If evolution is not proven, why do we share 96% of our genetics with monkey?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Can anybody explain this to me? I've recently come into this entire evolution debate and I've failed to see any viable explaination from those who deny evolution as reality or even a relative theory. How is it that we relate so closely genetically with monkeys? I mean if there is an alternative to evolution, which would mean that we 'adapted' totally seperately and individually, how do we relate so closely?


A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the production of sperm.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Just a note, some people dispute that this number is high, but nevertheless we share very common genetic traits.

This isn't sort of thing isn't explained very well by creationists/intelligent designers. I'd love to hear from anybody. If we really evolved totally seperately all these many many years, we would not be so closely related.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

I think it's about time humans accept their lowly origins and stop being so conceited, believing that the entire universe was created with them in mind. Most people have no idea how unimportant they are.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
God is an efficient creator and doesn't want to have to create all genetic code from nothing.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Don't forget about pigs, we are closely related to them to.
Doesn't mean we evolved from them.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Logmafia
 

If he is an efficient creator then why are there so many defects in his creations? Im just looking for some consistency..



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

This isn't sort of thing isn't explained very well by creationists/intelligent designers. I'd love to hear from anybody. If we really evolved totally seperately all these many many years, we would not be so closely related.

Isn't that the whole point of the debate? Those on the non-evolution side (I wasn't aware there was a we-evolved-but-not-from-a-common-ancestor-with-other-primates side?) would say likely:
a) monkeys got an upgrade, hence the high level of similarity and differences, or
b) the creator kept most of the schematics intact given its propensity for sticking with existing body plans and a primarily-mental set of differences.

And for those on the creation side, there is a good analogy - a 1964 1/2 mustang and a '66 (or whatever kind of cars you want to use) are mostly identical with a smallish number of differences. Did the one thus obviously evolve into the other, or did they just share common creators?

edit on 5-6-2012 by PeterWiggin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

I think it's about time humans accept their lowly origins and stop being so conceited, believing that the entire universe was created with them in mind. Most people have no idea how unimportant they are.



This!


Second line.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
yeah we're pretty much genetically related to all mammals but we didn't evolve from them. What I find more astonishing is that there are so few anomalies in a world that is supposedly diverse.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I'm not sure your point has much logic.

The similar DNA doesn't preclude creationism, intelligent design, nor does it prove evolution.

How does 96% common DNA imply causation?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Humans share most of their DNA with Mammals, not just chimps.

Look at the pig, they can use pig parts in surgery, say for a heart valve etc.

A little difference in DNA can have huge effect, as much as a few genes and you get Civilization.

Crazy when you think about it.


"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."


Do pigs share 98 percent

This is one case where the difference is all that matters, not the similarities.


Oh and to address the question in the Op, It wouldn't matter the origin being evolution or something else, in both cases we originate on this planet, there for we come from the same place, even if its Natural Cause or Super Natural causes.

The material would be the same.
edit on 5-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes that is true. But it's also cherry-picking certain arguments to fix evolution.

Evolution says that over millions of years species mutate adaptations, the ones that are beneficial spread throughout the species line, through survival of the fittest. Well why then would a brand new species develop such advanced adaptations, like homo erectus did. What was the natural force driving this unprecedented advancement in just this one species? There are animals, like birds, that can trace their lineage back to the dinosaur era, way before humans. Why didn't these birds who face just as great evolutionary forces develop even close to our intelligence? Remember they were mutilating for millions of years before we even existed.

Evolution also doesn't address the most fundamental question: how did life begin. No credible scientist can answer this question. I find it highly unlikely that lightning struck a puddle of amino acids and here we are. It seems more likely that there is some creative force behind the creation of life.

The truth is we don't know, evolution is as good a guess as aliens tinkered with ape DNA and here I sit typing....



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 

But we are much closer related to monkeys.. Half a chromosome away from a chimp, sounds like more than a few similarities to me. Until you have a better explanation for how we got here (with evidence to support it), then you have no choice but to accept the theory of evolution, otherwise your lying to yourself. So, when you solve the mystery of our origins, then perhaps you can refute scientific theory.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Something happened a while back (the cambrian explosion) that was niether creation nor evolution. However since then it been evolution all the way. IMO.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
I'm not sure your point has much logic.

The similar DNA doesn't preclude creationism, intelligent design, nor does it prove evolution.

How does 96% common DNA imply causation?


Evolution doesn't have to preclude creationism, you are right. I believe in God, I also believe that God is responsible for evolution. Why not? But I fail to see how this common relation can exclude evolution? The only other explanation for why we would share such a closeness with monkeys in genetic relations, without evolution in the mix, would be if humans were at some point interbreeding with these monkeys. 96% cannot merely be coincidence.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





I believe in God, I also believe that God is responsible for evolution. Why not?

This is where we disagree.. Why not? I'll tell you why not, because the theory of evolution works without that assumption. Throwing a designer in the theory is not necessary, it just adds a bit of useless BS to the theory that only puts us one more step back from proving its truth.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

96% cannot merely be coincidence.

Not sure where the disconnect is here - it's not coincidence, that's just how much common genetic material the supposed creator would have used between the two species.

The whole point of creation theory is that it's NOT chance, it's how things were created.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I would also like to add that if there is a designer, it most certainly isn't an intelligent designer. I could go extensively into this, but i have already covered it in another thread. So here you go, if you are interested:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Looking at the bare bones of the situation, everything in the universe is derived from the elements, so it kind of makes sense that there would be simiarities between speices.

Of course this doesn't explain why tables can't climb trees, and chairs don't eat banana's !
edit on 5-6-2012 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Whenever you see evolution arguments based on DNA, throw them out. Nothing could have evolved from raw chemical soup into DNA, and for sure not humans. If all the matter in the entire Universe was amino acids, there is not enough matter to have the probability statistically to make DNA, and DNA is a small part of a cell made up of thousands of elements that inter-react to cause life to exist.

The human genome is made up of over 3 billion base pairs of DNA, NOT counting so-called JUNK DNA which we are just beginning to investigate. We assume so much in medicine and science, and we always look for simple solutions.

Logically, if we could even make DNA from chemical soup, and we had one and only one miraculously formed base pair, it is not enough to make a life form that replicates itself. For evolutionists, they must accept that the impossible happened....a long sequence of DNA suitable for replication with itself was encased in a cell wall with mitochondria and so forth to nourish it and keep it alive. Then, as if that could possibly happen, that "simple" DNA sequence would have to add 1 successful base pair every year for 3 billion years to make the human genome we have today.

It takes more faith to believe in the above than it does to believe that someone or something intelligent arranged the molecules needed for us to exist.

In my world, I call that God.

I don't see where a creationist is stretching the truth as much as an evolutionist.

To specifically answer the OP, I suspect that like designs make it possible for us to use them for food. I'd have a hard time eating a silicon-based lifeform, for example.

Second specific answer to the OP: because it is economical to use like creative systems...liken it to an assembly line.

Third reason, so we can appreciate how these lifeforms may be feeling, reacting, etc.
edit on 6/5/2012 by Jim Scott because: Answers



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This is a circuitous argument that goes nowhere at all, but the circle keeps getting smaller and smaller as folks dig in their heels more deeply. The flaw in the entire process is that false polarities - it is either this or that, have been set up and each person must pick a side and fight to the death because all of their consciousness requires them to be right on this one topic.

The first problem with "evolution" is that it is a theory. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is a theory not a fact.

The second problem is that it is though of as fact and folks then have prove it wrong and then prove something else right.

The third problem is that is presumes earther humans are all there is in all of consciousness. This is the biggest real problem as to prove others exist would not deaden the argument, only serve to confuse it.

So here is a theory, not a fact, just a theory which is just as valid at evolution and has far more truth to it. At several points in the earth's history, some not earther human folks, came to earth to experience it. One of the fun things about earth is the ability to "create" what we call life forms. Schools were built, or created, that allowed for the manipulation of the basic earth vibrational expression. Genetic manipulation works here because it is fairly easy to get an animating energy. So, folks came to earth and "made" what we call life: animals, plants, insects. some were in harmony with others, others we just done to see if they'd survive. Imagine insect creation 101 is butterfly creation: that class produced a lot of variations of the theme, and was a very popular class as were all the insect classes.

Human bodies are constructed along the lines of the rest of the planet. Think of it this way. Earth is a video game and the programmer has access to certain programming languages to create all the components of the game. They all reflect the same "language" at the core because that is the programming language but each individual programmed expression differs just a bit. The common code runs through all the images etc. in the game, but the subcategories have something added.

The earth is a program with animating energies inhabiting created bodies using DNA to manage the animating energy and the creation it expresses through. DNA is computer code, complete with checksum.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join