It’s called trolling.

Post what up? The human genome project? Crispr?

Not sure what you posted up that you are thinking i needed to look up…not trying to be arrogant there but just saying you have not posted up anything i needed to “look up”

And purposefully leaving what? You were asked a question and never answered it. I guess i can accept if you were just trolling….i figured there was more to it than that.

His narcissism is exhausting!

Ok lets talk about that. The researchers found that the chimp and human have similar dna, and about 96% was similar (i always thought it was higher but going by what they say). They say the chimp is the most close to the human dna profile

While they say the chimp to human similarity is about 60x more common than a human to a mouse, they also found the chimp to human was about 10X less similar between human to human.

What does that mean? It means there are at least 10 significant steps needed to take chimps and evolve them
Into a human.

So where are all these transitional species? Think about all the distinct species that would be in play here, the difference in the mouse to human vs a chimp to human is only 6fold…so think how far away a human is from a mouse and divide that by six and you are still that far away from chimp to human.


That research is essentially saying the evolution of humans from chimps is historically near impossible given the lack of a fossil record to suggest that level of speciation.

Lol, they have a common ancestor.... chimps are not our ancestors, they are our closest relatives. The HGP proves we have a common ancestor.


The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

That statement, the common ancestor thing, is not a prove-able statement based on their research. It is a commentary based on previously thought “scientific” belief.

It is like me saying cars and airplanes have a common ancestor because they both have gas consuming engines in a research paper about airplanes. While we know that one statement is not true and can not be substantiated by the research about airplanes, the false statement does not directly discount research presented about airplanes.

The first thing to recognize about this “research” is that this isn’t research. It is simply data collection, and data collection can not lend itself to any conclusions by the authors, only commentary. The statement about a common ancestor is the commonly held belief by science, it has nothing to do with the data they have collected. Thus, taking that as a “fact” proven by the Human Genome Project is just not a valid outcome. It shows a possible bias in the data collection that i hope is not present, but it is not something the HGP could possibly even prove without DNA from some common ancestor 6M years ago to compare to todays DNA human profile and the chimp profile. Since we do not have that….

Try again.

Remember I'm not trying to change your mind, you wanted info, so I posted it. You do what you want with it. This has pretty illustrations, and diagrams....

Taken another way and equally as valid as the statement above about a common ancestor, one could say this:

The human genome project shows many forms of life on earth are remarkably similar, which suggests there was a supreme creator that used DNA and all its simple complexity to create all the differentiation of species we see today. While the chimp is the osest to human from a DNA coding standpoint, the small difference of a few percent between the two DNA codes shows how masterfully the creator used a simple structure to make such different species.

That commentary is neither refuted nor dispelled by the same human genome project than the paragraph above quoted by SA. The bias is simply who wrote the commentary and their underlying beliefs.

And note i said “beliefs”. Belief in evolution is a faith based system just like any religion. The only absolute “proof” that evolutionists can point to is to say “well we are here, so we MUST have evolved from something”….the rest of the details are leaps of faith that have not even been able to replicated in labs with very controlled conditions knowing the optimal conditions.

The presumption there HAS to be a spontaneous manner in which we are here is the “a priori” bias evolutionists have. They are unwilling to look at any other possibility

That’s pretty cool. The only problem with it is that type of research is that it is research with a purpose in its design, it is searching for a specific answer: do chimps and humans have a common ancestor?

What if that hypothesis is faulty? What if the hypothesis is really this:
Do humans and chimps have a similar creator?

The research would say yes they do.

Again, failing to account for any other possible cause for this similarity creates a bias that is hard to overcome.

Shared endogenous retro viruses.

How many living things have blood in them?

y'all still arguing about this?

Lol, no argument here. It is what it is.

You failed to listen closely to your own presentation...

they do not say there are shared endogenous retrovirus

What they said was there are strands of DNA they surmise are from retroviruses that show common DNA strands in the same locations. These can be turned into viral DNA strands that can infect cells ONLY WITH human manipulation. They are not viral pieces in and of themselves.

So what says the creator didn't do the same thing while he was creating Humans? Again, failing to see an alternative is creating the bias that you are living in.

Mind you, I am not saying either of us is correct, we could both be wrong. maybe these viral elements came from outer space in the "deep space colonization" theory, or maybe they could have come from another civilization from the "alien colonization" theory.

But to say the above proves anything about how Humans came to be is just folly. All it proves is we share common DNA with a lot of animals and we already knew that, since DNA is found in all living things on earth.

Most but not all. I do not know off the top of my head what percent of living things (multicellular) use blood to transport oxygen. I do know quite a few small organisms use direct surface absorption of oxygen and do not use blood.

Right, most.

As I look around myself, my dogs, the shop cat, the Crane that just landed next to the pond, the Red Tail Hawk that just flew by, the fish in my pond, all have blood in them.

That says created by God as far as I'm concerned..

The only thing science proves is creation. Scientists keep trying to prove the big bang theory and evolution by decoding DNA and creating something.

And they can’t create the elements. They can only use what God has already given us to create something.

Follow the money. That is what science does. The truth does not pay the rent.

This discussion, not an argument Buzz, reminded me of a variation of the watchmakers argument. I think we are all fairly associated with the watchmaker argument (paraphrased - someone finds a watch in the woods and sees the complexity and design of how it is made and says this could not have just evolved here but had to be made by some unseen creator)....

Anyway, imagine finding a ford diesel engine sitting somewhere and finding a chevy diesel engine somewhere else and taking them apart and seeing all the commonality and similarity between the two. We can rightfully say, "these engines share common traits X% of the time, and comparing them to older engines or gas engines or (whatever) they only share commonality about Y% of the time.". While we can say the engines are similar, that is far as we can take things. We can not say with any certainty these engines were created or evolved from the same engine, we can not say with any certainty anything other than the engines are similar and share a lot of common parts.

So why does someone take the Human Genome Project and use it to say anything more than, we share a lot of DNA with Chimps. Anything more than that is a potentially faulty conclusion based on the pre-existing biases the commentator holds.

The virus is just a side note, not the point. They in fact do have the same endogenous retrovirus, in the same locations. That's how we know we had a common ancestor 6 million years ago, but since then both modern man and chimps have a different number and in different locations showing that we split and went our separate ways.

SA, you are missing my point altogether on the importance of the retrovirus thing.

The only thing we can say about that is yes, we have similar strands at a similar location. You saying it is from infections in a common ancestor 6M years ago and and me saying it was from a common creator (whenever) are both neither right or wrong based on the similarities in the DNA strands.

That is what I am trying to impress upon you. You are looking at a data set and drawing a conclusion you can not. As are most of the scientists who are commenting on the data. There is no proof there was a common ancestor, there is only similar DNA to suggest. That is it. End of story. Data does not tell a story, but people can use data to say whatever they want it to say. But that is a fallacy in research we have to be aware of and avoid. Too often, politically active research is prone to this type of error, and we see it all the time in climate research and gender research nowadays.


Here is a loose example of how this plays out in your life, you like golf. If we look at data sets of a pro golfers tournament play, and we see certain players always make par or birdie or whatever on certain holes, does that mean we can we come to the conclusion they had the same teacher? No, the data does not allow us to come to that conclusion.

Stop going where the data set can't allow you to go.

You would probably be better off just believing what you want to believe, and stop trying to disprove facts. Your gonna have a long road to hoe.

Row to hoe. Why would you hoe a road?

Lol, whatever makes you happy, scrappy.

In a million years, dinosaurs may be back and picking their teeth with our fossilized bones.