Humans and Apes not closely related after all?

[Ygrene Imref]

Idk what to make of it, but it's interesting. They look... as if they're being seen through water? Idk how to describe it, but that works pretty well.

Correct.

 

[Occams Barber]

Nope. Why; does he like bananas?
Actually, my ginger cat could have evolved from the apes, because he goes bananas sometimes!
I had a friend called Bill, but he got too close to the cat and now they call him Claude.

Comfort is notorious for a video he did where he claimed that the human centred design of the banana was proof of intelligent design by God. What he didn't know was that the original banana was completely different. Our current banana is the result of years of selective breeding, i.e. God wasn't responsible for the useful shape, wrapping etc..

Comfort was roundly (and deservedly) ridiculed.
(You can probably still find the video on YouTube - search for Comfort and banana)
OB

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Comfort is notorious for a video he did where he claimed that the human centred design of the banana was proof of intelligent design by God. What he didn't know was that the original banana was completely different. Our current banana is the result of years of selective breeding, i.e. God wasn't responsible for the useful shape, wrapping etc..

Comfort was roundly (and deservedly) ridiculed.
(You can probably still find the video on YouTube - search for Comfort and banana)
OB

I've never subscribed to any of his teaching, so it would be pretty well irrelevant to me.

 

[Occams Barber]

I've never subscribed to any of his teaching, so it would be pretty well irrelevant to me.

You seem to share similar views on evolution and biblical inerrancy. As a non-believer, other doctrinal differences you may have are not something I pretend to understand.
OB

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You seem to share similar views on evolution and biblical inerrancy. As a non-believer, other doctrinal differences you may have are not something I pretend to understand.
OB

Of course there is the fundamental difference between you and me and I accept the reality that you and I will never agree on that difference.

 

[Occams Barber]

Of course there is the fundamental difference between you and me and I accept the reality that you and I will never agree on that difference.

Sorry Oscarr - I wasn't very clear - I was actually talking about doctrinal differences between you and Comfort.

As for our fundamental differences - I can only hope that, one day, you will see the light.

 

[Jimmy D]

I didn't read any of that, because, science. But, apparently (after listening to a video) I heard that they had to ignore like 40 billion pieces of genetics, and with what was left they get the 98% figure. I'm not sure if this is what your post pointed out, but I have a serious dislike for science lately. So, winner in my book regardless.

Have you looked into evolution? Apparently, they tried saying they found an entirely new evolutionary species of humans by finding ONE tooth. An entire person, out of a tooth... They taught it in schools, and then were found out that it wasn't even a human tooth, but a pig's... and then, on top of that, they KEPT teaching it in schools AFTER they knew they had been disproven. So many more examples of this are involved in evolution.

Also, look at stars. Videos of them. People who have nice cameras and such, can look up at them... they look nothing like what scientists have led us to believe they do. Idk what to make of it, but it's interesting. They look... as if they're being seen through water? Idk how to describe it, but that works pretty well.

You don't like/understand the science but you once saw a video that says it's wrong. Can I ask why does a youtube video trumps the opinion of every professional working in the field?

I also wonder why you feel the need to bring up a mistakenly identified fossil from 1922? Apart from being a historical footnote what relevance do you think that has to modern biology?

I suppose this sort of thing is to be expected when people think websites like AIG etc are a legitmate source of information.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even after it was proven fake, they still tried to teach it.

Who's "they"?

Why? This isn't the only fake evolutionary find.

The only reason you know about hoaxes is because scientists themselves exposed them.

I know of three, counting the two we've already talked about.

What about the hundreds of thousands, millions even, of legit pieces of evidence?

Why do you think it is a good idea to reject an entire field of science, because 3 people lied in hopes of a little fame (or for whatever motivation they had)?

I'm sure you know of hoaxes in your religion as well, where people try to trick others by claiming miracles or whatever... So, are you willing to throw out your entire religion because of the exposed liars?

No, you are not. And that's a faith-based belief system. Yet, evidence bases science... that you throw out like yesterday's paper because of such a reason. It's rather strange.

There are undoubtably more, as evolution is ridiculously fake, brought on only to "disprove" creation. If evolution exists, then there can't be a God.

Utterly false, as the majority of god-believing christians, who have no issues with mainstream biology, around the world demonstrate every single day. This also includes people like the pope.

I'd share some links regarding us not being even remotely close to monkeys, but someone already beat me to it. Which, they're pretty awesome for doing so.

The links that were posted in this thread, have been exposed to be dishonest misrepresentations and just plain lies.

It's actually a bit funny (and sad) how you don't care about such hoaxes, when they appear to confirm your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are undoubtably more, as evolution is ridiculously fake, brought on only to "disprove" creation. If evolution exists, then there can't be a God. But, I know all too well, that isn't the case.

I'm not sure that you've thought this part through. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, have you heard of theistic evolution? Many more christians accept evolution as having taken place than not. Maybe strange ideas about the Genesis story being factual, historical documentaries need to be discarded but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The theory of evolution is not just an abstract theory of some kind, it has practical applications in the real world.

 

[xianghua]

Scientists, including me, because it explains and predicts a vast range of data from many different fields

are you sure? we can say the same for the creation model. it explains and predicts many evidences from several scientific fields.

and because no alternative that is remotely as successful is on offer.

actually the design model is far better. since the only scientific explanation for the existence of a spinning motor (like flagellum or atp synthase) is design.

There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution

so what this suppose to be?:

or this one?:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change

or this:

Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution

or this:


University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something is wrong here.

 

[xianghua]

I'd share some links regarding us not being even remotely close to monkeys, but someone already beat me to it. Which, they're pretty awesome for doing so.

actually even if human and chimp were share about 99.99%, it will not change the fact that similarity doesnt prove a common descent. otherwise we will need to conclude that the similarity between two different cars is also evidence for a common descent.

 

[sfs]

are you sure?

Yes

we can say the same for the creation model. it explains and predicts many evidences from several scientific fields.

Sure, you can say it, but it isn't true. What are the creationist predictions for genetics? For example, what are the creationist predictions for what the transition-transversion rate should be when you compare humans and chimpanzees? Chimpanzees and bonobos? Different species of orangutan? What are the creationist predictions for correlation between interspecies divergence and within-species diversity? What are the creationist predictions for how diverged any two species should be at sites that are CpGs in either species?

I could go on and on. There are no creationist predictions for any of these things. I know, because I've been looking for any for many years, and I've even written to creationist organizations asking them to explain genetic data. They can't.

so what this suppose to be?:

I think it's supposed to be a YouTube clip, intended to confuse people who don't know how science and scientists work.

If there were genuine scientific challenges to common descent, then you would have a point here. There are plenty of scientific challenges to specifically Darwinian evolution, and they are vigorously debated in the scientific literature and community. But there's no debate about common descent, simply because the evidence in its favor is so overwhelming.

 

[sfs]

actually even if human and chimp were share about 99.99%, it will not change the fact that similarity doesnt prove a common descent.

True but irrelevant, since it isn't simple similarity that is used to show common descent.

 

[xianghua]

Sure, you can say it, but it isn't true. What are the creationist predictions for genetics? For example, what are the creationist predictions for what the transition-transversion rate should be when you compare humans and chimpanzees? Chimpanzees and bonobos? Different species of orangutan? What are the creationist predictions for correlation between interspecies divergence and within-species diversity? What are the creationist predictions for how diverged any two species should be at sites that are CpGs in either species?

i actually refer to the old earth creationism. so if you are refering to molecular clock there is no problem to explain it by an old earth.

I could go on and on. There are no creationist predictions for any of these things. I know, because I've been looking for any for many years, and I've even written to creationist organizations asking them to explain genetic data. They can't.

if we are talking about an old earth creationism, so yes- we can explain any genetic data.

I think it's supposed to be a YouTube clip, intended to confuse people who don't know how science and scientists work.

it's actually a clip from the movie "expelled". including interviews with many scientists.

But there's no debate about common descent, simply because the evidence in its favor is so overwhelming.

of course there is, since we have many scientific evidences against common descent.

True but irrelevant, since it isn't simple similarity that is used to show common descent

true. but the other suppose evidences can be explain by the creation model too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so what this suppose to be?:

That's supposed to be a "documentary" that exposes a conspiracy among "wicked atheist scientists" agains "god fearing christians".

But what it actually is, is an extremely dishonest piece of propaganda, meant only to undermine science in favor of a bronze-age interpretation of just another creation myth, which completely flies in the face of reality and reason.

So.... what it is, is just another example of how fundamentalists have no problem with "lying for jesus".

 

[DogmaHunter]

true. but the other suppose evidences can be explain by the creation model too.

It can not and you have been shown inumerable times how/why it can not.

But you are not interested in learning. You prefer to argue the same strawman and PRATT's thread after thread after thread. Even after you've been corrected on them a bazillion times.

Which is why you again repeated the nonsense of "cars are similar as well, therefor common ancestry?", which I know for a fact has been explained to you countless times why such an analogy does not work. I know, because I was one of the people who went out of his way to explain it. Multiple times, even.

In your case, it's not just a case of merely being ignorant on biology.
It's a case of being willfully ignorant and proud of it.

 

[sfs]

i actually refer to the old earth creationism. so if you are refering to molecular clock there is no problem to explain it by an old earth.

I'm talking about common descent: we are related to chimpanzees, frogs, bananas and bacteria by descent from a common ancestor. If you accept that, you accept evolution, regardless of whether you want to add something else to it. (It's quite possible to accept both common descent and Intelligent Design, for example.) If you don't accept common descent, you have to be able to answer those questions, and many more like them, to have anything to contribute to the real conversation.

it's actually a clip from the movie "expelled". including interviews with many scientists.

Yes, I know. As I said, designed to confuse those who don't know actual scientists.

of course there is, since we have many scientific evidences against common descent.

Where have creationists been hiding these?

true. but the other suppose evidences can be explain by the creation model too.

It's easy to make the claim; now back it up. Go to the first paragraph in my post and start answering those questions.

 

[tas8831]

"Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human
under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions."
Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study – Proslogion

The only way to get a higher similarity is cherry picking only some of the
DNA and throwing out the rest.

What I find so odd is that creationists like Tomkins never seem to test their ideas regarding "% similarity" on pairs or groups of taxa that they claim are related via descent from a created Kind.

They spend a lot of energy (and lose a lot of their credibility when their antics are exposed) trying to "prove" that humans and chimps cannot be related, but they never test their creationist beliefs in the same way.

In the 1990s, a paper came out - a real one - indicating that humans and chimps were only about 95% similar, if you include raw nucleotide counts from indels. Creationists had a field day, first claiming evolutionists were liars for claiming it was 98%, then claiming that if we are "only" 95% identical, then we cannot be related via descent.

But a couple of years ago, some Italian creationists were doing some rather lame calculations on more sequence data, and quite unwittingly, they "discovered" that the longer the sequence reads, the greater the dissimilarity we find between humans and chimps (sort of like what Tomkins is doing).

The problem was, they made the mistake of including 2 humans in their analysis, and following their graph, the 2 humans differed by 5%.

So according to creationists, any 2 humans cannot be related.

Amazingly, they seem to have scrubbed that graph from the internet, and the Internet Archive is having issues, but try to find this:

http://progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=130

 

[pitabread]

The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century

This isn't true in the slightest. Please, do some actual research on the subject.

The reality is that the Piltdown find was controversial at the time, since it contradicted certain views of hominid evolution. It was hardly a 'flagship transitional'. That's just creationist fabrication to make Piltdown seem more relevant than it was.

 

[mark kennedy]

This isn't true in the slightest. Please, do some actual research on the subject.

The reality is that the Piltdown find was controversial at the time, since it contradicted certain views of hominid evolution. It was hardly a 'flagship transitional'. That's just creationist fabrication to make Piltdown seem more relevant than it was.

Actually it is and I've researched it extensively.

The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'​

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)
​

That's about as concise as I can make it, Arthur Keith built his career on Piltdown and his protegee Louise Leaky built his on the stone age ape man myth. Keith had long rejected the Dart fossil as a Chimpanzee but then apologizes to him and Leaky takes Dart's suggesting of 'Homo habilis' the 'handy man'. These are not coincidences, as the Piltdown hoax was exposed, Keith and Leaky produced a replacement fabrication. They have been passing off Chimpanzee ancestors as our ancestors ever since.