Posted on 07/10/2007 10:17:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons
07/02/07
by David Tyler
"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This 'fact' of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. "Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same." However, this "given" is about to be discarded....
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
The fault that causes guinea pigs to be unable to produce vitamin C is different than the human/great ape fault.
How is does attitude differ, that of a Lib Dim, concerning the electorate?
How is does this attitude differ, that of a Lib Dim, concerning the electorate?
Man, it got quiet.
No...check any taxonomy reference.
Correlation and commonality are not the same as causation.
But in plagarism cases, identical errors are taken as evidence of a common origin.
You are referring to, “Planet of the Apes”....right?
Spoiler: The Earth is the Planet of the Apes.
It may make a very large difference. There are separate fields of science which must be in agreement as to a time line for natural selection to be convincing for the origin of particular species. These are different fields such as the geologic record, the fossil record, and genetics.
When comparing two species and trying to look backwards in time to when they "split" from a common ancestor, scientists can compare the DNA and find how many genes are different between the two species. There are models of how fast genetic mutations can be propagated through a population, given factors such as population size and the lifespan of the individuals. With these, we can backtrack to estimate when these two species had a common ancestor.
By increasing the number of differences, natural selection proponents must also have to increase the amount of time required to propagate those changes. I would guess that previously, scientists probably would have claimed to the public that the fossil record and the DNA record were in agreement for chimps and humans. By increasing the number of differences by 600%, is that still a true statement? Has there been enough time in the fossil record to account for this? What now is the estimated date these two species had a common ancestor? Is it millions of years ago? Is it hundreds of millions? Did apes even exist in the fossil record back then?
This is the same reason why the recent new findings of "junk DNA" are important. The claim of junk DNA can be misused by scientists as a fudge factor if all the sciences do not agree on a time scale. Recent findings have been chipping away at what can be considered junk, and added to the pile of what must be accounted for in the other sciences. All the recent genetic findings that I have seen published have increased the amount of time required by natural selection.
Good for you, figuring it out without being told.
Anyone who thinks they are even remotely like monkeys, is an idiot.
Damn straight.
Physiology is a stupid old science anyway.
Bully for you!
“In my whole life, I have never needed a scientist or anyone else to tell me that I am NOT a g*& damn monkey.”
Somewhat of a non-sequitor, given that Chimps are not monkies either.
Thus your assertion of not being a monkey, god-damn or otherwise has little or no bearing whatsoever on the relationship between Humans and Chimps.
For what it is worth I daresay you are not a Fish, Chicken or wildebeast either.
“... atheocracy.”
Nice.
Did you come up with that?
That’s nice. But in the case of plagarism, the whole thing is identical.
Remember: Correlation and commonality are not the same as causation.
You guys preach it at the creationists/IDers all the time. It goes both ways.
See posts 20, 33, 37, and 95.
If you had been following the thread and reading it, you would have seen what I was referring to.
I’m so glad you enjoyed it!
>>>>”Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.” However, this “given” is about to be discarded....
I don’t know. I have a few exboyfriends that provides support of this 99% theory.
You mean like archeoraptor and Piltdown man?
Anyway, I would have figured that his admitting that they deliberately lied would qualify it as fraud. There was intent to deceive; they fabricated data.
But maybe that’s just me.
And what of Piltdown man?
It was a fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.