Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar.

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:25:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Literally the first thing that you read when you scroll to the article is that the study was wrong. There's a link that takes you to another article that claims the similarity is still only 88% yet the very first note there is that it is best to treat this number skeptically. Im summary what I think is that you shouldn't draw conclusions from untrustworthy sources.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:31:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's also important to note that a similarity in genetic code does not mean that all the genes will be expressed exactly the same. There are many epigenetic factors (gene expression and regulation) that contribute to what genes actually have an effect on an individuals phenotype (displayed characteristics).
These are not the droids you're looking for.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:43:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
That's funny. I thought the atheist trolls would be all over this one, like stink on sh!t. Ever notice how they're silent when faced with facts?

And why the hell is sh!t on the profanity list? It's just another word for for crap.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:46:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:43:26 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
That's funny. I thought the atheist trolls would be all over this one, like stink on sh!t. Ever notice how they're silent when faced with facts?

And why the hell is sh!t on the profanity list? It's just another word for for crap.

My point is that they used to claim it was 99 percent. Not even close. That kinda kills the common ancestor theory, doesn't it?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:01:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:25:42 AM, ObiWan wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Literally the first thing that you read when you scroll to the article is that the study was wrong. There's a link that takes you to another article that claims the similarity is still only 88% yet the very first note there is that it is best to treat this number skeptically. Im summary what I think is that you shouldn't draw conclusions from untrustworthy sources.

I think that the comments about the software and the methods used, in the second article, are rather interesting. You might want to read them.
http://blog.drwile.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:01:48 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:46:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:43:26 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
That's funny. I thought the atheist trolls would be all over this one, like stink on sh!t. Ever notice how they're silent when faced with facts?

And why the hell is sh!t on the profanity list? It's just another word for for crap.

My point is that they used to claim it was 99 percent. Not even close. That kinda kills the common ancestor theory, doesn't it?

How is the 99% similarity measured.

How is the 88% similarity measured.

Be specific, not general and completely unhelpfully vague with none of the detail that would be true if the claim was correct. as per the article.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:02:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Yea, read about it here.
https://eyeonicr.wordpress.com...

More misdirection.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:11:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
It should also be noted that 70%-99% is 34.32% difference.

His corrected 88% is an 11.76% difference to 99%

The initial 70% to the corrected 88% is 22.78%.

Basically, he was off by more about double between the 70 and the correct 88, and difference between the corrected and the 99% is less than half what he was off.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:12:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 2:02:04 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Yea, read about it here.
https://eyeonicr.wordpress.com...

More misdirection.

What this really shows is that scientist really can't say, with any certainty, how similar the DNA is.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:24:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
LBoH, in the past you have cited hearsay as history (e.g. allegations of Darwin's atheism) and gotten it wrong.

It is equally dangerous to conflate self-published blog-articles with peer-reviewed science.

Linked for example, is a recent peer-reviewed letter by 43 science authors to the respected science journal Nature, comparing chimp, bonobo and human DNA. [http://www.nature.com...] I quote the Abstract below.

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.
-- Nature 486, 28 Jun 2012

I invite you to read the results in detail yourself. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 5:34:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

What irony. You title a thread "Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar" and link to a blog that starts by saying that 70% is wrong, and was due to a program bug. Then you have the nerve to say it is scientists who are the ones being misleading.

Either you don't bother to actually read and comprehend the webpages you link, or you are being intentionally misleading.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 5:58:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 5:34:30 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

What irony. You title a thread "Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar" and link to a blog that starts by saying that 70% is wrong, and was due to a program bug. Then you have the nerve to say it is scientists who are the ones being misleading.

Either you don't bother to actually read and comprehend the webpages you link, or you are being intentionally misleading.

I merely posted the title of the article. You have a problem with that? And yes. I read it. I also read the other article, as well as all the comments. It clearly shows that scientists really don't know what they are talking about. First they say 99 percent. Then 70 percent, and now, 88 percent. Also, they really don't understand enough about DNA to do a proper comparison. There is also the fact that 88 percent means a twelve percent difference. There are several critters that have a higher similarity to us than chimps. That should tell you how bogus the whole thing is. Something else to consider. Here are some others comparisons with humans.

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

We have more DNA in common with cats than chimps. Maybe we should rewrite the textbooks. Cats are our closest ancestors. Lol
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 6:40:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 5:58:34 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:34:30 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

What irony. You title a thread "Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar" and link to a blog that starts by saying that 70% is wrong, and was due to a program bug. Then you have the nerve to say it is scientists who are the ones being misleading.

Either you don't bother to actually read and comprehend the webpages you link, or you are being intentionally misleading.

I merely posted the title of the article. You have a problem with that? And yes. I read it. I also read the other article, as well as all the comments. It clearly shows that scientists really don't know what they are talking about. First they say 99 percent. Then 70 percent, and now, 88 percent.

The flawed 70 percent finding you linked, which was later changed to 88 percent, was a study done by a creationist. You knew that, right?

So because a creationist can't get his numbers straight, scientists must not know what they are doing. Right.

Also, they really don't understand enough about DNA to do a proper comparison. There is also the fact that 88 percent means a twelve percent difference.

Actually, we do. We can accurately sequence the entire genome. From there, it is just a string comparison problem. There are several techniques for comparison. The main difference between them are how much they take into account insertions, deletions, substitutions and duplications of DNA segments. But no matter which method you use, you get between 95% and 99+% similarity between human and chimp DNA.

There are several critters that have a higher similarity to us than chimps. That should tell you how bogus the whole thing is. Something else to consider. Here are some others comparisons with humans.

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

We have more DNA in common with cats than chimps. Maybe we should rewrite the textbooks. Cats are our closest ancestors. Lol

This is flat out untrue. I'm not surprised you don't provide a source.
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 8:07:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Creationist tactics handbook, lesson 1: Make a false claim, falsely claim it came from scientists, then assert scientists don't know what they are doing. Lol.
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:35:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

http://blog.drwile.com...

The author posted a link to a follow up article in your source explaining that the 70% figure from his pet scientist was completely wrong and happened because of some serious bugs in his computer program. I can't believe that he didn't check his data when he saw that is seriously disagreed with the computer programs for much more qualified studies. This is a serious embarrassment to his career and must have made him a laughing stock to his career.

Yet this sloppy work by a sloppy scientist is what creationists have jumped on to support their claims. This leads me to suspect any study this scientist makes about this topic and if you want to continue to use him you better tell me why you actually think he is right.

Here are some quotes in the follow up article:
"NOTE: Based on comments below by Glenn (who is mentioned in the article) and Aceofspades25, there are questions regarding the analysis used in Dr. Tomkins"s study, upon which this article is based. Until Dr. Tomkins addresses these questions, it is best to be skeptical of his 88% similarity figure.

More than two years ago, Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, a former director of the Clemson University Genomics Institute, performed a detailed, chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA using a widely-recognized computer program known as BLAST. His analysis indicated that, on average, human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar. This is far, far, below the 95-99% numbers that are commonly cited by evolutionists, so once I read the study, I wrote a summary of it. Well, Dr. Tomkins has done a new study, and it invalidates the one he did two years ago."
http://blog.drwile.com...

Can you try to read your anti-science nonsense before you post a link to it without any real paraphrasing?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:38:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
What an embarrassment. You claim that human and chimp DNA are only 70% similar and then you post a link which has a giant disclaimer at the top saying that the study was wrong and its actually 88%. So one of two situations has occurred:

1. You look for ideas supporting your own and then don't even bother reading them. Instead you take their titles at face value and trumpet a great victory for your views. This would be a sign of pure ignorance on your part.

2. You did both to view the article and actually read and comprehended the giant disclaimer at the top of it. In this case, you willingly tried to mislead people to support your views by posting known false information. This would not only be a sign of ignorance but show a willful disregard for truth and honesty.

In either case, I don't really see why you bother trying to argue this point any further.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:17:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:35:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

http://blog.drwile.com...

The author posted a link to a follow up article in your source explaining that the 70% figure from his pet scientist was completely wrong and happened because of some serious bugs in his computer program. I can't believe that he didn't check his data when he saw that is seriously disagreed with the computer programs for much more qualified studies. This is a serious embarrassment to his career and must have made him a laughing stock to his career.

Yet this sloppy work by a sloppy scientist is what creationists have jumped on to support their claims. This leads me to suspect any study this scientist makes about this topic and if you want to continue to use him you better tell me why you actually think he is right.

Here are some quotes in the follow up article:
"NOTE: Based on comments below by Glenn (who is mentioned in the article) and Aceofspades25, there are questions regarding the analysis used in Dr. Tomkins"s study, upon which this article is based. Until Dr. Tomkins addresses these questions, it is best to be skeptical of his 88% similarity figure.

More than two years ago, Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, a former director of the Clemson University Genomics Institute, performed a detailed, chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA using a widely-recognized computer program known as BLAST. His analysis indicated that, on average, human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar. This is far, far, below the 95-99% numbers that are commonly cited by evolutionists, so once I read the study, I wrote a summary of it. Well, Dr. Tomkins has done a new study, and it invalidates the one he did two years ago."
http://blog.drwile.com...

Can you try to read your anti-science nonsense before you post a link to it without any real paraphrasing?

It gets better. Jeffrey Tomkins, the researcher who did the study, is a creationist who published his study in the Answers Research Journal, a creationist publication. Someone emailed him and pointed out that the BLAST software version he used contained a known bug. You can read about it at the following link.

https://eyeonicr.wordpress.com...

Only after somone at the above link pointed out to Dr. Tomkins that he was using buggy software did he come out with a new study that showed 88%. But in his new study he uses an incorrect setting of the BLAST software, resulting in an erroneously low comparison percentage. This was also pointed out to him by someone at the above link. The flaw is so simple most laypeople can understand it. But he ignored this particular flaw in his second study.

Even worse, the first study that claimed 70% has never been retracted. It is still listed on Dr. Tomkins webpage at ICR. I don't even see the partially-corrected followup study there.

http://www.icr.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:06:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 5:58:34 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:34:30 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

What irony. You title a thread "Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar" and link to a blog that starts by saying that 70% is wrong, and was due to a program bug. Then you have the nerve to say it is scientists who are the ones being misleading.

Either you don't bother to actually read and comprehend the webpages you link, or you are being intentionally misleading.

I merely posted the title of the article. You have a problem with that? And yes. I read it. I also read the other article, as well as all the comments. It clearly shows that scientists really don't know what they are talking about. First they say 99 percent. Then 70 percent, and now, 88 percent. Also, they really don't understand enough about DNA to do a proper comparison. There is also the fact that 88 percent means a twelve percent difference. There are several critters that have a higher similarity to us than chimps. That should tell you how bogus the whole thing is. Something else to consider. Here are some others comparisons with humans.

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

We have more DNA in common with cats than chimps. Maybe we should rewrite the textbooks. Cats are our closest ancestors. Lol

First off it all depends on how the similarity was measured. So you will have to tell me how the similarity for the above species was measured.

Second, that 70% figure is part of sloppy research by a creationist who was later forced to redo his study and now he is getting an 88% similarity. However, critics are still citing errors in how he got the data and he will need to revise this number further. Obviously this guy doesn't know what he is doing as people off the internet are refuting him.

Here is a study done by real scientist at the University of Washington showing that the human ape-similarity is more like 96%.
http://genome.cshlp.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 4:06:51 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:58:34 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:34:30 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:52:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 2:20:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Umm Chimp and Human DNA are made up of 4 nucleotides. The same nucleotides, so Chimp and Human DNA are a 100% the same.

But why talk about Chimps. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans. While they have only 82% with dogs and 79% with Chimps. Meaning Cats are closer to us than they are to Dogs. No not really. http://genome.cshlp.org...

So percentages can be misleading.

Everything that scientists tell us about evolution is misleading. Not one single scrap of hard evidence for any of it. Smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

What irony. You title a thread "Human and chimp DNA only 70 percent similar" and link to a blog that starts by saying that 70% is wrong, and was due to a program bug. Then you have the nerve to say it is scientists who are the ones being misleading.

Either you don't bother to actually read and comprehend the webpages you link, or you are being intentionally misleading.

I merely posted the title of the article. You have a problem with that? And yes. I read it. I also read the other article, as well as all the comments. It clearly shows that scientists really don't know what they are talking about. First they say 99 percent. Then 70 percent, and now, 88 percent. Also, they really don't understand enough about DNA to do a proper comparison. There is also the fact that 88 percent means a twelve percent difference. There are several critters that have a higher similarity to us than chimps. That should tell you how bogus the whole thing is. Something else to consider. Here are some others comparisons with humans.

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

We have more DNA in common with cats than chimps. Maybe we should rewrite the textbooks. Cats are our closest ancestors. Lol

First off it all depends on how the similarity was measured.

Which kind of says it all, doesn't it?

And distraff, pop the hood and you'll find that the fossil record doesn't correlate with evolution anywhere close to what you think it does. The data has to be highly interpreted, which is to say, it's not much use in proving the hypothesis in the first place. It's all one giant juggling act.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:10:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:46:06 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:43:26 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
That's funny. I thought the atheist trolls would be all over this one, like stink on sh!t. Ever notice how they're silent when faced with facts?

And why the hell is sh!t on the profanity list? It's just another word for for crap.

My point is that they used to claim it was 99 percent. Not even close. That kinda kills the common ancestor theory, doesn't it?

Well, to be fair, it doesn't kill the common ancestor theory at all. It's just that it can't be direct evidence of CA. It's consistent with CA, but it's also fully consistent with design, or any theory of common cause, really. So what is the direct evidence of CA? There isn't any. How about experimental verification of the alleged mechanisms? Sorry, none of that either.

Evolution is a hypothesis, that's the bottom line, and ONLY a hypothesis. It is not scientific theory.
This space for rent.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
janesix
Posts: 3,438
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 7:29:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
I hope you're joking. No one could really be that stupid.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 7:31:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 7:29:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
I hope you're joking. No one could really be that stupid.

No just Atheists. They don't have the mental capacity to comprehend spirituality.
janesix
Posts: 3,438
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 7:48:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 7:31:34 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/21/2016 7:29:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
I hope you're joking. No one could really be that stupid.

No just Atheists. They don't have the mental capacity to comprehend spirituality.
Spirituality is not something you comprehend. It's something you experience.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 7:51:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 7:48:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/21/2016 7:31:34 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/21/2016 7:29:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
I hope you're joking. No one could really be that stupid.

No just Atheists. They don't have the mental capacity to comprehend spirituality.
Spirituality is not something you comprehend. It's something you experience.

True. You have not experienced the things I have when it comes to spirituality. Youre not even in the same galaxy. I would challenge you to open your mind and realize that this world is WAY more complex than you have possibly imagine. And your knowledge or what you think you know about the universe is vastly limited.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 7:29:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:00:23 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At least according to this study. How can this be? Everyone says it's 99 percent. Here's the article. What do you think?
http://blog.drwile.com...

Scientists are usually considered to be very anti Christ like people. So they will perpetuate any lie to try and make it appear that human being have evolved from monkeys.
I hope you're joking. No one could really be that stupid.

When you believe that a branch of science is a lie by Satan, then of course you will believe stupid things about scientists.