• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does B1+B2= human evolution

CMIYC

Member
I’m talking about bananas!



Of cause- I could not resist asking the question when I found the evidence.



Perhaps the most important thing we can say regarding this evidence is how much scientists still don't know about DNA and its supposed evolutionary connections. Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.6 A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."7 This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??and secularists would do well to say nothing regarding supposed evolutionary relationships until all facts are in.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=459
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is not a 1:1 correspondence between genetic and morphologic similarity. Two organisms may appear similar but have very different DNA patterns. Conversely, two creatures may appear very dissimilar but share a great deal of identical DNA programming.

Tweaking a dozen DNA base-pairs may have no apparent effect or it may change a banana into a bonobo. It all depends on which genes are altered.
 

CMIYC

Member
Seyorni said:
There is not a 1:1 correspondence between genetic and morphologic similarity. Two organisms may appear similar but have very different DNA patterns. Conversely, two creatures may appear very dissimilar but share a great deal of identical DNA programming.

Tweaking a dozen DNA base-pairs may have no apparent effect or it may change a banana into a bonobo. It all depends on which genes are altered.
This isn’t the only literature on this- it does suggest food, air and water are also essential part for DNA similarities or non similarities. Makes me think DNA is not that accurate when trying to link the evolutionary chain.
 

meogi

Well-Known Member
Aritcle said:
"Molecular phylogenetics [tracing `human evolution' using DNA and/or protein] has provided new insights into human evolution, but many of its findings and interpretations have been vigorously challenged. The controversy surrounding molecular phylogenetics is now so heated that the field cannot be discussed without also considering the controversy surrounding it."
This quote is from 1993. It had no knowledge of the % differences between humans and other animals. The genome hadn't been decoded yet.

Article said:
Many evolutionists are unaware that, "There is less variation between the DNA of two human beings from opposite ends of the earth than there is between the DNA of two gorillas from the same African rain forest."4 This statement is supported by recent research, "The extent of DNA sequence variation of chimpanzees is several-fold greater than that of humans."5 How do these facts support our alleged ape ancestry? Shouldn't our DNA sequence variation be as plastic as the rest of our "ancestors"?
No, it shouldn't. Mainly because they are not our "ancestors". The variation between our DNA and theirs only links us to a common ancestor however many years back. It does not mean that the decendants should all share the same characteristics.

Article said:
This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??and secularists would do well to say nothing regarding supposed evolutionary relationships until all facts are in.
Convoluted indeed... I love words like that. Really shows an agenda. More puzzling? No, more complicated, but still makes sense. Regardless, the idea behind the last statement is a good one to follow (for both sides of the argument - replace secularists with theists).
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
ICR likes to play the game of DNA and evolution, and lack of correlation between the two.

Perhaps an understanding of biodiversity is the pre-requisite to discuss the above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
The 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro defined biodiversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems".

This is, in fact, the closest thing to a single legally accepted definition of biodiversity, since it is the definition adopted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The parties to this convention include all the countries on Earth, with the exception of Andorra, Brunei Darussalam, the Holy See, Iraq, Somalia, Timor-Leste, and the United States of America.

If the gene is the fundamental unit of natural selection, thus of evolution, some, like E. O. Wilson, say that the real biodiversity is the genetic diversity. However, the species diversity is the easiest one to study.
Reading simplified explanaiton on gene and dna like the link below will give us the idea that ancestor must have most of the gene/dna to be the same (share common gene) with the descendent.
http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/1/concept/index.html

However, it is not necessary that two close species must have more common genes than with another obviously difference species or different ancestor.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
For example, some unresolved recent discovery:
Humans, animals share more DNA than previously thought
Santa Cruz study shows common 'junk' fragments




Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Saturday, May 8, 2004







<H3></H3>


The next time you play with a dog or shriek at a mouse or slice into a chicken, keep this in mind: They're your distant cousins, genetically speaking.

New evidence for the unity of earthly life was revealed Thursday by scientists at UC Santa Cruz and elsewhere, who reported discovering a breathtaking number of perfectly matched DNA fragments in these creatures and humans. What's equally amazing to the scientists is how many of the matching fragments are part of material once scorned as "junk DNA," genetic detritus that has accumulated over the eons and that, it was long assumed, serves no useful purpose.





http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/08/MNGA16H1GD12.DTL


 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
This PBS web page gives a very easy to understand explanation on evolution, which must be fully understand before we talk about common ancestor and common genes concept:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
3. Are all species related?
spacer.gif
Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
For example, the above web (and also the link in the original post) that kept harping on SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG about 98% common gene between human and chimp (or banana is more likely to be our ancestor), and therefore human and chimp cannot have a common ancestor never look at what is the actual meaning of speciation etc, as one aspect illustrated by homology biology:
http://www.answers.com/topic/homology-biology
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
scientists still don't know about DNA and its supposed evolutionary connections.
Evolution scientists or creationist scientists or half cook scientists?

Who are the scientists that claim that they know 100% the connection between DNA and evolution? Any scientist who claimed that is not a scientist.
 
Top