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...

[Snurple]

Flawed Research.

[allmendream]

Yet you just said that creationists who are geocentists are absurd, outlandish and ridiculous by inference.

Thanks for the confirmation. My point exactly. And we ain't making it up. Here they are in all their “coordinate systems” glory!

[allmendream]

???

[editor-surveyor]

"Coordinate systems do not explain what is causing the motion."

So now you are ready to explain the cause of the motion?

Got my popcorn, fire away! (dumb $h!t)

[Snurple]

We aint descended from monkeys.

[editor-surveyor]

Metmom, I find it hard to believe that a real evolutionist would embrace the ignoramuses that post here as evos.

These jerks have an agenda that is way outside of science.

[allmendream]

I already did. Gravity. F=m*a. The relative mass of the Earth and the Sun. Orbital acceleration.

Do you consider yourself a geocentrist?

Do you think the Sun circles the Earth?

Why do you avoid the questions when it is obvious (except to the obligingly obtuse) that you are arguing geocentrism with every post?

[editor-surveyor]

You did nothing.

All the formulae of physics fit any coordinate system; that is the point of Al’s essay.

Now you were going to show us where the motion originated?

Ready!

[metmom]

What about geocentricism do you find to be “unreasonable”?

What do you think is the main philosophical difference between a geocentric creationist and a heliocentric creationist?

Is one more willing to change their scriptural interpretation in light of physical evidence than the other?

And there we have it in a nutshell. People who adjust Scripture to fit the latest in pseudo-scientific philosophical consensus are *reasonable*, as if current scientific consensus is the final word on anything.

Incoming.....

[metmom]

The motion is caused by the gravitation of the Sun upon the Earth causing the Earth to move.

There's more to it than that. If it were simply the gravitational attraction of the Sun on the Earth, the Earth would just be drawn into the Sun and fried.

The gravitational effects of the Sun on the Earth alone would not cause the Earth to move around the Sun.

[metmom]

No, again, since reading comprehension seems to not be your forte, it’s evos portrayal of creationists that is absurd, outlandish, and ridiculous.

[Caramelgal]

Predictable as the sunrise.

Would that be the sunrise of the Sun revolving around Earth or the Earth revolving round the Sun? LOL!

That you are incapable or unwilling to answer a very simple question makes you look rather ridiculous.

Having too much trouble discrediting geocentric creationists?

No. They do that all on their own without any help from me. :),

So you still deny that there are heliocentric creationists? Do they embarrass you? Why aren’t you willing to admit they exist and either agree with them or call them out on it?

[Caramelgal]

If Al Einstein buys it, why would anyone make such a stink to deny it?

Please provide a source for your proof that Albert Einstein was a Heliocentric.

You're a real piece of work yourself!

Pot - meet kettle.

As predicable, you are very long on the insults and very short on the facts.

[metmom]

So you still deny that there are heliocentric creationists? Do they embarrass you? Why aren’t you willing to admit they exist and either agree with them or call them out on it?

So why are you changing the subject and now focusing on heliocentric creationists?

It doesn't bother me one bit what someone believes about geocentric or heliocentric models of the solar system or universe. That's their decision and they have reasons for believing what they believe.

I'm not embarrassed by it; it doesn't have any effect on me in a practical sense. It's really irrelevant to my day to day living.

I'm more of a live and let live type as opposed to the marxist thought police who think that they have the right to dictate to everyone else what has to be taught in schools cause they think that they're right because they have a better reason than everyone else.

It doesn't eat at me that others think differently than I do, but I'm not going to roll over and play dead while we lose our freedoms in the name of "science".

[allmendream]

It is called orbital acceleration.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/circles/u6l4c.html

Consider a satellite with mass Msat orbiting a central body with a mass of mass MCentral. The central body could be a planet, the sun or some other large mass capable of causing sufficient acceleration on a less massive nearby object. If the satellite moves in circular motion, then the net centripetal force acting upon this orbiting satellite is given by the relationship

Fnet = ( Msat • v2 ) / R

This net centripetal force is the result of the gravitational force which attracts the satellite towards the central body and can be represented as

Fgrav = ( G • Msat • MCentral ) / R2
Since Fgrav = Fnet, the above expressions for centripetal force and gravitational force can be set equal to each other. Thus,

(Msat • v2) / R = (G • Msat • MCentral ) / R2
Observe that the mass of the satellite is present on both sides of the equation; thus it can be canceled by dividing through by Msat. Then both sides of the equation can be multiplied by R, leaving the following equation.

v2 = (G • MCentral ) / R
Taking the square root of each side, leaves the following equation for the velocity of a satellite moving about a central body in circular motion

where G is 6.673 x 10-11 N•m2/kg2, Mcentral is the mass of the central body about which the satellite orbits, and R is the radius of orbit for the satellite.

Similar reasoning can be used to determine an equation for the acceleration of our satellite that is expressed in terms of masses and radius of orbit. The acceleration value of a satellite is equal to the acceleration of gravity of the satellite at whatever location which it is orbiting. In Lesson 3, the equation for the acceleration of gravity was given as

g = (G • Mcentral)/R2
Thus, the acceleration of a satellite in circular motion about some central body is given by the following equation

where G is 6.673 x 10-11 N•m2/kg2, Mcentral is the mass of the central body about which the satellite orbits, and R is the average radius of orbit for the satellite.

The final equation which is useful in describing the motion of satellites is Newton's form of Kepler's third law. Since the logic behind the development of the equation has been presented elsewhere, only the equation will be presented here. The period of a satellite (T) and the mean distance from the central body (R) are related by the following equation:

where T is the period of the satellite, R is the average radius of orbit for the satellite (distance from center of central planet), and G is 6.673 x 10-11 N•m2/kg2.

There is an important concept evident in all three of these equations - the period, speed and the acceleration of an orbiting satellite are not dependent upon the mass of the satellite.

None of these three equations has the variable Msatellite in them. The period, speed and acceleration of a satellite is only dependent upon the radius of orbit and the mass of the central body which the satellite is orbiting. Just as in the case of the motion of projectiles on earth, the mass of the projectile has no affect upon the acceleration towards the earth and the speed at any instant. When air resistance is negligible and only gravity is present, the mass of the moving object becomes a non-factor. Such is the case of orbiting satellites.

[allmendream]

So there is no reason for a geocentrist to adjust their Scriptural INTERPRETATION in light of physical evidence?

As confirmed there is NO philosophical difference between a geocentric and heliocentric creationist.

[metmom]

Preaching to the choir there.....

[allmendream]

F=m*a

In this case the force of the gravity between the Sun and the Earth causes a disproportionate and observable acceleration upon the Earth. Orbital acceleration.

Apparently this is a difficult concept to some of your compatriots.

[Caramelgal]

So why are you changing the subject and now focusing on heliocentric creationists?

I didn’t bring up the subject, you did. You at first denied any knowledge that heliocentric creationists posted on these threads. Now you acknowledge them but now claim that it doesn’t really matter to you.

It doesn't bother me one bit what someone believes about geocentric or heliocentric models of the solar system or universe. That's their decision and they have reasons for believing what they believe.

So you believe that one’s belief in a geocentric or heliocentric model doesn’t matter one wit as long as that’s what they believe and it’s all up to their own reasons and “decisions” as to what to believe. Yet you admonish and ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and a 6,000 year old Earth or who accepts the TOE. How convenient and grossly intellectually dishonest and inconsistent of you.

I'm not embarrassed by it; it doesn't have any effect on me in a practical sense. It's really irrelevant to my day to day living.

You should be embarrassed by the heliocentric creationists. That you defend them or refuse to refute them tells me that you really care nothing about science. And whether or not you care to admit it or not, it does have a practical effect on you, unless you want to believe that the Moon landings were staged events and never really happened.

It doesn't eat at me that others think differently than I do, but I'm not going to roll over and play dead while we lose our freedoms in the name of "science".

Tell me exactly how legitimate scientific research or TOE has resulted in any loss of your freedoms. You are still entitled to believe in what ever you choose to believe in. Heck, there are people who believe in alien crop circles, alien abductions, clairvoyance, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster and that 9/11 was an inside job. However none of those “beliefs” should be accepted as legitimate science or taught as such in a science class room.

And if you are going to bring up the man made global warming argument, please be aware that it doesn’t amount to a total scientific consensus. Many climate scientists are skeptical of AGW. It’s not their fault the liberal MSM largely ignores them.

[editor-surveyor]

"Please provide a source for your proof that Albert Einstein was a Heliocentric."

You simply don't understand the subject, do you?

Einstein's proof showed that the difference between each coordinate system was purely philosophical. He didn't ascribe to any particular system because he considered philosophical questions irreconcilable. (most honest secular scientists take that view)