Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives

[porchrat]

Still want to maintain I'm an uninformed muppet?

You are using answersingenesis as though it were legitimate reference material so yes.

 

[Geriatrix]

No no, the 97% is quite accurate. What I would like to know from you is this. On face value, do you differ from a chimpanzee? And in what respects other than being less hairy?

Of course! But let me ask you this! What is the point?
Do I differ, on face value of course, on how I looked twenty seven years ago?(I do)

What are we arguing here with regards to percentage points?

 

[Jab]

answersingenesis

 

[Elimentals]

Just remember old Kanzi was a Bonobo...

[video=youtube;dBUHWoFnuB4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUHWoFnuB4[/video]

 

[Swa]

You are using answersingenesis as though it were legitimate reference material so yes.

http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/2011/08/logic-lessons-genetic-fallacy-and.html

 

[demiurge]

Ah yes take into account "all factors".

Please list your relevant degrees in this field (I'm not bothering to ask whether or not you are qualified to comment on the procedures involved in genetic comparisons because I know nobody would be stupid enough to call something 'fudging' when they don't have a TOTAL understanding of the procedures being performed).

If embarrassingly enough you don't happen to have qualifications associated with genetic analysis then I suggest you stop attempting to speak with authority with respect to a subject you are not an authority on.

OT: To be fair porchrat, even though I don't agree with swa on everything, over here you are committing a logical fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. Being an authority on a subject doesn't mean your pronouncements on the subject are correct. Likewise, not being an authority doesn't mean they are incorrect - the arguments need to be judged on their own merits, irrespective of where they come from.

 

[alloytoo]

Of course! But let me ask you this! What is the point?
Do I differ, on face value of course, on how I looked twenty seven years ago?(I do)

What are we arguing here with regards to percentage points?

apparently the 3% between 99% and 96% are very important

 

[porchrat]

OT: To be fair porchrat, even though I don't agree with swa on everything, over here you are committing a logical fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. Being an authority on a subject doesn't mean your pronouncements on the subject are correct. Likewise, not being an authority doesn't mean they are incorrect - the arguments need to be judged on their own merits, irrespective of where they come from.

For sure. In this case though he just mentioned something about "all factors" being tested for when in reality he has no idea HOW the actual testing is done, what practical restrictions are in place and WHY the testing is done in a particular manner.

He should be asking those questions not accusing scientists of fudging results because they don't take into account "all factors".

 

[Swa]

For sure. In this case though he just mentioned something about "all factors" being tested for when in reality he has no idea HOW the actual testing is done, what practical restrictions are in place and WHY the testing is done in a particular manner.

He should be asking those questions not accusing scientists of fudging results because they don't take into account "all factors".

Porch, the fact in this case is that all the factors are not known. You could have simply asked for proof of other factors which I provided in any case. Now a comparison that includes additional factors is pretty much self evident that all factors were not included before.

As always though you resort to standard evolutionist indoctrination (stop reading the pro-evo propaganda) that my position is one of ignorance and not education.

You then resort to attacking the source showing you didn't even take a look at it. It's REFERENCED with what you call "real science." What you do not ask yourself is why is this information only found on a "creationist" site? Why aren't your pre-evo sites at least mentioning this where they should actually be screaming it from the top of the hills if they are so honest as you would like to claim? I can't find it on any of them and instead I see a lot of them still claiming 98%, 99% or EVEN 99.9%.

 

[CoolBug]

We are 50% similar to a fruit fly too, btw. How does that make you feel?

roflgasms!

I'd love to know how this would make him feel

But yea, any organism, we share ancestry with and are somehow related, obviously.

Be it bananas, chickens, or even the french people.

 

[Swa]

roflgasms!

I'd love to know how this would make him feel

But yea, any organism, we share ancestry with and are somehow related, obviously.

Be it bananas, chickens, or even the french people.

Do you disagree that DNA defines function?

 

[CoolBug]

Do you disagree that DNA defines function?

DNA is the blueprints for every orgamism but it has no purpose.

It also defines every aspect of an organisms structure but there is also environmental influence here.

 

[wily me]

Ah yes take into account "all factors".

Please list your relevant degrees in this field (I'm not bothering to ask whether or not you are qualified to comment on the procedures involved in genetic comparisons because I know nobody would be stupid enough to call something 'fudging' when they don't have a TOTAL understanding of the procedures being performed).

If embarrassingly enough you don't happen to have qualifications associated with genetic analysis then I suggest you stop attempting to speak with authority with respect to a subject you are not an authority on.

Please also list yours so we can ascertain the relevance of your attitude!

 

[Swa]

DNA is the blueprints for every orgamism but it has no purpose.

It also defines every aspect of an organisms structure but there is also environmental influence here.

So it's super important but has no purpose? That sums it up right I guess. It has no purpose because CoolBug said it has none.

You answered the question though.