My athiest bruhs, thoughts on this...

[YoungMasterGold]

Evolutionists & evolution believers LOVE using this argument to prove that we evolved from apes. Humans having 98.5% DNA similarity to humans doesn't mean a damn thing. And here's why ------> ""We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."

Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist

I'm not so sure: you, for instance, are clearly bananas. Okay, fine, I'll grab my coat and split. Anybody else find bad puns appe(e)ling? I'll stop now. Anyway, you've written that "Humans having 98.5% DNA similarity to humans doesn't mean a damn thing" [my emphasis]. I'm going to assume you were trying to compare chimps to humans. The genetic closeness to other apes does mean a lot, as it indicates that they are closely related to humans, and that the cladistic grouping of humans and other apes is justified.

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

How very anthropocentric of you. It's also a dumb argument, as it misunderstands what DNA similarities means. That a species has "x" amount of shared DNA with humans doesn't mean the animal has "x" human behaviour. It means, at its simplest, that the human species and that other species may share a common ancestor that correlates with the "x" amount of DNA shared. So, yes, while there will be shared biological characteristics, one doesn't expect a percentage of "humaness" as a result.

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?

What does that even mean? Is the writer arguing that nucleotide changes don't occur in a population over time? Is he/she arguing that humans couldn't have come from chimps? The mind boggles.

And as a writer for the Smithsonian concedes: "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."

Yes, we know.

Simply stated, if we were to take this idea of similarities to determine which animal is most like us, we would come up with dire results. Take, for instance, our number of chromosomes (46). Two of our closest ancestors would be the tobacco plant (48) and the bat (44). Furthermore, because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. Therefore, this would reveal that we started from penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and slowly evolved into fruit flies (8), and after many more millions of years we became tomatoes (12), and so on, until we reached the human stage of 46 chromosomes. Millions of years from now, if we're fortunate, we may become the ultimate life form, a fern, with a total of 480 chromosomes.

No. Just no.

 

[MouseTeeth]

Yeah. The guy is a moron. Not because he believes in a god, but because the arguments he presented were moronic, to say the least. Quick responses:

First, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That means it's an explanation of factual phenomena: changes in allele frequencies occur in a population; those changes may be passed on; with time (and, often, isolation) continued changes may cause a new, sometimes distinguishable group to arise. So, no, it wasn't "one cell that erupted into all life" we have today, but a population of unicellular organisms may have evolved into multicellular ones.

Second, Evolution has been observed, and can be forensically examined. Experiments on hybridisation should suffice as an example of the former; and the presence of shared endogenous retroviruses between humans and other apes, serves as an example of the latter.

Third, no, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent evolution from occurring. He most likely doesn't understand what the second law of thermodynamics states. Also, order can arise from chaos. Only someone willfully ignorant believe otherwise. Not everything on earth is perfect.

Finally, it's all well and good that he felt some deity, but that's got nothing to do with the theory of evolution nor any origins theories. Many theists accept evolution.





No.

Thank You...also, it's clear that this man misunderstands the actual definition of the word "theory" in a scientific sense.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

You fundamentally misunderstand what the theory of evolution is asserting. Nobody ever said we evolved from apes, we share a common ancestor, that's it.

You fundamentally misunderstood my post and the one I responded to.

 

[MostReal]

Yeah, we have different definitions. Evolution doesn't require one to become better in my mind. It's all about adapting to the environment for me

Thats evolution.

no, adaptation is NOT evolution

see you have to get into the terms now...you have to be careful & know 'the KING's language'

Adaptation (which I believe does occur)
means

1. a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment

2. make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify

3. become adjusted to new conditions.

Synonyms for adaptation
noun act of adapting

• variation
• transformation

modification

• adjustment
• remodeling
• reworking
• refitting
• naturalization
• habituation

accustomedness

Evolution (which I don't agree with)
means
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Synonyms for evolution
noun development, progress

• change
• enlargement
• expansion
• growth

• progression
• transformation
• flowering
• increase

• maturation
• unfolding
• evolvement
• natural process

• working out

you must be careful with terms & how you use them

 

[YoungMasterGold]

no, adaptation is NOT evolution

see you have to get into the terms now...you have to be careful & know 'the KING's language'

Adaptation (which I believe does occur)
means

1. a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment

2. make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify

3. become adjusted to new conditions.



Evolution (which I don't agree with)
means
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.




you must be careful with terms & how you use them

It's the queen's language. Has been for many decades. Anyway, adaptation is part of the mechanisms for evolution. There's no magical barrier separating the two - it's merely a matter of scope, really.

 

[MostReal]

It's the queen's language. Has been for many decades. Anyway, adaptation is part of the mechanisms for evolution. There's no magical barrier separating the two - it's merely a matter of scope, really.

nope...you cannot fool me with that nonsense. You cannot make a word mean an entirely different thing.

I do not believe that whites are a 'progression' or went from a 'simple to a more complex' form of human than blacks genetically.
nor do I believe such vice versa. That is what you believe when you agree with Evolution & I don't subscribe to that.

I believe in Adaptation

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Anyone denying a god is a fool.

Which god tho?

 

[YoungMasterGold]

nope...you cannot fool me with that nonsense. You cannot make a word mean an entirely different thing.

That's egregious. Clearly, one can.

I do not believe that whites are a 'progression' or went from a 'simple to a more complex' form of human than blacks genetically.
nor do I believe such vice versa. That is what you believe when you agree with Evolution & I don't subscribe to that.

The fukk are you talking about? I never said any group of humans are a more complex progression from any other groups of humans. Just to clarify: Caucasoids and Negroids are still the same species, and if one were to attempt to oversimplify things we'd say they are on the same level in evolutionary development.

You've also been misled by the phrasing of the second definition of evolution you provided. "Especially" is the keyword you've misunderstood.

I believe in Adaptation

I don't believe in it: I accept adaptation occurs.

 

[MostReal]

The fukk are you talking about? I never said any group of humans are a more complex progression from any other groups of humans. Just to clarify: Caucasoids and Negroids are still the same species, and if one were to attempt to oversimplify things we'd say they are on the same level in evolutionary development.

The underlined is according to one's perspective. I believe we are but...The reason the theory of Evolution came about was to say we weren't. Also, I don't believe we came from primates I believe there is a distinct difference between them and the Homo Sapien & we are not linked.

 

[YoungMasterGold]

The underlined is according to one's perspective. I believe we are but...The reason the theory of Evolution came about was to say we weren't. Also, I don't believe we came from primates I believe there is a distinct difference between them and the Homo Sapien & we are not linked.

Um, that's definitely not the reason the theory of evolution came about. In any case, that't not what the theory of evolution states nor what the evidence indicates, so it's a moot point.

To the second point: we are primates. All humans are primates. The features particular to primates are characteristically found in humans.The evidence, both genetic and otherwise, shows that humans share common ancestry with other primates. Unless, some supernatural being planted the evidence, I'm going with what we currently have.

I'm off to work.

 

[Marvel]

Psalm 14
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

The reason the theory of Evolution came about was to say we weren't.

 

[observe]

We only learned the universe was expanding a little over 10 years ago.

Calm your fukking nerves.

The bible didn't even know how many planets were in our solar system

a lil over 10 years ago?

you mean almost a 100 years?

 

[MostReal]

Um, that's definitely not the reason the theory of evolution came about. In any case, that't not what the theory of evolution states nor what the evidence indicates, so it's a moot point.

To the second point: we are primates. All humans are primates. The features particular to primates are characteristically found in humans.The evidence, both genetic and otherwise, shows that humans share common ancestry with other primates. Unless, some supernatural being planted the evidence, I'm going with what we currently have.

I'm off to work.

we are the only 'primate' that is fully bi-pedal. Thus I don't consider us primates. The rest are called 'non-human' primates & if you have to make that much of a distinction between the two 'species' they are not of the same family IMO.

That THEORY of Evolution did come from Darwin did it not? And what did Darwin say about how 'Natural Selection' would work amongst us humans?

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla." (1874, p. 178).

I can't believe no one has checked all of this nonsense before. I'll never subscribe to this evil Evolution crap

 

[YoungMasterGold]

we are the only 'primate' that is fully bi-pedal. Thus I don't consider us primates. The rest are called 'non-human' primates & if you have to make that much of a distinction between the two 'species' they are not of the same family IMO.

That's nonsense. It's not that much of a distinction. The same differences occur in many other groups. Dolphins are a select breed of mammals, for instance. Doesn't mean they don't fit in category: "mammal". We have a characteristic - in this case, we are bipedal - that many other primates have. That humans characteristically have more of it doesn't preclude the grouping.

That THEORY of Evolution did come from Darwin did it not? And what did Darwin say about how 'Natural Selection' would work amongst us humans?

Darwin and Wallace, yes. Darwin was a racist, but that's not the reason he helped formulate a theory on the origins of species.Anyway, the validity of theories don't rise and fall based on the odious nature of a scientist.