Remember that 98% Chimp-Human DNA thing?

[masterofthemoon]

Turns it out its closer to 85-89 percent similarity which is more significant then you might think at first..I'll post that reference later. Meanwhile heres some interesting little factoids that worshipers of the elitist masonic doctrine of evolution may wish to peruse. One needs to question why the cases below are not trumpted from the rafters like the chimp one...




Kangaroos, Humans Not So Different When It Comes to DNA

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454192,00.html#ixzz1sNPSIV9F

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-25-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men.html

[empire]

Evolution, Darwinian Gradualism, or more specifically Phyletic Gradualism is dead in the water -- the only reason it is still being pushed is because there is currently no (atheistic) alternative with which to replace it. Some atheists with a modicum of respect for the search for the truth, rather than ideology, have at least have proposed alternatives like Punctuated Equilibrium and the Public Goods Hypothesis, but even they are inadequate to account for the level of integrated complexity that we continue to uncover. Every few months we learn of new levels of sophistication.

It is one of the greatest scientific hoaxes ever created. Plain and simple.

Junk DNA is now stone dead, yet another evolutionary assumption falsified.
Evolution has created no new protein-protein binding sites in a total of: 10¹³ E. coli, 10²⁰ HIV and 10²⁰ Malaria organisms.
Not one; and remember there have only been 10¹² primates in the line leading to modern humans in the past ten million years.

Keep in mind, there are 10,000 protein-binding sites in a single cell.

If anything epigenetics will once and for all put a stake through the heart of phyletic gradualism.

The epigenome works outside of DNA and in fact governs DNA. We are not solely a product of DNA. Your lifestyle can effect your children. Your diet can effect your children as much as their DNA inherited gene sequence, and we have only begun to delve into the workings of epigenetics, just as Crick and Watson began the DNA journey 60 odd years ago.

Here's an article from Time http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952313,00.html if you're unfamiliar with epigenetics.

Evolution is a con, a ruse and a total fraud. It has been reworked, touched up and amended so many times but the underlying mechanism of mutation / selection has never been shown to produce anything other than alterations to existing systems, or microevolution. They have simply piled more and more and more expectations and demands on a mechanism that has been proven over and over to be impotent. But it's the only game in town, so they play it. It's a crutch, a necessary comfort for those dedicated to random chance creation.

[masterofthemoon]

I'm not a creationist/I.D. advocate by any means and yet the evolutionary establishment is guilty of the same crimes it lays at the feet of the formers. If one studies the work of darwin you'll soon find that he formulated most of his conclusios prior to his expedition and research.

He was in point of fact, also a documented sociopath(delighted in shooting and torturing animals from a young age which he did not outgrow) which is another profound influence that people need to be aware of. I'd recommend for a good overview, 'The Dark Side of Charles Darwin '.

[empire]

I believe we also share about 50% similarity with banana's when it comes to DNA
No I'm not joking.

[Scootle]

It's actually even lower. The 98% figure (now ~90%) refers only to the protein coding regions. The non-coding regions - which Darwinists claim to be junk, but more and more we are realising aren't junk at all - are widely different. The true similarity may be lower than 70%.

Also, the Human Y Chromosome and the Chimp Y Chromosome are, according to world's top scientific journal, "horrendously different from each other".

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html

[Novus Ordo]

Evolution, Darwinian Gradualism, or more specifically Phyletic Gradualism is dead in the water -- the only reason it is still being pushed is because there is currently no (atheistic) alternative with which to replace it. Some atheists with a modicum of respect for the search for the truth, rather than ideology, have at least have proposed alternatives like Punctuated Equilibrium and the Public Goods Hypothesis, but even they are inadequate to account for the level of integrated complexity that we continue to uncover. Every few months we learn of new levels of sophistication.

It is one of the greatest scientific hoaxes ever created. Plain and simple.

Junk DNA is now stone dead, yet another evolutionary assumption falsified.
Evolution has created no new protein-protein binding sites in a total of: 10¹³ E. coli, 10²⁰ HIV and 10²⁰ Malaria organisms.
Not one; and remember there have only been 10¹² primates in the line leading to modern humans in the past ten million years.

Keep in mind, there are 10,000 protein-binding sites in a single cell.

If anything epigenetics will once and for all put a stake through the heart of phyletic gradualism.

The epigenome works outside of DNA and in fact governs DNA. We are not solely a product of DNA. Your lifestyle can effect your children. Your diet can effect your children as much as their DNA inherited gene sequence, and we have only begun to delve into the workings of epigenetics, just as Crick and Watson began the DNA journey 60 odd years ago.

Here's an article from Time http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952313,00.html if you're unfamiliar with epigenetics.

Evolution is a con, a ruse and a total fraud. It has been reworked, touched up and amended so many times but the underlying mechanism of mutation / selection has never been shown to produce anything other than alterations to existing systems, or microevolution. They have simply piled more and more and more expectations and demands on a mechanism that has been proven over and over to be impotent. But it's the only game in town, so they play it. It's a crutch, a necessary comfort for those dedicated to random chance creation.

The most salient of tricks is this: take a debate within evolutionary science (between proponents of punctuated equilibrium and the more traditional “gradualists”) and present it as if it was a debate between evolution and some other alternatives. “supporters of evolution have had to back down from the claims of Darwin and others” about speciation. Oh no! The scientific theory — IT’S MUTATING! It’s undergoing change based on new evidence and insights!
To see this as a bad thing shows tremendous intellectual poverty.

[empire]

It's actually even lower. The 98% figure (now ~90%) refers only to the protein coding regions. The non-coding regions - which Darwinists claim to be junk, but more and more we are realising aren't junk at all - are widely different. The true similarity may be lower than 70%.

Also, the Human Y Chromosome and the Chimp Y Chromosome are, according to world's top scientific journal, "horrendously different from each other".

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html

And in fact the non-coding regions might very well play a much larger role (alternate splicing) in explaining our differences.
So as you say, if one factors in the now functional "junk-DNA" such as introns, pseudogenes and repetitive DNA it could well be in the 70% range.

[empire]

The most salient of tricks is this: take a debate within evolutionary science (between proponents of punctuated equilibrium and the more traditional “gradualists”) and present it as if it was a debate between evolution and some other alternatives. “supporters of evolution have had to back down from the claims of Darwin and others” about speciation. Oh no! The scientific theory — IT’S MUTATING! It’s undergoing change based on new evidence and insights!
To see this as a bad thing shows tremendous intellectual poverty.

I agree. Fortunately that's not what I'm saying

In case you missed it, my wider point is that neo-Darwinism / gradualism, or whatever you want to call it, is a bust.
However so much has been invested in the idea that pulling out would be disastrous to many careers and egos. You cannot "fix" neo-Darwinism. It is the only theory in history that has survived through pure pressure, continually false predictions, incorrect assumptions all thanks to "band-aid corrections".

Presupposition in the search for scientific truth is never a good thing.