Clear evidence for evolution

[Necrosis]

we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

[wavelength]

we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

Despite these similarities, I have never come across an ape uttering such profound knowledge. From a biological standpoint you're right of course. I also 100% agree on the fact that "intelligent design" can't offer anything.

[Oldschool Flip]

We also do what animals do. We procreate with the females carrying the baby, we are territorial and possessive like any other animal (young kids instinctively don't share), we eat to sustain ourselves, we defficate when we need to, etc. The biggest difference is other species of animals don't fuck each other over for money.

[wavelength]

We also do what animals do. We procreate with the females carrying the baby, we are territorial and possessive like any other animal (young kids instinctively don't share), we eat to sustain ourselves, we defficate when we need to, etc. The biggest difference is other species of animals don't fuck each other over for money.

What we do has biological aspects. The conclusion that our actions (or generally, we as humans) are defined just by those biological aspects is one often drawn by biologists and behavioural scientists. A conclusion however, that (besides being wrong) is one that cannot be drawn from within their field of examination. The point of origin is always human consciousness, not the other way round.

[Nordic Superman]

Despite these similarities, I have never come across an ape uttering such profound knowledge. From a biological standpoint you're right of course. I also 100% agree on the fact that "intelligent design" can't offer anything.

But your ancestors have. They lived along side the Neanderthals which possessed several capabilities such as our own. Not to mention Homo sapien's direct ancestors themselves which carried the gene mutation which provides us with the ability to communicate via speech, they were also societal animals and good tool makers. Shame only one dominant intelligent ape can possibly survive, but this is our own doing, we were just too good at what we did and more economical about it (are calorie consumption is almost half of that require by projections for Neanderthals).

[wavelength]

But your ancestors have. They lived along side the Neanderthals which possessed several capabilities such as our own. Not to mention Homo sapien's direct ancestors themselves which carried the gene mutation which provides us with the ability to communicate via speech, they were also societal animals and good tool makers. Shame only one dominant intelligent ape can possibly survive, but this is our own doing, we were just too good at what we did and more economical about it (are calorie consumption is almost half of that require by projections for Neanderthals).

All biological aspects of what cannot be holistically explained by evolution.

[loco]

we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?

"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.

Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.

- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.

- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.

- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).

Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."

Footnotes:

1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.

[Oldschool Flip]

If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?

"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.

Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.

- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.

- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.

- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).

Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."

Footnotes:

1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.

Why even share any DNA at all? If man is superior and above animals, we should just have DNA specific to just humans and not coincide with any other similar animal on earth.

[Nordic Superman]

All biological aspects of what cannot be holistically explained by evolution.

All can be explain by evolution through natural selection.

Loco, most of our DNA sequence is never actually "realised", that is to say that large portions of it are junk strands or turned off - this is why we share a huge portion of our genetic code even with a lowly banana. These portions are monoliths of are ancient past. Only a tiny amount of truly "realised" genes are required to see changes between organisms. It is a single gene for instance that dictates whether an organism sees in colour or not. The same with vocal capabilities.

Think about this, how different are humans between each other within the world population? Hugely different, in fact many White Europeans arrogantly and incorrectly thought that the Negroids of Africa were closer to other apes than we are. How different are pygmies and such isolated tribes? All from a VERY, VERY small change in an even smaller subset of our total genome.

The fact that Chimpanzees are so close on a genetic scale only gives more credibility to Darwin's theory of natural selection. If the difference was HUGE then it would fall flat on its face.

Don't assume that changes in DNA and changes in appearance are relative of each other. The smallest mutation can lead to the biggest of changes.

[loco]

Why even share any DNA at all? If man is superior and above animals, we should just have DNA specific to just humans and not coincide with any other similar animal on earth.

Why?  I don't know.  Why not?  That's your opinion.  There is no law or rule saying that it has to be your way.

Besides, creationists and intelligent design advocates would say that these similarities are evidence that humans and chimps share, not a common ancestor, but a common creator and a common intelligent designer.  So the same evidence could be interpreted either way by both sides.

[wavelength]

All can be explain by evolution through natural selection.

This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.

[Necrosis]

This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.

I think you need to start defining what your talking about.

the surest way to test reality is objective evidence,humans a falible, philosophy can be deluded, reason can succumb to neural nots.

Evolution through natural selection is fact, it has been observed, by anyone anywhere. Dont mistake beleif with evidence for belief without evidence. Of course nothing is 100% knowable, but that doesnt mean we ignore objective results and findings and take agnositc stances on things that are quite clearly factual.

[wavelength]

I think you need to start defining what your talking about.

the surest way to test reality is objective evidence,humans a falible, philosophy can be deluded, reason can succumb to neural nots.

Evolution through natural selection is fact, it has been observed, by anyone anywhere. Dont mistake beleif with evidence for belief without evidence. Of course nothing is 100% knowable, but that doesnt mean we ignore objective results and findings and take agnositc stances on things that are quite clearly factual.

I have clearly defined everything I'm talking about. I see no new arguments, all of this has already been discussed. I could refer you to a post from a few days ago and send you into an infinite loop.

[Necrosis]

I have clearly defined everything I'm talking about. I see no new arguments, all of this has already been discussed. I could refer you to a post from a few days ago and send you into an infinite loop.

i know but if your definitions are correct i would be convinced of your standpoint and i am not.

I havent seen one example of how to tell what is real and your argument(the one you presented based on form) for creation or intelligent creation was pure conjecture without axioms.

im aware you can see the limitations of scientific positivism, i can to, i just dont see a viable solution to the short-comings, i dont see what can fill that void.

I agree we are going in circles, but i find your form of argumentation somewhat cryptic and off point. Perhaps its just me.

[wavelength]

i know but if your definitions are correct i would be convinced of your standpoint and i am not.

I havent seen one example of how to tell what is real and your argument(the one you presented based on form) for creation or intelligent creation was pure conjecture without axioms.

im aware you can see the limitations of scientific positivism, i can to, i just dont see a viable solution to the short-comings, i dont see what can fill that void.

I agree we are going in circles, but i find your form of argumentation somewhat cryptic and off point. Perhaps its just me.

Yes it's just you.

[Oldschool Flip]

Why?  I don't know.  Why not?  That's your opinion.  There is no law or rule saying that it has to be your way.

Besides, creationists and intelligent design advocates would say that these similarities are evidence that humans and chimps share, not a common ancestor, but a common creator and a common intelligent designer.  So the same evidence could be interpreted either way by both sides.

A monkey is not an alligator. They share no common DNA. It's not an opinion, it's the opinion of creationists and intellectual design that chimps aren't ancestors of humans. If that's true then they shouldn't share any similar DNA just like a monkey and alligator don't. If a creator made all things, why don't all species have common DNA? This is not a tough question.

[loco]

A monkey is not an alligator. They share no common DNA. It's not an opinion, it's the opinion of creationists and intellectual design that chimps aren't ancestors of humans. If that's true then they shouldn't share any similar DNA just like a monkey and alligator don't. If a creator made all things, why don't all species have common DNA? This is not a tough question.

Oldschool Flip, a chimpanzee is not a monkey.

You're just making up rules as you go..."if God exists, and if God created humans and chimps, then humans and chimps shouldn't share common DNA"...what?  Why not?

I stand by what I posted already.  The same evidence can be interpreted by either side to fit their own world view.  It goes both ways.

[Oldschool Flip]

Oldschool Flip, a chimpanzee is not a monkey.

You're just making up rules as you go..."if God exists, and if God created humans and chimps, then humans and chimps shouldn't share common DNA"...what?  Why not?

I stand by what I posted already.  The same evidence can be interpreted by either side to fit their own world view.  It goes both ways.

Okay a chimpanzee doesn't share the same DNA as an alligator. You claim that intelligent design and creationists would claim that a chimp and a human have in common the same creator. Well that would also hold true for an alligator and a chimp, since nothing evolved from nothing but was created. So why don't they have common DNA? This question is from the logic you brought about.

[loco]

Okay a chimpanzee doesn't share the same DNA as an alligator. You claim that intelligent design and creationists would claim that a chimp and a human have in common the same creator. Well that would also hold true for an alligator and a chimp, since nothing evolved from nothing but was created. So why don't they have common DNA? This question is from the logic you brought about.

Do humans share similarities only with chimps?  No.  Do humans share similarities with other species?  Yes.  Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor?  Yes.

Common Ancestor or Common Designer?



"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.

In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?

From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer

[Oldschool Flip]

Do humans share similarities only with chimps?  No.  Do humans share similarities with other species?  Yes.  Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor?  Yes.

Common Ancestor or Common Designer?



"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.

In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?

From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer

That's nice loco, but I'm talking DNA. Almost all animals have limbs. The few that don't have skeletons like other animals. DNA isn't common is different species.

[loco]

That's nice loco, but I'm talking DNA. Almost all animals have limbs. The few that don't have skeletons like other animals. DNA isn't common is different species.

Are you saying that human DNA has nothing in common with anything other than chimps?

[Necrosis]

Do humans share similarities only with chimps?  No.  Do humans share similarities with other species?  Yes.  Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor?  Yes.

Common Ancestor or Common Designer?



"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.

In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?

From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer

loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.

What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.

but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?

the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL.

[liberalismo]

People who do not believe in evolution simply claim that God could have 'made them 99% similar' for some reason.

Why are there so many differences between a human and a chimp? It's important to look at this in perspective. Compared to all of the similarities, the differences are quite small.


Nothing will convince someone who is emotionally invested in their beliefs, such as religious people who do not believe evolution are. The mental gymnastics required to not comprehend the facts and evidence is amusing to watch though. It's like there is some sort of wall in their minds preventing them from accepting the proof.

[Nordic Superman]

This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.

Natural selection and evolution are fact. Science backs this by working with observable facts i.e. measurable mutations and small evolution along with the evidence which is locked in DNA which alone is good enough evidence for declaring evolution a FACT.

"Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work."

Just because technically science doesn't deal with facts (due to future evidence etc.) doesn't mean evolution isn't because of association. You just seem to be pretentious about all this as a safe guard against your faith in fictitious man-made societal control manuals

[wavelength]

Natural selection and evolution are fact. Science backs this by working with observable facts i.e. measurable mutations and small evolution along with the evidence which is locked in DNA which alone is good enough evidence for declaring evolution a FACT.

"Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work."

Just because technically science doesn't deal with facts (due to future evidence etc.) doesn't mean evolution isn't because of association. You just seem to be pretentious about all this as a safe guard against your faith in fictitious man-made societal control manuals

Amnesia induced meltdown.
Read our previous threads and you will see that my arguments are headed in a completely different direction. I will not respond to old arguments anymore, I'm just too lazy.
If you can come up with new ones, I'll chime in again.