|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm heading out for my trip... I'll be back on Tuesday. You all have a great weekend!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |  P... even if one gene is wrong it can kill an organism... .1% difference can be catastrophic to a 'species'. |
Can be, yes. Mutations which cause such a catastrophic change tend to kill the offspring in short order. Nature is a harsh mistress in that regard.
On the other hand, not all changes are so harmful.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No... not at all. It is no more supportive of the homologous evidence of comparing a Volkswagen to a Hummer and stating that they both have a common ancestor since 98%... 99% of their parts are similar... it demonstrates absolutely nothing. |
Automobiles don't tend to reproduce, in my experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
P... even if one gene is wrong it can kill an organism... .1% difference can be catastrophic to a 'species'.
|
Actually, percentage-wise, very few point mutations are fatal. They've actually studied exactly this. For example, most of the genes in E.Coli are not vital; you can take them away and the little bacteria do just fine.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | In any case, who cares! Even if we say it's only 98% or whatever, that's still a HUGE problem for creationism to explain! |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
No... not at all. It is no more supportive of the homologous evidence of comparing a Volkswagen to a Hummer and stating that they both have a common ancestor since 98%... 99% of their parts are similar... it demonstrates absolutely nothing. |
|
Absolutely nothing, huh? Our genome is like 97% identical to that of a chimp (which is EXACTLY what evolutionary theory predicts), and that's nothing?!? You shouldn't just try to brush this one under the rug... I know for a fact that when you first heard how similar we are to chimps, you were astounded. I know that I was... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | You shouldn't just try to brush this one under the rug... I know for a fact that when you first heard how similar we are to chimps, you were astounded. I know that I was... |
I sure wasn't - have you ever been to a movie theatre? I'm pretty sure nobody would notice the difference if you replaced half the audience with a bunch of chimps. Apparently this is even more true at NASCAR events. You can witness this phenomenon at pretty much any public gathering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Absolutely nothing, huh? Our genome is like 97% identical to that of a chimp (which is EXACTLY what evolutionary theory predicts), and that's nothing?!? |
No... it is actually 96.2% which is what we would expect from an animal that shares many physical features similar to ours... but, when considering the numbers differences in our genome... drawing a circle around the bullet hole after it is been shot and saying 'bulls eye' simply does not work when we look at this thing objectively. Remember... just one gene... out of thousands... can be deadly.
| Quote: | | You shouldn't just try to brush this one under the rug... I know for a fact that when you first heard how similar we are to chimps, you were astounded. I know that I was... |
I really don't remember what my feelings were on this as I thought ToE was fact at the time. Turns out I was wrong... and in this case brother P... so are you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | You shouldn't just try to brush this one under the rug... I know for a fact that when you first heard how similar we are to chimps, you were astounded. I know that I was... |
I sure wasn't - have you ever been to a movie theatre? I'm pretty sure nobody would notice the difference if you replaced half the audience with a bunch of chimps. Apparently this is even more true at NASCAR events. You can witness this phenomenon at pretty much any public gathering. |
This may be true, but it's not very nice! Think of the poor chimps you're insulting! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
No... it is actually 96.2% |
Trinity, listen to me; I have studied bioinformatics at the graduate level. I know about this stuff.
It is not 96.2%, it is not 97%, it is not 94%, and it is not 99%. There is no objective way of comparing two genomes. It all depends on what metric you are using. To say that one metric is better than another is totally subjective.
The only meaningful thing you can say is that most of the metrics used give VERY high scores, somewhere around 97%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
No... it is actually 96.2% |
Trinity, listen to me; I have studied bioinformatics at the graduate level. I know about this stuff.
It is not 96.2%, it is not 97%, it is not 94%, and it is not 99%. There is no objective way of comparing two genomes. It all depends on what metric you are using. To say that one metric is better than another is totally subjective.
The only meaningful thing you can say is that most of the metrics used give VERY high scores, somewhere around 97%. |
Got it... I am only pointing out that if one asserts its 99% they are only focusing in on one part of the equation. You could easily state that anatomically we are almost 100% similar to chimps... but... so what? The similarities in no way suggest that we had a common ancestor. That is nothing more than conjecture that is neither supported by objective observations or the fossil record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The similarities in no way suggest that we had a common ancestor. |
The similarities do suggest (imply, whatever) that we had a common ancestor. The similarities do not prove it.
An important distinction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Got it... I am only pointing out that if one asserts its 99% they are only focusing in on one part of the equation. You could easily state that anatomically we are almost 100% similar to chimps... but... so what? The similarities in no way suggest that we had a common ancestor. |
I think it does. Our genomes are almost identical; they contain many of the SAME flaws. Is it reasonable to conclude that God created both of our species, and made the same mistake twice?
You can make the case that the flaws in OUR genome are a result of the corruption brought on by original sin, but then that doesn't explain why chimps have exactly the same flaws... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
