Evolution or not?

Alex wrote:

["From a science webite: 

• Lanugo. This little-known developmental phenomenon is an important clue to our mammalian past. Lanugo is a coat of fine, downy hair that fetuses grow while in the womb, covering the entire body except for the soles of the feet and the palms of the hands. Typically, lanugo is shed by the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, although premature infants may retain it for several weeks after birth. The question is why we grow it at all, and the theory of evolution can easily explain this as a vestigial characteristic retained from our furry ancestors. "]

That is an easy conclusion,but not necessarily so.It is considering Aristotle fallacy and spontaneous mutation could be happen arbitrarily.Intuitively,we will always relating an alien  with a branch of evolution on earth if we never know what a natural alien is .  

What exactly has discredited the NCBI database? Is there a more recent database?

Thomkins study doesnt count, if he doesnt publish in real scientific places its just irrelevant. Noone knows if he even did anything or just made the whole thing up.

If you can find a credible link talking about the 70% difference, people working at MIT and Harvard and such, it would interest me. All the places i look say 98% though. I think the 70% figure is circulating in non-scientific places such as creationist blogs and webpages and the real figure is stil 98%.

But if i see a serious link with a real scientist saying 70%?

The latest MSY chimp/human study finished last year by evolutionists ( from MIT and other major universities) already discredits the old study. The DNA gene comparisons were completely different. Look at the ideagram comparisons between the two studies. The 2005 study had about a 98% similarity while the more recent one done by MIT geneticists and others has about a 50% similarity at best.

The original study was a draft study ( partial nucleotide analyses ) whereas the recent one mapped every nucleotide. If they screwed up that bad on the Y-chromosome then you can bet they screwed up just as bad on the rest of the chromosomes. This is real science Razz.

Are you going to be a science denier? 😀

Link?

Sorry I dont believe in your numbers anymore unless i see links. When i trace your sources I end up with church stuff, and when i check your claims in real places, they just say 98%.

If you know of a real university that says 50% similarity, then drop the link here.

You can be a science denier if you like Razz. 😃

And yon could just provide links, in case the numbrs you cite are not something you just invented yourself.

Look Razz, I haven't gone to one link or site since I started this thread. How many have you gone to? You're like almost everyone else in the world who is a 'google' expert.

Razz, instead of studying this stuff and having a grasp on the material you just Google what other people have to say.

You really don't know much or comprehend the material. How many of my posts have you really understand. I bet it isn't even one of them.

The MSY chimp/human study is common knowledge now, just Google it. Like I said, every one of my posts is from memory. If your too lazy to look it up for yourself then just try guessing at it. That's what most of the evolutionists do anyway. Just a bunch of stories and tall tales. If they took the time to look at the real science like I have then they would realize that random evolution couldn't make a fly on a horses arse. 😉

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)  That's proof of evolution. I can tell you why but I'd get "just because you say so." So look it up yourselves.

Regards,

Lou

I am taking the time to look up your claims, there's just nothing on a recent study from MIT showing 50% difference human/chimps. I dont think it exists. If it did it would be a big thing and be easy to find.

Another trail i followed, the Tomkins 2013, well the trail ended at a creationist organization. This makes me think you are using creationist people as sources and my guess is the 50% study also is from some creationist place.

The MSY study, I dont see any problem whatsoever in that for the overall 98% figure in that. The 2% difference would probably not be spread out evenly but there'd be very different regions and big similar regions in the genome.

And no, you dont ook at real science, since the only article you cited by name wasnt a scientific article but some creationist ex-biologist.

You should know the importance of peer reviewed journals. If everyone just posted his results on his private blog, nobody could tell who was making up stuff and who was making real science. Even in the peer reviewed magazines they find cheaters sometimes.

If you're really interested in it Razz then Google chimp/ human and y chromosome, it will keep you busy for a while. The research was done by a consortium of groups around the world, including MIT, HMMI, Whitehead institute, Genome center at the University of Wash. Amsterdam University and others. Just compare it to the original Nature article from 2005.

I've already looked at the evolution of MRSA Lou, it really is quite amazing. I'll take a look at it again though.

I've been looking at where the edge of evolution might lie, and I'm pretty sure I know about where it is. Its really pretty simple once you understand the probabilities involved. Gotta run though, discuss it later.

Don't go E99....this is starting to get good.

Consider this.Eventhough the difference in gene is just slightly,we will be pretty sure this is nothing compare to intelligent capability.So the similarities are being ignored qualitatively.I have not heard that the inteligent capability can be read from genes.The 2% could be quite significance.

Concerning lanugo(downy hairs on fetus),i suggest it can help fetus to avoid bacteria.Almost all mamals have it.Thus it is pretty natural and not necessarily to be related to chimp.

It's really laughable if someone wants to consider it as evidence.

Why not? Why not consider it evidence? What do you consider evidence?

Real science like the latest MSY chimp/human study we've been talking about. Or chromosome 21 which has non random shifts of genes and gene markers with nucleotide substitutions specific to humans in a comparison of its chimp counterpart.

You can find a lot better evidence out there than a fur coat if your trying to show an MRCA with chimps. Take the time to study this material a little better. Come up with something besides extra hair on our chests. Present some kind of challenge out here before I fall asleep on my rocker.

Quit being lazy and get studying. You might actually find the truth along the journey.

I never imagined this carnivorous plants have existed.Surely it isn't in the same evolution branch  with carnivorous mammals.

That's the last line of defense or attack when a common descenter doesn't have a rebuttal to an IDer's science. Have a nice day. 😊

extenza wrote:

I never imagined this carnivorous plants have existed.Surely it isn't in the same evolution branch  with carnivorous mammals.

____________________

They coined a new term for the disparity between a morphological tree and a phylogenetic tree, convergent evolution. I call it common design. 😉