Skip to comments.Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by 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. 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. 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
After reading the above, give the following a read...
Remember how the evos told us that human-chimp ancestry was a slam dunk? Think again LOL!
Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests
Nova (I think it was) had a fascinating show about the differences between chimps and humans.
One experiment used a puzzle box. You do 4 steps and the last step you open a door and take out a treat. 3 of the steps are phony. All you really have to do is open the door and take the treat. They demonstrated the steps to human children. They mimicked the steps exactly every time. They demonstated the steps to a chimps. They skip the extraneous steps and go right for the door. Human children were trying to please the adult. The monkeys just wanted the treat.
Another test, they put a treat under 3 cups. They pointed to the cup that hid the treat. Human kids understood the gesture and went right for the treat cup. Chimps could not grasp the concept of getting information from the gesture. (Dogs get the pointing gesture perfectly too).
I don’t pretend to know what it all means but it was interesting.
“Where PhD really means Piled Higher and Deeper”
I think humans are closer related to sloths.
Liberal University professors are looking to humanize chimps into something they can have sex with, since Democrat Women are bitchy and do not have enough hair.
Was the Dem convention last year where the protesters were planning to throw feces on the police, so they were kept segregated (locked up in cages)?
“...since Democrat Women...do not have enough hair.”
Would that it were universally true!
The fact is that a human gene and a chimp gene are around 98% the same.
The fact is that over the entire genome we line up with chimps over 90%.
This “they compared only similar regions” is like claiming O.J. was innocent because the DNA analysis only looked at points of DNA similarity between the samples left at the murder scene and the defendant.
The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.7”
Its interesting to see how these “scientists” at this site jump from one conclusion to a totally unrelated one.
EVEN IF the similarity between a human genome and a Chimpanzee genome is 86%, and they allege only one study says this without mentioning the study or its date, they immediately conclude that evolutionary theory is incorrect. Then then leap to ANOTHER unrelated conclusion - that Chimps and Humans have no connection evolutionarily.
They would have us believe that ALL the chemical, osteological, genetic, behavioral, etc. similarities between all living organism is a mere matter of chance and there is no biological connection between the bodies of humans and other living organisms. This flies in the face of simple logic.
They BASE these ideas on their own peculiar interpretation of a passage in Genesis which they chose to interpret as inferring that, since evolution itself is not mentioned, and since it states God created man out of the dust of the earth, evolution is impossible.
The only thing impossible about these people are their thought processes.
If you want to believe God did not use evolution to create man from lower beings because He didn't detail it in Genesis, be my guest. But like other people in the past who attacked things like the heliocentric theory of the solar system based on flawed and biased interpretations of scripture, the more data that is generated on the subject, the more flawed and unbelievable your claims are.
Evolution is a fact of science. Live with it. Instead of spinning your wheels on preposterous arguments like this one, you should in stead be arguing that the existence of evolution does NOT refute a belief in Divine Creation OR in the scriptures. Instead, evolution can be reconciled with scripture through a correct interpretation of what is essentially a theological and moral document - the Bible. The Bible is a document filled with allegory and symbolism to explain moral teachings and point the road towards eternal salvation - NOT a biology text.
“One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA...”
One of? Yeah, one of a huge amount since they can’t and won’t ever find a link, as much as they really want to in order to support their belief that there is no God.
It is time to purge their kind from the ranks.
I am a scientist who believes in God. There are many others.
Over and over, they try to twist facts to substantiate their own flawed ideas about scriptures.
Its really amazing how LONG you can draw one of these threads out by lobbing “fact bombs” at these people.
I believe in God, the scriptures and evolution and have no problem reconciling those beliefs.
Nor do a large number of other evolutionists.
Once one decides that they will hold to a particular interpretation of scripture despite any and all evidence, then one may as well just go whole hog and be a Geocentrist.
And one species which evolves into another can not change back. As a matter of fact, there is a evolutionary law that an organ once lost or modified, can't return to its original state.
For instance. Snakes are believed to have evolved from a burrowing lizard type reptile which was on the way to losing its eyesight as many fossorial animals have. In the process of losing its eyesight, the ability to focus on objects at different distances was lost. When snakes later evolved back into terrestrial animals, they had lost the ability to focus their eyes as all other vertebrates do - by changing the shape of their lens. So they developed another way to do so by changed the POSTION of the lens with respect its distance from the retina. They are the only vertebrates which do this. It was impossible for them to “re-evolve” the lost method of focusing their eyes.
Well we certainly don’t have any characteristics similar to chimps.
We look and act more like fungi than chimps.
Evolution doesn’t speak as to the existence of a higher power. I can’t believe you don’t know this.
These people truly are anachronisms.
Just don’t call them inqusitors as inqusitors were Catholic and these people find that insulting.
Well, actually, I guess they have a right to express their flawed opinions as long as we can try and refute them.
Who knows, discussions like this might - just might - make some of them stop and think and realize that not all, or proabably even MOST evolutionsts are atheists and you can a Bible believing Christian WITHOUT flying the face of scientific facts.
==Then then leap to ANOTHER unrelated conclusion - that Chimps and Humans have no connection evolutionarily.
It is the Evos who leap to make the evolutionary connection, even though there are zero transitionals.
==They would have us believe that ALL the chemical, osteological, genetic, behavioral, etc. similarities between all living organism is a mere matter of chance and there is no biological connection between the bodies of humans and other living organisms.
Not at all. Creationists posit the far more obvious and plausible explanation, namely that all the similarities you mentioned are the product of a common designer rather than common descent.
==But like other people in the past who attacked things like the heliocentric theory of the solar system based on flawed and biased interpretations of scripture, the more data that is generated on the subject, the more flawed and unbelievable your claims are.
Wrong again. Galileo’s main enemies were the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic scientific establishment, not the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catholic Church was quite friendly to heliocentrism. May I suggest you read the following before making similar comments in the future:
Maybe in ‘chat/personal’, but why waste the ‘news/activism’ topic forum space on this drivel.
AND... it seem to be the only thing that GGG is capable of posting... simply to start flame wars.
If an evolutionist attempts to use the belief that “chance” mutations eliminate the existence of a Deity, they are straying from Science into Theology and Philosophy - separate disciplines.
Few men can serve two masters.
If you believe in God and evolution as I do, you believe that God is the ultimate source of the biological and physical laws which run the Universe and creation, including evolutionary laws. If you believe that, then you also believe that what appears to be mere chance to finite eyes, is, ulimately, in God's hands.
==But this idiotic article fails to address the slam dunk evidence of Endogenous retrovirus, and repeatedly conflates genetic DNA comparisons with genomic DNA comparisons.
Are you having short term memory problems, dreamer? Your so-called slam dunk ERV arguments have been utterly destroyed many times, and yet you keep on using it.
==The fact is that a human gene and a chimp gene are around 98% the same...The fact is that over the entire genome we line up with chimps over 90%.
Well seeing how even Richard Dawkins admits that biological organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, it makes far more sense that similarities between biological organisms point to a common designer, rather than Darwin’s fanciful random processes plus survival fairytale.
ERV data is used to establish phylogeny of common descent.
Your idiotic claims to the contrary notwithstanding, you do not even understand ERV data enough to refute it GGG.
Darwin himself documented a bird that had changed its beak shape and size in a few years. I think it was NOVA that found the same bird had changed back.
Sorry, evolution is to iffy for me to believe in.
But despite the fact that the cause for the case against Galileo was really personal and political, the reason the accusation had legs, as it were, was because the bulk of the populace and a good proportion of the clergy DID believe that to question the geocentric theory was heresy.
If it was purely a matter of politics and not philosophy, a guy named Copernicus would never have required that his work on the heliocentric nature of the solar system not be published until his death.
I draw an analogy between geocentrists and anti-evolutionists - I think “creationist” is inappropriate as as an evolutionist, I do NOT discount the hand of God in creating the laws of evolution - because like the geocentrists, they use scriptural statements which are related to theological points as a basis for drawing scientific conclusions.
Well, in science, “impossible” and “never” are always bad terms to employ (there I go again!!!)
See “allmendream”’s comments and my response.
Science is always changing due to discoveries of new facts. Its almost as hard to get a firm handle on as the Internet at times. But its based on observations and tests and not on faith.
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observations and tests.
There is solid proof that smart conservatives can devolve into really stupid ones in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Starting with the creation story.
It is also a liberal leftists fondest dream, because the chaos requires no input from them, but still provides the desired results.
I’m afraid the shoe is entirely on the other foot, Dreamer. I have demonstrated over and over, using Creation, ID, and Temple of Darwin approved sources, that ERVs are not reliable indicators of common descent. Do you really want to go down this road again?
Humans are 95% the same as the Atlantic Ocean.
You mean like ‘Evolution’ is a ‘fact’ of ‘science’?
‘E Coli’ is a ‘fact’ of ‘science’
‘photosynthesis’ is a ‘fact’ of ‘science’
‘mental instability’ is a ‘fact’ of ‘science’
‘erectile disfunction’ is a ‘fact’ of ‘science’.
Hey, this is fun.
Your claim that the many scientists using ERV data to establish common descent are all wrong because you refuted it on the Internet is amusingly delusional as you have not even shown that you understand what you are attempting to refute.
You might win more converts to your side if you stopped the childish insults.
Evolution would allow for that... creation not so much.
Yes, it is a fact of science - sort of.
So is Erectile Dysfunction - whatever that means - I don’t have it. On the other hand, most Democrats walk around in a permanent state of Erectile Non-Dysfunction. That is what makes them what they are.
“I am a scientist who believes in God.”
The question is, are you a scientist who believes in God AND evolution? If so, you don’t believe the Bible.
“I believe in God, the scriptures and evolution..”
You mean you believe “selected verses” of Scripture for it is obvious you don’t believe Genesis.
1) A Centrifuge
2) A Microscope
3) A Pipetteman
5)A Bunsen Buner
I say, let’s ask Obama.