Friend: "Martin, I really do think we come from monkeys."That second last sentence was just a smack in the face!
Martin: "What makes you say that? You know I don't believe that for one second!"
Friend: "Think about it! They look a little like us, sometimes when you're debating you act like one. Scientists suggest that we even have about 97% DNA similarities!"
Anyway, this is a very fun topic to talk about.
Yes, its true, scientists claim we have a 97% similarity in DNA.
In some occasions it even went up to 99%!
So does this prove evolution?
Does this mean we cam from a common ancestor?
You believe that, but I think we all came from a designer.
I get allot of people saying, "look these are similar! Thats proof everything came from a common ancestor!" Its possible, I suppose, but I believe we rather come from a common designer! So that doesn't really mean anything to me!
Like I stated some times, I am not here to give opinions, I am here to give facts, so don't take my word for it!
I would like to point out a small problem with the 96 - 99% similarity.
A human's DNA has been fully sequence, a chimp not. Part of it, but not all. I believe there is a company working on this... I would love to see the results after they are done!
Just because we have similarities doesn't mean we come from the same thing. Consider the following:
There are many scientists today that agree that the evolution theory is a fact of life and should be in the science textbooks.
There are not many scientists today that agree that the evolution theory is a fact of life and should be in the science textbooks.
Those 2 sentences have a 96% similarity. Does that mean they are the same?
No, they almost mean opposite meanings! They have similarities, but in the end you have a different meaning.
The one guy came to me and said, that doesn't count, English is allot different from science.
That doesn't make a difference. Its the same concept, but just because I feel nice today I will give some more examples.
Think about this:
Clouds are 100% water. Everyone should agree with that.
Watermelons are 97% water. Only a 3 % difference.
Jelly fish are 98% water. (last time I checked, could have changed by now)
Snow cones are 98% water.
Those all have allot of water in them, and yet none of them are even nearly the same (Except the snow cones with water, its just solid water with syrup).
So I have come to the conclusion that clouds produced snow cones. The snow cone got into one of those chemical "soups" and suddenly a jelly fish popped up. Later they decided they don't want to move that often, so they grew shells, turned red and now everytime we eat watermelon we are eating an evolved jelly fish.
You see how ridiculous that sounds?
Just because we have a partial similar DNA sequence as chimps doesn't mean we come from them. All it shows is that we have similar characteristics. That still doesn't mean great great great great great great grandpa was a chimp.
I think all that means is we all come from a common designer, thats my theory.
Its a reasonable theory, you know what. That isn't even put in as a footnote in 1 of the science textbooks.
The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. Thats huge, thats more words than most of my friends will ever read. See, our DNA is so complex that just a little bit can cause a tremendous change in everything.
This one guy said, the difference in DNA sequences are stuff like tails, hair, weird feet etc. We lost it because we don't need it. That 1% wouldn't even be filled with just that. And lose things we don't need? Think about how useful it would be to have a tail! You can drive, talk on the phone and eat a sandwich at once! I don't think we don't have a tail because we never used it, I think we don't have a tail because the designer never put one on us. Thats possible. Its never been proven, but neither has any of the evolution stuff! So whats the problem?
This was a short post as it was a quick question I thought I'd answer.
See ya!
Martin
The reason your analogy doesn't work is because your proportions are dealing with very different levels of information. When you draw the comparison that a sentence may have 97% similarity, you're talking about a very small amount of information that makes a great deal of change. The larger the number of words we are talking about, the less a 3 percent change matters.
ReplyDeleteTo provide an illustration of my point, I am currently writing a research paper for my senior English class on the British mathematician and logician Alan Turing. We are required to turn our papers in to a website called www.turnitin.com, which compares our research paper to a large database of information and provides an "Originality Report" that gives the paper a score representing how original our papers are. When I am expressing the fact that Alan Turing committed suicide by eating a cyanide-laced apple, there are only a few possible ways to express that bit of information. I could write "Alan Turing committed suicide by eating a cyanide-laced apple", or "By eating an apple laced with cyanide, Alan Turing committed suicide". It's highly likely that if I present this information in a straightforward way, the sentence will be counted as being unoriginal. This, however, doesn't mean that my sentence was plagiarized.
Now lets scale up that 97% difference to a paragraph. Now it's a bit more likely that I plagiarized the paragraph, but still, the similarity is still somewhat likely, especially if it is a sentence about something like the time and place of Turing's birth or death.
Now imagine that the whole research paper is 97% similar to that of another student. Any teacher in their right mind would invariably give me a 0% for plagiarism on this paper.
To bring my point closer to home, I wonder if you would apply the same logic to a game you created. You say that a 97% similarity between a piece of genetic code doesn't prove anything about the origins of the two codes. But if you find that some noob posted a game that is 97% identical to a huge game that you created, would you let him say that the 97% similarity doesn't mean anything?
The similarity between chimpanzee and human DNA is not PROOF of evolution, I agree. But it is EVIDENCE for it. And it's not the only evidence.
Just because no one can stand up in a trial and say "I saw the murder happen" doesn't mean that we can't say the murder never occurred. Instead we find lots of pieces of evidence that all point to the culprit being John Doe, and even though there were no eyewitnesses, we can still be safe in saying that all the evidence supported it. Even if we remove the fingerprint evidence, it barely diminishes our case.
I don't accept evolution because of an individual person telling me it was true or some singular bit of evidence, I accept it because there is a LOT of evidence, and more evidence has arisen since the theory was first properly proposed that supports it from a completely different line of evidence. I accept the theory of evolution to the same exact degree that the evidence supports it, just like I accept the Biblical account of creation to the exact same degree that evidence supports that hypothesis.
PROOFS don't exist anywhere but in mathematics. I can't even prove that the chair I am sitting in exists. It's just impractical to wait for proof of anything, because PROOF of ANYTHING but mathematical concepts is impossible. There are just too many variables in any given situation to prove anything about it. Math is the only place where we can boil things down to a few definitive variables, but event then we can only prove things to the extent that we can consider those variables. Instead we wait for HIGH, just not absolute, degrees of certainty. And the evidence for evolution provides us with an EXTREMELY high degree of certainty.
You know, I don't know who you are, but from the above statement I got allot of respect for you!
ReplyDeleteYou said, we don't have proof, you admitted it, you said it only works in maths, thats true! You obviously know what you are talking about!
The DNA similarities, could it be possible that instead of everything having a common ancestor, instead have a common designer?
You know what I think is funny?
Creation and evolution has the same evidence, yet most people choose not to even listen to the creationists point of view. Thats just sad, by reading this and replying you have showed me that you actually listened to my opinion, I admire that!
Stay well!
Interesting, good post, I enjoyed your examples greatly. ASh, you also have interesting points and, like Zappy, I respect that your view of evolution is not a 'bandwagon jumping' one, but that you have actually thought it out and came to your own conclusion based on evidense.
ReplyDeleteIf our DNA is that close to monkey proves neither God nor evolution, however our differences are immense... We share simularitys not only with monekys, but also with all other creatures (we all have eyes/mouth/digestive system)
I beleive in a common designer
Religion is bullshit, do you think the earth is flat too?
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the comments! And thanks for your reply to Matty K!
ReplyDeleteNow Anonymous, what ever you believe how you came here is your religion, if you believe you came from a rock thats your problem, but its your religion, its not science.
Now, here is the funny part, you asked if I believed the earth was round. The bible states that the earth is round. Its in Isaia 40:22. People that did not believe in the bible, or never read the bible, thought the earth was flat until the 15th Century. (That would be people like you). Now I have a question. Why were creationists right about this statement 3000 years ago, but it is still not believed? I think I know why, I think its pride, people are to scared to admit the bible is right so they simply neglect it.
Now, Anonymous. Please, next time before asking a question, like do I think the earth is flat? Please make sure I havn't talked about it in my blog.
Dear Zappy77
ReplyDeleteI respect your point of view in evolution but to me it looks like you have pointed out all teh details but you have forgotten to examine the whole point of evolution theory. You seem to also only take the most ridiculous examples, prove them wrong with your medieval logic and then tell us something we already knew. You should also first think of the following questions:
-What separates two different species, wheres the line?
-How can you tell what is proved and what isn't. If you see a stone flying in the sky and see no reason why its doing that, according to science, do you call it proved, if everyone can say that it flies? Is it then proved or is it another religious thought?
You should start thinking more philosophically and define your most used words(prove, religion, science, evolution) so that they are unambiguous. Oh, I see, you can't, can you? That's the point. No one can define any word so that everyone believes it or everyone says it is proved now. Because there are always people like you.
Next, when you criticize some theory people have almost proved completely, or at least made it an option for other theories, how come you have read so many books and know so much about evolution, you can't bring in your own thoughts? To me it looks like you have only read the books, not studied it fully.
You also seem to mix up evidence and proof, which is actually the biggest thing I don't like what you write.
Thanks above poster! The problem is, no matter which way you go, there is nothing that supports evolution for it to be considered a fact. It can be considered a theory, but thats that, my question is why is it taught as a fact when it clearly is a theory?
ReplyDeleteNow for your questions, the first one:
The bible actually tells us what seperates the species. In most cases we can see what seperates the species, but some are a little harder. The bible tells us if the animals can bring forth they are the same. So if the animals can no longer bring forth thats the line.
What I consider proof is if it has been observed, tested or demonstrated. Evolution is none of that. The only thing that has been observed would be what you call "ridiculous examples", yet it is used all over the world.
Now my definitions for the 4 words.
Prove: If something can be tested, demonstrated or observed with predictable results. That is when something is proved. For example, chimps evolved into humans, has it been observed? Has it been demonstrated? Has it been tested? No? Then its not proved. Very simple.
Religion: Very simple, a religion is what you believe. With or without proof. I believe in creation, I have no proof so thats my religion. You believe in evolution, you have no proof, thats your religion.
Science: Knowledge gained through observation testing and demonstrating.
Evolution: There are several meaning, I use them in my blog entry "They're both religions!"
Actually all of these words were defined some time in my blog...
I bring my own thought the whole time. I mentioned it, but as I have also stated, I believe this blog should be about science, not my thoughts. My true thaught are evolution is stupid, I really respect who ever believes in it, I just think it is stupid and has allot of loop holes.
Lastly, evidence and proof means exactly the same thing if you look it up in a dicionary. However, now a days it is considered that evidence is a guideline to something that connects to your belief, and proof is something that can be tested, demonstrated or observed.
I wish more people like you would post, ask questions, though I could use without some attacks and sarcasm (not pointed at you). So thanks for the post.
Thanks for your answer.
ReplyDeleteI think we both can say that nothing that is in the bible has been proven, eg it says that pi equals to 3, doesn't it? Moreover, you rely on unporven words when you tell "facts". Mostly the effect a religious book has is dependent on the point of view it is read. Of course they couldn't have done their pool a perfect circle, thats why the small error. You couldn't rely on information what separates two species if you didn't take all the words literally. Everyone can interpret the Bible in different ways which I am completely OK with, but through later investigations, there are lots of things that have been corrected in the Bible and even the Pope says teh Bible isn't completely quite right in our current world.
Again, thanks for answering my post. I am sorry if I offended you in any sarcastic way, but I think that you have got used to it already anyways :)
Hello anonymous!
ReplyDeleteThings in the bible has been proven quite a few times, and no, the bible doesn't say pi is equal to 3, it says 3.14, which is what everyone used in those days.
Evolution also relies on unproven stuff, for example, one kind of animal can evolve so far that it changes to a difrent kind.
I would like you to show me a list of things that have been "corrected" in the bible, because I believe the bible is scientifically accurate, I have never been shown wrong.
This is a little embarrasing, but I don't know what post you are talking about! :P
You don't have to worry, you didn't offend me in the first place, you were even less sarcastic, but yea, youre right, I got use to it! I wish there were more posters like you, you simply state your mind without being mean.
Hello again Zappy(same poster as the two previous here:) )
ReplyDeleteI just had to check back again if there were any new comments...
I think you should check 1Kings 7:23 again:
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
Maybe this is one thing that have been "corrected" in your copy. Above was found in the International Version.