PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Chimp/Human genome
       evolutionary relationship confirmed

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, scientists have done a detailed comparison with the human genome.  Here's what they've determined:

Chimp/Man

"The comparisons of the two genomes, published today in the journal Nature by 67 researchers in the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, provide unambiguous confirmation of the common and recent evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees, as first predicted by Charles Darwin in 1871."

And from here:

Chimp/Man2

"The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness."

Confirmation of chimpanzees and humans evolving from a common ancestor.  It's a fact.
We can now look at the actual mutations that seperate us and with more research, determine when they occurred and why they occurred.  How is this confirmation of the evolutionary relationship of humans and chimps going to be explained by creationists?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:47 AM on November 6, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How is this confirmation of the evolutionary relationship of humans and chimps going to be explained by creationists?


You're too easy, Demon. God was too loney with the present population of over 400 billion animals in his garden at the time, and he needed something that was a little bit better than his imperfect creation known as the chimpanzee, so he made man, a slightly-more-perfect-to-his-motives organism. This can be directly related to the some 60 species of elephant. Since God is a fairly crappy designer (after all, no less than 99.9% of all his creations went extinct in a blink of the world's history), he needed to keep coming up with replacements for his weening elephant population, each try getting progressively less imperfect.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:24 PM on November 6, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hahaha...yeah, I guess creationists will come up with some kind of wacky explaination.
But even when presented with all the evidence that supported human/chimp relatedness, they claimed there was no "proof".  Now it has been confirmed and is as much a fact as anything in science, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than they are to any other animal.  Where do creationists who deny evolution based on their faith go now?  How do they react to the fact that humans and chimps did indeed evolve from a common ancestor?  Do they modifiy those beliefs, do they lose those beliefs or do they continue to ignore reality?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:21 PM on November 6, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, once again you fail to properly estimate the strength behind our position. If you didn't see a chimp transform into a human being over night, you didn't appropriately cover anything through the scientific process. Try again, my egoistic friend.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/6/2005 at 5:49 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:46 PM on November 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God was too loney with the present population of over 400 billion animals in his garden at the time

I'm goint to assume you mean lonely.  Let's see.  God creates 400 BILLION animals as you say that all have to live, procreate, and die (and be biodegradeable to avoid a huge pile of corpses) on a finite planet.  I couldn't possibly see why any of them would have similarities.  Any ideas?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:09 PM on November 6, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm goint to assume you mean lonely.


Your terse comments concerning the odd typo I leave here and there are beginning to seem just the slightest bit insolent.

God creates 400 BILLION animals as you say that all have to live, procreate, and die (and be biodegradeable to avoid a huge pile of corpses) on a finite planet.  I couldn't possibly see why any of them would have similarities.  Any ideas?


First of all, as far as I'm aware, there were only about 200 billion actual species (I just doubled it to go hand in hand with the male/female idea). Second, are you honestly implying a lack of creativity/ability in God? I don't mean that in a sense of hypocritical accusation; I'm serious. Are you really trying to say that God flexed the diversity of nature to the limit?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/6/2005 at 11:00 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:59 PM on November 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)I am unaware of any other comments I have left regarding your spelling.  If I have, they were more than likely to make sure that I was understanding you correctly, especially if the word used was another word (as opposed to gibberish).

2)I'm sure that if God had made each and every creature completely different (with no shared genes) then people would use it to prove that there was no creator and that the world was obviously random.  Any answer I give to your question feeds into your hand.  It's kind of like if I asked if your parents knew you were gay (the old "yes or no" question I'm sure we all heard when we were in grade school).  Answering either yes or no still leaves the impression that you are gay and your parent either know or didn't know about it.  Think of it this way.  How do scholars determine the authorship of a book that was not signed?  They compare the literary styles and the use of certain words (in other words, it's likenesses) against other works.  The more in common, the more likely the authorship can be attributed to a certain author.  The true creative power of God is shown through the 200 billion? species he created with such few building blocks.  Just think, so few differences between a chimp and a human gene-wise, yet how different they are.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:32 PM on November 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2)I'm sure that if God had made each and every creature completely different (with no shared genes) then people would use it to prove that there was no creator and that the world was obviously random.

It's not just a matter of having shared genes. With the human/chimpanzee genome comparison we see what genes changed and how they changed.  Chromosome 2 in humans is composed of 2 merged chimpanzee chromosomes.  Why would God resort to such slipshod work, merging 2 chromosomes instead of creating a whole new one, and why would God make it so it looks exactly like the chromosome evolved?

Any answer I give to your question feeds into your hand.

Not so, evolution predicted that more closely related species would have more similar genomes.  The more research we do, we see just how precisely this is true.  The chimp/human genome comparison is conclusive, we both evolved from a common ancestor.

Just think, so few differences between a chimp and a human gene-wise, yet how different they are.

Yes, and now we can see why those differences exist, how they work and when they occurred.  This is the death knell for special creation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:21 PM on November 7, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2)I'm sure that if God had made each and every creature completely different (with no shared genes) then people would use it to prove that there was no creator and that the world was obviously random.  Any answer I give to your question feeds into your hand.


Erm.... No. If a chimpanzee just abitrarily gave birth to an elephant, Evolution would instantaneously lose all the ground it's ever gained.

On a different note, I couldn't help but notice this:

then people would use it to prove that there was no creator


Stop there. Under no circumstances do I reject the possibility of a supernatural deity. I've stressed innummerable times on countless boards, including this one, that there's no such thing as evidence against God. By natural definition that is impossible.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/7/2005 at 8:34 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:30 PM on November 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm kind of disapointed creationists are avoiding this post and the evidence it provides.
Science has conclusively demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor.  And no creationists have seen fit to provide any evidence to support an alternate conclusion.  Is this a case of creationists ignoring the facts they can't dispute?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:54 PM on November 27, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, Don, it's been answered.  Evolutionists predicted that there would be likenesses because of mutation from common ancestors.  Creationists predicted that there would be likenesses because of a common creator.  Regardless of whether it was proven by a creationist or an evolutionist it neither proves or disproves either "theory" as both theories predicted it would be found to be true.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:02 PM on November 28, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, Don, it's been answered.  Evolutionists predicted that there would be likenesses because of mutation from common ancestors.  Creationists predicted that there would be likenesses because of a common creator.  Regardless of whether it was proven by a creationist or an evolutionist it neither proves or disproves either "theory" as both theories predicted it would be found to be true.


Does the creation model predict that the chimp and human genomes will share genetic markings that prove conclusively that they share a common ancestor?  How does the creation model explain the remnants of the exact same viral code appearing in the exact same insertion loci in both genomes?

There really are only two possible explanations for this phenomena...Chimps and humans have shared ancestory or the insertions of the exact same viral code in the exact same loci in the respective genomes occured independently.

With over 3 billion base pairs in both the chimp and human genomes,  the second explanation defies the "laws" of probability.

Even when we allow the independent viral insertions to occur in selected areas of each genome we run into problems...

Let's say for instance, that we only allow the shared viral insertions to occur in an area of each genome that represents 1/100th of 1%.  (the area we are using, by the way, is signifcantly smaller than any area that scientists who study these insertions would propose).

Now the odds of one independent insertion occuring in each genome would be 1/300,000 (1% of 1/100th o 3 billion equals 300,000).  The odds of two independent insertions occuring would be 1/300,000*1/300,000 or 1 in 90 billion!!!

We know that there are at least 7 of these insertions that only show up in the Human and Chimp genomes.  There are more than a thousand that are shared by chimps, humans and some other placental mammals.  And guess what? Predictably there are no insertions that show up in a mouse and a human but not a chimp.  Furthermore, none show up in a rat and a chimp but not a gorilla.

Hmmmm.  


Viral insertion in Chimp and Human genome compared
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:49 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We know that there are at least 7 of these insertions that only show up in the Human and Chimp genomes.  There are more than a thousand that are shared by chimps, humans and some other placental mammals.  And guess what? Predictably there are no insertions that show up in a mouse and a human but not a chimp.  Furthermore, none show up in a rat and a chimp but not a gorilla.

Hmmmm.


I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you asking how beings created by the same creator, but for different purposes would share likenesses with some of the creator's designs, but would not share all the likenesses?

Today's studies contain good news for men: contrary to some dire predictions made recently, the Y chromosome that distinguishes men from women is not heading for extinction, unlike the chimp Y which appears to be endangered by the ape's more promiscuous lifestyle, according to a report by Dr David Page, Dr Jennifer Hughes and colleagues at the Whitehead Institute, near Boston. Both male and female chimps engage with multiple partners when they mate, placing less pressure on evolution to preserve those genes on the Y whose functions have nothing to do with reproduction.

"Less pressure on evolution to preserve those genes"?  Sounds like they are trying to make "evolution" intelligent.  Of course if the Y chromosome in chimps does actually become extinct it won't much matter how promiscuous they are.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:26 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you asking how beings created by the same creator, but for different purposes would share likenesses with some of the creator's designs, but would not share all the likenesses?


No...I am talking about genetic markings.  The same science that is used to put creeps like the BTK killer behind bars also shows that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.  Did you visit my link?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:40 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, Don, it's been answered.  Evolutionists predicted that there would be likenesses because of mutation from common ancestors.  Creationists predicted that there would be likenesses because of a common creator.

But biologists predictions have been shown to be true, mutations ARE the cause of organisms changing into new organisms.  This is what the comparison of the chimp genome and the human genome has indisputably shown.  Where is the evidence that organisms where created seperately by a divine creator?  And how do you define 'similar' creatures?   A dolphin seems more similar to a shark than a cow, lives in the same environment, eats similar food, general body shape is similar but in actuality, a dolphin is more similar to a cow.
Evolution explains this nicely, once again, the only explaination a creationist can give is the worthless "Goddidit".

Regardless of whether it was proven by a creationist or an evolutionist it neither proves or disproves either "theory" as both theories predicted it would be found to be true.

but once again, this evidence fully supports evolution and not creationism, is consistant with all other evidence, like the fossil record and follows logically from the predictions made by the theory of evolution.  What evidence falsifies it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:20 AM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't aware I was being vague.  I did not say that the human/chimp thing disproved evolution.  I was merely stating that it did not disprove creationism because creationists never doubted that those same similarities would be found (although for different reasons).  Atheists say that is because, once upon a time we shared the same great to the nth power grandmother.  Creationists say it is because we share the same creator.  The genes similarities don't show a lack of creativity on God's part.  How many advances in medicine and science have we been able to make because the rest of the animal kingdom has been given enough similarities to us that we can study them, experiment on them, etc.  If God hadn't created them so, we wouldn't be able to have done (grammar?) these things.  No similarities means no baboon's hearts to save someone's life, etc.  I don't see how anyone can look at the way this world works and say that it was all random with no intelligence.  We are the only life on this planet with our capabilities, surround by plants, animals, minerals that we have used over the years to build, create, heal, etc on the only planet in our system that could support life that has the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe (no life without it), in the perfect spot between spiral arms and away from the nucleus of our galaxy in a nearly perfect circular orbit to avoid most of space's major catastrophe's.  Coincidence?  I don't believe in luck.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:37 AM on December 2, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't aware I was being vague.  I did not say that the human/chimp thing disproved evolution.  I was merely stating that it did not disprove creationism because creationists never doubted that those same similarities would be found (although for different reasons).


You bring up and interesting point. How does one falsify creationism?

Atheists say that is because, once upon a time we shared the same great to the nth power grandmother.  Creationists say it is because we share the same creator.


Why limit your first assertion to "atheists"? Many, many theists including lots and lots of Christians believe in common descent.

The genes similarities don't show a lack of creativity on God's part.  How many advances in medicine and science have we been able to make because the rest of the animal kingdom has been given enough similarities to us that we can study them, experiment on them, etc.  If God hadn't created them so, we wouldn't be able to have done (grammar?) these things.  No similarities means no baboon's hearts to save someone's life, etc.


Why would the creator insert the exact same sequence of viral code in the exact same insertion loci in the chimp and human genomes?  Do you not believe in the genetic science that is used by prosecuters to convict sex offenders and murderers?

I don't see how anyone can look at the way this world works and say that it was all random with no intelligence.


Who is saying that it is all random? Furthermore, I don't see how any reasonable person can look at the genetic evidence in the respective genomes and conclude that chimps and humans don't share a common ancestor.  I can only conclude that such a person is not looking at the same evidence that I am.

We are the only life on this planet with our capabilities, surround by plants, animals, minerals that we have used over the years to build, create, heal, etc on the only planet in our system that could support life that has the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe (no life without it), in the perfect spot between spiral arms and away from the nucleus of our galaxy in a nearly perfect circular orbit to avoid most of space's major catastrophe's.  Coincidence?  I don't believe in luck.


You are simply throwing up your hands and saying "It's all too complicated--Goddidit!". There is nothing wrong with not knowing...That's why we have scientists.

On a side note, I'm interested in the point you made about earth having "the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe".  I never thought of the large planets as a buffer but I think I can see the logic.  Do you have a link?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:43 AM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On a side note, I'm interested in the point you made about earth having "the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe".  I never thought of the large planets as a buffer but I think I can see the logic.  Do you have a link?


Wouldn't work anyway. The planets aren't in a line, remember. Some of them are on the other side of the sun from our orbital position, and their gravitational pull wouldn't affect a meteor's bearings.

However, what if we'd been consistently bombarded with meteors? Can you imagine how uncomfortable our Earth would be with no ozone layer or liquid water? I for one am glad we're lucky enough to live in an Earth that provides proper stabilization for life. It wouldn't be very fun if our Earth had destroyed the first prokaryotic cells.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/3/2005 at 10:15 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:14 AM on December 3, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2005 :
I wasn't aware I was being vague.  I did not say that the human/chimp thing disproved evolution.  I was merely stating that it did not disprove creationism because creationists never doubted that those same similarities would be found (although for different reasons).  Atheists say that is because, once upon a time we shared the same great to the nth power grandmother.  Creationists say it is because we share the same creator.  The genes similarities don't show a lack of creativity on God's part.  How many advances in medicine and science have we been able to make because the rest of the animal kingdom has been given enough similarities to us that we can study them, experiment on them, etc.  If God hadn't created them so, we wouldn't be able to have done (grammar?) these things.  No similarities means no baboon's hearts to save someone's life, etc.  I don't see how anyone can look at the way this world works and say that it was all random with no intelligence.  We are the only life on this planet with our capabilities, surround by plants, animals, minerals that we have used over the years to build, create, heal, etc on the only planet in our system that could support life that has the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe (no life without it), in the perfect spot between spiral arms and away from the nucleus of our galaxy in a nearly perfect circular orbit to avoid most of space's major catastrophe's.  Coincidence?  I don't believe in luck.



i dont think evolution is random.  in fact, it seems to be nowhere near random.  every mutation is a direct cause of the environment.  there is a cause for everything.  it seems more valid to think that god just set things in motion and let natural process change the universe, instead of thinking that god molded and created every single being on our planet.

i dont see how anyone can look at this world and not think that it developed due to natural processes such as evolution.  the idea that a supreme being was behind all of it does not change that, either.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 5:18 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was merely stating that it did not disprove creationism because creationists never doubted that those same similarities would be found (although for different reasons).  Atheists say that is because, once upon a time we shared the same great to the nth power grandmother.  Creationists say it is because we share the same creator.

But here's the point you're missing, we can now see how these genes arose, why some of them are so similar and why some are different.  We see what mutations caused them.  We see the mechanism of the changes.  Human chromosome 2 is made up of 2 fused chimpanzee chomosomes.  How do we know this, because of the pattern of telomeres and the fact that there are 2 centromeres in the human chromosome (unfused chromosomes only have one centromere).  So now we can see how primates evolved.  Unless you're claiming God worked through natural methods(and that's what theistic evolutionists claim and it's still evolution), you have no evidence to support your claim.  

How many advances in medicine and science have we been able to make because the rest of the animal kingdom has been given enough similarities to us that we can study them, experiment on them, etc.  If God hadn't created them so, we wouldn't be able to have done (grammar?) these things.  No similarities means no baboon's hearts to save someone's life, etc.

But we wouldn't have discovered these similarities without the theory of evolution!  We never would have understood how we are similar and disimilar to other organisms if the theory of evolution was never proposed.  No one would have investigated these similarities if evolution hadn't given us a reason to do so!  So you are essentially claiming that God made organisms similar for our benefit, but the ONE theory that showed us this, that explains it, is wrong...That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't see how anyone can look at the way this world works and say that it was all random with no intelligence.

And evolution doesn't say it's random, merely unintelligent design.  Natural selection is the opposite of random selection.

We are the only life on this planet with our capabilities, surround by plants, animals, minerals that we have used over the years to build, create, heal, etc on the only planet in our system that could support life that has the perfect number of large planets around it that have helped it avoid most meteors outside of one of the largest stars in the universe (no life without it), in the perfect spot between spiral arms and away from the nucleus of our galaxy in a nearly perfect circular orbit to avoid most of space's major catastrophe's.  Coincidence?  I don't believe in luck.

The planet was here before us, we evolved to live on it.  The sun isn't one of the largest stars, it is a common, mid level star, we see many like it through out our galaxy.  We see other stars with large planets and it's starting to look like there are earth like planets also.  And how has the earth avoided major space based catastrophes, we've been hit many times by asteroids, comets, and some of these have led to extinction level events.  I don't believe in luck either, evolution has nothing to do with luck.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:52 AM on December 9, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.