What I found surprising is that we are more closely related to rabbits and rats than we are to cats and dogs.

(December 29, 2014 at 2:33 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: What I found surprising is that we are more closely related to rabbits and rats than we are to cats and dogs.

Yep, our ancestors diverged long before the lineage that led to cats and dogs and bears (oh, my!). If memory serves, we are also more closely related to bats than to the large carnivorous/omnivorous land mammals. Which I think is pretty cool.

I totally believe it. Just the other day I parallel parked my car by ear.

(December 29, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Alex K Wrote: I totally believe it. Just the other day I parallel parked my car by ear.

Baaahaha

Is that a baby Christmas opossum?

Sorry guys .. I thing i got into the wrong forum
u just want to joke

---

I have to wait for 30 day
there is more than 35 article in evolution i want to discuss with u
is there a faster way than these 30 days !!!!

What the fuck is a Cambanzy? I can't believe anyone spelling chimp that wrong.

Apart from the aforementioned twitter joke I only found this.

Quote: Band of monkeys led Cambanzy largest them and most trained in this area and called Yat-chan and a 16-year-old.

It's from a site called RedGage and it doesn't give any more information besides the headline and this youtube link.

(December 29, 2014 at 7:18 pm)king krish Wrote: Sorry guys .. I thing i got into the wrong forum
u just want to joke

---

I have to wait for 30 day
there is more than 35 article in evolution i want to discuss with u
is there a faster way than these 30 days !!!!

Ok, not to joke:

No, it's not true. The articles referred to in your original post were written by a group of scientists who are pushing a young-earth creationist/intelligent design/religious agenda. While their personal beliefs do not disqualify them from producing science consistent with those beliefs, the methods utilized in coming to their conclusions are not taken seriously as "science" by the academic community at large. For instance, a thread on this site a while ago demonstrated that one person who found a much smaller percentage of DNA match between humans and chimpanzees did so by matching up the important parts of the gene sequences incorrectly.

What is true is that "humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees" is probably a misunderstood statement, in that a lot of that is shared not only with Chimpanzees but with all mammals, or all chordates, or all animals. But, the general gist of your post (which was quite difficult to read) seemed to be "new advances in gene sequences shed doubt on the theory of human/chimp common descent," and that statement is absolutely not true.

Some reasons why some of us might not be answering you as seriously as you like:
1. We've heard all of this 100 times.
2. Like, seriously, 100 times.
3. Most of the people who post this stuff and then ask "is it true?" respond to the answer "no, it's not true" by aggressively defending the stuff, showing that they did not actually want an answer but simply wanted to argue against a bunch of people who like science.
4. We're automatically suspicious of possible troll-ness because, like, seriously, 100 times.

(December 29, 2014 at 7:39 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(December 29, 2014 at 7:18 pm)king krish Wrote: Sorry guys .. I thing i got into the wrong forum
u just want to joke

---

I have to wait for 30 day
there is more than 35 article in evolution i want to discuss with u
is there a faster way than these 30 days !!!!

Ok, not to joke:

No, it's not true. The articles referred to in your original post were written by a group of scientists who are pushing a young-earth creationist/intelligent design/religious agenda. While their personal beliefs do not disqualify them from producing science consistent with those beliefs, the methods utilized in coming to their conclusions are not taken seriously as "science" by the academic community at large. For instance, a thread on this site a while ago demonstrated that one person who found a much smaller percentage of DNA match between humans and chimpanzees did so by matching up the important parts of the gene sequences incorrectly.

What is true is that "humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees" is probably a misunderstood statement, in that a lot of that is shared not only with Chimpanzees but with all mammals, or all chordates, or all animals. But, the general gist of your post (which was quite difficult to read) seemed to be "new advances in gene sequences shed doubt on the theory of human/chimp common descent," and that statement is absolutely not true.

Some reasons why some of us might not be answering you as seriously as you like:
1. We've heard all of this 100 times.
2. Like, seriously, 100 times.
3. Most of the people who post this stuff and then ask "is it true?" respond to the answer "no, it's not true" by aggressively defending the stuff, showing that they did not actually want an answer but simply wanted to argue against a bunch of people who like science.
4. We're automatically suspicious of possible troll-ness because, like, seriously, 100 times.

i want an answer but the members r joking
i but a link says that humans and rats r 99% the same in dna
i want u to explain it
and explain the first part that says we share only 89% not 98%
iam looking for answers
iam not here for arguing
..
I hope some one helps me finding a way to share links

(December 29, 2014 at 6:41 am)Alex K Wrote: @king krish

Welcome to the forums -

Posting links is not allowed until you have been an established member of the forum, so they will be deleted again. Posting large amounts of text which is copied is also not encouraged. I'd recommend writing a intro post for yourself in the introductions forum, and then start the discussion slow and not with a huge dump of stuff from fundamentalist liars like answers in genesis.
We should have a more in depth discussion how differences in genetic code between species are calculated, and what these numbers mean, before you make such confused statements, or rather, copy the fundamental misunderstanding these fundamentalists have about the science. They really are deeply dishonest in their presentation of the scientific consensus, you know?

Saying that we share ... % of genetic code with a banana, for example, is a very problematic statement without further specification what is actually meant, considering that the human genome is six times the size in Megabasepairs (3000 versus 500)! So, really, it's an exciting topic, but you should educate yourself more about it before pasting huge scrolls of links.

That being said, yes, we really do share a lot of genetic code with most other living things, because we are all relatives! So there is going to be a base level of similarity, and more closely related organisms will usually have more overlap. With chimps (I suppose Cambanzy is your way to write Chimpanzee?), it is pretty clear when we and they split up, and the differences that have since arisen can be understood by mutations and merging of chromosomes.

Thank you!

I was beginning to think this was a post about humans being closely related to cheese.

I think some people are closer to bananas than others... obviously.

MM

What about
THE FRUIT FLY (DROSOPHILA) SHARES ABOUT 60% OF ITS DNA WITH HUMANS (SOURCE).
- ABOUT 60% OF CHICKEN GENES CORRESPOND TO A SIMILAR HUMAN GENE. (SOURCE

---

completion of the similarities full examination of the human genome
Since that time soon rolled research on comparative research the genetic similarity between man and Cambanzy was mostly by evolutionists
Ballet totally biased and non-objective then proved to be infeasible
Were promoted to the matter and published a highly publicized first
The goal deployment atheism and ingratitude creator god
But do you really claim Pichabha Cambanzy and humans exceeds 98% as these properly called scientifically?
The answer is very simple and he knows any biological interested in the matter is that it is not comparing the human genome with the genomes Cambanzy full or even on a large scale so far Because there is still a lot of areas anonymous genome of the human beings as well as the genome Cambanzy that were studied are less stringent and expansion
It is not very comparable to a selective areas are hand-selected and adopted on a similarity For
(In addition to the mechanism of comparison only relied on the comparison of coding regions (exons
Which does not represent only a very small area of the Djiunm not to exceed 5% of its size, ignoring the non-encoded regions (splicing
And also ignored the region surrounding chains non-encoded gene exons within itself
The belief that those areas are just a scrap genome
Does not have any value and functionality, but recent studies have come to prove that it is nearly 93% of the genome active and Zivia_
And it clearly shows the lack of validity of previous comparisons obvious bias
Recent studies have expanded and came on larger areas of the genome to prove the opposite claim for less Alchapha ratio to approximately 86% and
A maximum of similarity between man and Cambanzy difference continues to grow and expand as scientists incursion in careful study
Also attached to studies...

‏Genes Dev. Nov 15, 2007; 21(22): 2963–2975.

answersingenes
byDr. Georgia Purdomon September 5, 2006; last featured January 21, 2008
‏..
byJeffrey Tomkinson December 28, 2011
‏)‏find the links ur self)‎