Posted on 11/15/2011 7:37:50 AM PST by fishtank
Creationists conflate the 99% genetic DNA similarity and the 95% or so similarity between genomic DNA, knowing the woeful lack of education on average of their target audience - they are pretty confident the dupes of their disinformation will not catch on.
They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is “regulatory” and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.
I am not thrilled with the way the georgia tech study is quoted and surrounded by creation scientist quotes.
I am willing to bet the findings of the scientists that actually performed the study differ significantly from those of the creation scientists.
-C L Emerson
Not true!!!
I know for a fact a cheeky Kenyan bastard running around the States is a direct descendent from chimps.
Genisis 30:That, Biblically, is how you breed colored sheep.37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Really? I hadn't realized this was a specialty, or that the Bible was a text on genetics.
Doncha recall how The Trickster Jacob used Biblical genetics and sticks to breed speckled goats?
That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.
Yep. I remember hearing a few years back that our DNA is closer to a cockroach’s DNA than to a monkey’s DNA. Well, now I understand Democrats.
Whoever you heard that from took you for a fool.
Were they mutagenic sticks?/s
“That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.”
I’ve seen similar distortions in 200 page EPA reports where the executive summary (the only thing anyone reads) draws one conclusion but the data in the rest of the document supports the opposite conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.