Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] DNA- the anti chimp eveloution proof

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Ralph Krumdieck To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:57 AM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 92 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ralph Krumdieck" <ralphkru@...>
      To: <creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:57 AM
      Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] DNA- the anti chimp eveloution proof

      > > >
      > >Hello all my name is Jason and I have been reading
      > >this debete for quite a while and now I guess ill put
      > >in my two cents... Along with bigfoot I also believe
      > >that it is quite obsurd to hold as fact things that
      > >are mere speculation (educated speculation but
      > >speculation none the less!). If one claims to believe
      > >nothing but what logic can prove and then goes on to
      > >follow findings that lack logic... what more to say.
      > Science rests on evidence, logically interpreted, it's
      > true, but it's the evidence that's important.
      > >the "theory" of evolution states, when it is all
      > >boiled down, that "there was something that came into
      > >being out of the absence of something"
      > Is that a direct quote? Where did you get that?
      > >And even if we
      > >overlook that small loophole there is the outher
      > >blaring statement that says "The existance of life is
      > >mere chance"
      > The existence of life may or may not be mere chance but
      > what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?
      > >Boy! we sure are lucky to be able to
      > >talk about the origins of life....... oh how we are
      > >but mere men my friends, oh how lowely we are. Hope
      > >to be talking more often now that we have all met Love
      > >in Christ Jason.

      Why is it that every incoming creationist is incredibly and unbelievably
      ignorant about science and has no clue what the Theory of Evolution claims?

    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Gee. To me it s a no-brainer. You can carry the tools and the baby. Moreover, it sticks your head up above the grass where, if you re smart enough, you
      Message 92 of 92 , Oct 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On 6 Oct 2002 at 20:58, Michael Tong wrote:

        > Eric: Right, and that is why direct sequence homology comparisons are
        > used these days. Direct sequence homology comparisons show 98%
        > homology. Your Bible Answers book is badly out of date. A possible
        > red flag: Does anyone involved with the writing of this book actually
        > do any genome sequencing? Do they do any biological research at all?
        > Michael: No, the Bible Answers book is correct. Following is an
        > excerpt from the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Science/In Brief, 9-28-02:
        > "There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human
        > being
        > than once believed, according to a new genetic study. Biologists have
        > long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5%
        > identical.
        > But biologist Roy Britten of Caltech reported Sept. 23 in the
        > Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that a new way of
        > comparing the genes show that the human and chimp genetic similarity
        > is only about 95%.
        > Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of
        > the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the
        > chimp."
        > Dave: Yep and humans are apes with the following differences from
        > chimps:
        > Weaker upper arm strength.
        > Erect-walking posture dictated by the knee joints and pelvis shape.
        > Larger brain case (neotony). Less body hair (caused by a point
        > mutation). Altered larynx structure permitting speech.
        > We still do not yet know which genes cause these differences, but do
        > NOT bet that we won't. The chimp genome will undoubtedly be
        > completely sequenced fairly soon and we will shortly have some idea
        > which of the differences are responsible for these particular
        > phenotypic differences.
        > Only five important mutations are necessary here and they are, none of
        > them, inconsistent with mutations that we observe in other animals.
        > Michael: Bipedalism alone require many mutations to the skeleton. In
        > fact, evolutionists cannot agree on the original selective value of
        > bipedalism.

        Gee. To me it's a no-brainer. You can carry the tools and the baby.
        Moreover, it sticks your head up above the grass where, if you're
        smart enough, you can see predators moving (and also know when to
        duck), thus applying more pressure for intelligence along two
        different lines (more sophisticated tools are only worthwhile if you
        can carry them and knowing when to duck can keep you alive). Clearly
        that latter trait did not fix universally in modern humans....

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.