macguy
New member
I disagree with your disagreement. At least in some cases you do
Perhaps you left your brain at the coffee table or something?
The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I disagree with your disagreement. At least in some cases you do
Perhaps you left your brain at the coffee table or something?
macguy
New member
Creation Safaris doesn't address the information at Talk Origins (maybe in some very rare cases)...but just focuses on what scientific journals are saying and the news. You could say that it distorts the scientist or whatnot.
I think you need to say more. Does this mean, for example, that 98% of the genes are identical, and the difference are in 2% of the genes that are 100% different, or does it mean that 100% of the genes are 98% identical, or something in between? Do we give as much weight to regulatory genes as we do to structural genes? And on and on.
Does it take into account the criticality of the gene via a weighting factor, such as the differences between chimps and humans being not so much in their body organs or muscles but perhaps in the brain structures?
In other words, what really is the value in a single number unidimensional comparison in the first place? What will the number be used for other than to convince students that an ape to human transition has been scientifically verified?
BTW, I am still on hold for his book. I did read his book review of Behe's latest book.
God makes things out of nothing, so atoms are fairly understandable and genes are more complex than atoms, so how can anyone think any of these arguments support or deny what God has done, is beyond me.
It never fails to amuse me how humans continue to think they can think it through thing that seem to be Divine mystery, perhaps the monkey is blessed because he attends to the basics of life and cares little about what his genes look like.
One can be with the Lord through Jesus Christ and not have any opinion or care about this subject. That is all I would like confirmed for me, why would I need to care?
It never fails to amuse me how humans continue to think they can think it through thing that seem to be Divine mystery, perhaps the monkey is blessed because he attends to the basics of life and cares little about what his genes look like.
One can be with the Lord through Jesus Christ and not have any opinion or care about this subject. That is all I would like confirmed for me, why would I need to care?
As I understand it, the research on this is very recent, so although the 1% statement may not be useful, it wasn't a lie. Still, even 1% is, what, something like 30,000,000 base pairs, so it isn't exactly trivial. I think the implication is that genomes must be looked at less like isolated genes, and more like networks, with coding for structure and activation. The implication is that some changes will have a large effect, and some will have very small effects or none at all.
I've played around with genetic algorithms, and this newer understanding seems more similar to these.
I've played around with genetic algorithms, and this newer understanding seems more similar to these.
You started out well, but unfortunately ended badly.
A full grown chimp is three times stronger than a full grown human.
So if a 200 pound man can bench press 200 pounds then a 200 pound chimp could bench press 600 lbs.
We need to make a bunch of human chimp hybrids, pump them full of steroids, get them real pissed off, and call them our army.
So if a 200 pound man can bench press 200 pounds then a 200 pound chimp could bench press 600 lbs.
We need to make a bunch of human chimp hybrids, pump them full of steroids, get them real pissed off, and call them our army.
Mr. 5020
New member
:think:
What happened to that guy with the pigs heart?
Could we engineer a chimp with my dna code and then I could harvest stem cells from it and use them as ultimate steroids and become chimpanze strong?
I'd be like a super hero.
I don't think I'll wear a mask but I will definiatly have a cool car.
Mr. 5020
New member
Drowned in a mud hole? :idunno:
That's a shame.
No car for him.
Ended badly? How so?
My answer to this would be more simple. They have no choice because creationism is simply not true. It has to rely on flim flam and guilible people.
The earth is older than 10,000 years old regardless of previous scientific theories on chimps being prooved or disproved. it's just the old case of "find onte thing wrong and it must all be wrong"
Genesis is alegorical, it makes no sense unless you really want to believe it.
The world wide flood is nonsense, ancient preflood egyptian cities sitting nicley on rock layers containing dinosaurs sorts that one out.
Creationists have to rely on dishonesty all the time simply because creationism can not be true.
Not enough people say this out loud for fear of insulting the people that believe in creationism as it's tied so closley to believing in the christ god... Time to stop I think and just laugh at the absurdity.
Last edited:
Well folks, I don’t know much about this monkey business, but IF I had to be related to an animal, I would rather be related to a wolf because they are far more attractive to me than any ape! Besides, they mate for life, monkeys monkey around too much to suit me. :chew: I am also a meat eater :chew:
What impresses me is the extensive research creationists have done in studying the behavior of great apes up close and personal. The contributions creationists have made in broadening our understanding of great ape intelligence, social interaction, and more is truly impressive.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
One Eyed Jack
New member
That doesn't even make sense. How can you have pre-flood cities without a flood?
I'd say it's more out of the fear of insulting their own intelligence.
"We have scientifically proven that which we always knew to be true."
"But, there are scientists who disagree and question your conclusions."
"They're not scientists and what they are doing is not science."
"How did you come to that conclusion?"
We have scientifically proven that which we always knew to be true which proves that those who disagree are not scientists and not doing science."
"But, there are scientists who disagree and question your conclusions."
"They're not scientists and what they are doing is not science."
"How did you come to that conclusion?"
We have scientifically proven that which we always knew to be true which proves that those who disagree are not scientists and not doing science."
:chuckle:
Without having to point out the obvious to "Intelligent" people I obviously meant Pre "supposed flood" date...
Massive Egyptian cities older than the supposed flood date with tons of evidence of human civilisation sitting nicely atop rock that was supposedly formed during the flood.. with dinosaurs and fossils inconveiniently ( For creationists ) embedded in the layers below. Doh !!
It's good that egypt has these cities cos it's also one of the most densly littered fossil zones in the world.
one of these cities is 5000 years old... I guess even if the dates are out a little the decendents of Noah didn't half get cracking where work is involved, I mean what with that and having to constantly have sex to rebuild the population. Fill Egypt, Europe and South America with massive sprawling civilisations, so diverse they could not have come from the "Ark" crowd in such a short space of time.
You don't have to look very far in this world or think too deeply to proove the worldwide flood story as nonsense.
mmmmmm consistantly ordered rock layers aaarghhh...
HERES PART OF AIG's MISSION STATMENT
"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
No how can such a standpoint be considered even remotly Scientific ???
This is the black and white view closed minded people you follow. The term "Creation Scientist" is a joke, but a real bad one that no one laughs at and leaves the room looking at their fingernails in an embarrased silence.