Evolution or not?

But there's also natural processes on other planets. Have seen a few times scientists wondering if organic molecues got formed somewhere else in space and then ended up on Earth.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ( PAH's), still haven't been found off the earth. These would be basic chemicals for other world life, at least carbon based. Now if we found amino acids that would be a great start.

DNA sequencing shows that the MSY (male specific Y- chromosome) chimp/human comparison yields about a 50% similarity. I personally think it's less looking at both ideagrams. That seems like a pretty wide divergence for only a few million years. That's about similar to a chicken/human comparison, and the chicken is supposedly an order of ten times older or more. This just doesn't add up to me.

What's surprising to me is why the hair falls off in the womb if we came from ape-like creatures. 😕

einstein wrote:

["What's surprising to me is why the hair falls off in the womb if we came from ape-like creatures."]

Because we are no longer ape,so human gene behaving differently toward a newborn.

Raspberry wrote:

["But there's also natural processes on other planets. Have seen a few times scientists wondering if organic molecues got formed somewhere else in space and then ended up on Earth".]

I have heard conversely that organic molecules goes out from earth into space.

Google says 30%, not 50%.

Wikipedia has the following to say about it:

The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through sperm, which undergo multiple cell divisions during gametogenesis. Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the testis, which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater risk of mutation than the rest of the genome.^[13] The increased mutation risk for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8.^[13] However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans.^[21]

The OVERALL difference betwen chimps and humans is still 98% as far as I know though?

Not strange that when you pop into pieces of the genome that has a lot of the 2% difference, then you can get high difference numbers for those parts.

Well Razz, the similarity between Y-s is somewhere between 30% and 50% I agree. ☺

I know, I've seen all the excuses before for the wide variance. The only problem is that they're all working genes or protein binding sites on the human Y Chromosome. If the chromosome had randomly mutated at this extreme rate then we wouldn't expect a fully integrated and completely functional chromosome. That's like taking a Volkswagen and randomly changing things and having a Ferrari as the final product. Just not gonna happen. A random process of manipulation would leave us with a pile of pieces that was completely inoperational.

What a bunch of phoney excuses! This has rocked the scientific community and shows we didn't evolve from ape-like creatures. ☺

The latest complete study (Tomkins, 2013), on all the chromosomes has the chimp/human similarity around 70% and that was a conservative estimate. The 2005 draft study was completely wrong in its analysis of 98% similarity.

I dont see that anywhere except creationist blogs and such. All the real scientific insitutions are still happy with 98%

As far as our genomes are concerned the answer is ‘about 1.5%’, this being the extent of the nucleotide sequence dissimilarity between humans and chimpanzees (Hacia, 2001). Within the coding DNA the difference is less than 1.5%, with many genes having identical sequences in the two genomes, but even in the noncoding regions the dissimilarity is rarely more than 3%. Only a few clear differences have been discovered:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21112/

Ahh.  "Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research".

That study doesnt count. Real Universities and real scientists count.

I really entruly hope I'm not descended from monkeys....they're so nasty vile....I'm sorry.

An amino acid has been found on a comet for the first time, a new analysis of samples from NASA's Stardust mission reveals. The discovery confirms that some of the building blocks of life were delivered to the early Earth from space.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html#.VUo1deQc2PQ

In the study, scientists with the Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., analyzed samples from fourteen carbon-rich meteorites with minerals that indicated they had experienced high temperatures – in some cases, over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They found amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, used by life to speed up chemical reactions and build structures like hair, skin, and nails.

Previously, the Goddard team and other researchers have found amino acids in carbon-rich meteorites with mineralogy that revealed the amino acids were created by a relatively low-temperature process involving water, aldehyde and ketone compounds, ammonia, and cyanide called "Strecker-cyanohydrin synthesis."

"Although we've found amino acids in carbon-rich meteorites before, we weren't expecting to find them in these specific groups, since the high temperatures they experienced tend to destroy amino acids," said Dr. Aaron Burton, a researcher in NASA's Postdoctoral Program stationed at NASA Goddard. "However, the kind of amino acids we discovered in these meteorites indicates that they were produced by a different, high-temperature process as their parent asteroids gradually cooled down." Burton is lead author of a paper on this discovery appearing March 9 in Meteoritics and Planetary Science.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

And humans are not? It's more the monkeys that should be ashamed of us as relative :)

Tomkins has a doctorate in biology from Clemson University. He's a real scientist. 😊

The 2005 Draft study was just that. It used small 700 nucleotide slices per chromosome to compare and analyse and assumed that the rest of each chromosome was the same between chimps and humans. That's a big assumption. It's like saying because apples and oranges are both round they're probably the same inside. It really was an incomplete study based on faulty assumptions, so if you want to use faulty conclusions from outdated data that humans and chimps have 98% similar DNA then go ahead. I'll use much better data that DNA similarity between chimps/humans is around 70%. 😊

Not anymore, seing that he works for bogus institutes and dont publich in real scientific journals.

Anyone can make a webpage and post "findings" on it lol.

The page i quited for the 98% is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. They maintain THE database you use for genetic studies worldwide.

The 70% study comes from some religious organizations webpage.

Yeah, but their database is ten years old. That's a long time in microbiology and genetic studies. Also it has been fully discredited with the more recent one. The top primate expert in the world at the Yerkes primate center even says that 98% figure is wrong and he's an evolutionist, so your theory that non common descent scientists can't conduct good research is all washed up.

Thomkins study was a much more complete one than the old one Razz. It used more sequence slices per chromosome than the old one.

In fact it used 8 sequence query files per chromosome as opposed to one for the old study. That's a lot so it was much more accurate than the old one.

It also removed 'N' DNA (DNA not in both chimps and humans), and realigned chimp sequencing contigs. Also Thomkins used the most optimal sliced file per chromosome. He also used the most advanced computer algorithm programs available.

In other words Razz, that 70% similarity between chimps and human DNA is on the conservative side. Its probably less.