Scientists want to rebuild neanderthal genome...

I've known a couple of neanderthals personally. I don't think they really need to go to this time and expense.

 

Well, it would be interesting to attempt.

But you may be disappointed to learn that based on the Neanderthal DNA that has already been recovered, they are genetically distinct from us.

Ovchinnikov, I. V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Liden, K., GoodwinW. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000).

http://www.2think.org/neanderthaldna.shtml

So when testing DNA samples from different Neanderthals, we find genetic differences comparable to the differences we find between people living today in different areas. But when you then take these DNA samples and compare the Neanderthals to us, each are found to be quite distinct.

 

OK

This quote claims that there is a 3.5% difference in DNA amongst living humans. They also claim that one family of chimpanzees has a much greater diversity than in one ethnic group of humans. But, the evols claim there is less than a 2% difference between humans and apes.

 

Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Times Higher Education Supplement

 

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.
Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.

 

Since we are apes, I guess you mean between us and other apes.

The problem with your statement is that you must compare apples and apples.

The are many different ways to express how much DNA is similar. Maybe you count every nucleotide. Maybe you count only expressed nucleotides. Maybe you only count the number of genes that are exactly the same. Maybe you only count the number of genes that code for the exact same protein.

So you cannot just throw the two numbers out and say you have a contradiction. YOu have to know how each was counted. I gave you a complete reference to my source and a link to the full text article if you want to know what they did.

In any case, if you look at the statement I quoted, you can tell from context that they are using the same method of examining genetic similarity to state that the Neanderthal DNA falls completely outside the range of modern humans.

 

Ahhh - no atheist darwinist could have said it better.

Do we have Christian evolutionists here as well?

 

The problem is in the FALSE data that is constantly used by people such as yourself to support a fraudulent hypothesis.

You gave the data that one tribe of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity than the human race and a TWO PERCENT DIFFERENCE from the human genome.

Which is it? TRUTH OR LIES?

God gave a real theory that has withstood the test of time and people such as yourself trying to disprove GOD.

Wait!? What am I doing disagreeing with a chimp . . .

 

Actually from an undiscipled evolutionist's POV, anyone that claims to be evolved is a chimpanzee . . .

What do think such logic will lead you to? Enlightenment along with the buddah?

Data is just that data. Data will seldom tell you anything by itself. If the dna matches it could support evolution and it could support creation, but which are you going to believe that it supports?

It is your predestined opportunity to shine, choose to believe that you are a money, or choose to believe that God created you. You will shine in the radiant light of God or the flames of hell. But, we will all shine. IMHO.

 

This article claimed that there was less than one percent difference between humans and chimps - physically impossible, but plausibly deniable during any coverup.

The claims have been made that humans were created by God with a 1%, 2%, and 4% difference in DNA. Would some get the lie down to one lie.

The potato has the same number of dna chains that a chimp does. Does that mean you believe the potato evolved from a chimp?

 

Once again. you have to compare the same method of counting similarity. Just throwing percents out there and thinking that this makes a point is useless. YOu need to show that they are counting in the same way.

The quote that I have provided comparing humans and Neanderthals is clear in its context that they are using the same methos.

You, it seems, are trying to compare values calculated in different ways.

How can you so confidently criticize something you obviously do not understand.

Man did not evolve from a chimp, though they share a common ancestor. YOu might as well say that we are elm trees, since we also share a common ancestor with them.

Bold assertion. Prove you charge of lying.

You are being confused by different means of counting. Or you are deliberately trying to confuse the reader through an equivocation fallacy.

That does not even make sense. Perhaps you should learn something about the subject you are criticizing.

The "number of dna chains" has nothing to ddo with ancestry.

By the same token, the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with complexity. Neither does the number of base pairs.

There are members of complexity, but they do not agreewith the point you are failing to make.

 

Another strawman fallacy from Bob. But in this case, I'd bet that it is not his fault. He has been fooled.

The deception of YEism can be subtle at times but it is pervasive.

Oh it sounds so good. Who would not expect that two reptiles should be more closely related that one of the reptiles to a bird?

But if you were to go and ask your neighborhood zoologists, he would have correctly predicted the result.

Reptiles have different groups, but we are concerned about the diapsid reptiles. The fossil record shows that the diapsids branched into two more groups, the lepidosaurs and the archosaurs.

The lepidosaurs evolved int othe lizards and snakes.

The archosaurs evolved into the dinosaurs, the crocodiles and the flying reptiles.

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

Therefore, according to the fossil record, birds and crocodiles share a much more recent common ancestor than do crocodiles and snakes.

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

Therefore, contrary to the assertion of the last sentence of your quote, this is exactly the result predicted by evolution.

You have just provided a strong piece of confirming data for evolution.

Thanks!

Another strawman.

Evolution would say that the frogs share a much more distant common ancestor than any two mammals. Therefore you would expect them to have more genetic diversity.

Your data here sounds convincing to the lay person because it is comon sense. But in this case, common sense is at odds with the actual data. In the light of reality, your data confirms, not refutes, evolution.

 

I posted

Bob responded

Your question seems to suggest that you doubt my faith since I disagree with you. I believe that this is frowned upon by the moderators, but if they want to object, I'll let them speak for themselves.

But your question also seems to imply that you do not think that humans are apes.

Amazing! You do realize that whether we are apes or not has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not, don't you?

But if think that you are not an ape, just how do you classify yourself in the language of taxonomy?

If you deny that you are an ape, do you also deny that you are a primate?

Do you deny that you are a placental mammal?

Do you deny that you are an amniote?

Do you deny that you are a vertebrate?

Do you deny that you are a chordate?

Do you deny that you are an animal?

Do you deny that you are a eukaryote?

DO you deny that you are even alive?

Where along the list do you draw your arbitrary and capricious line and why?

Why, if you have the characteristics of an ape, or other classification, do you think you should not be classified as such?

 

Bob

Why did you not use the quote notation on posts number 5 & 6 on the previous page?

You copied word for word from here.

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm

This is called plagarism. It is both very bad form, unethical and could get the BB sued. Or was the little "Times Supplement" thrown in at the end supposed to be some weak attempt at a citation? Supplement to what? Date? Author? Page number?

And even that curious blurb was missing from the second post.

Besides, since the posts were nothing but strawman arguments that were very easily refuted, you probably don't want your name associated with having come up with them.

Since I brought it up, can you respond FACTUALLY to my responses to those passages? Mainly how the claim was that these findings contradict what science would predict when in fact they confirm what science would predict.

 

You guys keep this up & we'll get to the place where every word requires a footnote ~~ or maybe the two of you could come up with something similar to Strongs. Nah ~~ never happen. Agree to forever disagree, then exit, stage left. Intellicon is surely out there, somewhere (where the air is ......).

 

Speak for yourself. I was made in the image of God...and He is not an ape.

 

Another of the dangers of YEism, focusing on the physical description instead of what is being taught. Being "in the image of God" has nothing to do with your physical appearance.

Just like whether or not evolution is true has nothing to do with the taxonomic description of you as an ape.

Do you also deny that you are a mammal? On what grounds?

 

Prove it.

Yes. I'm a human.

 

umm in what human image is God's? A African American oe Native American? A fully erect human or a hunchback? Whoever that is was right about appreances not really mattering. However I may ask were we even MADE the same way as other mammals? I thought God made us from mud from some reason and everything else came into being by his command