why the 98% figure for same DNA monkey to man??? is it the new math???
chimps have 10% more DNA than humans
the tellemers are twice the length of humans
we count substitutions... but ??not?? insertions which are most of the differences... oyyy vey!!!!
new math gives me a headache... is this the stuff of careful scientific comparison... or trying to religously arrive at the conclusion you want without being confused by the facts?
2006-11-14 02:58:22 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
so how can the DNA be 98% the same while being so different? is this like those political ads we say last week that makes your heads spin in the direction of the 'statisticians' choice
http://www.answersingenesis.org
Planet of the apes or Image of God by Dewitt
2006-11-14 03:00:17 · update #1
and for in depth analysis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
2006-11-14 03:06:36 · update #2
Evolutionists slam creationists for not having facts.
What gets me is they dig up a bone and the bone is a fact. But then they proceed to claim its age as a fact. Sorry, it is not a fact. Determining the age of a bone makes an assumption that cannot be proven because the dating process assumes all things happen at the same rate now as they did long ago. And you can't prove that as a fact.
2006-11-14 13:14:04 · answer #1 · answered by Harley Charley 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Provide a real source. That link you posted leads nowhere. I couldn't find any "Planet of the Apes" article!
re: Second update.
Okay, well, here we have your answer. DeWitt attempts to "debunk" science by citing a recent scientific discovery. What he doesn't realize is that he has shown the precise strength of the scientific method over inflexible religion.
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect. (Britten, 2002)"
Was the theory of evolution premised upon a 98% similarity between chimps and humans? No. Does a change in that figure in any way discredit the theory of evolution? No.
He then goes on, in the same opening paragraph, to write: "Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included."
Okay, 95% it is! I surrender to your logic!
Really, this is like someone denying the Holocaust because the ADL publishes a study showing there were 5,500,000 victims instead of 6,000,000.
2006-11-14 03:11:53 · answer #2 · answered by Sabrina H 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
LOL do you know what a telomere is? The irony of your statement "trying to religously arrive at the conclusion you want without being confused by the facts?"...
The genetic change from these events is tiny compared to those from single substitutions. Hence 98 to 99% identical is a reasonable figure. But even if you refuse to accept that (religously arriving at a conclusion) the key point is that chimpanzees are the most closely related species to us, whether you count junk dna or not.
2006-11-14 03:44:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Chimps aren't monkeys, they're apes. Telomeres are made of pseudogenes and therefore aren't considered "real" data. Besides, their only real function is to trigger cell senescence, not synth proteins.
You can't just discount science because it "gives you a headache" and looks like the "new math" because maths also gives you a headache.
Including the word "religiously" in that last assumption just shows that you're trying to twist facts to meet your requirements.
"98% the same while so different" Obviously you don't "get" genetics. And the fact that you believe that Answers in Genesis propaganda just proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about in the slightest.
Please people, arguing that other complex organisms (including plants) have 40%, 50%, etc genetic similarity to humans just shows you don't know what genes are for. Yes we share similarities but its because we all use similar proteins and enzymes which these genes are used to synth.
2006-11-14 03:06:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
I'm not an atheist, but I do believe that the theory of evolution is so far the best way to explain the facts we know. I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I do want to make it clear that most people believe in evolution, and the vast majority of those believers are people of faith like myself.
Also, I'm fairly sure it's due to scientific comparison, not fuzzy math. Hope that helps.
2006-11-14 03:01:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Congratulations on making yourself appear very ignorant. How about you study chemistry and biology from an accredited source other than some religiosly biased website.
2006-11-14 03:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by bc_munkee 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
...any particular reason you aren't putting this in the science section? Not all atheists are evolutionary scientists, you know. You're wrong to lump all of us in the same group.
Also, try to make your question a little bit more understandable and not type it out like a retarded baboon. Put together some coherent sentences using proper punctuation and you might get better responses from the science camp.
2006-11-14 03:02:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Don't you mean "evolutionists"?
I'm really rather confused as to why theists think they have to choose between God and evolution.
Answers in Genesis, by the way, is a laughable site. If you want to know about science, I suggest you look elsewhere.
2006-11-14 03:01:50 · answer #8 · answered by Snark 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Once again, another NON-biologist coming and trying (and failing) to interpret scientific facts to fit his religious beliefs.
You aren't qualified to make the conclusions you make, and you certainly don't support them with any real concrete evidence.
You didn't even use proper grammar or spelling.
2006-11-14 03:01:39 · answer #9 · answered by Michael 5 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Maybe our evolution is actually going in reverse. We may be going BACk to monkies
2006-11-14 03:03:07 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋