[Tenchiro]

...or Science 1 - Religion 0

_____

Chimps May Have Closer Links to Humans
Tue May 20, 1:51 AM ET


By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - It may be time to move over and share the human branch of the family tree with chimpanzees, says a researcher who has studied how closely the two are related.

Humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of DNA — genetic code for life — according to a team led by Morris Goodman of the Wayne State University School of Medicine.

"We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," said Goodman.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, proposes that chimps be added to the genus Homo, currently reserved only for humans.

It's an idea sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and humanity's relationship with animals.

MORE...

 

[Archslater]

I don't understand why everyone thinks it is definitely one or the other. It is widely thought that time as stated in the Old Testement was a very vague term. Anybody else ever wonder if there is a possibility that the creation as described in the bible actually was human evolution over millions of years??? Maybe the story as told in the bible was just simplified for early humans to better understand?

 

[androshandrew]

WOW!!!! 99.4 percent thats great. All humans share 99.99% of the same DNA and look how different people are. And humans didnt evolve from chimps or gorillas or any other primate alive today, they both evolved from the same species, thus 2 new ones were formed.(Eight grade science)

 

[LordOpie]

I wanna know what happened to man's greatest challenger... the Austrolapithicus (sp?)

 

[Serial Midget]

Clay Aiken kind of looks like a gay chimp... maybe?

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by androshandrew
WOW!!!! 99.4 percent thats great. All humans share 99.99% of the same DNA and look how different people are. And humans didnt evolve from chimps or gorillas or any other primate alive today, they both evolved from the same species, thus 2 new ones were formed.(Eight grade science)

Ditto. I was gonna say, 0.6% DNA can actually be considered a lot.

 

[KFulch]

Originally posted by Yossarian
Ditto. I was gonna say, 0.6% DNA can actually be considered a lot.

Yes it can when you consider recombination and other factors that express themselves through single nucleotide polymorphisms that occur throughout the human genome.

 

[Tenchiro]

Well it was enough to warrant a change in their genus to Homo.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I wanna know what happened to man's greatest challenger... the Austrolapithicus (sp?)

I think we've all been wondering that LO

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think we've all been wondering that LO

shouldn't you be eating a fromunda cheese sandwich, i mean, vegimite?

while 0.6% can be "a lot", we're way closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to, say, orangutans or gorillas -- some of the other primates.

Also, chimps are the only other known species to stage organized wars. They'll go in groups to another's territory and pick a fight like William Wallace. Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp

Isn't that when their cotracts at the phone company expire?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
shouldn't you be eating a fromunda cheese sandwich, i mean, vegimite?

while 0.6% can be "a lot", we're way closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to, say, orangutans or gorillas -- some of the other primates.

Also, chimps are the only other known species to stage organized wars. They'll go in groups to another's territory and pick a fight like William Wallace. Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp

LOL
I think in my case it's a lot closer than 0.6% . I actually studied anthropology in uni and while I was more interested in the cultural side than the physical side this kind of thing is still pretty interesting to me as well.
The sad part is though is that the chimps are rapidly disappearing in the wild. The irony of us causing the extinction of our closest relatives is too bitter to contemplate.

 

[Serial Midget]

It's evolution, man gets hungry and those little bastards make mighty fine bushmeat. Have you ever eaten a smoked monkey hand? It's on my list of things to sample before they go extinct.

Originally posted by valve bouncer
LOL
I think in my case it's a lot closer than 0.6% . I actually studied anthropology in uni and while I was more interested in the cultural side than the physical side this kind of thing is still pretty interesting to me as well.
The sad part is though is that the chimps are rapidly disappearing in the wild. The irony of us causing the extinction of our closest relatives is too bitter to contemplate.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
It's evolution, man gets hungry and those little bastards make mighty fine bushmeat. Have you ever eaten a smoked monkey hand? It's on my list of things to sample before they go extinct.

LOL, I always tell my Japanese students that there's nothing we like better in Australia than to cook up a good feed of Koala meat. Finger lickin' good. Real cultural ambassador I am

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Archslater
I don't understand why everyone thinks it is definitely one or the other. It is widely thought that time as stated in the Old Testement was a very vague term. Anybody else ever wonder if there is a possibility that the creation as described in the bible actually was human evolution over millions of years??? Maybe the story as told in the bible was just simplified for early humans to better understand?

Why is it not possible that the incredibly complex mechanisms of life(that we can only now barely begin to comprehend) be considered evidence for rather than arguement against creationism? Nothing annoys me more than those stupid Darwin fishes swallowing the Jesus fish that some left wingers put on the back of their bumper-sticker-covered beaters. The retaliatory "truth" fish swallowing the Darwin fish is equally narrow-minded and obnoxious.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

 

[Tru]

This whole thing reminds me of Robin Williams Live from Broadway stand-up comedy routine. He mentions something to the effect of "Don't you think that maybe when God said "Let there be light", he might have been referring to the Big Bang?" and the Puritans would say "No, God just went *Click*!".

 

[Babar]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
...or Science 1 - Religion 0

_____

Chimps May Have Closer Links to Humans
Tue May 20, 1:51 AM ET


By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - It may be time to move over and share the human branch of the family tree with chimpanzees, says a researcher who has studied how closely the two are related.

Humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of DNA — genetic code for life — according to a team led by Morris Goodman of the Wayne State University School of Medicine.

"We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," said Goodman.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, proposes that chimps be added to the genus Homo, currently reserved only for humans.

It's an idea sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and humanity's relationship with animals.

MORE...

Flawed... 99.4% ? how when chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

There only comparing certain biochemical capacities which all living things have.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

I think you need to separate creationism from religion (particularly the rather archiac Roman Catholic version).

This DNA thing proves nothing beyond the fact that chimps and humans (and other life) are based on the same basic building materials, and that chimps are closer to us than rats (with whom we also share an alarmingly high percentage of DNA). If life were to be created it would make as much sense for the DNA percentages to be close as it would if life evolved. At the end of the day humans and chimps both exist and share much DNA. Proves nothing about how we got here though.

In the same way, the Statue of Liberty clearly evolved from the Eifel Tower, and shares much of its structural materials,yet it was still created.

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

darwin fish are ok

personally i like the tattoo that stevo (a la jackass) has.. the fish with satan written inside... hardly the kind of body art that i d like on my being, but a good laugh

now if only i could find a sticker like that to throw on the new volvo... drive it aound the military base and check out the reactions

partsbara

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by fluff
In the same way, the Statue of Liberty clearly evolved from the Eifel Tower, and shares much of its structural materials,yet it was still created.

Yes because it is common knowledge that the eiffel tower was such an outstanding member of its species that it developed traits such as the torch and the toga, and these traits helped it survive in the wild, and it mated with all the other towers, and after many generations, created the statue of liberty, right? Don't isolate these facts from the theory of natural selection.

What the article demonstrated was that with such a high degree of similarity between our two species, it is easy to see how the process of evolution brought us to this point.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Yes because it is common knowledge that the eiffel tower was such an outstanding member of its species that it developed traits such as the torch and the toga, and these traits helped it survive in the wild, and it mated with all the other towers, and after many generations, created the statue of liberty, right? Don't isolate these facts from the theory of natural selection.

What the article demonstrated was that with such a high degree of similarity between our two species, it is easy to see how the process of evolution brought us to this point.

Your logic is flawed. Your common sense is telling you that the statue of liberty cannot have evolved from the Eifel tower, yet they were designed by the same man, using similar materiels and possibly lessons learned from the first project.

Yet you insist that a high percentage of common DNA between chimps and humans is proof (or evidence) of evolution from ape to man.

The logic is inconsistent because you have knowledge of one process yet not of the other and you are making huge assumptions with no realistic or logical basis.

The shared DNA proves nothing either way about evolution or creation. And it is certainly nothing to do with religion.

Beware of things that are 'easy to see' they may not be there at all.

 

[BlackhillsBob]

Dosent matter how close the the code is, 1 point might as well be 100, the difference of one point can be the distance between the sun and the moon. Actually we are closer to pigs than monkeys anyway, so go eat some slop, and play in the mud.

 

[MMike]

Whatever happened to JesusFreak? He was so entertaining in these discussions.....

zealots are funny.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
Actually we are closer to pigs than monkeys anyway, so go eat some slop, and play in the mud.

Your forget that we are all mountain bikers. we do that regardless of genetics!

 

[fourgivn1]

Zealot, at your service.

 

[Tenchiro]

Maybe god is actually a monkey and meant to create us in his own image, but sneezed or something when he was in the middle of it.

 

[Repack]

Chimp DNA + Human DNA = an American strong enough to win a world cup???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmmm, roman catholic church has accepted evolution as a scientific theory, and the evidence as well with all it impplies. u can read the last enciclica (that the spanish-italian word, i dunno the english translation)
the pope and his pals have written a few enciclicas in the last years, to apologize for galileo trial, for the crusades i think, and to accept evolution evidence.
good thing for the catholic church.

i think the catholic church has evolved a lot thru history, i mean they stagnate sometimes, but at the end, when overwelmed by evidence and facts, they just accept what we all see.
it may have taken them 500 years for those jean paul enciclicas, but at least is a step forward.

unfortunately, i cant tell the same about most fundamentalist protestant denominations. (I live in the bible belt)

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

 

[Archslater]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH


unfortunately, i cant tell the same about most fundamentalist protestant denominations. (I live in the bible belt)

Fundamentalist protestant denominations?

Unless you are surrounded by Amish or Quakers, I would argue that most protestant denominations are not very fundamentalist.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmm, well according to the meriam webser dictionary a fundamentalist is


Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective


"..protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted bible as fundamental..."

there are a looooooooooot of people like that around here, that fit perfectly in this description, so (english is not my mother language, dont take me for granted) evidence tells me they can be defined as fundamentalists according to this dictionary.

anyway, any person who wont change his point of view, no matter the evidence presented, just because he doesnt want to change, is a fundamentalist.
and i have heard a billion times people saying the earth is 6000 years old or something, because the bible says so.
maybe this people dont realize the chinese have like 8000 years of written history. seems they were already 2000 years on the earth when creation happened.

 

[Archslater]

You got me, I didn't look it up.

Actually I grew up in a protestant church (Brethren), and have since attended many other protestant churches (U. Methodist, Baptist, etc....) and many of them are not very fundamental, in fact one I attend now is quite liberal.

Can't speak for Alabama though.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH

and i have heard a billion times people saying the earth is 6000 years old or something, because the bible says so.

Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fluff
Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

Good point, I always liked how Adam and Eves son Cain was sent to the city after killing Abel.

From the King James

Genesis 4:16-17

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Whats up there? If Adam and Eve were the first people and they have two sons where did Cains wife come from let alone the inhabitants of the city?

I actually asked a pastor friend of mine about this and he said, "I don't know, I wasn't there."

Good enough for me.

Peace

Ummbikes

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

yeah, i have read that book as well, and thats my point. i dont say the bible say 6000 years.
fundamentalists are all about literally taking the bible, and they say they have add up all the years and atuff, and that how they came up with the 6000 years idea. i just quote them.

prettyy poor logic IMO too.

Originally posted by fluff
Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.


and i can go with this alllll night if i wanted too.

Alexis

Originally posted by ummbikes
Good point, I always liked how Adam and Eves son Cain was sent to the city after killing Abel.

From the King James

Genesis 4:16-17

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Whats up there? If Adam and Eve were the first people and they have two sons where did Cains wife come from let alone the inhabitants of the city?

I actually asked a pastor friend of mine about this and he said, "I don't know, I wasn't there."

Good enough for me.

Peace

Ummbikes

 

[Archslater]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.


and i can go with this alllll night if i wanted too.

Alexis

Remember, that the Bible was written by humans after all. Human's error.

 

[Moogie]

yea well thats alot of human error.

i personally dont believe in any of this relgious stuff. this whole idea that god created us in 7 days or whatever doesnt go over to well in my head.

.6 percent in DNA is alot, but its still damn close compared to everythin else out there.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i dont believe that either. for me the bible, or the qoran or whatever book other religions have has the same historical, phylosophical, spiritual value as the oddissey, or edipo's moral stories.

Alexis

Originally posted by Moogie
yea well thats alot of human error.

i personally dont believe in any of this relgious stuff. this whole idea that god created us in 7 days or whatever doesnt go over to well in my head.

.6 percent in DNA is alot, but its still damn close compared to everythin else out there.

 

[LordOpie]

You do know you non-believers are going to hell, right? I mean, I'm not cuz I'm a jew and we don't bother believing in hell... but you're screwed!