The comment of mine to which you originally responded was not an attempt to describe the process ( said in response to your comment that my comments do not describe the process).
The great apes include gorillas, chimps and humans. There was a split between the apes tof orm the esser apes and the great apes. The lesser apes include siamangs and gibbons. Earlier than that catarrhines divided to form apes and old world monkeys. Earlier than that Simians divided to form catarrhines and new world monkeys. Before that primates divided to give us lemurs and tarsiers. This is a clade view of evolution of primates, so one can say that the primate clade includes all species mentioned as they are all subsequent to primates in evolution. It does not include all species nor does it indicate all evolution happening within this view. For example, we know there are different evolutionary branchings in humans. ½ Primates can be traced back through mammals to common reptilian forebears and earlier. (the diagram shoul have those big dots on the forks that are direcly below each dot.)
No, my reasoning is linear and based on both genetics and archeology. https://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full Adam and Eve, eh? well I am aware that there is a minority of every major global religion that are scriptural literalists, content to allow faith to trump science Tragically all too many of them seem to ignore the more inconvenient content in their self righteous ignorance
~ The very first computers in the Garden of Eden - Eve had an Apple , Adam had a Wang. The rest is { ignorance } history .
"Perhaps the most important thing we can say regarding this evidence is how much scientists still don't know about DNA and its supposed evolutionary connections. Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.6 A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."7 This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??and secularists would do well to say nothing regarding supposed evolutionary relationships until all facts are in." - https://www.icr.org/article/rapidly-unraveling-thread-between-dna-human-evolut Maybe we are actually mice "For the whole chimpanzee genome, only 70% of the DNA on average was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. This empirically based conclusion is well within the range of preliminary results suggested by other researchers (Buggs, 2008; Anonymous, 2012). For the chimpanzee autosomes, the optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. In general, higher DNA similarities were obtained in the smaller and more gene-dense human chromosomes. However, there were several exceptions (chimp chromosomes 19 and 21) that defied this trend. These results indicate that not all gene-rich areas of the chimp and human genomes are highly similar. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and 43 percent of the Y chromosome. The extreme Y-chromosome dissimilarity is supported by other work in which the MSY regions of the chimp and human Y-chromosomes were compared and found to be very dissimilar in not only DNA sequence, but also gene content (Hughes, et al., 2010). In summary, the third major claim for human-chimpanzee common ancestry is false. The percent similarities among the two genomes is far less than that which has been typically reported. While it is true that certain small portions of the two genomes are highly similar, the bulk of the evidence shows the opposite." - http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-still-evolving.579569/page-5#post-1072270151 Oops! We aren't 99% Chimps after all. This was done in 2013. The first quote above was in 2002. As time goes on, we find out more and more about the fuzzy words evolutionists use. And, if you study more about the anatomy of chimps and humans, the parts like ears and hands statement is quite false. As far as trying to make humans apes because something looks the same is a real sad document of the unlearned. Here is a report on an Arizona St. study of chimp features. https://www.icr.org/article/where-did-faces-come-from "The team needed to imagine how natural processes could have transformed a chimpanzee-like face into a human’s. This may sound like no big deal until one begins to list the many differences. Here are a few face features that Darwinists need natural selection and mutations to somehow expertly craft in just a few million years:... Completely unfazed by the fact that no scientist has seen natural selection craft a single such feature—let alone something akin to the entire suite listed here—ASU News wrote, “Changes in the jaw, teeth and face responded to shifts in diet and feeding behavior. In other words, our ancestors’ facial traits supposedly changed at least partly in response to what they ate. Even today, human faces look different when we eat raw and unprocessed food. But this happens when innate sensors detect intense chewing pressures and internal workings interpret that stress and then activate jaw bone and muscle growth during childhood development. Most of us process our food at least partly by hand, giving us smaller mouths. These adjustments have nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with ingenious, adaptable design. No measurements from past faces document these researchers’ speculated shift from ape to man. Instead of science, they rely on blind faith in evolutionary dogmas such as that expressed by ASU paleoanthropologist William Kimbel, who asserted, “We are a product of our past. Unscientific speculations—popular though they may be—should never substitute for observable, repeatable science. What experiments affirm ape-to-man evolution? For that matter, no science so far refutes the words of Jesus, who said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’”…with expressive human faces right from the start." Broaden your studies a bit. It's okay for scientists to do studies on DNA and other methods of study concerning the history of the earth. But, the interpretations are where you have to start looking for fuzzy words like "May Have" or "Could Be Why" and stuff like that. Try and read a scientific journal about geology, evolution and stuff like that and see how many woulda, coulda, shoulda's are in each paragraph. It will amaze you that evolution science knows very little facts and just speculates with every breath they take. Creation scientists simply show these speculation for what they are and show why Genesis is more accurate. With them, they also don't fully know as no one was around when creation happened. The idea Science is Settled is sickening for any true scientist.
Let's remember that evolution remains as a fundamental foundation of ALL biiology. The challenge for you is to understand why the stuff you've said in this last post does not in any way dent evolution theory. Those arguments against evolution are known and have been rejected. Any honest exploration of evolution would have to include gaining an undersanding of why that is the case. Please remember that even evolution deniers such as Ken Ham have come to the realization that evolution is how species are created. Besides, the fields of biology are populated with large numbers of scientists who adhere to the Abrahamic faiths. It's clearly possible to be a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim and still use the principles of evolution in studying the life that abounds on Earth.
But the theory of evolution and young earth creationism cannot both be true. He has chosen. And, frankly, his stuff doesn't even belong in the science section.
Apparently you were unaware that the human genome mapping wasnt completed until 2003. Chimpanzees not until 2006. Amazing how science advances and as new data iare presented our understanding also advances and textbooks change. But I am totally familiar with the screwed up timeline argument you have presented as evidence that science is not a reliable foundation for understanding our existence. Course it works for those who actually think they have a clue
Regarding, genome mapping, what to you think that means? As for text books changing as a response to the ever expanding body of knowledge of nature seem a problem? The content of text books, tools for educating, are snapshots of summarized explanations of knowledge at the point of time in which they were compiled, modified by the political, and social biases of those that compile them and select them for use amid a dynamic continually evolving body of knowledge and understanding how things work. Science is continually pushing the boundaries of both what we know and enlarging the envelope of what we don’t know, but the scientific method has achieved more in doing both and is continually advancing understanding because it offers the collective potential for increasing confidence in what we think we know. What other method would you suggest that has proved more reliable?
I'm wondering if this problem doesn't stem from the absolutist view of religion - that the religion IS fully 100% correct. Thus for religion to progress is heresey. It's a rejection of the absolute truth. With science there is no claim of absolute knowledge - it claims that humans may examine the universe and grow an understanding of how it works. So, some religious guy may apply his religious logic and decide that science is wrong for the very reason that something new was learned!! So many times I see someone claim that science advanced, thus demonstrating (to their minds) that science must be rejected!!
No other method. I am a believer in science and fully understand the evolutionary nature of knowledge, having borne witness to it over the decades. I was referencing the argument about what % of genetic code do we share with chimpanzees.. Posing a pre mapping vs post mapping comparison as evidence that science is unreliable is a typical specious piece of fallacious nonsense.
Well, I am not clear what your objection is regarding the comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA, that it can’t be done to provide an estimate of a 2% difference or ... ??
There is no issue at all. Science advances and that advancement cannot be a credible argument against its reliability. The poster I was responding to suggest as much.
Haha, thank you. These guys get so steeped in their silly "backward think" that they don't realize they are using the accomplishments of science as a cudgel against science in their silly denier arguments.
"Perhaps the most important thing we can say regarding this evidence is how much scientists still don't know about DNA and its supposed evolutionary connections. Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.6 A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."7 This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??and secularists would do well to say nothing regarding supposed evolutionary relationships until all facts are in." - https://www.icr.org/article/rapidly-unraveling-thread-between-dna-human-evolut Maybe we are actually mice "For the whole chimpanzee genome, only 70% of the DNA on average was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. This empirically based conclusion is well within the range of preliminary results suggested by other researchers (Buggs, 2008; Anonymous, 2012). For the chimpanzee autosomes, the optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. In general, higher DNA similarities were obtained in the smaller and more gene-dense human chromosomes. However, there were several exceptions (chimp chromosomes 19 and 21) that defied this trend. These results indicate that not all gene-rich areas of the chimp and human genomes are highly similar. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and 43 percent of the Y chromosome. The extreme Y-chromosome dissimilarity is supported by other work in which the MSY regions of the chimp and human Y-chromosomes were compared and found to be very dissimilar in not only DNA sequence, but also gene content (Hughes, et al., 2010). In summary, the third major claim for human-chimpanzee common ancestry is false. The percent similarities among the two genomes is far less than that which has been typically reported. While it is true that certain small portions of the two genomes are highly similar, the bulk of the evidence shows the opposite." - http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-still-evolving.579569/page-5#post-1072270151 Oops! We aren't 99% Chimps after all. This was done in 2013. The first quote above was in 2002. As time goes on, we find out more and more about the fuzzy words evolutionists use. And, if you study more about the anatomy of chimps and humans, the parts like ears and hands statement is quite false. As far as trying to make humans apes because something looks the same is a real sad document of the unlearned. Here is a report on an Arizona St. study of chimp features. https://www.icr.org/article/where-did-faces-come-from "The team needed to imagine how natural processes could have transformed a chimpanzee-like face into a human’s. This may sound like no big deal until one begins to list the many differences. Here are a few face features that Darwinists need natural selection and mutations to somehow expertly craft in just a few million years:... Completely unfazed by the fact that no scientist has seen natural selection craft a single such feature—let alone something akin to the entire suite listed here—ASU News wrote, “Changes in the jaw, teeth and face responded to shifts in diet and feeding behavior. In other words, our ancestors’ facial traits supposedly changed at least partly in response to what they ate. Even today, human faces look different when we eat raw and unprocessed food. But this happens when innate sensors detect intense chewing pressures and internal workings interpret that stress and then activate jaw bone and muscle growth during childhood development. Most of us process our food at least partly by hand, giving us smaller mouths. These adjustments have nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with ingenious, adaptable design. No measurements from past faces document these researchers’ speculated shift from ape to man. Instead of science, they rely on blind faith in evolutionary dogmas such as that expressed by ASU paleoanthropologist William Kimbel, who asserted, “We are a product of our past. Unscientific speculations—popular though they may be—should never substitute for observable, repeatable science. What experiments affirm ape-to-man evolution? For that matter, no science so far refutes the words of Jesus, who said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’”…with expressive human faces right from the start." Broaden your studies a bit. It's okay for scientists to do studies on DNA and other methods of study concerning the history of the earth. But, the interpretations are where you have to start looking for fuzzy words like "May Have" or "Could Be Why" and stuff like that. Try and read a scientific journal about geology, evolution and stuff like that and see how many woulda, coulda, shoulda's are in each paragraph. It will amaze you that evolution science knows very little facts and just speculates with every breath they take. Creation scientists simply show these speculation for what they are and show why Genesis is more accurate. With them, they also don't fully know as no one was around when creation happened. The idea Science is Settled is sickening for any true scientist. In the face of published science you still want to try your luck. The main study above was in 2013. You can continue to believe you are smarter than PhD's in these areas of study but you obviously are not. You were wrong about your statement that Chimpanzees and Humans are 99% the same DNA. That's been completely debunked. The hands, by the way, are not at all the same. And, just because an animal has fingerprints doesn't mean there is a correlation to say we are related. That's just observational ignorance.
You dodged my question. As i predicted you would. Which is why i asked it. People need to understand that you are wasting their time and that no evidence could possibly convince you. And this is more.compelling when it comes from you instead of me. So thank you for making it clear.
You completely dodged my question. It is all there in black and white for the whole world to see. Which was the point of asking it. Your material is not original. You deniers fail this question every time.
