It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 98% Myth - Humans and Chimps

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Sounds like the ancient alien theory to me. Bunch of aliens needed miners, so they took chimps, spliced in some of their own dna, and BOOM, Humans.

98%, sounds bout right to me



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I've always found the effort to demand we all accept the idea that we are chimps without hair rather odd. It would seem that humans would want to celebrate the the fact that they are not chimps, instead certain folks work so hard to insist that we are barely different.

The need to keep finding ways to say, "see, see, see, see humans are chimps, they came from chimps, see this xxx proves it" seems the most demeaning thing someone can say and what a horrible effort indeed. Finding ways to twist one theory or another to reach that conclusion seems a effort in extreme self hatred and surely a hatred for the inhabitants of the planet.

If being born from higher divine order and being birthed from chimps in some genetic accident is my choice - I'll take....



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
(from wiki):A database[3] now exists containing the genetic differences between human and chimpanzee genes, with about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. About 600 genes have been identified that may have been undergoing strong positive selection in the human and chimp lineages. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage. there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B.

Do those numbers cited (by an evolutionist source) even sound sane? I mean, look at their own numbers and ask any scientist if it's possible for THAT MANY mutations to occur and be beneficial to the species. Mutations are not usually a good thing. They either kill the species or seriously damage it making it very much unlikely that it will ever reproduce. Does any species on the planet choose a mate that is obviously genetically different? So even if it was possible to have that many beneficial mutations, how would the mutated changes get passed on?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Both sides so sure that they are right and so quick to lamblast the other when the stark reality is that neither side knows anything.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 

The truth has no side, so it's not helpful to talk about sides. Most of us are seeking truth, though there are a few who try to avoid it, like people who say they'd rather base their beliefs on what they'd like to be true, instead of what the facts say.

We have made the tremendous accomplishments of sequencing the human genome, as well as that of chimpanzees and bonobos, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about knowing nothing. We know the gene sequences. Its not nothing, it's one of our greatest accomplishments.

If you said we are still learning how to interpret gene sequences and figure out what it all means, that would be a fair statement. We've learned a lot already, so again, not "nothing", but we still have a lot to learn.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Does any species on the planet choose a mate that is obviously genetically different? So even if it was possible to have that many beneficial mutations, how would the mutated changes get passed on?


are you serious? are you telling me that people with genetic defects never get married and have offspring? have you ever seen a biracial couple? Perhaps a couple where one of the pair was in a wheelchair? A mentally retarded couple?I find it difficult to believe anyone has lived so insular a life to have not witnessed anything of the sort. Heck, you don't even have to leave your house, there are plenty of reality TV shows that have the above examples and then some prominently featured like TLC's 'little people big world' where the parents both have a form of dwarfism and one child got the gene while 2 others are normal but still carry the gene.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Human beings are a little more enlightened than lower animals and hopefully there are plenty of people who know that being in a wheelchair does not rule out a suitable mate. Animals have no such knowledge. That said, while people do obviously pair with others who have genetic defects (diabetes, dwarfism, etc.) there are some genetic defects no responsible parents would want to pass on to their offspring (Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, etc.).

Why do you think animals, chimp included, have such fierce competition for breeding? They're showing off their genetic superiority. If an animal has something "different" about them, an animal is not going to know if the oddity is a genetic benefit or not and will only choose the best of its kind.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I don't know naysayers the OP presents
at the very least an interesting premise
and perhaps showed a new angle ?
One that posits a series of, somehow predetermined,
on/off sequences, making a toad or
Mozart. Not a blind stumbling evolutionary
random number generator.

Yep I find it quite intriguing .
And hopefully so do a few others..
Well at least until Phage gets here.

OP, good stuff in my book,
and I'm not Religious.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by Shema
 

The truth has no side, so it's not helpful to talk about sides. Most of us are seeking truth, though there are a few who try to avoid it, like people who say they'd rather base their beliefs on what they'd like to be true, instead of what the facts say.

We have made the tremendous accomplishments of sequencing the human genome, as well as that of chimpanzees and bonobos, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about knowing nothing. We know the gene sequences. Its not nothing, it's one of our greatest accomplishments.

If you said we are still learning how to interpret gene sequences and figure out what it all means, that would be a fair statement. We've learned a lot already, so again, not "nothing", but we still have a lot to learn.



Everything has two sides, even the truth, the trick is to encompass both equally and wholly. Can you see both sides of the same coin at the same time? Whether you like it or not there are two sides to the debate, indeed every debate. How can you hope to find the truth if you can't recognize this? How can you say you know anything? At best you only think you know something as opposed to nothing.
edit on 10-9-2013 by Shema because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2013 by Shema because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

neoholographic
The truth is we share 98% of the same DNA sequence not regulatory genes. When you look at the difference between gene regulation the variation makes a natural interpretation of evolution a story that belongs with the Hobbits in middle earth.

As if regulatory genes aren't ultimately made of DNA sequence..



There's DNA inserted in regions of human DNA that's not found in chimps. How did this DNA evolve in Humans when it was never present in chimps?

There's DNA inserted in regions of chimp DNA that's not found in humans. How did this happen? Retroviruses, DNA recombination and subsequent mutations, etc. there are many answers, as anyone would know after taking Biology 101.



The only thing you can do is assume that there's was a common ancestor that shared the traits of humans and chimps. This common ancestor is like Bigfoot or a Purple Dragon. People just make this magic assumption because it's what they believe.

The assumption is made, because all the available data from every single scientific field that concerns the question in some way points to this conclusion.

I thought this was the Science forum..
edit on 12-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

whitewave
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Human beings are a little more enlightened than lower animals and hopefully there are plenty of people who know that being in a wheelchair does not rule out a suitable mate. Animals have no such knowledge. That said, while people do obviously pair with others who have genetic defects (diabetes, dwarfism, etc.) there are some genetic defects no responsible parents would want to pass on to their offspring (Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, etc.).

Why do you think animals, chimp included, have such fierce competition for breeding? They're showing off their genetic superiority. If an animal has something "different" about them, an animal is not going to know if the oddity is a genetic benefit or not and will only choose the best of its kind.


Not true at all. Chimpanzees, females especially, are very promiscuous. There isn't a lot of aggression in their mating with the exception if the alpha male. In that instance they will fight subordinates to keep them away from their female during estrus. Bonobo take an even more passive approach and live in a matriarchal society that promotes homosexuality, particularly among females as a bonding factor in their society. Not every mammal acts like a Lion or gazelle fighting for the right to mate. Additionally I've seen animals with severe deformities who not only mated successfully but had normal offspring.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


Everything has two sides, even the truth, the trick is to encompass both equally and wholly. Can you see both sides of the same coin at the same time? Whether you like it or not there are two sides to the debate, indeed every debate. How can you hope to find the truth if you can't recognize this? How can you say you know anything? At best you only think you know something as opposed to nothing.

Science is about evidence, not consensus. If you don't have evidence to support your assertions, your assertions shouldn't be included in a scientific debate.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Shema
Everything has two sides, even the truth, the trick is to encompass both equally and wholly. Can you see both sides of the same coin at the same time? Whether you like it or not there are two sides to the debate, indeed every debate. How can you hope to find the truth if you can't recognize this? How can you say you know anything? At best you only think you know something as opposed to nothing.

Outside the context of science, what you say may be true. But since this forum is in science and technology, I think it's fair to say that some things are debated by scientists and other things are not debated at all. Examples of things which are not debated by modern scientists, but non-scientists think there may be some debate:

-Is the Earth flat?

-Does the sun revolve around the Earth, or vice-versa?
(by the way, about 20% of Americans get that wrong, and thus you could say there is some reason for debate among non-scientists, but there is virtually no debate among scientists). There are not two sides of the coin here, there is only one truth. The other is an illusion, although admittedly a convincing one to someone unfamiliar with science.

-Did some type of evolution happen on Earth? (Again there is virtually no debate among scientists whether some type of evolution happened. There is plenty of debate about exact mechanisms, details of the process, etc.)

Evolution

Although there's virtually no debate among scientists about whether evolution happens, they continue to debate how it happens.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

iterationzero
Science is about evidence, not consensus. If you don't have evidence to support your assertions, your assertions shouldn't be included in a scientific debate.

Do you ALSO believe that governments are about freedom?

How about media being all about truth?

Or that politics is about democracy?

If so, I have a HUGE deal on a bridge that you just might love...


"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health. Lawyers destroy justice. Universities destroy knowledge. Governments destroy freedom. The major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality." ~ Michael Ellner



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Thanks for the responses.

Like I said, DNA provides a blueprint with functions to produce a specific result. There's no room for a natural interpretation of evolution.

I remember when I was a teenager I worked at a factory. They would take plastic and run it through different machines to produce specific shapes and sizes that carry out specific functions. Now nobody with common sense would say the plastic assembled itself into these different shapes and sizes.

This is what intelligence does. It takes raw materials and gives it existence through specific blueprints, codes and pre-determined information that produces planes, cars, TV's and more.

This is the same thing we see with DNA. A natural interpretation of evolution is like saying the car, TV or plane assembled itself.

People say these things are different but they're not. It's the same blueprint. It's the same design, codes and pre-determined information that produces a specific result.

The program is designed to adapt to it's environment so the raw materials change over time but not the blueprint or pre-determined information that produces specific results. The reason people cling to a natural interpretation of evolution is because of their personal belief systems. So they look at the change of raw materials over time and ignore the vast blueprint of function, code and pre-determined information that shows us intelligence had to form us just like intelligence had to form the plastic in the factory I worked at.

Look at the alphabet. Say you randomly scrambled the alphabet and words like and, rain or note appeared. The only reason these words would have meaning is because intelligence gave the arrangement of these letters meaning.

It's the same with DNA. When a mutation or adaption occurs, specific DNA letters in a specific arrangement is inserted into a region of DNA and specific gene regulation and expression occurs. The arrangement of these letters are pre-arranged in a specific order to produce a specific result.

So it's much deeper than the alphabet. It's more like the code that produces a website. When a pre-arranged specific set of instructions are in place it could activate or turn on a specific function that turns on your flash intro to your website. When those specific instructions are deleted then there's no flash intro. Nobody would say the code that produces a website assembled itself. That would be stupid.

When you look at DNA you see the exact same thing. A specific arrangement of DNA letters that produce a specific result.
edit on 15-9-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

The above link will definitely be worth checking out.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

tothetenthpower
What's also true is all we know as a species is just our 'best guess' at the time, using the current technology and information we have available. The 'theory' of evolution is the same as the theory of whether or not the earth is flat.

Well there are competing theories to abiogenesis certainly, but is there any actual evidence or support for the Earth being flat?

Sorry if I'm splitting hairs, but I just think it's misconstruing possibilities to claim that these two things are equally likely. We have undeniable evidence of a process called evolution and we have enough evidence to be able to propose that abiogenesis is one of the stronger competing theories for how life formed. Not only do we have no evidence for a flat earth, but we have evidence against that theory.

The facts we have discount the existence of a flat Earth. The facts we have do not rule out abiogenesis or common descent as a possible origin of life of human life.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
This should go ----------------------------------------------------------------> here



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Here's more.


What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species? Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.

The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off."

The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.

"Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald.


Link

Again, this shows evolution had to be guided by intelligence. The sequence between chimps and humans are similar but not gene regulation and insertion/deletion.

It's like saying addition and subtraction share the same sequence of numbers but the insertion or deletion of +/- gives the sequence of numbers different functions.

These insertions have to be a predetermined sequence by intelligence. There's no evolution needed. When these DNA letters are inserted a specific function is turned on.

It's like having a flash intro on your website. You insert the code, your website has a flash intro, you delete the code it doesn't.

There's differences in insertion/deletion between humans and chimps and again, these insertions have a predetermined function and when there inserted specific gene regulation and expression occurs.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Evolution and adaptation are two entirely different things. If evolution is possible (and I don't see why not ... though I've seen no evidence of it ... and neither has anyone else) then de-evolution is just as likely an answer to the OP's question.

Why is this ALWAYS a point such discussions fail to address? Why does the religion of science always point towards progress? What if monkeys were a progression of the human form and we're headed the way of the dinosaur? LOL
edit on 25102013 by Snarl because: Autocorrect



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join