PeterS

Dr. Yahoo wasn't exactly what I was looking for. Chimpanzees and Man differ by 1.2% and Gorillas and Man by 1.6% making Chips our closest ancestor. And if Chimps developed large upper bodies and long muscular arms after diverging from Man then were is the paper. And please, some yahoo on yahoo isn't what I am looking for...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

I am showing you mine but you don't seem to want to show me yours...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

The apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangatangs (know I mispelled that)...

We all share a common ape-like ancestor...
Which is why our DNA is so similar....

I am not splitting hairs... I am agreeing with you...

Smedley_buzkill

I have provided far more links than you. Practice what you preach, entoproct.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Hre's some thoughts from Ex Evolutionist.com


A Computer is Designed, but the Designer came by Chance?

Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of chance. The DNA molecule is like a very complicated computer program.

Nobody would believe that Windows 7 is the result of chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows 7 is the result of chance.

Below is a picture of Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance. Over the course of many years, wind, rain and blowing sand carved the faces in the rock:


That sounds ridiculous to claim that erosion carved the faces into the rock, right? But, many people believe that the men who are depicted in the rock carving and the people who carved the rock are a result of a process of time and chance. I myself believed it for many years. A living thing is much more complex that a rock. It should sound just as ridiculous to say that life began by a process of time and chance.

One-celled Life is not Simple. It is Incredibly Complex

Years ago, microscopes weren’t nearly as good as they are now. The cell used to look like a blob and it was easy to think that a blob could come about by accident. We have better microscopes now. According to Michael Behe, a biochemist, a cell is run like a really a big city with freeways to deliver nutrients and garbage to their destinations. For more information, see his book:

There are other people besides Biblical creationists who do not believe that life is a process of time and chance. These people support the Intelligent Design Theory. Michael Behe is a major proponent. He believes that the scientific evidence supports the notion that life requires a designer and that the cell is too complex to be a product of time and chance. The black box in the title of his book refers to the cell.

There is an illustration of a Bacterial F**gellum on the front flap of “Darwin’s Black Box”. This is the little gizmo that turns the little hairs on a bacterium so it can move around. The parts are all labeled, bushings, universal joint, rotor, drive shaft, and so on. It is a microscopic machine just to turn one little hair on a little bitty bacterium. Henry Ford invented the Model T a long time before the microscopes were very powerful otherwise, I might think he used this as an example of an efficient motor.

Rose42

Interesting. I’m going to check out more on that site.

I don’t see how evolution can explain the incredible diversity of life and its interdependencies. Or the giraffe. Lol

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

The universe is a collection of atoms and molecules, some stuck together like concrete to form other forms of atoms and molecules. Some of these formations have chemical reactions. A super nova contains all the ingredients of life...except for ONE thing. A dead body has as many atoms ad molecules as a living body, so, you tell me by scientific principles...what is the difference?
Let's look at it this way; if you died in the next instant, your body would weigh EXACTLY the same as it does in this instant. Point being there is no explainable difference in a dead body and a living body...except for life. What is life? You tell me in scientific terms.
I don't believe you can find that answer. You can find how the body "works", what life is "about", but find the answer to what is life. What is the difference in a dead body and a living body?
Many people reject the idea that God had no creator. Why? After all, He IS the creator. My belief is that everything that is, everything that will be, everything that can be, every single atom, every nucleus, every quark, EVERYTHING....was created by God. ONE SINGLE CELL is more complicated that an F-16 fighter jet and I can't believe that it..."just"...happened.
So, it's not that it must be right...it's that it must not be wrong. No, not a trick on words...it's the same difference that exists in a living person being identical to a dead person. Duh! One's alive! OK...explain that, please, without God.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The Bible says that God created man and woman.

There isn't any actual proof to the contrary to "conclude otherwise"

People who profess to believe in the Creator and preach other than his description of our existence have a clouded view of God.

JW

What I directed you to is relatively new information. If you have any true interest in the subject, it gives you a starting point for your own research.

DNA similarity doesn't describe ancestry or coincidence of genetic lineage. It only indicates a common ancestor somewhere in the tree.

PeterS

Ah, so you think I am supposed to chase around looking for your missing link? And I too have provided links to back up what I believe...enough times to know that you don't care to look at them. Typical of a conservative, for that there can be no doubt...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

The Bible says that God created all life...

I don't recall it mentioning the mechanism(s) He employed...

We all have a clouded view of God...

PeterS

You directed me to answers by Yahoo. If you don't have any scientific papers to back up what you think then you have nothing but opinions to back up what you think. I am less interested in opinion and more interested in what can be established as fact. Facts that we know is that our common ancestor is a shrew of not much more than an ounce. That's the common ancestor for all hominoids and most mammals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-started-with-a-shrew-study-maps-the-primate-family-tree-2245349.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mans-oldest-ancestor-identified-by-scientists/

What has also been scientifically established is that our closest ancestor are chimpanzees followed by great apes. And if we share DNA with an ancestor there has to be a direct link otherwise it would be impossible to have similar DNA.

And these two sentences make no sense: "DNA similarity doesn't describe ancestry or coincidence of genetic lineage. It only indicates a common ancestor somewhere in the tree."

If you have common ancestors then you have established ancestry and a genetic lineage. Suppose that I have Martha Washington as one of my ancestors. That means that I trace a direct lineage to her and from her to all of her ancestors before. It can't be any other way. Our DNA tells us who we are related to and the closer the correlation between our DNA, the closer the relationship.

You are doing the same thing you've done in all our other debates--because you can't accept a position you make an absurd nonsensical claim and then act like you've spoken some kind of t***h. Well, you can entertain yourself all you like but I only care that I am here not who or what I evolved from.

PeterS

That's an argument from ignorance--you are arguing that because you don't understand something the only explanation is that a god MUST have done it.

And if someone with an MBA can see through your fallacy doesn't that tell you that your ex-evolutionist wasn't very good at his job???

Also, doesn't the question of complexity led to the question of just who created god--the most complex being in our universe? So does god have a god who created him or was he able to come into existence on his own? So if god could come about naturally why couldn't man do the same?

Either way it's an argument that you lose...

As for faith to be an atheist--I can at least base my beliefs on scientific method. You can't but have to believe in a supernatural power else your world view falls apart. With me, if you scientifically prove god exists so long as scientific method holds true I would have no problem believing what it says. That you can't say can you...

PeterS

I don't need to find the answer. I know how to draw a line. if it goes.----------------- ---- life. Then I am going to assume that that line led to life even though it contains a blank that I don't understand. Now the argument you are making is that the blank in my line is god and all I am saying is that it's a blank until it shows itself to be something more...which so far it has not. You are filling in information with no evidence to support it simply because, without a god, you don't understand how life could have come about. Again, that is an argument from ignorance and a logical fallacy, not a rational argument...

JW

You and any siblings you might have share 99.? DNA. That doesn't mean they are your ancestors. It means you share an ancestor. We are cousins to the chimps, not their grandchildren.

PeterS

That I will agree with. Man and the great apes share a common ancestor. Forgive me if I was rude...