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

Originally posted by squiz
HaHa, big surprise, whining from the Darwinists who choose to adhominen attacks and false misrepresentations instead of actually dealing with the content. Real big surlprise there.

Since they have no answers do they?

How about some supportive quotes frm Krick or Szostak. They seem to agree the problem has to do with the specified functionality of the information independent of the physical properties.

Nope, natural forces don't create languages, computers don't grow in the forest. But the Darwinist would have us believe they can. Without evidence of course.

You lost the minute you said "Darwinist."

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by SuperFrog
reply to post by squiz

 

Just a quick question, who created the language?

Are you referring to the genetic code, i.e. codon to amino-acid translation table? If yes, the answer is: it evolved (very evident from the structure of the code). More specifically, it was 'created' by natural selection acting on the laws of chemistry and nature. That's bit misleading though, since the code is still evolving. E.g. the ancient alphaproteobacteria, or mitochondria, in your cells, are using a different code than your nuclear genome.

edit on 12-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

No, was referring to this quote...

Nope, natural forces don't create languages, computers don't grow in the forest. But the Darwinist would have us believe they can. Without evidence of course.

Computer do not grow in forest, but natural forces do create languages as solution for communication, how for humanoids, the same for animals. And of course, those languages evolve as complexity of life evolves. (OMG, Y??)

Originally posted by HappyBunny
You lost the minute you said "Darwinist."

I don't understand why people still use archaic terminology like that. Darwinist? Like, is that someone who believes in evolution exactly as Darwin originally proposed it, while ignoring the advancements done since including the entire field of genetics? It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I'm loyal to Darwin's evolution and nothing more. His book is my dogma. What a joke that is. Darwin was right, and there's no such thing as a modern day Darwinist (or is there?)

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by HappyBunny
You lost the minute you said "Darwinist."

I don't understand why people still use archaic terminology like that. Darwinist? Like, is that someone who believes in evolution exactly as Darwin originally proposed it, while ignoring the advancements done since including the entire field of genetics? It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I'm loyal to Darwin's evolution and nothing more. His book is my dogma. What a joke that is. Darwin was right, and there's no such thing as a modern day Darwinist (or is there?)

I don't get it either. Maybe they think it's another way they can disprove evolution, simply because they don't understand it or what goes into it. They certainly don't understand modern synthesis.

reply to post by GmoS719


It doesn't work like that. We have the same genetic structure that makes all mammals linked. Percentages simplify it too much.

If anyone is going to try to debate evolution by claiming it is just a theory, please get your scientific definitiosn straight first before using this really simplified arguement.

It makes you look silly and uneducated.


it is old, has been debunked a thousand times, give it up and stop wasting our time.

The everyday, street terminology it is an idea.

In science, it means the highest degree of certainty and proven by facts. lolol

reply to post by starheart


I am not so egotistical to think myself better then another species. So exactly how is that line of thinking advanced?

reply to post by swan001


Shows how much you know, genius.

Darwin took 25 years to ponder what he found before he released the information, because he was very religious and felt like he was going to murder the church.

He came very, very close to not revealing his findings at all.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


C'mon it's because you're a monkey's uncle,

COULD NOT RESIST SORRY, (My evil personality took over today).

reply to post by swan001


And we assume that is the most desireable trait. But if it came down to a human fighting a bear, human is gonna get their butt whooped.

You don't understand evolution at all if you think the purpose is to be human. It is also to not be the most dominant species, it is to survive the best in the environment given.

Besides, how do you know that other animals don't ask about their origins? Do you speak dog or dolphin?

We may be able to create amazing things, but at the same time we are destroying our own environment at an amazing and deliberate rate. No other species does this.

So I wouldn't be so sure we are the "best"

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by swan001

 

Shows how much you know, genius.

Darwin took 25 years to ponder what he found before he released the information, because he was very religious and felt like he was going to murder the church.

He came very, very close to not revealing his findings at all.

Yes, it took someone possibly beating him to the punch that finally made him publish.

reply to post by nixie_nox


i do not run around destroying my environment. Do you? These destructions are made by the big corporations. We are denied, by the government, access to renewable energy. THEY (the NWO) want to keep the oil benefits.
You are suggesting that dog or dolphin invented electricity, light, computers, jets. WE are the most evolved specie on Earth. Evolution is not about physical strength. It's also about intelligence. We beat bears using intelligent technologies (spear, bow, guns) that MANKIND invented.

Originally posted by swan001
WE are the most evolved specie on Earth. Evolution is not about physical strength. It's also about intelligence. We beat bears using intelligent technologies (spear, bow, guns) that MANKIND invented.

What does "most evolved" mean? Are we most evolved in the sense that our vision isn't the best one out there? Or in the sense that our hearing isn't the best one out there? Or in the sense that we aren't the best swimmers and divers out there? Or in the sense that we aren't the fastest breeders out there? I can make thousands of similar points. You say it's about intelligence. I say that's just your human-centric view. Besides, we couldn't even live without our symbiotes. At any given moment, only ~10% of our bodies consists of our own cells. The rest is mostly bacteria. They also contribute about 100-times more genes into the mix. Hell, they're even inside most of our cells (mitochondria).

reply to post by rhinoceros


read the post above yours.

a super intellect god may have made monkeys 96% human but not in an image of him self just 4% different.

reply to post by rhinoceros


your on the right path isn't there a crustacia that can see hyper spectral colors in different wave lengths at 360 degrees or something. whales that can pitch there voice or sound for mile ect bats and there ears theres even a gecko that does a couple thousand pushups a day.

The term Darwinism is still widely used in the literature, from Szostak to Lenski. Look it up, try reading some actuall research instead of blogs from crusading atheists like Dawkins, PZ and Coyne.

Yes it is an archaic model based on materialism, we haven't come to grips with the emerging field of quantum biology yet. Get ready for it!

but natural forces do create languages as solution for communication, how for humanoids, the same for animals. And of course, those languages evolve as complexity of life evolves.

OMG!!!! Can't we see the logical problem here?

So please tell me who still believes we are 96% geneticaly the same as apes? Please speak up and we'll see who is actually ignoring the empirical evidence. How about it?

But of course I don't understand the modern synthesis, such childishness is extremely transparent.

I don't get it either. Maybe they think it's another way they can disprove evolution, simply because they don't understand it or what goes into it. They certainly don't understand modern synthesis.

Perhaps you should write to Lenski or Szostak or the countless other evolutionary biologist who have used the term in their work and complain to them. Man that is rich! This is what we resort to.

I'm not at all surprised, nitpicking over terminology and inferring a lack of understanding is quite common place when we are left with no alternatives. More to come I imagine, I doubt whether I'll waste my time pointing it out though.

reply to post by squiz


What logical problem?

Please elaborate more on this problem.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Ah... because humans and animals are sentient beings, intelligent agents. Exactly my point to begin with.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

i do not run around destroying my environment. Do you? These destructions are made by the big corporations. We are denied, by the government, access to renewable energy. THEY (the NWO) want to keep the oil benefits.
You are suggesting that dog or dolphin invented electricity, light, computers, jets. WE are the most evolved specie on Earth. Evolution is not about physical strength. It's also about intelligence. We beat bears using intelligent technologies (spear, bow, guns) that MANKIND invented.

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is "about" being the best organism in your niche.

Intelligence is actually looking less and less like a beneficial evolutionary path based on the current, and worsening, state of the planet and prospects for the most "evolved" species on it.

Still what's a few million years. Reboot and try again.