Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

[Granite]

So you want us to agree that chimps are 98.5% human?

Is someone with an extra chromosome 102% human or 98% human?

I wonder which stretches of DNA make us human. :think:

Nobody said they were "human," Bob. This kind of distortion makes me wonder if you're genuinely misinformed or trying to spread misinformation.

 

[Clete]

Nope. It was guided by the forces in nature. :doh: Which I believe were created by god. In case you haven't noticed DNA does not work like humanly devised languages. Do you disagree that life is guided by the forces of nature?

I disagree that the forces of nature are the only things "guiding life" whatever that means.

 

[hatsoff]

It seems the biggest point that everyone is overlooking here is the fact that no matter how similar the DNA is, it's still DNA. In other words, whether two creatures are similar or not is secondary to the fact that what makes them what they are is language based. DNA is a codified chemical language. No evolutionary theory could hope to account for that. It makes no difference whether you're talking about the simplest of single celled organisms (which are themselves wildly and irreducibly complex) or human beings, their biology is determined entirely by the instructions codified in the chemical language known to us as DNA. And what's more is that it's the same language in all living things. No matter how "primitive" the creature, the DNA within it is still just plain old ordinary DNA. It’s the exact same sort of DNA that is in us, the only difference being the amount of information that is encoded therein.

This seems somewhat counter intuitive if Evolution is true. It would be like me, an American, visiting all the libraries in France, China, Greece, Poland, and Moscow and finding all the books in all five countries written in perfect American English. And even if that were to happen (which of course it wouldn't) the question would still remain about where the language came from in the first place.

Oh wait, I know, it just happened by complete accident! Of course! :doh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

So you're saying that an underlying similarity in most organisms is evidence against mutual ancestry?

 

[hatsoff]

So you want us to agree that chimps are 98.5% human?

Is someone with an extra chromosome 102% human or 98% human?

I wonder which stretches of DNA make us human. :think:

Not to steal the spotlight from Granite, but are you kidding, here? First of all, chimps are not any percentage "human." The genomes of humans and chimps are about 96% similar--and that's for classic chimps, which are probably further from us than bonobos. We can see the effects of this very clearly, from intelligence and behavior to physical attributes. What's the big problem that you run to absurdity when not even confronted about this?

 

[bob b]

So you're saying that an underlying similarity in most organisms is evidence against mutual ancestry?

A recent study has shown that all houses in the Midwest are 99.9% identical.

Of the approximately 100 homes surveyed it was found that almost all contained wood, plaster board, wiring, plumbing, windows, chimneys, furnaces, toilets, sinks, and most strikingly, were all "boxlike" in shape.

Scientists and other religious theologians both agree that either all of these structures were designed in their present form by a single intelligent entity at some time in the recent past (and have never changed) or as is far more likely, all were derived from a single primitive form and very slowly over eons of time gradually changed to create the amazing variety we see today.

 

[hatsoff]

A recent study has shown that all houses in the Midwest are 99.9% identical.

Of the approximately 100 homes surveyed it was found that almost all contained wood, plaster board, wiring, plumbing, windows, chimneys, furnaces, toilets, sinks, and most strikingly, were all "boxlike" in shape.

Scientists and other religious theologians both agree that either all of these structures were designed in their present form by a single intelligent entity at some time in the recent past (and have never changed) or as is far more likely, all were derived from a single primitive form and very slowly over eons of time gradually changed to create the amazing variety we see today.

If this isn't a joke, there's something seriously wrong with your brain. If it is, why not just answer the challenges plainly?

 

[Granite]

A recent study has shown that all houses in the Midwest are 99.9% identical.

Of the approximately 100 homes surveyed it was found that almost all contained wood, plaster board, wiring, plumbing, windows, chimneys, furnaces, toilets, sinks, and most strikingly, were all "boxlike" in shape.

Scientists and other religious theologians both agree that either all of these structures were designed in their present form by a single intelligent entity at some time in the recent past (and have never changed) or as is far more likely, all were derived from a single primitive form and very slowly over eons of time gradually changed to create the amazing variety we see today.

For a self-described lover of science, bob, you don't seem terribly interested in anything scientific.

Even the name of this thread is a completely inaccurate distortion of the subject matter.

 

[bob b]

If this isn't a joke, there's something seriously wrong with your brain. If it is, why not just answer the challenges plainly?

It can be extremely hard to get out of a rut (of thinking as well).

When logical arguments and evidence fail to do it, perhaps "illustrating absurdity by being absurd" might help.

With some people, but not all.

 

[hatsoff]

It can be extremely hard to get out of a rut (of thinking as well).

When logical arguments and evidence fail to do it, perhaps "illustrating absurdity by being absurd" might help.

With some people, but not all.

I don't recall responding to (or seeing) any "logical arguments" submitted by yourself in this thread.

As per your absurdity principle, I doubt you'd be swayed by the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

 

[noguru]

A recent study has shown that all houses in the Midwest are 99.9% identical.

Of the approximately 100 homes surveyed it was found that almost all contained wood, plaster board, wiring, plumbing, windows, chimneys, furnaces, toilets, sinks, and most strikingly, were all "boxlike" in shape.

Scientists and other religious theologians both agree that either all of these structures were designed in their present form by a single intelligent entity at some time in the recent past (and have never changed) or as is far more likely, all were derived from a single primitive form and very slowly over eons of time gradually changed to create the amazing variety we see today.

The only difference being that we already have empirical evidence of the intelligent entity responsible for the design of these houses. Just look in the mirror.

Also houses were desinged with specific purposes involved. I don't think your midwest homes would withstand the battering of a category 4 hurricane as well as those up to code in south Florida. Nor can they have offspring that will radiate genetic variation as a possible solution to these different environments.

 

[noguru]

I disagree that the forces of nature are the only things "guiding life" whatever that means.

First, how can you disagree with a statement if you don't understand it? Are you really having a difficult time understanding what I meant by "guiding life"?

Secondly, do you have any empirical evidence of anything other than the "forces of nature"?

 

[noguru]

It can be extremely hard to get out of a rut (of thinking as well).

When logical arguments and evidence fail to do it, perhaps "illustrating absurdity by being absurd" might help.

With some people, but not all.

Yes Bob, the sheer level of absurdity that you employ is certainly a warning to others. :nono:

 

[Clete]

So you're saying that an underlying similarity in most organisms is evidence against mutual ancestry?

I'm saying that DNA is entirely too complex to have arisen by chance no matter how much time is alloted for it to happen and that there seems to be no reason for DNA to be the exclusive language of life other than there having been a single intelligent author.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bob b]

I'm saying that DNA is entirely too complex to have arisen by chance no matter how much time is alloted for it to happen and that there seems to be no reason for DNA to be the exclusive language of life other than there having been a single intelligent author.

Resting in Him,
Clete

There is no need to search for any other "language of life" because the concept of DNA is perfectly adequate to explain the similarity of all lifeforms. And if any exceptions do arise there are perfectly adequate rationalizations (several thousand the last time I counted) which can fit any conceivable "problems" that might arise in the future.

 

[eisenreich]

I'm saying that DNA is entirely too complex to have arisen by chance no matter how much time is alloted for it to happen and that there seems to be no reason for DNA to be the exclusive language of life other than there having been a single intelligent author.

Resting in Him,
Clete

By the way, I know nothing about genetics. I'm only asking questions.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So would you say that your observation in the first post, in light of your second post, is scientific fact or merely your uninformed opinion on the matter?

 

[noguru]

I'm saying that DNA is entirely too complex to have arisen by chance no matter how much time is alloted for it to happen and that there seems to be no reason for DNA to be the exclusive language of life other than there having been a single intelligent author.

Resting in Him,
Clete

In the first sentence do you mean chance, or natural processes? You do realize that natural processes and pure chance are not the same thing? Stochastic would be a more accurate description of the sum total effect of natural processes. Sceondly, this argument is basically an argument from incredulity. "They are too complex to have arisen by natural processes." is really only saying that "I don't understand how they could have arisen through natural processes."

It is a shame that you can see no other possible reason for DNA to be the exclusive "language" of life, but that does not mean that no other reason(s) exist(s).

 

[bob b]

So would you say that your observation in the first post, in light of your second post, is scientific fact or merely your uninformed opinion on the matter?

Speaking of "uninformed opinion" would anyone out there give me a "scenario" for this example?

UCLA Study Finds Same Genes Act Differently In Males And Females
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060707190114.htm

 

[noguru]

There is no need to search for any other "language of life" because the concept of DNA is perfectly adequate to explain the similarity of all lifeforms. And if any exceptions do arise there are perfectly adequate rationalizations (several thousand the last time I counted) which can fit any conceivable "problems" that might arise in the future.

Do you currently have a better scientific explanation? Who said that science has stopped searching for explanations? The last time I checked, the scientific inquiry was still underway.

 

[Granite]

So would you say that your observation in the first post, in light of your second post, is scientific fact or merely your uninformed opinion on the matter?

Ah. Good catch.

 

[noguru]

Speaking of "uninformed opinion" would anyone out there give me a "scenario" for this example?

UCLA Study Finds Same Genes Act Differently In Males And Females
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060707190114.htm

Thanks Bob, for that interesting article. Does this mean that since you have read this article, your are now "informed"?