Page 4 of 6

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:53 am
by Mallz
[quote="hughfarey"]...[/quote]

Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:55 am
by hughfarey
Philip wrote:Let me re-phrase my statement: OK, great, even IF chimp blood is so similar, that proves nothing that a common Creator/Designer can't easily explain. Same is true for physical similarities in species, DNA, etc. Really, such similarities prove nothing at all.
I agree with that too. Many phenomena do not allow one to discriminate between alternative hypotheses, and this is an example of one.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:09 am
by hughfarey
Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)" and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said" and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species" and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.

Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:26 am
by Stu
hughfarey wrote:
Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)" and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said" and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species" and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.

Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.


I would say she gave as good as she got. You did come off a bit self-righteous on occasion, as if you are talking down to the person.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:15 am
by hughfarey
You're probably right...

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:28 am
by thatkidakayoungguy

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:29 am
by Mallz
hughfarey wrote:
Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)" and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said" and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species" and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.

Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.


My error would be to finish assess you before responding and I do apologize for that. Interesting you see her that way, I saw you unable to respond to her in a meaningful way (most times, and some times you thought you were responding when you weren't). You thinking she was vague and contradictory solidifies my thoughts of talking with you. Defensive? Innuendo-driven response? No. I haven't been forthcoming (simply pointing out your mistakes [even though some have been]) because it will take much more work to show you instead of tell you (which you don't grasp). So sorry for wasting your time, I'm not interested in wasting mine.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:35 am
by hughfarey
That's OK.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:31 pm
by cubeus19
¡pǝɯɹᴉɟuoɔ ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɹɐd sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:55 pm
by RickD
cubeus19 wrote:¡pǝɯɹᴉɟuoɔ ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɹɐd sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH

Perhaps somebody is using extreme sarcasm, and is friends with Hughfarey?

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:57 pm
by thatkidakayoungguy
cubeus19 wrote:¡pǝɯɹᴉɟuoɔ ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɹɐd sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH

trolling i see

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:29 pm
by abelcainsbrother

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:50 pm
by thatkidakayoungguy
cubeus19 wrote:¡pǝɯɹᴉɟuoɔ ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllᴉ ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɹɐd sᴉ ʎɹᴉɐℲǝƃnH

How'd you get the text upside down?

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:15 pm
by Mazzy
Mallz wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)" and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said" and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species" and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.

Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.


My error would be to finish assess you before responding and I do apologize for that. Interesting you see her that way, I saw you unable to respond to her in a meaningful way (most times, and some times you thought you were responding when you weren't). You thinking she was vague and contradictory solidifies my thoughts of talking with you. Defensive? Innuendo-driven response? No. I haven't been forthcoming (simply pointing out your mistakes [even though some have been]) because it will take much more work to show you instead of tell you (which you don't grasp). So sorry for wasting your time, I'm not interested in wasting mine.


Thanks for your support. I have always posted published research to back my view. Hughfarey left a conversation on another thread where I highlighted the guesswork behind algorithms used as evidence for evolutionary science such as dating so called human & chimp branching.

Re: Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:42 pm
by Mazzy
hughfarey wrote:
Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)" and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said" and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species" and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.

Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.


Yes, you did leave a conversation we were having on another thread. However, that's Ok. I made my point over and over.

Here is something below for you to check out. It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone.

In response to the OP it is reflective of a published paper I have previously posted on another thread, maybe when talking to you.

Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%.

"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections
in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness.” “There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms,” Gagneux adds.


http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biolo ... s/1836.pdf

This article was published in Science Mag and it was published by evolutionary scientists. Gagneux quoted in the article is an evolutionist. I probably used it in our previous conversation.

Here is another of my favorites. It is a published research article called "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content". It speaks to how incredibly different the chimp and human Y chromosome is. It talks about divergence because it is assuming evolution as a base underlying the research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653425/

Below is an article by John Hawkes. He explains the research on the Y chromosome difference is lay mans terms. John Hawks is the Vilas-Borghesi Distinguished Achievement Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. He works on the fossil and genetic record of human evolution.

Here is a part of what he says in his article......

"Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, “comparable to the difference … in chicken and human”.

This is from a new paper that’s just shown up in the Nature advance publication zone. The authors are Jennifer Hughes and colleagues, and the subject is the first complete sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome."


http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chi ... -2010.html


Indeed, there is ample evidence to support the claim that the chimp and human genomes are not similar at all as is suggested in the OP.