Humans and Chimpanzees are actually only 84% similar

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's the most ridiculous analogy I ever heard. So your guy in the sky designer can't come up with unique code?

It doesn't sound like you understood what I said. Commonalities among genomes would be expected with a common designer.

You can't prove that a designer had anything to do with life on this planet. But the science of evolution has produced volumes of evidence ignored by your cult.

Biological organisms require a logical source. It's in the name itself.

Once again, there are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 articles with experimental results.

Lol and none show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new over time

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're counting each individual mutation as independent and isolated. That's not always the case. It is quite common for related or series mutations to happen, so that even very similar strings can produce entirely different folds and therefore reactions.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Your guy in the sky must be a really inferior molecular biologist. Only 84% difference? Why not 8% or 0%? You just confirmed the reasoning behind the concept of a common ancestor. When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.

The significance level between the two groups is less than 10 to the minus 4, or 0.0004. You didn't do the calculation. In biological terms, that's insignificant regardless how much drama you add to the data.

How could they be entirely different life forms? We all live in the same carbon based environment subject to the laws and conditions within that environment.

A chair is a chair and a table is a table. One is used for food and the other is used for butts. Different purpose but they both interact in their environment as butts are put on chairs to sit at a table that holds food. Because our environment subjects us to gravity and balance they both have legs and other commonalities.

The commonalities do not make a table a chair or a chair a table and they are both used for entirely different purposes within the constraints of their environment.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Show me your calculations using real evidence rather than the rubbish you copied from creationists. For example, it is commonly accepted now that the speciation split to create Pan and Homo happened approx 12+MYA.

By the way, even to create some form of credibility on your side, but especially to avoid betraying your ignorance, why do you keep referring to Homo's divergence from Pan, and not with Pan? Also, chimps are not monkeys.

Coopertron isn't going to show any real evidence other than ridiculous creationist clap trap and keep using terms like mutated chimp, no actual real facts or real evidence is going to un-blinker someone with a religious agenda.

originally posted by: cooperton
Lol and none show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new over time

No experiment I know of has ever had this intention or purpose. Can you name one, just in case I missed it?

We are closer to pigs yes, just look at their eyes alone (they even have eyelashes), they are very human like when just looking at them. Ape eyes don't look as similar.
Also they use pig eyes for eye practice operations and such. We use their organs in humans and much more. Also look at their skin, same color (pigs without hairs on their body). I heard that human meat also taste like pig meat (of course I myself never tried human flesh).

Pig hearts are used to study the anatomy of human hearts because they are very similar in structure, size and function to human hearts.

Just recently:

US surgeons say they have successfully given a pig's kidney to a person in a transplant breakthrough they hope could ultimately solve donor organ shortages.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: cooperton

Hiya Coope.

If chimps were 98.6% identical to me : would get one to send-in to work in my place.

a reply to: cooperton

I understand you perfectly. And you're wrong on all counts.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

I never said they were different life forms. They are life forms which have evolved with similar genetic features. The chimpanzee's DNA is 99% in sync with human DNA. It's called speciation. It's how different species occur on this planet. We have a common ancestor.

a reply to: cooperton

from a link a posted earlier...

Male chimps drive mutations faster than humans

Interestingly, researchers found male chimps pass on seven to eight times more mutations to the next generation than do female chimps. In comparison, male humans only pass on three or four times more mutations than female humans. Overall, the offspring of chimpanzees inherit 90 percent of new mutations from their fathers, and just 10 percent from their mothers, the scientists said.

The researchers also discovered that male chimpanzees potentially contribute three more mutations to their offspring with each year of age. Human males potentially add just two new mutations to progeny each year they age, the researchers said.

"We have shown how the mutation process, which determines so many things, can differ, even between closely related species," McBean said.

One explanation for why male chimps pass on more mutations than male humans may have to do with differences in mating behavior. Male chimps have evolved to produce many more sperm than humans, possessing testes more than three times the relative size of human testes. This greater level of sperm production increases the opportunity for new mutations to emerge.

Since mating behavior could explain why male chimps contribute more mutations than human males, that means gorillas potentially have reduced mutation rates compared to humans. Gorillas encounter less competition for mates and have smaller testes relative to humans.may "It is possible that direct estimates of the mutation rate in gorillas would lead to a re-evaluation of the split times," McVean said. "We'd love to do the experiment in gorillas."

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

from a link a posted earlier...

They're assuming evolution is true, and then forcing the empirical observations into that framework. It's backward science.

I stick with the raw data. I analyzed the percentiles of their matching and un-matching genome and compiled the numbers. Debate the data, not the speculation.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I understand you perfectly. And you're wrong on all counts.

Why do you suppose a designer would have no common functions among their creations?? That's such a silly assumption

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Why do you suppose a designer would have no common functions among their creations?? That's such a silly assumption

Exactly. An unobservable common ancestor is considered but the observable common environment is disregarded when explaining commonalities amongst life forms.

Evolution, with it’s constantly moving goalposts is a poor theory at best and should not be taught as fact.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

I never said they were different life forms. They are life forms which have evolved with similar genetic features. The chimpanzee's DNA is 99% in sync with human DNA. It's called speciation. It's how different species occur on this planet. We have a common ancestor.

You asked..
“When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.”

What I was asking was how this could happen?

The guy in the sky set out laws and parameters that allows life to exist and coexist on this planet.

How could something be “entirely different genetically” and survive?

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
Evolution, with it’s constantly moving goalposts is a poor theory at best and should not be taught as fact.

What would you teach as fact?

I like your phrase 'constantly moving goalposts'. It shows exactly in one phrase the difference between the religious zealot and normal, evidence-based person. I disagree that the goalposts are moving, however - the goal is always the truth and the posts stay put. Ultimate fact-based truth is the goal.

The difference is that you have one static truth. It is written, and it is so. There is no deviation, no alteration, no negotiation. The is no room or facility for updating, which is why creationists, like Coop and Neo will bend fact and evidence to suit their predetermined, unalterable narrative. There is nowhere to go but deception.

Evidence-based theories do have the space to adapt to new discoveries and new thinking. The overriding theory can adapt - or evolve - to suit the latest peer-reviewed evidence. That is science at its best. Nothing at all is set in stone. The books normal people use can change and be updated. The part of your book you're relying on is about 5000 years old.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

You just answered your own question. All life on this planet has a common ancestor. That's what the science of evolution is about. If organisms existed that had no genetic material in common, then evolution would have to be reconsidered. But that doesn't exist. Therefore, organisms on this planet are related genetically but take different paths through the evolutionary process.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

You just answered your own question. All life on this planet has a common ancestor. That's what the science of evolution is about. If organisms existed that had no genetic material in common, then evolution would have to be reconsidered. But that doesn't exist. Therefore, organisms on this planet are related genetically but take different paths through the evolutionary process.

No they were made by a common designer. Biological mechanisms are logical, not illogical. It required an intelligent designer. Random chance does not suffice

a reply to: cooperton

You can't prove that a designer was required. Over 500 journals and 200,000 peer-reviewed articles say you're wrong.
You can't cite a single article in a legitimate journal that agrees with you - not one out of 200,000.
That says everything we need to know about your opinion. It simply isn't true.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You can't prove that a designer was required. Over 500 journals and 200,000 peer-reviewed articles say you're wrong.
You can't cite a single article in a legitimate journal that agrees with you - not one out of 200,000.
That says everything we need to know about your opinion. It simply isn't true.

That's an appeal to majority fallacy.

In actuality, it doesn't make sense that organisms which perpetuate due to logical biological processes would come from something that is lacking logical capabilities. Logical beings require a logical creator.

Similar folklores and mythologies are similar.

Yet each and every will claim theirs as truth.

The others, the product of the Devil.

Should be asking why that is, to be honest.

Instead of buying into one narrative, and doubling down.

No disrespect intended, just to be clear. I get it.

I'm usually just a cheeky sarcastic butt on here...

But I was "on the other side" for a long time.

Guess my path in life lead me in a different direction.

Anyways, since I'm not really adding anything here,

Have a great night coop!

a reply to: cooperton

And that is an appeal to incredulity.
Show factual evidence for what you claim, not 'I can't believe this...'