[Ahban]

Not at all. At 45 I thought you were running away from trying to get meaningful numbers, even though you had commented that the original post was "fact based" when you thought those man-chimp numbers were in your favor. I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man.

A couple of posts later you said I had misread you on that, and I took you at your word.

I hope you are not going to the position that I presumably mistakenly attributed to you back on #44. If the post does represent a "fact based" study, then number estimates on man-chimp genomes are fair game.

I am trying to take these numbers to their logical conclusion, practically begging any and all of you to present your models as I have mine. Rather than attempt to refute my numbers based on fact- which you cannot do since I have used your own numbers at every step of the process, I see a desire to move away from any attempts at measurement. Is that "science"?

I hope I am "misreading" you again. You don't expect us to accept the "science without numbers" mind-set that resists any attempt at quantification?

That can't be your position. It is not a rational one. It is PURE FAITH beyond that of my position that God made man. I am offering mathematical models to support my contentions, whilst I have been offered nothing in return but hypotheticals that are to be accepted on faith.

If my models are flawed, point out the flaws- I have been very reasonable throughout this entire thread about accepting numbers from your side. Don't just side-step the whole issue of quantifying the probability of the evolutionary hypothesis, offer your model in return.

[Condorman]

At 45 I thought you were running away from trying to get meaningful numbers, even though you had commented that the original post was "fact based" when you thought those man-chimp numbers were in your favor.

Which thread are you reading, man?

I also wonder which chimp genome is being compared with which human genome. And how does this compare with a genome comparison between an African bushman and say, an Alaskan Eskimo? Or an Australian Aborigine versus a Brazilian Wari'?
45 posted on 02/07/2003 12:27 PM EST by Condorman

I don't know what the real difference is though. How much % wise do we all differ from one another in our total CHROMOSOMAL DNA? How do our 42 million (or 150 million using g3ks calculations) bpd's from chimps compare to the number of pbd we have from one another?
83 posted on 02/15/2003 3:36 PM EST by Ahban

I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man.

Never said that. I wanted to establish a baseline. If chimps are 95% the same a man, what does that mean? How does that compare to intra-human genome comparisons? How close are humans to, say, goldfish? Without any kind of reference point, 5% is a meaningless figure.

I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man. A couple of posts later you said I had misread you on that, and I took you at your word.

Once again, here is the context of that remark.

The mice that scientists recently inserted jelly-fish glow genes into can now glow in the dark. Should civilization end and these critters escape into the wild I suppose some scientits 500 years from now could speculate that these genes evolved. Others could hypothysize that these genes were the results of intelligent designers manipulating genes.

I don't think the first group of scientists should demand that the second group produce the bodies of those long gone researchers as "proof" of the design hypotheis. The second group should be able to use stats to show how absurd is the idea of evolution in this case, especially within 500 years.
46 posted on 02/07/2003 1:34 PM EST by Ahban

Only if the second group was fully conversant with the initial conditions at the period in time when the glow-in-the-dark mice first appeared in the animal kingdom. Without that info, calculating statistical improbability it just guesswork with a slide rule.
47 posted on 02/07/2003 4:09 PM EST by Condorman

I am trying to take these numbers to their logical conclusion, practically begging any and all of you to present your models as I have mine.

Where have you been? We have! Sexual reproduction, gene duplication, transposition, and viral action have all been presented and identified as mechanisms for genetic modification. You sought to dismiss virii by referring to my remarks as "C-man's mystery virus" until Sentis expounded on the concept, but have since been content to let the matter drop. Nebullis appeared and made note of the fact that mutation rates appear to be consistent with the observed genetic differences between chimps and man given the time frame.

But here's the rub, even if those mechanisms are shown to be inadequate, this IN NO WAY provides support for a designer. Your only argument at the point appears to be "What we know can't account for the changes, it must have been the Designer." What you forget is that unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to exhaust all the possible natural alternatives before a Designer might be considered.

I made the same point in post 63 and concluded with this question: If a Designer is responsible for the chimp-human divergence, how did he do it, and would we humans be able to distinguish Designer-induced genetic changes from those occuring naturally? You claimed that I'm attempting to sidestep the issue.

I'm sorry, but I think I'm starting to lose interest in this thread. I do appreciate your efforts, but your responses indicate that you don't appear to be comprehending the points I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm not being clear, maybe you don't understand, maybe it's a combination of the two. Whatever the case, I seem to be spending more time regurgitating our conversations than making any progress forward.