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...

[Texas Songwriter]

Hello. I hope your moving went well. These nonsequitors make a reasoned conversaion unproductive. Their assertions without explainatory philosophical, scientific, or observational evidence make these engagements unlikely to issue forth a result, one way or the other. It does seem that roles, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, have reversed from where it was 100 years ago. One hundred years ago the theist had to, on faith, believe that ."...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now all scientific evidence points to a universe created by first cause, not determined by the known laws of physics. A transcendent cause. Now 'holder-ons' will abandon even the laws of physics to expain away creation. But it is not the goal of physics to do other than pursue a naturalistic explaination as far as we can. But since physics can only explain one set of laws by use of a more fundamental set of laws, physics can never explain the most fundamental laws. It must rely on philosophy, forensics, natural law to see beyond its limitations, and I think the atheist refuses for personal reasons. So they try to tether to the theist a geocentric earth philosophy or any of the other inanities we have seen on this thread. They seem to lay claim to science by asserting a sort of scientific or intellectual bigotry against a theist as if the theist did not have the apptitude to understand such matters of "science". Yet science is a search for causes. Why did this happen? What caused that? So butting up against a moment where tools of physics cannot be relied upon because physics is constrained by time, space, matter, and energy their search stops....that moment just prior to time, space, matter and energy, they emasculate themselves. I have had them say to me, 'there are other laws.' I ask for evidence. Silence...none. I have heard them refer to Hoyle's old saw of steady state cosmos which even Hoyle gave up on. The commonality they all seem to have is this hatred for the theist who danes to ask such questions.

I find it humorous they deny creation while Einstein (atheist) affirmed creation. They deny creation when Wilsom and Penzias(atheists-initially) affirmed it. Likewise Eddington, Hoyl, Smoot, even Hawking all refernce the moment of creation. Yet creation cannot be discussed in their 'scientific' circles. The irony gets thick.

[metmom]

I just had to ping you to that response.

[allmendream]

So you refuse to acknowledge the existence and personally expressed views of the two Geocentric poster I invited to the thread?

How disrespectful. You call them straw men. Claim their views are unreasonable. Now you refuse to even acknowledge their existence.

So what about the geocentric view do you find unreasonable?

How is a geocentric creationists views philosophically different than a heliocentric creationists views?

Are some just more willing to “compromise” their scriptural interpretation in light of relevant facts?

[metmom]

Since you clearly didn't read post 314, here is is again.

What if some group wants geocentricty taught in public schools?

So what?

What if some group wants to teach anthropogenic global warming?

What if some group wants to teach that homosexuality is good?

What if some group wants to teach how to put condoms on produce?

What if some group wants to teach Everyday Math?

What if some group wants to teach whole language reading?

What if some group wants to teach that proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation isn't important any more?

What if some group wants to dumb down tests so more kids pass?

What if some group wants to give kids A's for trying, not mastering the subject material?

Your *what if* scenarios are ludicrous in light of what's really wrong with public education and in light of the fact that I don't see anybody pushing for teaching that.

Evos can only discredit strawmen creationists. Real creationists are far more reasonable than evos can comprehend and far more reasonable than your average liberal agenda in public education evolutionist/atheist.

Hear that e-s and GDan? You are both strawmen creationists! Metmom obviously considers your views unreasonable as well as an embarrassment.

No, she doesn't.

You're all bent out of shape about geocentrist creationist views. For the record, tell us exactly what you mean by that and what it is that they believe so that we're on the same page.

I have this sneaking suspicion that what you mean is not what they mean.

[allmendream]

Read their posts. They say they are geocentrists and they are also creationists. Read the long series of quotes about the supposed equivalence of the geocentric and heliocentric models.

Are you now not taking them at their word in addition to calling their position unreasonable and a strawman?

[metmom]

That you conclude that an evo has discredited something that such distinguished scientists openly admit cannot be discredited only testifies to your inability to think critically.

Evos tend to do that a lot.

I've never seen a group (usually) uneducated in the sciences who stand in judgment and condemn what actual PhD's in science state like the evos.

[metmom]

No now that you are unequivocally aware of the several FR Creationist geocentric posters; do you still consider them to only be straw men?

No, it's your representation of them that I consider the strawman.

[allmendream]

My representation of them is ONLY that they are...

a) geocentrists

b) creationists.

That is accurate.

G-dan, e-s; is either statement untrue? Are either of you NOT a geocentrist or a creationist?

[allmendream]

You seem to be studiously avoiding my questions metmom.

In the abstract, without any mention of any specific person....

what do you find “unreasonable” about the geocentrist view?

what is the philosophical difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric creationist? Is one more willing to “compromise” scripture in light of relevant facts?

[metmom]

You never answered my question, speaking of studiously avoiding questions.

What do YOU mean by geocentrist when you accuse someone of being a geocentrist?

I’m not going to agree to something only to have you turn around and claim that I agree with them that the sun revolves around the earth.

Evos are famous for twisting definitions and cramming people into boxes of evos own making in an effort to discredit them.

I’m not getting burned like that.

[betty boop]

Thanks trisham!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

==You still have not come up with an explanation for the data GGG

I just showed how and why the Temple of Darwin got it wrong, and I demonstrated why Creation/ID is a best explanation of the data.

==Similar DNA generality is not the topic of discussion, it is the presence or absence of ERV’s in the genome and their similarity or divergence that makes it look exactly as if an ERV had incorporated into a common ancestor and changed through mutation subsequently.

As I said above, seeing how we now know that ERVs have large-scale functions, it makes much better sense that similar but slightly different ERVs were designed into the genomes of closely related species at the time of creation. As such, Creationists and IDers would expect organisms that have similar body plans and functional needs to have more similar ERVs shared between them, whereas they would expect an organism that is more distant to have less similar ERVs.

==The pattern of ERV’s that is consistent with common descent is in no way dependent upon there not being any function for any ERV’s.

If ERVs have large scale functions, and non-random insertion “hot spots”, that strengthens the argument from Creation/Design. Duh!

==Moreover the functional ERVs were found because of a high degree of evolutionary conservation between species that is NOT observed with the vast majority of ERV’s. Care to explain this observation?

Actually, this is all up in the air now, as Project ENCODE has found that some 95% of functional sequences show no sign of selective pressure. If this is true, this makes it even worse for the Evos. As Alex Williams points out, if 95% of the functional sequences show no sign of natural selection, that means that natural selection at best has almost nothing to do with ancestry.

==Why is it that a particular ERV would be found in just people of East Asian descent? Why would that ERV be most similar among Pacific Islanders and less similar when compared between Pacific Islanders and Chinese?

Well, seeing how many transposable elements thought to be ERVs have proven to be functional, and given the fact that ERVs may play a role in increasing genetic diversity and assisting adaptability via horizontal gene transfer, I really don’t see how shared ERVs unique to geographically isolated groups poses a problem for the Creation/Design argument.

[allmendream]

What I mean by a Geocentrist is someone that disagrees with the scientific model that the Earth moves around the Sun and thinks that this model is inferior to or at least equivalent to a model that has the Sun moving around the Earth.

Care to answer my questions now?

Somehow I doubt it.

[allmendream]

No GGG. Nothing in your so called explanation would show how that pattern of presence or absence similarity and divergence would form.

All you have said is that you find Creationism superior to actual science. We knew that.

If you don't see how shared ERV’s among particular human populations such that the identity and similarity of human populations based upon common ancestry can be established (allowing me to, for example, establish that native Americans are most related to Asiatic populations for example) is a problem for “cdesign proponentists” then it is obvious that you STILL don't understand the data.

But please, by all means, take another crack at it.

Take me step by step through a process whereby this pattern would be established such that ERV’s shared only among some human populations look “younger” than ERV’s shared among all humans, and how those shared among all humans look “younger” than those shared among humans and chimps, etc. And please don't leave out an explanation for why those ERV’s shared among all primates would be most similar when comparing humans and chimps.

[GodGunsGuts]

==All you have said is that you find Creationism superior to actual science.

Creation, ID, and Evolution scientists all deal with the unobservable, unrepeatable past. That’s why they fall under the category of historical rather than the operational sciences.

==then it is obvious that you STILL don’t understand the data.

Nope, it is STILL you who does not understand the data, otherwise you would realize that the data is more more supportive of the argument from Creation/Design.

==Take me step by step through a process whereby this pattern would be established such that ERV’s shared only among some human populations look “younger” than ERV’s shared among all humans, and how those shared among all humans look “younger” than those shared among humans and chimps, etc.

Again, if ERVs were designed into the genomes of the original kinds at the time of creation, and the Creator used variations on modular designs, then organisms that are closer in terms of body plan and functional needs are going to share not only more ERVs together, but the ERVs will look more similar. Why do you find that so hard to grasp?

Also, if chimps are closer to humans than the other great apes, then why are the evos now saying orangs are closer to humans than chimps?

[GourmetDan]

"What I mean by a Geocentrist is someone that disagrees with the scientific model that the Earth moves around the Sun and thinks that this model is inferior to or at least equivalent to a model that has the Sun moving around the Earth."

As Ellis points out. There is no 'scientific' model of geokineticism, only philosophical ones.

So...using your definition, I am not a geocentrist.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

[YHAOS]

"I just had to ping you to that response."

Yes, I know. ( ^: }

And, thanks for the beep. It's an interesting turn that the conversation is taking. But not unpredictable in the final analysis. Whenever politics rears its ugly head, certain events become inevitable.

[allmendream]

Evolution deals with what will happen when I subject a population to selective pressure NOW. Do you mean common descent is a “historical” science?

Why would some ERV’s be unique to only some human populations? Do those ERV’s perform a function in only those human populations do you suppose?

We can see the incorporation of new ERV’s into a genome when reproductive cells are infected with RNA virus; do these newly incorporated ERV’s serve a function as soon as they enter the new genome? At what point and by what criteria would you say they became “functional”?

And if you say ERV’s serve to increase genetic diversity in order to help “adapt” a population to changing environments; is this an example of de-evolution or degradation of the genome? Is becoming more adapted to your environment de-evolution?

[allmendream]

You most certainly ARE by my definition as you claim that the movement of the Earth, or “geokineticism”, as being at least equivalent to a model of an unmoving Earth in the quotes you provided.

Do you consider YOURSELF a geocentrist?

Do you think the Earth is in orbit around the Sun?

[tpanther]

I tell you what, wouldn’t it be easier to get a ping when there’s a liberal that’s NOT an ignorant obnoxious liar that actually has a desire to discuss anything honestly or factually?