frankiespeakin,
I'm not sure what your point is, but you give pure speculation and claim that it is correct.
"probably do the same thing with chimps and humans" is PURE speculation and totally false.
A honest question to all creationists
by bohm 71 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
frankiespeakin
happy,
Granted it is speculation but I think it has some basis with good reasonings to likey be true, while your claim for it to be "totally false" seems to be based more on a gut feeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#Feasibility
Genetic evidence
Looking back millions of years into early human history, current research into human evolution tends to confirm that in some cases, interspecies sexual activity may have been a key part of human evolution. Analysis of the species' genes in 2006 provides evidence that after humans had started to diverge from chimps, interspecies mating between "proto-human" and "proto-chimps" nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:
- "A new comparison of the human and chimpgenomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding... A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes."
The research suggests that:
- There were in fact two splits between the human and chimp lineages, with the first being followed by interbreeding between the two populations and then a second split. The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who nonetheless are 'treating the new genetic data seriously. [9]
It seems to me then that the cross breeding came by way of females humans with chimps but i may be understanding this X chromosomes thing wrong.
-
xmkx
I believe in creation, and I believe there was a flood. However...
I am not so naive as to ignore that the Old Testament was written during a time period in which people had a very imaginative way of describing real events. If literary works such as "The Odyessy" were in the Bible, would the people that argue the literalism of the Old Testament now argue that those stories were literal as well despite evidence that they were allegorical?
-
leec
Any of you who are stating that various terms mean "different things to different people" are avoiding and skirting around the fact that these, and other scientific terms, means SPECIFIC things to people who understand them, and anyone who thinks they mean something else is WRONG. "Species" does not mean "a group". "Evolution" does not mean "one animal turning into another".
Words are only useful if they convey meaning. If every word is a wildcard, then we're all just jabbering about nothing.
-
quietlyleaving
frankie
Restrangled,
Humanzee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#Feasibility
Quiet,
More closer study reveals chimps have 95% of our dna.
And humans have up 1% difference throughout the species where it was onece thought we had 99.9% same and .1% difference.
frankie I was relaying whats in my text book - 99% ape - 1.6 % difference to be more accurate. Plese show me where you got your figures.
restrangled - the answer probably lies in the 30 million genetic letters that separate us
-
frankiespeakin
Quietly,
A more rigorous study shows 95% than previous:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-does-the-fact-that-w
What does the fact that we share 95 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee mean? And how was this number derived?
Prescott Deininger of the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans explains.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports the idea that the chimpanzee is the closest genetic relative of humans. This was first determined through a large number of studies, some of which used genomic DNA hybridization to detect the level of sequence mismatches, as well as analyses of individual protein molecules. These early findings suggested that chimps and humans might typically have sequences that diverge from one another by only about 1 percent.
We now have large regions of the chimpanzee genome fully sequenced and can compare them to human sequences. Most studies indicate that when genomic regions are compared between chimpanzees and humans, they share about 98.5 percent sequence identity. The actual relationship depends on what types of sequences are being compared and the size of the comparison unit. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 suggested that under the most rigorous alignments, the match would be only 95 percent similarity overall. This resulted from the researchers treating changes involving small insertions and deletions of bases differently than previous investigators did over a very large region. A few questions still remain as to whether the chimpanzee genome sequence data are of high enough quality at this point for reliable comparison. In general, however, the overall conclusion is that most genes would share about 98.5 percent similarity. The actual protein sequences encoded by these genes would then typically be slightly more similar to one another, because many of the mutations in the DNA are "silent" and are not reflected in the protein sequence.
-
TD
....the match would be only 95 percent similarity overall. This resulted from the researchers treating changes involving small insertions and deletions of bases differently than previous investigators did over a very large region.
Just so that everybody understands though, INDELS are not a good thing. They are errors and mistakes in the respective DNAs being compared.
-
PSacramento
I believe that evolution is one of God's many tools and I don't believe there was a GLOBAL flood.
-
leavingwt
I believe that evolution is one of God's many tools and I don't believe there was a GLOBAL flood.
Which means that you're not a Fundamentalist or a Biblical literalist. You ACCEPT evidence, even when it contradicts Scripture. You then re-interpret or disregard the literal reading of Scripture.
Within Christianity, today, this is a majority position. I think that's a good thing, especially for the non-Christians living within Christian communities.
-
quietlyleaving
thank you frankie - I'm glad we're all being taught moreorless the same stuff.
Restrangled you may be interested in this (taken from the same article)
It is worth noting that individual humans generally differ by about 0.1 percent genetically. Thus, chimps differ from humans by about 15-fold more, on the average, than humans do from one another. The 0.1 percent human divergence certainly results in significant variation in physical appearance and traits between different humans. Therefor, perhaps we shouldn?t be so surprised that chimps could be 98.5 percent related to humans. Relatively small genetic changes can produce major phenotypic changes.
And I agree that from a human perspective there is a huge gulf between humans and apes. If apes could speak our language they would probably say the same.
Another thing is that it is probably that we had a common ancestor rather than that we came from apes. So we are related to apes just as we are to other living things only more so. The genesis account of creation does agree that we are all of the earth.