17 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYep, more of that ultra modern science. Louis Pasteur. I guess he came up with that one only last week. So new......
The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
Evoluti ...[text shortened]... into a bird or a monkey can change into a man. To me that is the crackpot theory of evolution.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe lies are only in your head. You are a left over 19th century relic 200 years too late. The rest of the world actually accepts evolution and will not deny the advances made possible by the study of evolution. The analysis of DNA has already revolutionized medical science. If people had not studied evolution, they would never have had the kick start to figure out DNA. Evolution and DNA are intricately linked and always will be. Too bad your brain is 200 years out of date. You and all your young Earther creationist brainwashed buddies.
It still did not stop the evil-lutionists from spreading their lies in school books to kids did it?
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonhouseDNA disproves evil-lution. 😏
The lies are only in your head. You are a left over 19th century relic 200 years too late. The rest of the world actually accepts evolution and will not deny the advances made possible by the study of evolution. The analysis of DNA has already revolutionized medical science. If people had not studied evolution, they would never have had the kick start to fi ...[text shortened]... brain is 200 years out of date. You and all your young Earther creationist brainwashed buddies.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonhouseAfter years of anticipation, the genetic code of Neanderthal “cavemen” is being decoded. And it is unraveling the theory of evolution. Humans and “Neanderthals” are practically identical at the dna code level.
This coming from the expert himself no doubt. Did not know you were a geneticist. Oh, wait, you got that from some of your own creationist buddies.
http://appleofgodseye.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/neanderthal-man-dna-disproves-evolution/
DNA - Evolutions Death Knell by Mark Eastman, M.D
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNote that even if they were genetically identical, it would have no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution.
And it is unraveling the theory of evolution. Humans and “Neanderthals” are practically identical at the dna code level.
But I feel compelled to point out that 'practically identical' is far to vague. Just how close exactly please.
Also give me the statistics for:
1. Humans and Chimpanzees.
2. Humans and Gorillas.
3. Humans and Baboons.
4. Humans and Rabbits (or any other mammal of your choice).
5. Humans and whales.
6. Humans and a reptile of your choice.
7. Humans and a plant of your choice.
8. Humans and a bacteria of your choice.
This will be interesting.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadHumans and “Neanderthals” are identical at the dna code level for all practical purposes. For example the "Neanderthals" could be considered just another race of people. That is how indentical they are. The DNA is no more different than that of a Caucasian and a Negro.
Note that even if they were genetically identical, it would have no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution.
But I feel compelled to point out that 'practically identical' is far to vague. Just how close exactly please.
Also give me the statistics for:
1. Humans and Chimpanzees.
2. Humans and Gorillas.
3. Humans and Baboons.
4. Humans and Rabbi ...[text shortened]... a plant of your choice.
8. Humans and a bacteria of your choice.
This will be interesting.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is much more to DNA than the actual sequence. There are non-coding sections that are involved in expressing certain enzymes during times of stress, heat, cold, starvation, that kind of thing.
Humans and “Neanderthals” are identical at the dna code level for all practical purposes. For example the "Neanderthals" could be considered just another race of people. That is how indentical they are. The DNA is no more different than that of a Caucasian and a Negro.
You seem to think because we have decoded Neandertals and humans that is the last word.
The actual science of genetic analysis is extremely young. You take it as if DNA analysis has been around as long as evolution theory.
We learn more about the details of DNA every year and we find very close matches to chimps and such also. The part where you go 'for all intents and purposes', the devil is in the detail. Details we perhaps have not yet worked out so you don't get to pull that card yet.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNot good enough I asked for an actual figure, not your uneducated opinion.
Humans and “Neanderthals” are identical at the dna code level for all practical purposes.
For example the "Neanderthals" could be considered just another race of people.
OK, so post the actual figures for:
a) Percentage difference between Neanderthal and human of your choice.
b) Percentage difference between two humans of particular races of your choice.
If you cannot post the actual figures, then it makes me wonder how you came to the conclusion? Surely your conclusion was based on facts, not guesses?
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonhouseNon-coding sections are part of the sequence. What you meant to say was there is more to DNA than gene-coding sequences.
There is much more to DNA than the actual sequence. There are non-coding sections that are involved in expressing certain enzymes during times of stress, heat, cold, starvation, that kind of thing.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought you might read the referenced material that I linked. No actual number figures were given in the reference. But I got my information from reading the article. I will quote the relevant part to my statement here:
Not good enough I asked for an actual figure, not your uneducated opinion.
[b]For example the "Neanderthals" could be considered just another race of people.
OK, so post the actual figures for:
a) Percentage difference between Neanderthal and human of your choice.
b) Percentage difference between two humans of particular races of your choice.
...[text shortened]... wonder how you came to the conclusion? Surely your conclusion was based on facts, not guesses?[/b]
"The researchers used dna captured from the nucleus of cells found in three bone fragments from three different female Neanderthals found in Croatia. The scientists then compared the Neanderthal genome to the human at 14,000 protein coding gene segments that differ between humans and chimpanzees. In doing so, they looked at over 3 billion combinations of four key protein molecules.
What did the scientists find? Simply put: Neanderthals are human. There was virtually no difference between the two codes. The few differences they did find were so slight that researchers say that they are functionally irrelevant—and that if more Neanderthal genomes could be compared there might be no differences at all!
But that is not all the scientists found. The data suggests Neanderthals are as closely related to humans as Chinese are to Germans, or French to Javanese. Furthermore, the genetic material analyzed indicated that Neanderthals and humans interbred and produced offspring that interbred—and regularly."
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I generally don't bother reading your referenced material until you convince me it has something worth while in it.
I thought you might read the referenced material that I linked. No actual number figures were given in the reference. But I got my information from reading the article.
So lets see what we have here:
An article on a clearly religious blog that makes a claim about a scientific study. But no actual figures are given. So all we have is the word of some unknown blogger with a religious agenda.
If your claim were true, you should have no trouble producing the actual figures to back it up. Why have you not tried to do so, even though it would be a real feather in your cap? Come on, your so good at using Google when you want something anti-evilution, why does the search engine suddenly fail you when it comes to good hard scientific facts?
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, maybe this is what you want.
No, I generally don't bother reading your referenced material until you convince me it has something worth while in it.
So lets see what we have here:
An article on a clearly religious blog that makes a claim about a scientific study. But no actual figures are given. So all we have is the word of some unknown blogger with a religious agenda.
If your cl ...[text shortened]... tion, why does the search engine suddenly fail you when it comes to good hard scientific facts?
http://genome.ucsc.edu/Neandertal/