Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 08-19-2002, 04:49 PM

This is from a creation 'science' website.

<a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html" target="_blank">http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html</a>

In their monthly Q&A column, someone asks:

Quote:

Subject: DNA and Primates

We all know how forensic studies and lineage can be determined through DNA matching. However, does this same DNA matching work with equal reliability with primates?

I am also aware of a study done years ago proving the human race came from one common ancestor. Was this study done using DNA from humans only?

Because humans and apes are both primates would they share any DNA similarities or would they be entirely different? I have an instinctive feeling they would be different although I cannot find any reference to this.

Is it reasonable to assume one could use this one tool, DNA, to rule out primates and the human species branching off from the same common ancestor?

To which the creationist nutcase responds:

[...]

Quote:

Please also keep in mind that, according to a biblical worldview, it is not God that classifies man as a primate along with apes and monkeys. It is the evolutionary mindset that considers man to be a member of the mammalian order that also includes prosimians, tarsioids, and anthropoids. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 97%-99% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1%-3% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. Be aware that the human haploid genome consists of some 3 billion nucleotide pairs of DNA! The fact that approximately 98% of the 1-to-3% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water!! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference!

Well, I think that just about says it all!

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Dr.GH · 08-19-2002, 04:52 PM

Wow doggies!

Thanks for th link.

Valentine Pontifex · 08-19-2002, 05:07 PM

The water content of a watermelon argument has been pushed in recent years by Hovind though it was used (originated?) by Duane Gish.

Would I be insulting everyone's intellegence by saying what is wrong with this particular "bullfrog"?

Water does not contain heridity or instructions of how to make biolological structures; DNA does.

Richiyaado · 08-19-2002, 05:18 PM

Perhaps someone should send them the handy fused human chromosome 2 challenge and see how they explain that away.

mibby529 · 08-19-2002, 05:22 PM

LOL! 98% water! LOL This is why Hovind's my favorite creationist. It's like this:

16/64=?
Now cancel out the sixes and you get 1/4
Therefore 16/64=1/4

But that isn't how it works.

Are you telling me 16/64!=1/4?

RufusAtticus · 08-19-2002, 05:22 PM

The fall, satan, consipracy, pick your evasion.

Dan828 · 08-19-2002, 06:10 PM

I first heard of the cloud/watermelon thing in a philosophy of science class. A few months later I was having a discussion about evolution with a born again friend of mine. In reference to the weakness of creationist arguments, I brought this up-- my thinking was that anyone with half a brain would see the obvious flaw. Now my friend is a mechanical engineer, and is not unintellegent, but he defended the cloud/watermelon comparison. I couldn't believe it. It amazed me that an educated person with above average intellegence could go for this kind of thing.

We no longer even try to talk about evolution...both of us have come to the realization that our outlook is so different as to evolution/creation that we can't even agree on what each of us see as obvious truths.

lpetrich · 08-19-2002, 06:31 PM

The snappiest response I can think of is

Do you think that that would be a good defense in a plagiarism case?

Because gene-sequence similarities reflect common origin as surely as text similarities do.

Albion · 08-19-2002, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 97%-99% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1%-3% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins.

OK, am I understanding this right? He's saying (or implying) that human and chimp DNA is 97-99% identical but it's the other 1-3% that's the actual coding DNA? That humans and chimps have no genetic similarity at all except in the junk DNA? is that what he's really saying?

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 08:23 PM

That is what he is saying, yes. However what he is thinking is probably 'Ooo neddle ping snowdrop the colors the colors!'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 04:52 PM	#2
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Wow doggies! Thanks for th link.

08-19-2002, 05:07 PM	#3
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	The water content of a watermelon argument has been pushed in recent years by Hovind though it was used (originated?) by Duane Gish. Would I be insulting everyone's intellegence by saying what is wrong with this particular "bullfrog"? Water does not contain heridity or instructions of how to make biolological structures; DNA does.

08-19-2002, 05:18 PM	#4
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Perhaps someone should send them the handy fused human chromosome 2 challenge and see how they explain that away.

08-19-2002, 05:22 PM	#5
mibby529 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cali Posts: 170	LOL! 98% water! LOL This is why Hovind's my favorite creationist. It's like this: 16/64=? Now cancel out the sixes and you get 1/4 Therefore 16/64=1/4 But that isn't how it works. Are you telling me 16/64!=1/4?

08-19-2002, 05:22 PM	#6
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	The fall, satan, consipracy, pick your evasion.

08-19-2002, 06:10 PM	#7
Dan828 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Davis, CA USA Posts: 83	I first heard of the cloud/watermelon thing in a philosophy of science class. A few months later I was having a discussion about evolution with a born again friend of mine. In reference to the weakness of creationist arguments, I brought this up-- my thinking was that anyone with half a brain would see the obvious flaw. Now my friend is a mechanical engineer, and is not unintellegent, but he defended the cloud/watermelon comparison. I couldn't believe it. It amazed me that an educated person with above average intellegence could go for this kind of thing. We no longer even try to talk about evolution...both of us have come to the realization that our outlook is so different as to evolution/creation that we can't even agree on what each of us see as obvious truths.

08-19-2002, 06:31 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The snappiest response I can think of is Do you think that that would be a good defense in a plagiarism case? Because gene-sequence similarities reflect common origin as surely as text similarities do.

08-19-2002, 08:23 PM	#10
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	That is what he is saying, yes. However what he is thinking is probably 'Ooo neddle ping snowdrop the colors the colors!'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.