Slashdot Mirror
Bonobos Join Chimps As Closest Human Relatives
sciencehabit writes "Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA."
What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
Is it just a matter of behavior? If so, has it been proven that the behavioral differences aren't cultural?
Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
I always figured that conservatives evolved from the innocent-seeming but violent, territorial, face-eating chimpanzees, and liberals evolved from those oversexed, touchy-feely bonobos. Now we know the truth!
Three billion DNA pairs in human dna. 1% is 30 million. So we differ by 30 million dna pairs. To the layperson, saying we have 30 million differences explains the differences quite well versus 99% in common.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Erm, Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are "chimps": they share the genus "Pan" (=chimpanzee") with the "common chimpanzee" (Pan troglodytes).
So what if they share 99% of our DNA? We perhaps share 50% with a banana. And we all share 100% of a few dozen chemical elements.
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Are they single?
That's OK you are still an ass :)
I jest, I jest.
Since bonobos are the same genus, I'm not really surprised that they would be as close to us, genetically, as the other members of that genus (there are only two species in the genus Pan). But maybe there's just something I'm missing about how biology works (which wouldn't be surprising either since I'm not a biologist).
What next? Donald Trump?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is she a bonobo or a chimpanzee?
Young Earth Creationists scoff at any science related to genetics, no matter how it's presented.
OECs, less so, but Creationism as an "ism" that takes Biblical allegory and perverts it into something else.
--
BMO
On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Please clarify.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Since you posted as AC, I guess that this makes sense.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
What is wrong with this? Logically, if one species splits in two, and one of the resulting species splits again, you're going to have both of those secondary split species related to the other with fairly close similarity. Did you know that I'm equally closely related to all of my first cousins (to within a small margin of error)? That's not all that surprising is it?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Look at the three branches of a Y. The ends can all be equally close, yet different.
It ain't that hard.
Perhaps it can easily be explained to those Creationists;
Some moment in time, they genetically seperated from us, some time later they genetically seperated from each other.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Do creationists really have a problem understanding that multiple objects could be equidistant? Hell, do they have a problem with multiple siblings all being equally closely related?
If any of these concepts pose the slightest difficulty for you, please refrain from forming any opinions on anything scientific or technical. Your brain just isn't up to the job.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And what exactly is improbable with having two different species that are genetically equally similar to Homo sapiens sapiens? How in the world would that cause anyone to "scoff at science"?
Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
...but that's a conversation for another day.
Though commonly-used this way (particularly by atheists), to attempt to sneak a False Dichotomy Fallacy into the discussion by offering only one word implying both, and thus demanding the listener either accept or reject both premises together, this is invalid usage of any word, going all the way back to Aristotle...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Two. Different. Species. Equally. Close.
No surprises here as distance is symmetric.
Sorry.
No brain, no pain.
Creationists beg to scoff at science every chance they get.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
"Fairly close" I'd have no problem with. "Equally close", in the context of genetics, doesn't make much literal sense. Also, we are -descendants- in the OP's case, not predecessors. There's a reproductive causality problem the other way around, I think.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
But not to someone whose face was torn off by a chimpanzee, right?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
So the GP is right, and you are creating a complete straw man. Wolf, dog and dingo are all part of the same genus but for historic reasons dogs and dingos are only formally called wolves, not in colloquial speech. Foxes and coyotes are from different genera and are not dogs. "Jackal" is a colloquialism. Because pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are in the genus pan, they can both quite properly be called chimpanzees, just as we refer to members of the genus homo as "men", though we are no more like h. afarensis than bonobos are like p. troglodytes. When I tell my dog not to behave like a little wolf, he can reasonably argue that he is one, just one adapted for a specific ecological niche.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
so both of these concepts are equally close , and share 99% of their content with each other?
Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
No. Creationism is the conflating of the Creation Stories (two of them) as science, or trying to use them as a basis of a weird frankenstein-monster of bad logic posing as science. like Intelligent Design trotted out by the Discovery Institute.
arguing semantics instead of the facts on the ground
Aristotle
See, the problem with Aristotle is that a bunch of his stuff was simply gedankenexperiments to explain the world. Many of them wildly false.
I will not even address the semantics BS.
>your username - empiric, as in empirical, as in science and testable hypotheses.
I find that most ironic. Do you wear that appellation as a joke?
Or do you wear it in the second sense of the word, a charlatan or quack?
--
BMO
We'll use High School geometry to answer all questions in any epistemological domain! Brilliant! ;)
A Ferrari is 99% close to a Ford Escort, then. Trade ya.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Or eaten off by another human. ...Oh, what? Too soon?
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
I didn't come from no monkey's butthole
It's an honest mistake. Most people just assume there's a family resemblance.
Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that, as they're never mutually dependent.
The rest is the standard boilerplate Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy, so I'll be skipping that. Code to do.
And yes, I did test it. The test confirmed.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Doesn't the evidence show that bonobos and chimps split from their common ancestor long after protohumans split from the common ancestor of all three? In which case, isn't this more-or-less exactly what you'd expect?
I tend to be a bit confused by the old-earth creationists, though. In the particular flavor I tend to encounter them - i.e. Catholics - they will basically accept scientific facts. But, if you do that, how do you end up with anything else than either a "god of the gaps"-model or a completely deistic approach. Since most well-educated Catholics I talked to do not tend towards the god of the gaps, I have to wonder how you can arrange the image of a personal god with a basically deistic creation account within your mind.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Since there is (obviously) variation within a single species' genome, "equally close" can only refer to a statistical model in any case. And I'm not sure what your comment about "descendents" has to do with anything. Chimps and bobobos both come from a common ancestor that had already split from the human branch, so it's seems fairly obvious that they would be equally close within any reasonable approximation of closeness.
Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that
I have a few words for that: "day-age creationism", and "sensible".
But Creationism is not science. It's not testable. It doesn't even come close to the testability of abiogenesis hypotheses. It is based on a Biblical interpretation. It is NOT SCIENCE.
With regards to your last sentence:
That is the same "la la la" fingers-in-ears that I get from Bible literalists.
And btw, I'm not the one who picked your name. You did.
--
BMO
No, not at all. It is not testable -per your preferred methodology-.
Your preferred methodology is not the only one there is, because you say so by fiat.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So then, how is the OP informative? By that standard, the number "equally close" would be arbitrary. For some reason, these particular two are noted. Why?
The situation most resembling "optimally close" would be a chimpanzee and bonobo mating, which would obviously be... causally problematic.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Mainly because "god of the gaps" is a notion made up by atheists to reference something nobody means by the term "god"--a being that would be able to design particular biological entities, but unable to design evolution.
There is fallacious reasoning here, but it is introduced by the term referencing a meaningless definition, "god" as supposedly "of the gaps". The fallacious reasoning here is "owned" entirely by the person presenting the term.
My position would be that everything is designed, we simply don't have complete information as to "special case" design (creating a particular organism via a distinct act), and "process design" (creating particular organisms as a determined function of an designed process--evolution). I have no "gaps" at all, regardless of the scientific resolution of the particular method(s) used.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
No, not all! Not soon enough! Keep the gut wrenching horror alive! Actually, this is the first I heard of it.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Yes, I do understand that, but doesn't that leave you at an essentially deistic position? God as the supreme engineer who set up the universe in such a way that we in our current form were inevitable? That's what I am wondering about.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
To add a bit to this, the "god of the gaps" argument depends on the notion that once we have a most-proximate cause, preceding causes cease to be valid possibilities.
What "caused" the atomic bomb explosion in Nagasaki? A nuclear chain reaction as describable via physics, or the President of the United States, ordering that it be dropped? The answer is, naturally, both. Specifying the former cause does not supersede or invalidate the latter cause.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
We are legion.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Um, you seem to be the "OP" in this thread. Do you mean TFA or TFS? And I'm not really sure what the point of your original post is, but that may be because I don't keep careful track of the distinctions between the delusions of science deniers. But I really have no idea what point you're trying to make now. When it comes to comparing how closely related species are, bonobos and chimps should be expected to be equally close to humans. If you had any understanding of science, you wouldn't find that controversial or confusing, so apparently you don't, but since I have no idea what sort of nonsense you actually believe, it's hard for me to address your specific points of confusion and misapprehension. This unsuprising study has confirmed an expected result, which is not exactly earth-shattering news (unless you somehow believe it threatens your pseudo-scientific views), but it's nice to know.
We need to be careful not to introduce a False Dichotomy here... my stance is that God both created everything, and "intervenes" in an ongoing fashion.
To tie it back to biology, we will ultimately determine that there are, or are not, "Irreducibly Complex" structures per Behe's et al notion. If there are, it would be a case of "intervention", if not, it would be from my stance a case of initial process design, of the Big-Bang/abiogenesis/evolution. Either are compatible with the notion of a "designing god".
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If Creationism is not Religion, Capital R, where did it come from?
Do I have to cut-and-paste the Dover PA School Board case here?
--
BMO
Ok, thanks. That clarifies it. The first ones have not been found, though - if they continue not to be, you will end up with the cosmic engineer without interventions, though - just wanted to make clear if that would be a position you are compatible with.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Um, yeah, we share a common ancestor. You're equally closely related to all of your 1st cousins.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Retarded?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
You already fully demonstrated your failure to understand what a Genetic Fallacy is, so no need to cut-and-paste regarding Dover.
Other than that, I'm not sure why the topic-switch. I never contended that "Creationism" isn't "Religion", nor would that in any way be relevant to it being correct.
I contended that usage of a single concept to indicate two distinct and independent premises, is invalid formation and/or use of a concept. This remains your issue, which, again, some introductory epistemology should cure you of.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Without proven interventions of the nature of direct genetic manipulation, anyway. The issues of causality around the "selection" part of Natural Selection would be quite a broader question...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
And I don't understand how you can possibly contend something so ridiculous if you actually, as you claim, "understand a broad range of sciences just fine". Would you care to elaborate? I thought the earlier example of two cousins who are equally closely related to the poster illustrated it perfectly.
Bonobos and Chimps are equally closely related to humans because they both spring from a small branch that is all equally closely related to humans. In fact, together, they constitute all existing members of that branch. (Some might even claim that they're more-or-less the same species.)
Heh. Cute.
In my defense, though, I do see your sig's point on how you just accept one less political stance than I do. Glad your reasoning showed you why you shouldn't vote.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Right, so precisely back to my previous objection--it isn't notable that there are now "two" (rather than the previous "one", presumably), if by definition according to the model "all" descendants of that branch are "equally related".
How is TFA even marginally notable in that case?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As I understand it, a typical Bonobo makes the horniest human look like a monk. They fuck practically their entire waking lives. They have almost no sexual taboos -- a female won't have sex with her offspring, but that's about it. A human who wanders into their camps will be propositioned immediately and often..
I often wonder if the lack of knowledge about them (it's not so long since researchers stopped calling them "pygmy chimps" and started regarding them as a separate species) comes from sheer embarassment.
Are you a bonobo or a chimpanzee?
I thought this was known.
I also thought that the consensus was that bonobos were at least as closely related to humans as chimps are. Further, I had heard bonobos were thought to be substantially closer to humanity than chimps are. This news would be that gene sequencing shows bonobos are AS DISTANT from humans as chimps, not that they're AS CLOSE.
My copy of The Ancestors Tale is several years old, and it says chimps and bonobs are closer cousins to each other than either is to humans, which means they are equally distantly related to humans, genetically speaking.
Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You should hose them down to make sure.
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
I'm not sure if we really know this for sure. I could image if the early earth had good conditions for making primordial soup worldwide that the first self-organizing "organisms" could arise independently in different puddles. They might conserve some similarities simply because the conditions were correct worldwide for some kind of self-organization through organic chemistry, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything has a common ancestor (i.e., the same great-great....great-great grandfather). One puddle may have ultimately resulted in humans while another one could have conserved some sub-category of bacteria that happens to have similar biology. This type of thing has happened many times since then (see Dawkins, etc.)
In fact, your suggestion seems to imply that the possibility of life arising under suitable conditions (i.e., other worlds) is even more highly improbable than I hope/think. Kind of scary actually...
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
I am deliberately ignoring your "Genetic Fallacy" argument because you keep glossing over the fact that OEC and YEC come from the exact same place, just that one group disagrees over the time span.
They are grouped together because when you get down to it, they are the same thing - an interpretation of a few lines of the Bible.
Now put up or shut up. Show me where OEC comes from if not the Bible.
--
BMO
I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth and all that is in it. This is supported by literature and historical records that I have researched. The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory has been espoused upon by some of the finest, most educated, most credentialed minds in academia. I do not worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor do I even revere him. I do not know anyone who does. I have never seen a structure erected for his worship, nor tax-deductible tithes paid to advance his kingdom. While I've observed some pray to their god(s) before a bowl of Spaghetti, I've never known anyone to pray to Spaghetti. Ergo, Creationism Religion.
OK. I'm full of crap. Creationism is Religion.
Given that we haven't yet found any evidence of God's hand that would stand up to skeptical scrutiny, I posit that God does not want us to find scientific proof of His creation or intervention. There's even a clear and simple reason: presence of scientific proof would remove the requirement to first have faith before knowledge can be obtained. If God has a reason not to provide us with proof, we won't find proof. If God does not have such a reason, I think we'd have found something by now. Also, for theological reasons I believe that faith as a pre-requisite for knowledge is an essential, fundamental part of God's plan. Therefore, I expect that no compelling examples of irreducible complexity will be discovered.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's not by definition--one species could have experienced an unexpected level of genetic drift. It is, however, the expected result, barring something weird going on. As for why TFA is notable, I have no idea. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Still, it's nice to have experiment confirm theory.
What's to "gloss over"? They come from "the exact same place"... well, so what? So does everything, in some sense, regardless of topic. Is that supposed to speak to what's true in some way?
"Put up or shut up"? Nice bluster, but maybe you should manage to come up with the merest beginning of a rational argument, first.
OEC "comes from" God. One particular effect of the existence of that God is the bible, which may also be referenced. Aquinas, among many others, has a laundry list of other sources of inferential support, and there are a number of approaches to seeking direct experience of God. Is the fact you personally haven't considered them or experienced them supposed to be in some way other than your personal subjective experience, and a remarkably narrow one?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
>OEC "comes from" God.
No, no it doesn't. It comes from Man.
Logic, you fail it. I'm done here.
--
BMO
Seriously? Google for Bath Salt attacks, pretty crazy stuff.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
Yeah, it kinda does, unless they've been around long enough to have developed different rates of genetic drift, which would be extremely unlikely in species that have diverged so recently. I'm not sure what you mean by a "genetic distance map", but a standard clade map, as shown here should make it clear why bonobos and chimps are equadistant from humans (and why humans/bonobos/chimps are almost certainly equadistant from gorillas).
You misunderstand, as do almost all non-creationists today.
Creationism, true, is not science. But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
Science is not just one single pile of experiments and results that all agree with each other. science represents many things.
So you can divide science into many different areas, and many of those areas wouldn't agree with each other. Science moves forwards through new discoveries invalidating old theories, and new theories being formed.
Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including:
* the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed.
* the present can be used to understand the past.
Creation science is just an alternative worldview, with different assumptions. It doesn't seek the same goal, but that doesn't mean it cannot be science. Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us. Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
The two fields are not really competing, because they don't have the same goal, and they don't always operate in the same fields.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Just to clarify the creationist stance.
Creationists do not (and should not) scoff at all science.
They may however scoff at the assumptions made by science. To be fair, they should not scoff at all, but just recognise that there are two alternative worldviews (probably more) with different assumptions.
One assumes that the present gives us everything we need to know to explain the past, ie. that the present conditions have always existed. The other assumes that The Biblical record is accurate, along with all the assumptions that arise out of that (creation, flood etc).
The first uses evidence of a few hundred (or is that thousand?) years of scientific records, to back up the assumption that the present conditions have existed forever, and the rest is a model to show that it COULD work, without full evidence to show that it does. Any evidence shown is interpreted using the aforementioned assumption.
The biblical worldview uses fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and textual consistency as evidence for its other claims. ie. if A is true, and A says that B is true, then we assume B is true because we can verify that A is true. From there, creation scientists observe our current world(s) to look for direct evidence of B.
Another often overlooked point is that evidence is agnostic. All evidence requires interpretation, and all interpretation has to fit into some worldview, and interpretations are often based on other interpretations, and other assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the interpretation is bogus.
At the same time, a single piece of evidence could be interpreted to support either worldview, depending on which assumptions are made.
All I'm saying is that science has gone off on its own tangent, and really we should just accept that we could all be wrong and mind our own business.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Well, I'm sitting here, watching my kid. And it looks like a toss-up.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're just asking to have them fling their mod points at you.
Have gnu, will travel.
What number you get depends on the method of comparison. I've read every number between 94% and 99% for the fraction of DNA that humans share with chimpanzees. Since the bonobo is almost but not exactly a chimp, there's no surprise in this article. It's confirmation of what we thought we knew based on morphology. Yep! Bonobos are ALSO closely related to humans and chimps. Here's a site that states different numbers and discusses a number of other species: http://genetics.thetech.org/online-exhibits/genes-common And different numbers here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm To look at relatedness, there are more subtle measures. We have genetic tests now that can be used to establish probable paternity and measure genetic relatedness of individuals within the same species. These tests focus on differences in detail rather tnan overall similarity. Another thing to look at is chromosomes. People normally have 46 chromosomes. Chimps and bonobos normally have 48. Our chromosome 2 is divided into 2 chromosomes in chimps and I'm guessing also in bonobos.
>But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
--
BMO
But are you mud on your mother's side or your father's side?
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
There are many pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that all known life share a common descent. For example, the basic biochemistry of all known life is similar, and the proteins that support the biochemistry is similar. Furthermore, the differences in the protein structure of the same protein follow the phylogenetic tree (based on how similar the species are). The first could be the only way to do it, the second is pretty damning, the third is outrageosly implausible if not caused by common descent.
That does not mean that all terran life shares a common descent (life with a completely different biochemistry would be hard to detect, or even recognize as life), or, if that is the case today, that that have always been the case. Life might have started several times, with one of the strains eventually outcompeting all of the others. This means that common descent is not necessarily a death stroke for alien life.
Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including: * the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed.[...]
No it isn't. If it was, testing for temporal variation in the fundamental constants would not be science, which it is. The only thing that can be kind of described as a basic assumption in science is that the world makes sense, i.e. that we can find laws of nature (I guess that is close to the second assumption you mentioned), but as every scientific experimatn is a test of this, it isn't even really a assumption.
As for creationism, it's main assumption is "goddidit is a valid explanation for anything we don't currently understand or want to understand" and, perhaps "If it is written in this one book is must be correct. This only goes for this one book, and we ignore the many parts where it contraditcts itself".
Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us.
No need for the "traditional" here, science is using observation to tell us things about the world around us.
Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
Trying to make your observations fit your preconceptions is not science. It is about as far from sceince as anything comes.
I saw a documentary on that recently. Turns out that the 'Engineers' of all life on Earth, tried to wipe us out. The most likely theory for why is that they intercepted a transmission of Jersey Shore.
I always thought that female bonobos are quite chraming.
Yes, Chimpanzees are a close relation to humans, as are Elephants, Snails, Ants, Whales, Dolphins ETC, ETC, ETC. Monkeys look similar, But are far, far removed from even coming close to being related any more than an elephant. I am constantly amazed at so called scientists contemplating such connection with no concrete evidence what so ever, Crazy people! Even Crazy Charlie Darwin admitted there is no connection, and yet to many he is god. As I say, Crazy!
Can't think of anything clever or funny.
>But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
--
BMO
huh?
So the BIble contains a lot of history, most of which we can verify through archeology, and other means. That is absolutely testable.
It also contains records of events that happened. We know the date of the manuscripts, we also know the time periods that different parts were written in, since they have been independently verified against other historic records of each time period. And when things such as the destruction of Tyre were prophesied, and eventually happened, that is real evidence. Same for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
You can also test whether the Bible agrees with itself. Sure many people will claim inconsistencies, but all of these are based on a simplistic interpretation often by people who are looking for inconsistencies, and therefore not willing to put in the effort it takes to work it all out.
There are bits of information and claims made all through the Bible, a lot of which can be tested against things we know now.
So how much faith do you have in the big bang? where is the evidence-based science behind the origins of life?
The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
the 2 assumptions were one and the same thing. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
You can apply this to many areas of origins science. When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
Isn't this what you just said WASN'T science?
How many times do you read of some new finding that seems to contradict our current model, and then some scientist comes up with a plausible explanation for how it could fit into the current model, and then everyone accepts it as true and moves on.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that our measurements over the past couple of hundred years have shown very little variation? Because it is written down? But the text is in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that yesterday existed? You have memories, but they are in in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. Assuming that we can use the present to determine the past is assuming that the world makes sense, which isn't even really an assumption of science (it is tested by every experiment, and even by everybody all the time).
When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
You are conflating two quite different kinds of assumptions here: The kind you talked about in GGPP (and thus the kind I talked about in GPP) is a priori assumptions, which cannot be tested in the framework. It simply doesn't make any sense to test them, as the framework is based upon them. Creationism has them, science doesn't really. The kind you mention in PP is closer to the assumptions made in proof by contradiction, i.e., let's see what would happen if X was true. They are needed for any prediction, so science is full of them.
Making assumptions you never test (a priori assumptions) is not science, making predictions (the second kind of assumptions) is.
I think you misinterpreted what I said, but who cares?
Using writings from the past is a great example, because this is exactly what creationists use - but I don't think that was what you wanted to demonstrate.
However, I still think that "writings from the past", provided they can be age-verified, are still "the past" and not what I was referring to when I said "the present".
I'm talking about measurements from nature. We can measure things over time, and we only really have limited results, so any conclusions we make from the data we have now, might be included in what I term "assumptions".
But regarding assumptions, maybe we're just using different definitions....for example:
How do we know that radioactive decay has always been constant?
So you could claim that your "let's see what would happen if X was true" covers this one. So that if the decay rates weren't constant, then many areas of science would disagree, and since there are so many things that fit together nicely given constant decay rates, then it is likely that they were constant. This seems to be how it all works now. So long as the hypothesis seems to fit all the known data, it is accepted as true. Then other theories are built on top of it, and we are now at a point where we cannot challenge any fundamental theories because the cost is too high - there is too much riding on it.
How do we know the "laws of nature" have always been there? Where did they come from? To say "they just are" sounds a bit like the "goddidit" argument...yet science must draw the line somewhere. And so we make assumptions, because not everything is testable, and not everything is falsifiable.
How can we use calculations over the past 100 years to extrapolate details from millions of years ago?
What is the point of using the assumptions of one worldview to try to disprove another? This doesn't make any sense.
What I mean by this is that current scientific theory/interpretations cannot be used to disprove creation, and vice versa. One can use pieces of evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but that doesn't make any other theory true. People should just accept that neither side will agree and just move on. We share the same data - we just interpret it differently.
I think I can guess what your answers will be, and I don't think I will find them satisfactory. I'm happy to call it a day here :-)
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.