"Genome sequencing has confirmed our relation to the apes"
Here you go again. Genome sequencing has CONJECTURED our relation to the apes. Just because an ape genome looks similar to a human does not mean the man and the ape are related. It's the same old moon/cheese pseudoscience. Do you think the moon is related to cheese too because it looks like cheese?
54 comments
The genome prove what we observed through fossils. And only cheese-heads (no offense to anyone from Green Bay here) would think the Moon "looks like" cheese. It looks like rock, with large basalt plains. This was proved by direct observation with the manned lunar missions. Oh, oh, that was a fake, too, wasn't it?
Just because an ape genome looks similar to a human does not mean the man and the ape are related.
If Merriam-Webster invented a phony word and put it in their dictionary, and that same word later showed up in a Random House dictionary, that would be pretty good evidence that Random House copied it. Publishers often use that trick, and it has stood up in court. The Chimp and human genome don't just look similar: they have the exact same genetic errors in the same places.
They also have the same retroviral DNA attached to their genome in the exact same places, which shows that they inherited it from the common ancestor that became infected with it (if they had been infected separately, the chances are almost zero that they'd attach at the same point).
It's the same old moon/cheese pseudoscience. Do you think the moon is related to cheese too because it looks like cheese?
Uhh, I'm pretty sure no one above the age of four has ever seriously thought that the moon is made out of cheese...
"Kid, ignoring proof isn't going to make it go away."
"youtube, youtube, youtube. Populated my 2-year old Fundies and 12 year old geeks... I can't TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!"
The sad thing is,he made a response video to the video that the quote is from and he ain't no kid.He's a 46 year old dude.
Well, for one, I've never thought the moon looked like cheese. That amy be because I've known it was rock for a very long time, but still. Either way that analogy is completely invalid. Genomic information is a whole lot more complicated than a simple visual comparison. Many of the same genes are there, the difference being in how they are regulated or when they are switched on/off.
And nobody in their right mind thinks the moon is related to anything in the sense you mean. Why aren't there little moonlets running around in orbit? Or is the moon just too old to reproduce anymore and the moonlets all grew up and moved away? Do you think the moon and phobos could produce viable offspring?
If the moon and cheese contained cells with DNA, and that DNA was 98% the same, then yes, they would be related.
@ Jeff
... those DNA tests on Springer are useless ... Oh wait, you trust THOSE, do you?
Jeff, have you seen those people on Springer and Maury? Have you heard them talk? Where they come from there aren't that many DNA samples to choose from.
Yeah, 'cause geneticists definitely looked at humans, and then at apes, and said, "You know, they DO look similar!" There was no DNA sequencing involved. And even if there was, we all know DNA sequencing is a load of crap. After all, what has it done for us, except screen for illnesses and identify dangerous criminals? Clearly, science doesn't work.
Creationists kept saying that Evolution wasn't science because it couldn't do stuff like predictions.
Well evolution predicted that Apes and Humans would be similar geneticly and that there would a measurable progression in genetic differences showing a line of descent.
But instead of acknowledging this, creationists just make spuriouse comparisons. (The ape and human DNA that matches doesn't just look the same, it is the same)
Clearly cretionists don't' care what the truth is. Facts only matter if they seem to support their ideology.
RNA contains back up copies of the original DNA pattern which has the mechanism to reverse the DNA's mutation after about four generations. That is why the fossil record, after almost 1 million finds, only shows fully formed species that suddenly simultaneously appeared about 50mil years ago but never mutated. This points more to Creationism than Darwinism. 150 years after Darwin, Evolutionists are further behind than ever.
Someone needs to alert the scientists that they needn't go to all the trouble of examining samples from a man and child's DNA to establish if he's the father or not.It's much quicker and just as reliable to look at their faces and say "yeah,he looks like you,he's your kid.Next."
As it seems you don't have a clue, science has more evidence than what things "look like". If that was the only evidence they had, IT WOULDN'T BE SCIENCE!
Genome sequencing provides EVIDENCE of our relation to the apes, unlike your religion, which has NO EVIDENCE that any of it is actually true. YOU are the ones using CONJECTURE when you believe in your supernatural sky-pixie without evidence, not the scientists.
Fucking idiot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.