Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theories of Evolution disconnected

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:30:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.

ME: I wish you would leave your grog intake until after midnight, your drunken ramblings are very annoying. You do not have to look this up, just ask anyone on this forum.

You are typical of the moronic mouths, you cannot answer the question so you go into an inane, insane rant.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:55:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:30:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.

ME: I wish you would leave your grog intake until after midnight, your drunken ramblings are very annoying. You do not have to look this up, just ask anyone on this forum.

You are typical of the moronic mouths, you cannot answer the question so you go into an inane, insane rant.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was responding in kind - with a massively unlikely claim to knowledge, without any verification - that overall, is just a joke. I didn't think for one moment you were actually serious. Well, this is extraordinary. Man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe, nor on the front page of every newspaper in the world? Never mind about that - tell us more. I imagine you have an explanation for this extraordinary scientific finding no-one in the scientific community is talking about. Remember folks - you heard it here first!!!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:12:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Found no citations that would corroborate your claims, Peter. What have you got for citations?

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 5:51:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.

Yeah, surprised me - especially given that:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might"hope against hope"have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge.'

Daniel C. Dennett.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 5:52:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.

Yeah, surprised me - especially given that:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might"hope against hope"have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge.'

Daniel C. Dennett.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 5:52:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.

Yeah, surprised me - especially given that:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might"hope against hope"have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge.'

Daniel C. Dennett.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:50:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Why not let's talk about specifics.

Lets take two groups of two phrases:

Group 1:

"To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe..and you reckon its not a religion????"

"To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they belly... and you reckon it is not a religion?????"

Group 2.

"To avoid the claim that they're disconnected, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe.... And they reckon it's not a religion?"

"So they can avoid the claim they're disconnected, the average evolutionist will insist that what they believe is the only truth... And they reckon it is not a religion??"

Can you tell which was written with the intent of creating a variation of the original sentence and phrasing whilst retaining it's key intent, and which was written by looking at the original statement, and attempting to copy it verbatim, without looking at the keyboard, and without attempting to correct errors that occurred during the copy?"

IE: can you tell which of those sentences share a common ancestor through descent with modification, and which were uniquely and specially created to be separate and different from each other?

I'll give you a clue; the answer to that question starts with "T" and ends with "hats a bloody stupid question, of you course you can, it's easy".
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:47:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:55:15 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:30:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.

ME: I wish you would leave your grog intake until after midnight, your drunken ramblings are very annoying. You do not have to look this up, just ask anyone on this forum.

You are typical of the moronic mouths, you cannot answer the question so you go into an inane, insane rant.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was responding in kind - with a massively unlikely claim to knowledge, without any verification - that overall, is just a joke. I didn't think for one moment you were actually serious. Well, this is extraordinary. Man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe, nor on the front page of every newspaper in the world? Never mind about that - tell us more. I imagine you have an explanation for this extraordinary scientific finding no-one in the scientific community is talking about. Remember folks - you heard it here first!!!

ME: man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe.

Simple, as simple as you are. This information does not come in your Capt Marvel comics.

By the way the discussions and information can be found on the net, there are so many at the moment it is difficult to pick one simple enough for you to be able to read. Most are written for adults.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:54:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:12:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Found no citations that would corroborate your claims, Peter. What have you got for citations?

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Screen-reader users, click here to turn off Google Instant.
Google
About 463,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Search Results
Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship? The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge.
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ...
humanorigins.si.edu " Human Evolution Evidence
The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. ... the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one ... The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too.
What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA ...
https://answersingenesis.org......
Jan 14, 2014 - So what is this great and overwhelming "proof" of chimp-human ... Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same ...
DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps
www.amnh.org/...and.../dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so closely related. ... And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be ...
DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very ...
www.darwinconspiracy.com/
New Discoveries Prove Darwin Wrong; Ape and Human DNA Very Different ... You Can Bet Scientists Lie About Anything Related to Evolution and God ...
DNA Proves Evolution | Eveloce
eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/
Aug 4, 2011 - All mammals have the same genes, but those genes will differ in exact base ... And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly .... That does not mean that an ape became a human, just that the two ...
`58;
Is the similarity in human/chimp DNA evidence for evolution?
www.gotquestions.org/human-chimp-DNA.html
Why is the DNA of monkeys so similar to the DNA of humans? ... Is this really a fact which definitively proves a human-chimp common ancestry? It is our ... These HAR's are located in DNA segments that do not code for genes. But this requires ...
How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? | The Institute for ...
www.icr.org/article/how-similar-are-human-ape-genes/
by JP Tomkins - R06;Related articles
... tried to prove human evolution by comparing only similar DNA segments between ... But comparing just the genes of humans and apes produces much higher ... can then be compared to that of another to gauge how similar the genes are.
Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different | The ...
www.icr.org/article/epigenetics-proves-humans-chimps-are/
by JP Tomkins - R06;Cited by 5 - R06;Related articles
Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different ... There are two general ways in which the DNA of an organism can be modified chemically. First ... Because epigenetic modifications in the genome are related to gene expression, ...

People also ask
Are humans related to apes?
Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
How closely related are humans to apes and other animals
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/
Search for: Are humans related to apes?
What percentage of DNA do humans share with chimpanzees?
Apes and Humans, for example, share over 99% of their genes. That means the difference between our species is less than 1% of our genes. In fact, all life on Earth shares about 50% of it's genes. but in the original posting (before someone edited it) I chose to use the word DNA instead of genes.
Do apes and humans share 99% of DNA or 99% of gen
biology.stackexchange.com/.../do-apes-and-humans-share-99-of-dna-or-99...
Search for: What percentage of DNA do humans share with chimpanzees?
What percentage of DNA do humans share with other animals?
The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan.
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Prog
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
Search for: What percentage of DNA do humans share with other animals?
Are humans and apes in the same family?
There are now only about 20 living species of apes and they are divided into two major groups. These are the: Lesser Apes, containing the gibbons. Great Apes, containing the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
Humans are apes " 'Great Apes' - Australian Muse
australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes
Search for: Are humans and apes in the same family?

How closely related are humans to apes and other animals ...
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/
Oct 23, 2000 - How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ... ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. ... All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain ...

Searches related to does dna prove related to apes

dna proves evolution wrong

did humans evolve from neanderthals explain

how does dna prove evolution

do you think the chimpanzee gorilla and humans have a common ancestry explain your answer

how does the gorilla dna and the chimpanzee dna compared with the human dna ?

what percentage of dna do we share with chimpanzees

how much dna do humans share with chimpanzees

chimpanzee dna human percent
Goooogle might get upset with this.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:59:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:47:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:55:15 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:30:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.

ME: I wish you would leave your grog intake until after midnight, your drunken ramblings are very annoying. You do not have to look this up, just ask anyone on this forum.

You are typical of the moronic mouths, you cannot answer the question so you go into an inane, insane rant.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was responding in kind - with a massively unlikely claim to knowledge, without any verification - that overall, is just a joke. I didn't think for one moment you were actually serious. Well, this is extraordinary. Man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe, nor on the front page of every newspaper in the world? Never mind about that - tell us more. I imagine you have an explanation for this extraordinary scientific finding no-one in the scientific community is talking about. Remember folks - you heard it here first!!!

ME: man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe.

Simple, as simple as you are. This information does not come in your Capt Marvel comics.

By the way the discussions and information can be found on the net, there are so many at the moment it is difficult to pick one simple enough for you to be able to read. Most are written for adults.

Just for the record - there's no Captain Marvel; there's Captain America published by Marvel Comics. I assume that's what you mean - you faulty gene you! If your idea is good, irrespective of the fact it was devised in error - it could catch on, and this time next year - all the kids will be reading Captain Marvel. I think you've got a better shot with General Evolution - able to evolve at will all sorts of claws, eyes and teeth from evolutionary history - to fight crime, tyranny - and the mysterious AI known only as Peter-NOS-ain't.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:05:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 5:52:25 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.

Yeah, surprised me - especially given that:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might"hope against hope"have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge.'

Daniel C. Dennett.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

ME Definitely auto...Definitely auto....Definitely auto, what the hell is he doing?

Real, non comic book scientists have given up referring to Darwin's Guesses, and even Darwin himself said the the more he discovers the more he believes that is a God behind it all.

http://www.windowview.org...

http://evolutionrefuted.blogspot.com.au...

The reason that Darwins' theories are "Beyond dispute" is because anyone with any science in them wont talk about Darwin's odd ball ideas.

You condemn creation but believe that the meaning of life comes from one island...And you reckon it ain't a religion.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:11:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:59:37 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:47:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:55:15 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:30:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:17:42 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

Peternosaint is actually an AI designed to seem human by appearing stupid. Sorry Peter-NOS-ain't. You failed the Turing test. Human beings are not quite so consistently stupid. Don't ask me for proof of this, or to tell you where I got this information. Look it up for yourselves.

ME: I wish you would leave your grog intake until after midnight, your drunken ramblings are very annoying. You do not have to look this up, just ask anyone on this forum.

You are typical of the moronic mouths, you cannot answer the question so you go into an inane, insane rant.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was responding in kind - with a massively unlikely claim to knowledge, without any verification - that overall, is just a joke. I didn't think for one moment you were actually serious. Well, this is extraordinary. Man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe, nor on the front page of every newspaper in the world? Never mind about that - tell us more. I imagine you have an explanation for this extraordinary scientific finding no-one in the scientific community is talking about. Remember folks - you heard it here first!!!

ME: man and apes not related. Wonder why it's not in any scientific journal to which I subscribe.

Simple, as simple as you are. This information does not come in your Capt Marvel comics. https://en.wikipedia.org...
IDIOT< you know nothing.

By the way the discussions and information can be found on the net, there are so many at the moment it is difficult to pick one simple enough for you to be able to read. Most are written for adults.

Just for the record - there's no Captain Marvel; there's Captain America published by Marvel Comics. I assume that's what you mean - you faulty gene you! If your idea is good, irrespective of the fact it was devised in error - it could catch on, and this time next year - all the kids will be reading Captain Marvel. I think you've got a better shot with General Evolution - able to evolve at will all sorts of claws, eyes and teeth from evolutionary history - to fight crime, tyranny - and the mysterious AI known only as Peter-NOS-ain't.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
IDIOT< you know nothing.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:15:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:05:36 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 5:52:25 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/29/2016 4:34:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Lets just start with this. Please, show us.

Yeah, surprised me - especially given that:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might"hope against hope"have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge.'

Daniel C. Dennett.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

ME Definitely auto...Definitely auto....Definitely auto, what the hell is he doing?

Real, non comic book scientists have given up referring to Darwin's Guesses, and even Darwin himself said the the more he discovers the more he believes that is a God behind it all.

http://www.windowview.org...

http://evolutionrefuted.blogspot.com.au...

The reason that Darwins' theories are "Beyond dispute" is because anyone with any science in them wont talk about Darwin's odd ball ideas.

You condemn creation but believe that the meaning of life comes from one island...And you reckon it ain't a religion.

No. It's because evolutionary theory has move on since 1859. The modern understanding is called the neo-darwinian synthesis - incorporting genetics into evolutionary theory, after Crick and Watson's discovery of the underlying causes of heredity in 1953. Darwin didn't know what the underlying causes of heredity were - and that's what he was guessing at.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:20:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Correction: there is a Captain Marvel - or there was. He was a cheap knock-off of superman, nicknamed Shazam! - and the subject of a law suit between Marvel Comics and DC comics. I stand corrected.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:27:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:20:40 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Correction: there is a Captain Marvel - or there was. He was a cheap knock-off of superman, nicknamed Shazam! - and the subject of a law suit between Marvel Comics and DC comics. I stand corrected.

Captain Marvel was the first super hero to fly, Superman leaped tall buildings in a single bound. After the court case on copyright infringements, The Comic owners had Superman change his attributes to be more like Captain Marvel.

The Shazam this was what the kid said to change to Marvel.

http://www.comicscube.com...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:37:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:27:49 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:20:40 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Correction: there is a Captain Marvel - or there was. He was a cheap knock-off of superman, nicknamed Shazam! - and the subject of a law suit between Marvel Comics and DC comics. I stand corrected.

Captain Marvel was the first super hero to fly, Superman leaped tall buildings in a single bound. After the court case on copyright infringements, The Comic owners had Superman change his attributes to be more like Captain Marvel.

The Shazam this was what the kid said to change to Marvel.

Now to get back on topic:

The differences in human DNA surpasses the difference in animal to
human. Each person has their own blueprint DNA, so which human are you going to pick to compare with the Chimp.

A study was done ( I will try to find it again) on all humans and their DNA. One of the things discovered is that there was more DNA in one select group than there was in all other groups in the study. It also found that over all there was little difference in all races, down to a small percentage.

SO, what I am thinking, is there that much DNA difference in Chimps, and what chimps would be the ones that connected to humans in your evolution theories.

When you consider that mouse blood types are closer to humans than it is with Chimps, and that Pigs are overall closer to humans than chimps or mice, the theory being put forward by the "experts" of this forum is extremely disconnected.

Spurts being a drip under pressure and x an unknown quantity.

http://www.comicscube.com...
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:46:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:27:49 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:20:40 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Correction: there is a Captain Marvel - or there was. He was a cheap knock-off of superman, nicknamed Shazam! - and the subject of a law suit between Marvel Comics and DC comics. I stand corrected.

Captain Marvel was the first super hero to fly, Superman leaped tall buildings in a single bound. After the court case on copyright infringements, The Comic owners had Superman change his attributes to be more like Captain Marvel.

The Shazam this was what the kid said to change to Marvel.

http://www.comicscube.com...

Okay. I accept I was wrong and you corrected me. Thank you. Now I know more than I did before.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 8:18:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:37:51 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:27:49 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:20:40 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Correction: there is a Captain Marvel - or there was. He was a cheap knock-off of superman, nicknamed Shazam! - and the subject of a law suit between Marvel Comics and DC comics. I stand corrected.

Captain Marvel was the first super hero to fly, Superman leaped tall buildings in a single bound. After the court case on copyright infringements, The Comic owners had Superman change his attributes to be more like Captain Marvel.

The Shazam this was what the kid said to change to Marvel.

All right. All right. It was a minor aside to the issue under discussion. You were right for once. Soak up the adulation, the thunderous applause, the flowers and champagne - oh, the glory of being right!!!!

Now to get back on topic:

Finally!

The differences in human DNA surpasses the difference in animal to
human. Each person has their own blueprint DNA, so which human are you going to pick to compare with the Chimp.

Wrong.

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor W64;5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not W64;1%, but W64;4%"comprising W64;35 million single nucleotide differences and W64;90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

http://genome.cshlp.org...

Maybe you should stick to comic books!

A study was done ( I will try to find it again) on all humans and their DNA. One of the things discovered is that there was more DNA in one select group than there was in all other groups in the study. It also found that over all there was little difference in all races, down to a small percentage.
SO, what I am thinking, is there that much DNA difference in Chimps, and what chimps would be the ones that connected to humans in your evolution theories.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but what you've actually said ...surely isn't it.

When you consider that mouse blood types are closer to humans than it is with Chimps, and that Pigs are overall closer to humans than chimps or mice, the theory being put forward by the "experts" of this forum is extremely disconnected.

That's not true. It can't be. It's so stupid I can't even look it up. Why do you make these claims?

Spurts being a drip under pressure and x an unknown quantity.

http://www.comicscube.com...

Again with the Captian Marvel! If it feels so good to be right, why not try applying that to evolution by learning something about it?? Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennett is a great book to get started with.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 8:23:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Oh dear. It changed the text when I posted it - for some reason known only to computer programmers and the terminally nerdy. Please read:

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4% comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 8:55:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:23:26 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Oh dear. It changed the text when I posted it - for some reason known only to computer programmers and the terminally nerdy. Please read:

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4% comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

ME: Have another go, you might come up with something intelligent, but I sincerely doubt it.

You say a loud Wrong to my suggestion but you do not come up with any proof.

Evolution theories are so disconnected (from reality) that the more study that is done the less chance that someone will come up with something sustainable..Don't you try, you have to look after that little bit of brain that you have.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 9:46:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:55:32 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:23:26 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Oh dear. It changed the text when I posted it - for some reason known only to computer programmers and the terminally nerdy. Please read:

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4% comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

ME: Have another go, you might come up with something intelligent, but I sincerely doubt it.

You say a loud Wrong to my suggestion but you do not come up with any proof.

What, you want me to post you a big bag of monkey guts? If you don't accept the publications of a reputable scientific journal as 'proof' then there's no point debating this on a debate forum, where the only 'proof' that I can provide are such references. And without that, we're no better than monkeys flinging their poop at eachother.

Evolution theories are so disconnected (from reality) that the more study that is done the less chance that someone will come up with something sustainable..Don't you try, you have to look after that little bit of brain that you have.

ad hominem
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

Oh dear. I used a dictionary. Maybe you think it means something else??
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 2:38:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 8:23:26 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Oh dear. It changed the text when I posted it - for some reason known only to computer programmers and the terminally nerdy. Please read:

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4% comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

This would be handy if a human was tested for DNA composition in a murder case. They could say, "Wasn't me, a monkey did it" and there would be only 1% evidence that it wasn't so.

Latest from Russia: A Relic of a unicorn has been discovered. From the partial skull fragments a complete unicorn has been drawn....Or it could be a Mammoth, the scientists say.

Darn scientists, they get in the way somethines.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:20:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 2:38:00 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/30/2016 8:23:26 AM, autocorrect wrote:
Oh dear. It changed the text when I posted it - for some reason known only to computer programmers and the terminally nerdy. Please read:

Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. ....On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4% comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

This would be handy if a human was tested for DNA composition in a murder case. They could say, "Wasn't me, a monkey did it" and there would be only 1% evidence that it wasn't so.

Latest from Russia: A Relic of a unicorn has been discovered. From the partial skull fragments a complete unicorn has been drawn....Or it could be a Mammoth, the scientists say.

Darn scientists, they get in the way somethines.

It says right there - just above where you written 'a monkey did it' - that there's approximately a 4% variation between humans and chimpanzees. It's like a monkey wrote it!!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 1:24:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:54:31 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/29/2016 4:12:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Found no citations that would corroborate your claims, Peter. What have you got for citations?

Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?
Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?
Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????


Screen-reader users, click here to turn off Google Instant.
Google
About 463,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Search Results
Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship? The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge.
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ...
humanorigins.si.edu " Human Evolution Evidence
The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. ... the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one ... The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too.
What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA ...
https://answersingenesis.org......
Jan 14, 2014 - So what is this great and overwhelming "proof" of chimp-human ... Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same ...
DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps
www.amnh.org/...and.../dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so closely related. ... And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be ...
DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very ...
www.darwinconspiracy.com/
New Discoveries Prove Darwin Wrong; Ape and Human DNA Very Different ... You Can Bet Scientists Lie About Anything Related to Evolution and God ...
DNA Proves Evolution | Eveloce
eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/
Aug 4, 2011 - All mammals have the same genes, but those genes will differ in exact base ... And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly .... That does not mean that an ape became a human, just that the two ...
`58;
Is the similarity in human/chimp DNA evidence for evolution?
www.gotquestions.org/human-chimp-DNA.html
Why is the DNA of monkeys so similar to the DNA of humans? ... Is this really a fact which definitively proves a human-chimp common ancestry? It is our ... These HAR's are located in DNA segments that do not code for genes. But this requires ...
How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? | The Institute for ...
www.icr.org/article/how-similar-are-human-ape-genes/
by JP Tomkins - R06;Related articles
... tried to prove human evolution by comparing only similar DNA segments between ... But comparing just the genes of humans and apes produces much higher ... can then be compared to that of another to gauge how similar the genes are.
Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different | The ...
www.icr.org/article/epigenetics-proves-humans-chimps-are/
by JP Tomkins - R06;Cited by 5 - R06;Related articles
Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different ... There are two general ways in which the DNA of an organism can be modified chemically. First ... Because epigenetic modifications in the genome are related to gene expression, ...

People also ask
Are humans related to apes?
Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
How closely related are humans to apes and other animals
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/
Search for: Are humans related to apes?
What percentage of DNA do humans share with chimpanzees?
Apes and Humans, for example, share over 99% of their genes. That means the difference between our species is less than 1% of our genes. In fact, all life on Earth shares about 50% of it's genes. but in the original posting (before someone edited it) I chose to use the word DNA instead of genes.
Do apes and humans share 99% of DNA or 99% of gen
biology.stackexchange.com/.../do-apes-and-humans-share-99-of-dna-or-99...
Search for: What percentage of DNA do humans share with chimpanzees?
What percentage of DNA do humans share with other animals?
The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan.
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Prog
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
Search for: What percentage of DNA do humans share with other animals?
Are humans and apes in the same family?
There are now only about 20 living species of apes and they are divided into two major groups. These are the: Lesser Apes, containing the gibbons. Great Apes, containing the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
Humans are apes " 'Great Apes' - Australian Muse
australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes
Search for: Are humans and apes in the same family?

How closely related are humans to apes and other animals ...
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/
Oct 23, 2000 - How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ... ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. ... All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain ...

Searches related to does dna prove related to apes

dna proves evolution wrong

did humans evolve from neanderthals explain

how does dna prove evolution

do you think the chimpanzee gorilla and humans have a common ancestry explain your answer

how does the gorilla dna and the chimpanzee dna compared with the human dna ?

what percentage of dna do we share with chimpanzees

how much dna do humans share with chimpanzees

chimpanzee dna human percent
Goooogle might get upset with this.

Well, it appears your Christian websites are split on that, but certainly anything scientific does not agree with you. Thanks for confirming you're wrong.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 11:55:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.

Obviously, experts would disagree with this skewed perception. How about less rhetoric, please.

DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes, it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements, in fact, DNA is proving the opposite in most cases. ( Don't ask for citation look it up yourself)

Chromosome 2 strongly supports humans evolving from apes and common ancestry. I don't see how this could be consistent with Creationism. I won't make you look it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org...(human)


Thinking of the DNA and the evolutionists usage of this as proof of their religion is fraught with error and misinterpretation. A bit like most religions.

It would suggest that the first one celled grub in the slime of process would have to have a substantial amount of all the DNA of all the things that were to follow, including Birds, animals, vegetation, fish, and etc. etc.

Genetic makeup changes over time (see above). There is no reason to think LUCA(s) would be overly complex in any way.

Is the make up of the earth included in the evolution process?

I don't know what you mean.

Is human DNA different between humans and between each person?

Minuscule differences, but sure.

Is 1% difference of any account, as the scientists say in the argument on DNA?

Don't know.

Not only is that mind boggling in itself, it is beyond the hopes of the most ardent evolutionist to put forward as fact.

To avoid the claim of disconnection, the average evolutionist will insist that the only truth is the one they believe...And you reckon it is not a religion????

That's just silly. I don't "believe" evolution like someone might believe in a god. After all, there is a lot of evidence for evolution, and it need not be taken on 'faith'.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 1:02:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:55:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
The more scientific information come to light the more disconnected evolution appears to be.
DNA has been used to try to "prove" the relationship between man and the apes,
Actually it's fairer to say that DNA has to validate and verify every prediction regarding evolutionary speciation, including the prediction that humans and apes have common primate ancestry.

And because you don't understand this, but are also too conceited to admit that you don't:
* Validate means: to ensure that detailed, observable mechanisms underpin all specific claims; while
* Verify means: to correlate all specific, significant predictions with actual observations.

So validation is more than finding excuses to believe; it's providing a detailed mechanical account, which, if falsified would reveal ignorance. And verification isn't simply finding fortuitous concidences; it's systematically seeking evidence which, if absent, would reveal error.

So that is far more diligence, transparency and accountability than we find in theology and religious apologetics. It's also so diligent that the first people to discover any ignorance or error in biology have always been biologists and allied scientists, and not theologians, philosophers and religious communicators. In fact, historically, when theologians, philosophers and religious communicators have tried to poke holes in biology, the ignorance and error exposed have been their own -- typically revealed alongside scandalous amounts of systematic dishonesty. [http://ncse.com...]

it is failing because the percentage amount of DNA does not add up to the statements
No citation, however there is current, extensive peer-reviewed research to show that the validation and verification continues diligently and extensively, that the correlations are high, and the relationships are complicated and interesting, but not divergent. Here I cite the work of forty-one researchers from multiple institutions all working hard and cross-correlating to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'. [http://www.nature.com...]

Your substantive argument fails here, Peter. The rest is rhetoric, built from specific ignorance of how common ancestry and speciation work, floating amid a broad ignorance of how science works.

Which is a pity, because if your questions were sincere rather than sneering rhetoric, you might learn something. We are lucky to have several members who understand speciation in impressive detail, and I would be happy to assist any sincere member in better understanding epistemology and methods.

But since you're not that guy, in future, please do your homework before wasting this forum's time parading your ignorance as argument. And unless you think your wild fancies are rendered more authoritative through the possession of both a penis and Bible, next time please also cite current, peer-reviewed research as your primary sources, like ordinary mortals.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 2:12:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Outside the snide comments all I can see is that you cannot pin the evolution theory down to one concise, simple, provable theory.

Anyone can give favorable sites on the web to back up whatever they say, and on the same token, one can find as many sites that refute those other sites of "Proof".

I write books, and like most authors, I do not use the INTERNET to research, I use the libraries.

This is another reason why I say Evolution as a theory on the origin of the species is very disconnected.

Just as religion has many 'theories' of what Christianity should be, so do those that prefer to think that we came by chance and any improvement on the human race will be by chance as well.

It is no good you saying "You religion" or "Your creation theory" as I know that there are many of these around, none of which are mine.

Just say which theory of evolution is your considered truthful explanation for life...You can start on a genealogically based line from the first single celled bug to humans of now.

Explain why humans were at this end of the evolution trail, why not some other being?

Was there ever a time, in your theorizing, that there was only one humanoid species, or did several of the same species automatically appear at once? Were those or that humanoid male of female, and why? But if not, why not? It is only by the expandable imagination that one could think that a breeding pair of humanoids arrived at the same time.

Explain what the "changees" used to survive as they changed in a time zone cluttered with zero's

In Evolution, there are many directions that life had gone...Why is this so? To explain that question, the single celled grub decides to go along a line that is vegetation. Or, other grubs might go along the line of animal leading to human, why would this happen, or don't you think it could happen?

To clarify my questions: There are theories that use mutation and natural selection. There others that use natural selection only and decry the mutation theory. There are some that suggest that evolution comes about by intelligent design but not stating the designer; however still uses natural selection and /or the survival of the fittest.

Where are the clear cut beliefs, who has the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?