Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

ACTS & FACTS ^ | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*

In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...

[DevNet]

Then provide examples of such behavior, now we all know you won’t do this because what you are saying isn’t factual nor is it supported by evidence.

All you do is lob insults and talk trash in an attempt to *win*.

[xcamel]

Ditto, seeing it was aimed at me...

[ZULU]

I “get out” more than you could imagine.

[Texas Songwriter]

Again you did not read my post. I was writing to tpanther, while I referenced you to my questions postited to ZULU, xcamel, and Ira. If you look that post was not to any of these people (all darwinists). As you know, tpanther is not a darwinist.

Once again you swallow a camel and choke on a gnat. So, I repeat to you, it is a commonly known technique to try to change the subject when you cannot or will not answer my questions. For a change why don't you answer the questions which I put to ZULU. Ira, and xcamel rather than run from them. As I said to you before, if you want to discuss abiogenesis I will be glad to engage. You keep bringing it up. I never brought it up to ZULU, Ira, or xcamel.

[GodGunsGuts]

==What purpose is genetic diversity if evolution is impossible?

First, Creation Scientists believe that a wide amount of variability can occur within the created kinds, but that said variability is limited by the boundary of the same, which is precisely what we see in the fossil record, comparative Cytochrome C studies, comparative hemoglobin studies, etc. Second, genetic diversity is important with respect to an organism’s ability to adapt to changing environments irrespective of Darwin’s atheist creation myth.

==You previously claimed that only DE-evolution is possible.

That is correct. However, the Temple of Darwin routinely mistakes directed mutation for “evolution.”

==Are you saying that retrovirus are agents of DE-Evolution?

Some still work the way they are supposed to, some don’t. The ones that don’t would most definitely contribute to genetic entropy. I really don’t like using the word “devolution” anymore, because it implies we evolved from pond scum in the first place. Now I use genetic entropy or genetic degeneration.

==Your so called explanation also does NOTHING to explain the pattern of similarity and divergence such that an ERV found only in some humans will look “younger” than an ERV found in all humans...

What do you mean by “look ‘younger’”?

[allmendream]

Evolution would be the previously “accepted” adaptation to selective pressure of changing environments. Even if you want to call it “micro” evolution, it most certainly is not “de-evolution”.

So mutation caused by ERV insertion and transposition CAN cause adaptation to changing environments (evolution, “micro” or otherwise) but mutation by nucleotide substitution cannot?

You don't know what a “young” or “old” ERV sequence would look like? This betrays that you do not even understand the premise that Biologists use when establishing ERV’s as evidence of common descent.

In other words your stunning “refutation” didn't even address the subject, because YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT (even after I have explained it to you several times, no less).

Hard to refute something with an argument that doesn't even address the issue; and then have to ask me to explain what the issue is AGAIN.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You also left off any explanation for why biologists assume that ERV’s are evidence for common descent and where you think they went wrong.

I’m not going to do your work for you, dreamer. If you want a write a clear explanation of why the evos ASSUME that ERV’s are evidence for common descent, it is up to you to provide it IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

==Explaining why God might have wanted ERV’s in our genome, and how they could have “escaped” to become RNA virus does nothing to explain why Biologists say they are evidence for common descent.

I was merely pointing out that the Common Design ERV argument is far superior to the Temple of Darwin’s Common Descent argument for the same.

[allmendream]

No GGG.

In order to REFUTE an argument, you must be able to STATE the argument, and where it went wrong.

And how would you know the Creationist argument was “far superior” to the common descent argument if you don’t even know what the common descent argument is and your Creationist “argument” doesn’t even address the issue?

You are unable to address the issue, because as I have maintained from the beginning, you don’t even understand the issue.

You claim to have refuted an argument you do not even understand.

[dmz]

I have no problem admitting that I am not qualified to answer your questions. If I could, I’d likely have a nobel prize to my name, doncha think? And if I did have one of those, how likely would it be that I’d be spending time posting on FR?

I called you out on one thing and one thing only. Folks changing the subject, so they can veer the topic to more favorable grounds. From where I sit, you are guilty of that. You disagree. Guess it’s time to move on to more fruitful discussions, eh?

[Texas Songwriter]

Your answer to me speaks for itself to all who read our conversation.

[dmz]

Your answer to me speaks for itself to all who read our conversation.
_______

I strive for clarity. Thanks for the kind words.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Evolution would be the previously “accepted” adaptation to selective pressure of changing environments. Even if you want to call it “micro” evolution, it most certainly is not “de-evolution”.

There really isn’t any evidence for micro evolution either. Creationists and many IDers maintain that organisms have been frontloaded with directed strategies to adapt to changing environments, and the evidence is increasingly bearing this out. This type of adaptation is the antithesis of organisms that survive random mutation.

==You don’t know what a “young” or “old” ERV sequence would look like?

Yes, I do. But I’m not going to do your work for you, dreamer. I want you to commit yourself to YOUR position in writing. I’m not gonna go around putting words in your mouth and then responding, only to have you accuse me of setting up a straw man.

==In other words your stunning “refutation” didn’t even address the subject, because YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT (even after I have explained it to you several times, no less).

Classic case of projection on your part. In reality, I have had to explain your Temple of Darwin errors with respect to ERVs (and a host of other areas) many times. You know this. That is why you won’t state your ERV argument, because you are afraid to get pinned down and defeated (as per usual).

[GodGunsGuts]

==In order to REFUTE an argument, you must be able to STATE the argument, and where it went wrong.

I gave you a summary of why the religious assumptions of the Temple of Darwin with respect to ERVs and common descent are completely bogus, and why the Creation/ID argument is far superior. Here they are again, word for word:

What a laugh, the first time I crossed paths with your Darwin-adled arguments, you brought up ERVs as the supposed best evidence of common descent. I demonstrated that ERVs are better explained by common DESIGN back then, and I have continued to update my argument ever since.

You, on the other hand, continue to cling to the same outdated Temple of Darwin ERV arguments, even though the most recent studies demonstrate that almost the entire genome is functional (not to mention the specific and increasingly largescale functions of ERVs that continue to be identified), thus rendering your dumb-dumb fossil/”junk” ERV arguments moot.

And lets not forget the Temple of Darwin argument that ERVs are ancient remnants of previous exogenous retrovirus infections. Your Evo co-religionists cannot support this, they simply assume it without evidence. The creation argument of course makes much better sense. Namely, that ERVs are conserved because they were likely designed into our genomes at the time of creation to pick up the genetic elements to escape the genome, to become retroviruses that non-randomly insert themselves into genomes to facilitate genetic diversity both within and between species, and perhaps even to provide specific genetic information for organisms to better adapt to particular environments.

OK Dreamer, now it’s your turn. Why don’t you start by describing in YOUR OWN WORDS why ERVs are one of the “strongest arguments” for common descent.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Only uneducated dolts claim that HIV does not cause AIDS

Sorry pal, if you had any credibility to begin with, you would have completely destroyed it by issuing such patently false and absurd comments.

The list of scientists and medical doctors who are challenging the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is growing by the day. These signatories number in the thousands, and include Nobel Prize winners, Lasker Prize winners, Members of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. etc. As such, the only uneducated dolt on the subject appears to be you (and let’s not forget your merry band of AIDS alarmists...who, btw, equate those who doubt HIV as the cause of AIDS with the scientists who doubt human-caused global warming...great company you are keeping there!).

[CottShop]

[[I have NEVER - that’s NEVER - met a professional biologist who doesn’t accept evolution.]]

Then you haven’t looked very hard- there is a petition out with over 700 signatures by scientists stating that htey dissagree with Darwinian Evolution, and htere were numerous conferences by the world’s top scientists stating that Macroevolution was impossible- but hten again, it’s all in how hard you really want to find that info- must not be very hard because there are plenty of scientists and yes, biologists, who believe Macroevolutiion is impossible- Even hte most prominent advocates for macroevolution admit the biological impossibilities associated with Macroevolution (Yet they still think there was some mechanism that somehow produced macroevolution- and htis beleief despite hte fact that macroevolution violates several absolutely key principles of science, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and the second law [and not just a few violations, but literally trillions])

Oh well- You complain about others not being ‘open minded’ but the truth is, there’s nothing about Macroevolution for which to be open minded about because it’s a closed case- it’s impossible

[[They may argue about the finer points of the process but NO ONE who is a serious biologist questions the idea that organisms evolve in to new species over time.]]

This is a lie- either out of ignorance or out of intentional deceit

[allmendream]

Wrong GGG.

You cannot refute an argument without understanding it.

Re-posting your idiotic and grandiose claim to have refuted a field of study that you do not understand does nothing to either show you understand the subject, or outline the argument that refutes what you do not understand.

And this article about the Common descent of Human and Chimps fails to address what most consider the strongest evidence of common descent. This is as asinine as doing a critical review of a Football team without mentioning their star quarterback.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Sorry pal, I’m actually specifically educated in the matter and you are not.....and I am not a researcher screaming “Won’t somebody pay attention to MEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee.....???!!!!!” Much has been learned since your pet Dr. started his nonsense.

....but I get a good laugh at the nonsense on your bio page......much of it is from the early 90’s...like bio-knowledge is unchanging......and the most recent stuff complains about the non-science part of HIV/AIDS...the political and funding stuff....which I will agree is absurd.

....but to claim that HIV does not cause AIDS is both patently ludicrous and completely ignorant.

Ad numeram arguments are irrelevant.....but I’m sure you knew that before you tossed it out.

[GodGunsGuts]

I understand the argument just fine, Dreamer. But I’m seriously starting to doubt that you even understand your own argument, let alone mine. I reposted what I said before because not only did I identify how the Temple of Darwin ERV “arguments” are being falsified, but I also pointed out the far superior Creation/ID argument with respect to the same.

And while the author of the O.P. may not have addressed the ERV argument (which has been rendered nil by recent research), he does take apart your 98-99% similarity argument with a vengence, which is why I posted it. Btw, did you here that the Evos are now claiming that humans are more related to Orangs than to Chimps? LOL!!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

Pet Dr.? Which Dr. would that be? We have thousands of them.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Don’t confuse me with the merry bunch of AIDS alarmists...I am not an AIDS alarmist in any manner and agree that AIDS funding is ludicrously inflated in relation to other diseases that are not behaviorally contracted.

Awwww....but then you couldn’t call me a liberal, alarmist, Global Warming doom-gloom pusher.....you know...your typical comment when you don’t know what you’re talking about.