Molecular Evidence of Human Origins

Apologetics Press ^ | April 2005 | Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

[guitarist]

Thought I'd drop this into everyone's Saturday mix...

[BibChr]

They're not real scientists, they have the wrong kinds of PhD's, they got their PhD's from the wrong place, they teach at the wrong place, they quote stuff out of context, they misspelled "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconeosis" so I can't trust anything they said, blah blah blah.

< /theophobe rant >

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[trisham]

bookmark

[patriot_wes]

All of which proves once again the molecular biology, RNA, DNA,pheromones, genomes, etc has just about put the final coffin in Darwin's natural development thesis!

Here's Microbiology 101 from the Word of God. ...Shalom

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are invisible.

[Gunslingr3]

The truth is, if we took all of the DNA from every cell, and then compared the DNA in monkeys and humans, the 4-5% difference in DNA would represent approximately 200 million differences in a human body, compared to that of an ape! To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that 95% similiarity would mean 3.8 billion similiarities. Is your glass 95% full, or 5% empty?

[robertpaulsen]

"Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A, G, C, and T ..."

It spells Gattaca.

[Chiapet]

read later...

[Verginius Rufus]

You misspelled "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis."

[NetValue]

Please, just boil it down to the essential conclusions. Did we? Or, didn't we?

[Gritty]

Please don't confuse the evolutionists with all this complicated and uncomfortable talk about mitochondrial DNA, cells, chromosomes, genes and whether 98.5% is different from 95% - or even if it makes a difference - when comparing chimps to humans.

There's only one "scientific" textbook answer to this question of Origins...

[BibChr]

D'oh!

< forehead slap >

[Popman]

I once while in delusional state of mind posting to a similar thread compared this aforementioned study with trying to make me believe a 2000 Chevy and Ford pickup truck were in fact 98.5 % similar.

Both trucks operate on the same principles, look the same, use the same fuel, about the same size, same speed, same materials to build.

But, just try and put a Chevy starter on a ford and give it a key turn.

Same goes with human and simian

I was excoriated and pointed to the obvious overwhelming evidence of this weeks version of Darwinian theory.

[melt]

No one can convince me that Alec Baldwin isn't related to the apes:

[billybudd]

If humans didn't evolve from monkeys, what was the physics of creation? I'd like a creationist version of the actual physical process that resulted in a human being. (Since that's what science means to address).

[guitarist]

You say X is guilty of murder. I say, no, he's innocent. You say, well, then who did it? If you say X didn't, you've gotta tell me who did! I say, I don't know who did. (Or, in this case, I say I don't know how the process went.)

[Dataman]

< /theophobe rant >

The weaker their arguments, the louder they get.

[billybudd]

Sure, that's perfectly fine. And that's one of the reasons I don't see a conflict between evolutionary theory and the Bible. The book of Genesis dealt with the mechanics of creation in only a superficial sense - the important stuff was who did the creating, and what was the end result. The aim of science is to reduce - complex phenomena to simple phenomena. So science tries to describe the physical process of how creation occurred using the physical evidence available. It's not a "proof" - just a best guess based on our current knowledge (same as all other science).

That's why I don't understand the conflict between the Bible and evolutionary theory - they simply don't address the same issue.

[guitarist]

If you interpret the Bible loosely to allow Darwinesque evolution, then you are, in effect, interpreting it loosely enough to allow that Jesus was not born of a virgin, the miracles are not real, three was no bodily resurrection, there is no heaven or hell, etc.

So--take your pick--Jesus is Lord, or Darwin nailed it. You CAN'T have both.

[guitarist]

three was
should be there was

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info