Retroviruses randomly themselves almost anywhere on the DNA. When the DNA replicates, it replicates with the virus because that virus is now part of the DNA. Humans and chimpanzees share many of the same retroviruses in the exact same locations on the genome. The odds of a retrovirus inserting itself into any one shared portion of DNA between humans and chimps is 1 in 3,000,000,000.
For it to insert itself on the exact same spot in both chimpanzees and humans, if we didn't share a common evolutionary ancestor, the odds would have to be 1 in 3,000,000,000^2, or one 1 in 9,000,000,000,000,000,000. It would also have to happen multiple times. For it to happen twice, the oods would have to be 1 in 3,000,000,000^4 which is just too large to type. Yet, it happens more than twice.
In fact, just googling, I found over 100 shared retrovirus locations with chimps and humans. For these not to be a product of common evolutionary ancestors, the odds are 1 in 3,000,000,000^200. That number is so huge that I don't even think it has a name.
Basically, for humans and chimps to share just 1 common retrovirus location, 18,000,000,0000,000,000,000 retroviruses would have to insert themselves. To share over 100 locations, 3,000,000,000^200 times 2 retroviruses would have to insert themselves. Our DNA would be nothing but retroviruses.
The odds of chimps and humans not sharing a common ancestor are thus astronomical.
The Bible says that humans were created out of dirt. However, dirt doesn't catch retroviruses because it doesn't have any DNA. So, the Bible is fiction.
Actually recent studies have showed that retroviri don't insert random at all. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128010951.htm
extract: A human DNA-associated protein called LEDGF is the first such molecule found to control the location of HIV integration in human cells, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. This study, published in this week's early online edition of Nature Medicine, describes the first clear target for modulating where viruses insert into the human genome, which has implications for better design of gene-therapy delivery. Retroviral vectors are often used to introduce therapeutic genetic sequences into human chromosomes, such as in the delivery of Factor VIII for hemophilia patients.
So that completely decimates those unprobable odds.
I can't get my head around your thinking, Philosopher ...
Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...
Peace
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
I can't get my head around your thinking, Philosopher ...
Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...
Peace
I think it is sad when anyone tries to make a holy book a science book.
If god had anything to do with these books, and I don’t think he did, surly he did not intend them to be a science books.
I think it is sad when anyone tries to make a holy book a science book.
I don't think its "sad" but I'm always puzzled why anybody bothers.
The muslim approach seems to be taking something that makes perfect sense in the established context and replacing it with something that makes no sense whatsoever in the same context just because it bears a (very) vague resemblance to something somebody spotted in Scientific American . Bafflingly, this is thought to give the Qur'an more credibility rather than less.
The fundamentalist Christian approach is rather less subtle; it just involves pretending the actual science doesn't exist and declaring what is in Genesis IS the science. Next thing you know somebody is putting up creationist theme parks where waxwork happy human children frolic joyfully at the feet of their (presumably vegetarian) dinosaur contemporaries. And I'm not taling about Barney.
Both are crazy, IMHO. Neither religion needs propping up with such obvious nonsense.
Impressive as your scientific approach may be, I fail to see what it has to do with Genesis.
The Bible is not a science book! I never will be. And it has never claimed to be ...
He is trying to prove creation didn't happen and that we are evolutionarily related to apes.
The thing I don't understand is why he spared Judaism and Islam, since they also believe in creation.
Assuming he is american, i think its becuase of the christian power that that is his main target.
I think you have highlighted a real problem for God. Could you imagine the abuse of power by some people if 90 percent of the world was Catholic? I am a Catholic and sense the church has had too much power for much of its history.
I sense that God has a very real purpose to allow so many religions to help keep in check man’s need for ultimate power and control.
In the spirit of striving for greater interfaith friendship
i don't believe in the bible but i am always amazed that some atheists are such devotees.
Agreed.
If you don't believe in it, that's fine and all. But why devotre your life to debunking something that has no influence or impact on you. Soooo illogical.
format_quote Originally Posted by MuhammadRizan
1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
The theory is that Apes didn't evolve into Humans. Both evolved from a common animal.
1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?
One reason is that in some environments apes would have been (and in our 'natural' condition, still are) rather more successful at surviving than humans. Take a rainforest, for example; not only is much of the food in the trees, but so is your best chance of escape from predators. Apes are much better at moving in rainforest than humans.
The apes evolved along parallel paths, not the same one leading inevitably to 'human'. Man did not evolve from the chimpanzee or gorilla, both evolved from a common ancestor. Your question involves an assumption that humans are always somehow 'better' than apes, and that isn't true. We may be 'smarter', but tell that to the ape sitting laughing in the tree while the tiger sinks its teeth in your leg!
I think you have highlighted a real problem for God. Could you imagine the abuse of power by some people if 90 percent of the world was Catholic? I am a Catholic and sense the church has had too much power for much of its history.
I sense that God has a very real purpose to allow so many religions to help keep in check man’s need for ultimate power and control.
In the spirit of striving for greater interfaith friendship
Eric
Greetings, Eric
Sadly, it is a human weakness to use power for one's own purposes and gain - inside and outside of religion. History proves it ...
Those who follow God, however, should have an insight into His purpose and will for his creation, and therefore have a greater responsibility than those who don't believe in God.
If all who claim to 'follow God' really put God at the centre of their hearts and lives, they should not desire to abuse power for their own gain!
We may look to other religions or denominations for blame, but actually the responsibility to put God first lies with each and everyone of us individually.
God is always ready to guide us in his ways ... but are we willing to
1. listen, and
2. obey???
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Horses and zebra have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.
Cats and lions have a common anscestor but they evolved along different branches.
One reason is that in some environments apes would have been (and in our 'natural' condition, still are) rather more successful at surviving than humans. Take a rainforest, for example; not only is much of the food in the trees, but so is your best chance of escape from predators. Apes are much better at moving in rainforest than humans.
The apes evolved along parallel paths, not the same one leading inevitably to 'human'. Man did not evolve from the chimpanzee or gorilla, both evolved from a common ancestor. Your question involves an assumption that humans are always somehow 'better' than apes, and that isn't true. We may be 'smarter', but tell that to the ape sitting laughing in the tree while the tiger sinks its teeth in your leg!
Hmm..my apologies..well you Know, all my understanding about evolution are from those "apes evolving into homo sapiens" picture.
and i studied in religious school so i've been bz learning arabic an memorizing quran, and other field of islamic knowledge,eventhough science also been thought (by Christian American teacher!) in school..
but, yeah i always fell asleep during class..
But do you mind i'm asking more questions?
1-if i'm asking horse and zebra ancestor evolve from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what...are we going to reach some point "from nothing"..or science have other explanation?.
Hmm..my apologies..well you Know, all my understanding about evolution are from those "apes evolving into homo sapiens" picture.
and i studied in religious school so i've been bz learning arabic an memorizing quran, and other field of islamic knowledge,eventhough science also been thought (by Christian American teacher!) in school..
but, yeah i always fell asleep during class..
But do you mind i'm asking more questions?
1-if i'm asking horse and zebra ancestor evolve from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what,and then from what, and then from what, and then from what, and then from what...are we going to reach some point "from nothing"..or science have other explanation?.
2-same question to about Human and apes ancestor.
eventually you will get to the initial life. "and those lines will merge."
How that life began is a question for abiogenesis.
1.why are not all apes evolve into human?
2.apes evolve from what?
1. evolution does not work that way.
2. other creatures and down the line you get to a common ancestor for other creatures.
Evolution does not have a specific goal.
It allows for splits.
Those splits can survive if they can find a nitch.
We are not in the same nitch as other apes. Thus we and other apes still live.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Another scientific fact that killed the Bible
Re: Another scientific fact that killed the Bible
How science define Life?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks