Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
We're finding that because of these regions of the DNA that [evolutionists] thought were junk are now functional, the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent which is way too many differences for us to have a common ancestor. It's not mathematically possible.
SUMMARY:
* New Island, Old Look Part 2: Creationist Bob Enyart and Creation Research Society webmaster Fred Williams conclude their talk through the fascinating articles in the latest Creation magazine, including about a brand new island that has major geographic features that evolutionists say would typically indicate millions of years.
Today's Resource: Bob Enyart Live will sign you up for a subscription to Creation magazine as a thank you if you order the BEL Science Pack or Donate $50 or more to BEL! (And thanks for spreading the word about the Lord and His righteousness!)
We're finding that because of these regions of the DNA that [evolutionists] thought were junk are now functional, the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent which is way too many differences for us to have a common ancestor. It's not mathematically possible.
Anyone have any idea what research is being cited here?
“There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett
A difference in DNA between monkeys and men must be attributed to a mutation that has been favoured by natural selection. The more differences the more time it takes. I guess anything more than a few hundred shifted molecules rules out the possibility that anything evolved from anything else within a certain timeframe.
A difference in DNA between monkeys and men must be attributed to a mutation that has been favoured by natural selection. The more differences the more time it takes. I guess anything more than a few hundred shifted molecules rules out the possibility that anything evolved from anything else within a certain timeframe.
Indeed, that's the basic premise, but it's very complicated and you have to know what's being measured to understand the conclusion (which is why I ask what research is being cited).
For example, take the genetic sequence:
ATCCGACTTA
Compare it to this sequence:
ATTTACCGAC
If you compare letter for letter, the two strings are only 30% similar. But a single mutation can account for this 70% change in sequence
ATCCGACTTA transposes to ATTTACCGAC and viola.
So it's important to know how the dataset is approached and what they mean by "similar".
“There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett
Indeed, that's the basic premise, but it's very complicated and you have to know what's being measured to understand the conclusion (which is why I ask what research is being cited).
For example, take the genetic sequence:
ATCCGACTTA
Compare it to this sequence:
ATTTACCGAC
If you compare letter for letter, the two strings are only 30% similar. But a single mutation can account for this 70% change in sequence
ATCCGACTTA transposes to ATTTACCGAC and viola.
So it's important to know how the dataset is approached and what they mean by "similar".
Sounds suspiciously like sciency stuff to me?
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
Because it takes time for a mutation to propagate through a population. Time you do not have with too large a difference.
Especially if your mathematical model assumes that only one mutation can be propagated at a time. And assumes non-overlapping generations. And assumes that all mutations are simple point mutations.
By the way, I'm curious; Jefferson quoted Bob as saying "the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent." Did Jefferson misquote Bob, did Bob misspeak (e.g., meaning to say "the similarity between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent"), or was Bob truly claiming that the similarity between chimps and humans is now thought to range between 5 and 11 percent?
Because it takes time for a mutation to propagate through a population. Time you do not have with too large a difference.
And we know this to a mathematical (your word) certainty how? Haldane? See aharvey's post. Or in the alternative lets see your math, or Pastor Bob's math or his guest's math. Thanks ever so.
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
How about the ones proposing that human and ape genes are similar show their working. Then we can assess it.
Um, this is pretty darn unintelligible, stipe! But if you're saying that it's up to the folks who have made this argument to present their data here so you then can assess it, I'd say that's a bit of an odd request. First, this information has been out there for a while, one might say it represents the conventional view in science. When Bob makes a claim that seems to contradict this conventional view, it hardly seems reasonable that his new claim should stand unexplained and unexamined until we first re-re-re-re-re-explain and -defend the conventional view!
Um, this is pretty darn unintelligible, stipe! But if you're saying that it's up to the folks who have made this argument to present their data here so you then can assess it, I'd say that's a bit of an odd request. First, this information has been out there for a while, one might say it represents the conventional view in science. When Bob makes a claim that seems to contradict this conventional view, it hardly seems reasonable that his new claim should stand unexplained and unexamined until we first re-re-re-re-re-explain and -defend the conventional view!
Wow, that is pretty cool. What are the colored pieces seeming hanging in mid-air on some of the chromosomes?
I'm not sure, exactly. Photographed human karyotypes seem to show them as being connected to the rest of the chromosome via a constriction, or perhaps a region that doesn't stain.
Linear Mode
