to turn it off.
Last one
I don't see how you'd be "propping up your religion with science" -- you
are not using science above, you are using the Bible. I do wonder where
the other people came from if God made Adam and Eve and no others. He
must have made more than two people, but why isn't that covered in the
Bible? Strange book, the Bible. My disagreement with you guys is that
you put so much weight on the Bible as a source of inspiration and
historical evidence. It just isn't *that* good.
I thought I told you the difference between Adam and Eve and any other
"people" that might have existed.
You have to read what I write. I think I addressed those numbers twice
already. Scientists are using new sequence data to figure out how similar
human and chimp are. This is fairly difficult to do. The first numbers
were at about 98.4% but they were not taking into account certain kinds of
genomic rearrangements (insertions, deletions, etc.) and once those were
taken into account the number dropped to something closer to 95%. I sent
you some reference material on this yesterday -- a paper in PNAS for
example. You could read that. Finally, you keep referring to a paper
that came up with a value of 87%, but as I pointed out, that value was not
an estimate for the full genome, it was only for a region called MHC
(major histocompatibility complex), which is a very special region. It is
a highly variable region (from person to person or from chimp to chimp)
which deals with immunity. So it is expected to differ more between chimp
and human than would other regions. It explains why human and chimp
differ somewhat in vulnerability to infections.
Actually what I understood on the article that this was a direct
comparison by laying the DNA side by side. The 96% number came from
looking at matching DNA strands and finding matches, but the locations
in the string did not match. This was the same process that was used
to determine that Mice and men were 95% alike, but when the strands
are compared directly the similairities are a lot less. 86% for
Chimps, 70% for mice, or something like that.
I might not be right here and I will go back and reread that article
to make sure.
Once the scientific community takes on an agenda, as they have with
evolution and the environment, then their scientific data becomes
tainted. They spend so much time trying to prove their agenda, that they
either purposely or accidentally overlook valid data collected by people
who are trying to prove their opposite agenda. What happens to the
precious scientific model at that point?
You really don't know a lot about this and it is painfully obvious.
New ideas that differ greatly from the mainstream actually attract a *lot*
of attention if they can't be explained away immediately using extant
data. If they can be explained easily using extant data, it is probably
because they are useless new ideas and incorrect.
If the extant data is correct of course. It was once said that the
human body could not withstand a speed over 60 miles per hour, then
the human body could not handle going faster than the speed of sound.
Yet in both instances people tried it and proved that it was wrong.
As they say, it's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your
brain falls out. What do you want people to do, just believe whatever you
or some creationist says? Sorry, it's a difficult process and you have to
work hard to get good papers in top journals. This is true for everyone,
even scientists whose ideas are completely "mainstream."
Whatever, I am not necassarily a creationist. I just have a question,
like the environment, about the origin of man. I have a hard time
drawing the same connection to some little 2 inch monkey that
scientists seem all to willing to connect to.
To me it is so much like this environmental argument. We are trying to
reconstruct something that we are still only touching the surface of,
that is over 5 million years old and we are missing a lot of the
points in between. Scientists like to state that humans evolved from
chimps, but they have a hard time proving chimps evolved from chimps.
I know you disagree with that, but I have read a lot of worthless
websites such as National Geographic that say differently,
--
Thanks
F Vernon Green
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact