depth measurements is the least of the problems I see.

 

[sniper762]

i was hoping for a comment from a fellow christian