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

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
just imagine.....


if some advanced race came to earth thousands of years ago, and combined their DNA with what ever primates were around at that time, and then we came about... that means we are muts? is that what we are? just some freak, weak, and fragile genetic experiment?

if so...

i wonder what true pure bred humans must look like?... by that i mean the original ones that came to earth to combine the DNA?

just a thought




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Yes, humans are said (by some) to be created in God's image.
And yet we have over 4000 heritable defects.
Makes you wonder about just how smart it is to worship this guy.

The apes don't have such defects.
So just who is the greatest/highest creation?
edit on 5-6-2012 by OhZone because: added thought



Well, playing with the idea, here, the sheep Dolly was created in the original sheep's image aswell, and for that very reason, and because the original was an adult specimen, she also was afflicted with a load of genetic defects.

Ironically, the fact that the Human Species, as a whole, have so many diseases and defects, could just aswell be taken as the very proof that the prototype of Man was created "in someones Image".
Not to forget to mention, cloned sheep are very shortlived in comparision to the lifespan of the original, and as are Humans, according to the Mythological texts, said to be shortlived in comparission to the Creator/s
edit on 6-6-2012 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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.



not the people who have RH- (negative) bloodtype

RH - rhesus monkey

edit on 6-6-2012 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ooYODAoo
 


Here is why I don't believe in evolution or at least the theory that we came from primates.

If we did in fact evolve from primates, why in 100's of years have we not found and example of a primate in the process of becoming human? What all of a sudden made the process stop?

I also don't believe in the Creationist view either.

I tend to believe more in the theory of a tampering with DNA by some other lifeform. Unfortunately, there is no way that I know of to prove any of these theorys right, so I will just go and crawl back under my rock and dwell in the primordial ooze...........



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
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)


the '66 actually did evolve from the '64. Unless they had exactly the same creator (you're not talking shelby's here, right?) The '64 would have inspired another creator to produce the '66. Without the '64, the '66 would never have existed. So, at least indirectly, the latter car evolved out of the former.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
when I asked Zethia about that - It said (IT has no genitalia) he said both are accurate - you were created and you evolve. but creation is not religous - but religion is the program. give that some thought - its a mind blower



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by ooYODAoo
 


Here is why I don't believe in evolution or at least the theory that we came from primates.

If we did in fact evolve from primates, why in 100's of years have we not found and example of a primate in the process of becoming human? What all of a sudden made the process stop?

I also don't believe in the Creationist view either.

I tend to believe more in the theory of a tampering with DNA by some other lifeform. Unfortunately, there is no way that I know of to prove any of these theorys right, so I will just go and crawl back under my rock and dwell in the primordial ooze...........


the idea would be that at some point in the distant past, a third different species began to evolve into two new species. One became the monkey, one became the man and the original third species is extinct. So, no living monkey today ever transformed into a human. that's not how it supposedly works. One semi-successful species split into two distinct groups, most likely due to food scarcity, predation and/or geography, and evolved down two separate paths. The similarities we see today come from that genetic common ancestry.

creationists love to use this logic-loophole to invalidate what is a living, breathing ever-evolving (
) theory. as soon as new evidence is discovered, "evolution" is changed to fit. unlike any form of theism which holds rigidity up as a virtue.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Evolution is real. However, it must be understood that there is a difference between the physical and spiritual world. "Evolution" and "Science" cannot explain where love, music, art, creativity, etc come from. The physical world is the vehicle that allows the spirit to experience the physical world.

It is very important that you not allow yourself to be blinded by science, or religion, for that matter.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 

the '66 actually did evolve from the '64. Unless they had exactly the same creator (you're not talking shelby's here, right?) The '64 would have inspired another creator to produce the '66. Without the '64, the '66 would never have existed. So, at least indirectly, the latter car evolved out of the former.

Incorrect. A bunch of designers, engineers, what-have-you intelligently updating a former vehicle to make a new edition is not evolution - that's intelligent design and conscious direction, while maintaining a large percentage of existing components/specs.

It's an illustration of how creation/intelligent design can still result in 96% consistency between the genetic code of apes and humans, with creative and intelligent input instead of purely naturalistic evolution being the only explanation, as per the OP's confusion.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by camaro68ss
As far as I still remember its call the “Theory” of evolution. Theory’s aren’t facts. Its called a theory because there are LARGE, gaps in the 'Theory" There are no fossils to be found with minimal gradual changes. I have a hard time taking anything as fact unless there is 100% proof of it. If evolution was a fact wouldn’t it be ease to produce fossils of these ever so slightly changes going all the way to today?

No offense, but you fall right into the category of people I described in my post above. Thank you for perfectly demonstrating that. Why attack science, when your knowledge of it is THAT poor? Scientific theories are based ON FACTS. I'm so tired of having to repeat this over and over again. No, it's "just a theory". Gravity is just a theory as well, but I guarantee if you jump off a cliff you will go down.


If evolution was true, and I’m going to play devils advocate, and its based off millions of years of slight change, wouldn’t you be able to find Billions of different fossils proving this theory?
Let’s take for instance at one point there were a million, lets call them pre-humans, a million years ago and it took a million years to get to the point where we are now. So roughly there would be 31,250 generations, each generation growing in numbers exponentially. That would lead you to the conclusions that you would find millions of fossils of each generation leading up to this point. Where are those generations of slight changes? Where are those billions of fossils.

Again, this shows your lack of scientific knowledge. Every creature that dies does not become a fossil. This is a RARE occurrence only associated with special circumstances (way less than 1%), ESPECIALLY in Africa, in a highly competitive environment. Normally dead organism decompose or get devoured. And BTW, MILLIONS of fossils have been found, and dozens of hominid species from the past 2.5 million years have been found.

It's just the same ol' tireless argument from ignorance. "I don't understand science, so it must be god!!"
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


"Way less then 1%" Wow that’s scientific. how do you know this? did you read it in a book? did you crunch numbers and come up with your own Hypothesis on the the average percentage of bones that fossilize after death? you being so scientific and all should be able to give me anwnser on how you came up with what you believe to be fact that way less then 1% of bones fossilize. Or are you just going to attack me, call me stupid and say i dont know what im talking about. how about you stop attacking, use your "Sicentific knowledge" and back your awnsers with facts not generalizations. This show your lack of scientific knowledge.

As you should already know humans bury there dead and no there are not Millions of a pre-human fossils, if there were this would not be called a theory. I understand science very well, this is why im asking the questions.
edit on 6-6-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by RicoMarston
 

the '66 actually did evolve from the '64. Unless they had exactly the same creator (you're not talking shelby's here, right?) The '64 would have inspired another creator to produce the '66. Without the '64, the '66 would never have existed. So, at least indirectly, the latter car evolved out of the former.

Incorrect. A bunch of designers, engineers, what-have-you intelligently updating a former vehicle to make a new edition is not evolution - that's intelligent design and conscious direction, while maintaining a large percentage of existing components/specs.

It's an illustration of how creation/intelligent design can still result in 96% consistency between the genetic code of apes and humans, with creative and intelligent input instead of purely naturalistic evolution being the only explanation, as per the OP's confusion.


so, are you polytheistic? all i'm saying is your metaphor is weak. the fact that two different cars can be designed and turn out similarly does nothing to prove or disprove god's input in our design. Unless you're saying that a team of gods made monkeys, and then a different team of gods, maybe with one or two of the same members, came along and made man based on the monkey designs?

also, humans are not cars.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


I don't think there was any defects in the creation of our bodies. I think throughout history it has been man who caused the body to become genetically defective.

Look at what we do today, a child gets dangerous chemicals pumped into their body within 24 hrs of being born, then about 30-35 more injections before they begin school. It is claimed to be beneficial to our children's health and people still believe it; even though here in America we have about 48% of our children considered to have some sort of brain damage. We ruin just about everything that was natural on this planet that we try to control or manipulate. It is never as good as it was.

I think it is built into us to fix things, and rather than fix ourselves, we have some people who would rather test their theories on others instead.... just in case an "oopsy" happens.

I don't believe we evolved from monkeys or pigs... I don't think it's using your noggin, to accept that notion when it hasn't been proven as fact either. I am more inclined to think we were created, that there is a superior entity that is far more advanced than us arrogant, uncivilized, barbarians here on earth... and we are a product of a much more advanced cloning type deal.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 

so, are you polytheistic?

I suppose that's a bit of a tricky question for me to answer. Do I believe in multiple "gods"? Depending on how the term is defined, I suppose so. But I also acknowledge only one creator and supreme God amongst them.


all i'm saying is your metaphor is weak.

For its purpose, no it isn't. The OP is stating that 96% shared genetics somehow proves evolution. Obviously, it doesn't, as intelligent designers do pretty much exactly the same thing.


the fact that two different cars can be designed and turn out similarly does nothing to prove or disprove god's input in our design. Unless you're saying that a team of gods made monkeys, and then a different team of gods, maybe with one or two of the same members, came along and made man based on the monkey designs?

You seem to be missing my point entirely, given your example, but regardless I am not at this point trying to prove God's input in anything - I was merely addressing the OP's incorrect assumption that the example proves evolution.


also, humans are not cars.

No way!! You TOTALLY can't be cereal!




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by RicoMarston
 

so, are you polytheistic?

I suppose that's a bit of a tricky question for me to answer. Do I believe in multiple "gods"? Depending on how the term is defined, I suppose so. But I also acknowledge only one creator and supreme God amongst them.


all i'm saying is your metaphor is weak.

For its purpose, no it isn't. The OP is stating that 96% shared genetics somehow proves evolution. Obviously, it doesn't, as intelligent designers do pretty much exactly the same thing.


the fact that two different cars can be designed and turn out similarly does nothing to prove or disprove god's input in our design. Unless you're saying that a team of gods made monkeys, and then a different team of gods, maybe with one or two of the same members, came along and made man based on the monkey designs?

You seem to be missing my point entirely, given your example, but regardless I am not at this point trying to prove God's input in anything - I was merely addressing the OP's incorrect assumption that the example proves evolution.


also, humans are not cars.

No way!! You TOTALLY can't be cereal!





ooooooooooooooooh. see now i thought that you were using the old watch and the watchmaker argument FOR intelligent design. now I see and agree! to assume that the similar genetic code PROVES evo is silly, but it certainly doesn't hurt the theory.

and no yeah for real, humans are NOT cars. weird, I know.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 

ooooooooooooooooh. see now i thought that you were using the old watch and the watchmaker argument FOR intelligent design. now I see and agree! to assume that the similar genetic code PROVES evo is silly, but it certainly doesn't hurt the theory.

Agreed. I personally disagree with evolution at this time for various other reasons, but this is an insufficient argument for it (although could definitely be considered a reasonable inference, otherwise).


and no yeah for real, humans are NOT cars. weird, I know.

Consider my illusions shattered. Jeez.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 
I thought they (whomever they are) created and modified us by splicing monkey, pigs and alien DNA to form who we are today.

Am I wrong in this well known but controversial theory?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Another alternative to creationism or evolution based on your suggestion that we are so closely related to Monkeys via DNA:

1. There could be other higher life forms than us who created us. Much like we do with bacteria in a petri dish. We could actually be just an atom in their world or just a cell.

2. They took pieces of a monkey than made some alterations and wallah they created humans.


So we didn't evolve we were scientifically created.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Something else to think about regarding our probable relation to monkeys: RH factor.

This is where my brain continues to wonder. If we are descended from monkeys, then why is my blood RH negative? I have done research on how it is passed on genetically. Does this make me different than human because my blood does not have that part of the rhesus monkey? I am very much considered human, but in the case of evolution, under the pretext I am descendant from monkeys, my blood type is considered mutation.

What if it is not a mutation? What if it is part of the evolution of our species? What if I am descendant from something/someone other than a primate?

Until science is more conclusive in its research of the origin of our species, I try to keep an open mind. There are still unanswered questions. The question of RH negative mutation keeps me searching for answers. I might buy into monkey ancestors if it was in my blood, but it is not.

So I say, it is probable that I am descendant from primates, but I do not know for sure.

I believe our species is more complex than either science or religion can answer at this time in our evolution. I do believe we are evolving.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
If we did in fact evolve from primates, why in 100's of years have we not found and example of a primate in the process of becoming human? What all of a sudden made the process stop?

Humans ARE primates. We have found numerous transitional species between ancient ape and modern humans.
That is proven.


I tend to believe more in the theory of a tampering with DNA by some other lifeform. Unfortunately, there is no way that I know of to prove any of these theorys right, so I will just go and crawl back under my rock and dwell in the primordial ooze...........


DNA tampering is definitely possible, but we haven't found evidence yet in our genetics. I've always wondered about that, but if tampering did happen it happened slowly over time, or slight tweaks were made to existing creatures. Evolution would still hold true in that case, there would just be more to the picture.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
"Way less then 1%" Wow that’s scientific. how do you know this? did you read it in a book? did you crunch numbers and come up with your own Hypothesis on the the average percentage of bones that fossilize after death?
Reading the basics about fossilization will answer that for you. I was estimating based on what I've read on fossilization. Surely you can scientifically back up your claims, right? YOU are the one that mentioned 1%, not I, and I didn't see ANY research backing that figure, plus your argument is a non sequiter because we haven't found every single fossil to ever exist. I'm not sure if you've noticed but the earth is a huge place that we haven't even come close to fully exploring. The best rate I can find for that is actually 1.1% for marine life, although exact figures are near impossible to calculate, and I'm sure it differs on land.

www.geo.wvu.edu...

Here's a good presentation with several charts, one of which estimates the percentage of fossilization for marine life.

www.fossilmuseum.net...

Good information on how fossils form.


you being so scientific and all should be able to give me anwnser on how you came up with what you believe to be fact that way less then 1% of bones fossilize. Or are you just going to attack me, call me stupid and say i dont know what im talking about. how about you stop attacking, use your "Sicentific knowledge" and back your awnsers with facts not generalizations. This show your lack of scientific knowledge.
Really? So even though every thing I said was scientific fact besides my estimated less than 1% figure, it's all wrong, right?


As you should already know humans bury there dead and no there are not Millions of a pre-human fossils, if there were this would not be called a theory. I understand science very well, this is why im asking the questions.


You obviously don't understand science well, if you are using the "it's just a theory" argument. Scientific theories are back by hard evidence as I have clearly posted at least 5 times in this very thread now.

www.talkorigins.org...

This might help you understand it a little bit better.

www.askabiologist.org.uk...

Yes, millions have been found. Humans burying dead has nothing to do with it.




new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join