Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
bob b said:
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:
Click to expand...

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

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
noguru said:
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?
Click to expand...
I disagree that the forces of nature are the only things "guiding life" whatever that means.
 
hatsoff

hatsoff

New member
Clete said:
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
Click to expand...

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

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
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:
Click to expand...

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?
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
hatsoff said:
So you're saying that an underlying similarity in most organisms is evidence against mutual ancestry?
Click to expand...

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

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
hatsoff said:
If this isn't a joke, there's something seriously wrong with your brain. If it is, why not just answer the challenges plainly?
Click to expand...

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

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

noguru

Well-known member
Clete said:
I disagree that the forces of nature are the only things "guiding life" whatever that means.
Click to expand...

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

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
hatsoff said:
So you're saying that an underlying similarity in most organisms is evidence against mutual ancestry?
Click to expand...
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
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
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
Click to expand...

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

eisenreich

New member
Clete said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Resting in Him,
Clete
Click to expand...

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

noguru

Well-known member
Clete said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
eisenreich said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ah. Good catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top