I like Dilbert and read it every day, but wow, that was awful! I refuse to believe the same guy who writes the daily strip had anything to do with that.
Does this mean that Scott Adams is a creationist? Because, as satire of creationism, this is seriously weak-a## crap. This is as weak as holding Jack Chick up as a proponent of christianity. Creationists are either anti-science or ignorant of science.
What is this in? I bought the complete Dilbert series, and I watched them all, and didn't see Bob the Dinosaur in any. I think I may have accidently skipped over one.
If evolution THEORY says humans evolved from chimps,then why aren't the chimps that are around today still evolving into humans as evolution theory would imply? Evolution theory,DEBUNKED!!! wow,that was easy lol!
@miyamotofan Actually,they could always grunt and they didn't learn sign language on their own they were taught it. If a kid in school learns how to spell is that called "evolution"? I think not.
@miyamotofan Well I know they made some sort of noise. Mostly the reason I said "grunt" is because I didn't know what else to call it. Besides,how do you know when they started grunting?
@johncisney15 I'm an Anthropologist, I have a master's degree and I can tell you that before 1900, no member of the primate family made any significant noise. They were as silent as rabbits. Now over the past century we have observed them grunting in meaningful ways and communicating ideas to each other. They are becoming men.
@miyamotofan Ah, you anthropologists never change, have you never realised why anthropology degrees are art degrees instead of science degrees? Of course primates have always had the ability to communicate, from where else did the concept of language develop? You seriously can't believe that homo sapiens were the first primates to be able to communicate with one another.
Don't even get me started on your claims that primates are currently "evolving" into humans. Evolution does not work that way
@UncleCthulhu I just want to point out something: "have you never realised why anthropology degrees are art degrees..." - Wrong... 50% of the time :P It's possible to have a bachelor of science (or art) with major in Anthropology - depend what subfield you want to work in. Anthropology is studying humanity&everything surrounding them, could it be more vague? No, so... If it's cultural resource management-art. If it's medical anthropology- science or art. If it's human variation-science ;) ...
@GetBackCrackerJack Now that's really rude. You should learn some basic manners and respect for other people before you go on the internet. You've probably forgot, but you're talking to real live people like yourself and they demand respect. How would you feel if I called you stupid? It'd hurt your feelings, so don't do it to me. i think there's a rule in some old book about this.
@miyamotofan ''Now over the past century we have observed them grunting in meaningful ways and communicating ideas to each other.''
That would just mean that they are learning. Not that they are evolving. Evolving would mean a physical change that allowed them to communicate. For example a change to their larynx.(I'm not sure if that is the correct word. English is a second language to me, so please excuse any mistakes in language)
genetics disproves darwenist evolution theory.now somebody will react to the truth by denieng it and then insulting me according to how masonry teaches them to react.
Lol on Dogbert's theory on evolution. Also, it saddens me to note that this was the only time Bob was seen in the TV series (aside from opening credits).
"and we'll mock the people who hold opposing veiwpoints" LOL I myself beleive in evolution and I'm agnostic (new age agnostic) but I do really get tired of evolutionists who mock people with different views. gives us a bad name
because god just randomly electrocutes people's chairs in their own living rooms. And it sure does rain toads a lot. And entire skeletons of creatures we've never seen before aren't real. and Bigfoot and the Lock Ness monster are real, just hiding.
its called a therory because new evidance is alwese being found the theroy of evolution is explaning why and how it happens but it dose happen like with the h1n1 virus it evolved *mutated*
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
As a Christian I think all Creationists should go to concentration camps. You are all ignorant, and for the record God is not a personal God he don't care about none of you
Ya know its funny. You never hear any scientific knowledge being backed by a religious ideas. I mean the science stuff makes sense and then it doesn't. How do we evolve into something that still exist? How can electricity and a bunch of circuit boards create an entity that is humongous and yet does not physically exist(AKA internet). And why can't god be behind all the things science has discovered like the big bang and dark matter? Maybe I just me but nothing seems to completely click.
Electricity is energy, asking such a debilic question as how can internet exists without matter is like asking about thunder bolts creating patterns in the air. "Why can't god"? Are you thick? Why can't a giant marshmallow man? Why not the devil? What a desert myth made up by a bunch of ancient sheep shagging shepards has to do with the way universe works? Suddenly "I don't know" equals "it has to be my father figure deity from my dusty scroll of bs"?
Even if you'd hang at the idea there's some personified anthrocentric cosmic janitor, pulling all the strings 24/7, the only thing left for you to do would be to ignore him. What if he doesn't like to be worshipped? Or likes human sacrifices, you don't know. He doesn't manifest very often - like NEVER - so maybe he wants us to just live our lives.
I'd like to answer other of your misguided questions, but "How do we evolve into something that still exist?" is just pure babble.
If you are complaining that science is constantly changing, then you are seriously missing the point. The fact that science constantly changes is it's greatest strength. It is a non-dogmatic practice of acquiring understanding of this universe.
Tools that we use to gather evidence constantly improve, which means that new and better evidence will be discovered. Scientists are not afraid of changing their belief in the face of evidence, unlike religion.
This is coming from a person who would rather believe that you were specially created by a deity whose existence has never been demonstrated in contrary to the overwhelming evidence presented by the same science that brought you all the modern necessity for your very own survival.
Presumptuous, self-righteous, arrogant willful ignorance of science. I suppose this describes your position fairly well. Don't you think so?
Atavisms, nested heirarchies, pseudogenes, ERVs, shared genetic codes, sequential layering of transitional fossils, ring species, homeobox genes, gene homologies, transposable elements, and superdominance. I could go on and on, but what's the point? You haven't even bothered to study the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
The same principles used for paternity testing is used to determine evolutionary relationship. (cont)
(cont) Phylogenetic analysis of homologous genes allows researchers to determine gene function thereby allowing scientists and doctors to determine functions and causal genes in many genetic disorders. Evolutionary theory is employed to predict the most prevalent strains of virus every year to develop the most effective vaccination. It is also used to predict the development of drug-resistance in pathogenic bacteria strains. The list goes on.
Drug resistance isn't evolution.... GASP! THE BACTERIA REMAINS BACTERIA, the virus remains a virus! They say HIV is continuously evolving, yet it's still HIV. Atavism? HAHA, OK I'll play. how is an animal losing functions evolving? Doesn't new information need to be added in order for true evolution to happen? Please don't tell me that whales have hind remnants of legs, those are anchor points for reproductive organs, something I hope you never use.
I can keep going down your whole list but I don't really think you came up with it. I'm pretty sure you just Googled them in hopes it would turn me away. Instead of throwing 30 things at me Lets stick to one thing at a time. You shouldn't be afraid of the truth, I'm only talking to you in hopes that maybe one day you'll give up this faith of yours towards Evolution. You don't seem to realize you have so much faith towards Evolution it's frightening.
If you think that evolution should predict bacteria turning into completely different thing, then you are strawmaning evolution. Evolution is a populations mechanics. It simply states that allelic variation (such as drug resistance) within a population changes over time. That's all there is to evolution.
If you want to stick to one topic at a time, why don't we talk about ERV sequences? Watch this video first: watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
I really hope you can see how the Elitist evolutionist lie to you. I just saw the video.
It is well known (you can look this up on the innernet yerself!) that the chimpanzee genome is roughly 10-15% longer then the human genome (the chimpanzee DNA contains 10-15% more letters then the human DNA). So how do they get a 98% diffrence!?
scientists first isolated portions of the two DNA strands that were already similar. To get this lie to make our DNA seem similar.
You can't come up with a proper response to ERV, so you have to change the subject. Firstly, ERV is the most compelling evidence that living organisms share common ancestry. Secondly, ERV cannot be explained by ID or creationism.
Humans and chimps share 98% similarities in coding regions of DNA. >80% of genome is non-coding. It means that much of our DNA can be transposed, duplicated, deleted, etc. Only the coding sequences are under selective pressure.
some weird thing happens where a space is placed after "news" if you delete that the article should pop right up. I'm sending you the whole link on a private message.
After reading the published paper cited by the news article, I can only come to a conclusion that you understand nothing about what it was talking about. I suggest you to read the paper the news article cited because the paper discusses genetic analysis underpinning the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. For instance, the researchers found lineage specific expansion of Alu repetitive elements that marked speciation event between chimps and humans (figure 4).
"Out of the bits that line up, 1.44% of the individual base pairs were different, settling a debate based on previous, less accurate studies."
"researchers report in Nature1that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes"."
I suggested you to read the actual published paper that the news article was citing. It is listed at the very bottom of the news under reference. Read through the article.
The information you quoted do not contradict theory or evolution or support your point of view. Again, read through the actual paper to see what I'm talking about.
@JaMoond I did actually read it. The conclusion sums it up beautifully.
"This study shows a chromosome-wide comparison between human and chimpanzee based on high-quality sequences..." "The data presented here suggest that the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated. We hope that our work offers a framework for the design of future studies to examine differences between the two species." Complicated being the key word
Again, the fact that data complicates our understanding doesn't contradict our understanding of evolution. You either have developed selective reading or are incapable of understanding the data presented in the paper.
For example, genes responsible for fundamental biological processes were perfectly conserved, whereas other genes have undergone significant changes as expected from evolution. Genes such as hair keratin-associated protein have undergone positive selection (cont)
(cont) These changes were mainly due to indels and generation of alternate transcript isoforms. The authors concluded that these are "the major mechanisms generating protein diversity and shaping
higher primate species."
I find it ironic that you decided to paint yourself to a corner by bringing up a paper that supports evolution.
do you even remember why I brought this up!? it's because they lied! they said we have a 98% similarity! It's a complete lie! and I just showed you why.
Projecting your faults onto me is disingenuous. This is exactly what you said 6 days ago: "(the chimpanzee DNA contains 10-15% more letters then the human DNA). So how do they get a 98% diffrence!?"
You are the one who brought up the subject. I merely took your words for granted for the sake of the argument. Now, not only are you accusing me of the error that you have made, but you also cited paper in support of evolution to support your fallacy?
I Just went back and looked at our discussions. you had me watch a very stupid video that made a very stupid claim! it said humans and chimps have a 98% similarity! I'm sorry if I felt the need to be upset with a blatant lie
I'm not defending either. The paper you brought up doesn't disprove that humans and chimps don't share 98% similarities.
The reason why I brought up that video was not to prove that humans and chimps share similarities, but to show that ERV sequences found in humans show patterns of nested hierarchy just as evolution predicts and just as creationism/ID would contradict.
haha what are you talking about!? the whole article talks about how they still haven't even finished comparing the two! so how could anyone come up with any percentage of similarity!? That's my point! the whole idea about both DNA being compared is ludicrous! If the video started off with a blatant lie! i will not watch the rest. it starts with a lie why would anyone come to the conclusion that the rest is true!?
You cited 2004 paper. That was 6 years ago. Since then, chimpanzee genome project moved much further on. Essentially, what you are saying is that because an outdated source claimed that we hadn't finished the genome sequencing in 2004, therefore we can't compare their genomes. I'm sending you the link to Chimp Genome Project.
To be frank, I'm starting to question your level of intelligence. Are you deficient in anyway (no offense)?
that link you sent me does not show any human comparisons of the DNA like the Nature journal I provided.
"published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes."
"Cite, exactly where in the paper states that humans and chimps don't share roughly 98% similarities."
You dare insult my intelligence after you made the comment above!? HAHAHA :)
You know the Journal also does not say that sticking your hand in a blender while on is fun! so by your logic sticking your hand in a blender must be fun!!!!
I asked because you claimed that the paper somehow disproved the notion of 98% similarity. I rightfully insulted your intelligence because you haven't got enough intelligence to cite a relevant source instead of pointlessly wasting my time.
If you are too dumb to read the citation instead of copying and pasting off of Wiki, you better realize that not everything in Wiki is reliable. I checked the cited article myself. There was no mention of 30% total differences. (cont)
(cont). In fact, there was no mention of alignment gaps, copy number variation, etc. The 30% figure is made up by whoever wrote the Wiki article.
The accompanying news articles from the National Human Genome Research Institute, which played part in the project, stated that the two genomes are "almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence."
Next time, don't waste my time and do the research.
hmm I wouldn't be quick to insult intelligence. I wasn't tricking you or being deceitful. If I were I wouldn't have put the quotes! also look at the dates of the articles. The one we were talking about was from 2004, this one in question is from 2005. SO! I honestly tried getting the damn article but can't seem to find it. They charge to look at some you know. I seriously doubt the guys that edited Wikipedia made shit up. all I find are articles that talk about how different the DNA is
"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago."
hahaha, I laugh at everything it's like, ohh, evolutionist pick and choose what to compare? why can't they compare it all!? 96 percent of the sequence, really? just the "sequence"ugh, you guys drive me insane! you guys don't realize they pick what to compare.
Once again, you are an idiot. So far, we've been able to sequence virtually all euchromatic genome. They didn't pick and choose what to compare. All they are saying is that they were able to compare euchromatic genome and found them to be 96% similar.
no my friend you fail to understand that for anyone to claim a percentage of similarity in the DNA is just straight out STUPID and DECEITFUL. I'm sorry but your brainwashing propaganda doesn't work on me. Google "chimpanzee y chromosome" come on pal it's stupid to claim 98% similarity. that video link you gave me lied the first minute it started! i will not acknowledge Frankenstein science, I'm sorry. When people make any claim of any similarity we must ask what are you comparing!?
The video didn't lie. I showed you that it is still 96% similarity after counting indels between two genomes.
I Googled it, and I'm sure you are referring to the 2010 Nature paper. The paper claimed that male-specific region of the Y (MSY) vastly differs b/w the two species. The portion of MSY they compared comprised of less than 0.8% of the entire genome. This means that even if the entire MSY differs, that only counts to 0.8% differences. That's just in male genome, and(cont)
(cont) MSY contains very little genes to begin with. It's also not surprising considering sperms are highly susceptible to mutation, and male specific genes tend to evolve faster. However, it has very little bearing on the similarity of the entire genome as the dynamics of genomic evolution as whole differs from that of MSY.
Denial, denial, and more denial. That's what you've been doing all along. Do the proper research instead of throwing things that you have very little understanding of.
the video you told me to watch said this "98.5% of our DNA is IDENTICAL to that of a chimp's" you say this "I showed you that it is still 96% similarity after counting indels between two genomes."
I don't know what the hell you're talking about but i'm not denying anything other than the fact that people could actually claim to have compared the entire DNA of a chimp and come up with any real %. You guys just lie through your teeth to get poor suckers to fall for this garbage.
Yeah, 2.5% difference in figures deals such a huge blow to the evolution of chimps and humans that we must start believing that a magic man from sky magically created everything out of nothing.
Once again, I get to call you an idiot. In science, we have something called margin of error. Because whole genome sequencing is relatively new area, there is bound to be errors associated with every figure. New techniques arises, and depending on methods you use, you are going to (cont)
(cont) get different values. However, they should all fall into roughly the same neighborhood. 98.5% and 96% figures are highly consistent with each other, and unless that value drastically changes, the only conclusion that we can draw from 96% or 98.5% similarities is that HUMANS AND CHIMPS ARE VERY SIMILAR!
What you are doing is kicking and screaming over small differences in percent similarities to use that as an excuse to reject any evidence of evolution at hand without any consideration.
"If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!"
so your talking about a 2.5% difference! so make that a 75,000,000 of course that's a minuscule amount to you, but not to me! yes we're so similar to chimps, so similar we need to pick and choose what we compare :)
4% difference resulted from changes in two separate evolutionary lineages for 6 million years. Yeah, that's how much we are close to chimpanzees. In addition, regulatory and coding sequences are what actually matters. We are virtually identical in those key sequences save for few regions that differentiates us from chimps such as genes coordinating/coding for hair, brain development, musculoskeletal system, etc.
Keep on scream and kicking. The weight of evidence is against you.
yes, I'm kicking and screaming... oh boy, someone get this kid a bottle.
we're 50% genetically related to a banana therefor we're 50% banana! your logic is so skewed that you think, 150,000,000 DNA base pairs differences between a human and chimp are minuscule! You also assume these amount of changed happened in a few million years!? You do know that mutations are more harmful than good, right?! you're assuming changes in the DNA happened too fast, even though there's no proof of this
Typical banana genome size is 600-800 million bps, which is ~1/4 of human genome. It can't possibly have 50% total genomic similarity.
150 million bps difference as a result of 6 million years of evolution in two separate lineages isn't anything staggering. Vast majority of mutations are neutral because vast majority of genome is none functional.
I've wasted too much time correcting your baseless assertions. You are simply doing this ad infinitum just to make me give up.
3.2 billion figure is highly rounded off. There is 100 million base pair differences between males and females due to the fact that Y chromosome is much smaller, and rounding off a figure to 100 millionth digit gives you an error rate of ~3%.
If you are going for whatever the differences in rounded figures as a basis that humans and chimps are more different, then you are going into wrong direction. What's more important is sequence comparison of euchromatic sequence assembly.
Correction: that's 8th digit, not 100 millionth digit. I obviously meant that difference in 100 million bps will result in enormous percent differences.
Comparing euchromatic sequence gives you direct side by side comparison of the actual sequence data.
"I've wasted too much time correcting your baseless assertions. You are simply doing this ad infinitum just to make me give up." it's funny because i wanted to say this to you from the beginning. Also i could have sworn in the beginning of this discussion you said we have 98% similarities with chimp and you personally dropped it down to 96%. I personally think you're wasting everyone's time.
Steve Jones was referring to coding sequences, not the whole genome. It isn't surprising that we share 50% coding sequence similarities considering much of the fundamental genes were evolved before eukaryotic cells emerged.
I haven't made any significant errors throughout the discussion. All you've been doing was to complain over 2% change in order to use it as a lame excuse to reject any evidence at hand.
It shows that DNA is very complicated. the fact that people come up with stupid statistics shows that the evidence could sway either way. I would use the similarity of DNA as a common Creator and not a Common ancestor. The evidence we have today shows that DNA has never added new information to the genome, Why would anyone assume things happened in the past when it never even happens today!
DNA is very complicated indeed, but how does this help your point?
The point about ERV has nothing to do with similarity or common creator. The fact that many remnants of previous ERV infection in human genome are shared by chimpanzees leave infinitesimally small probability that humans and chimpanzees were individually created. Even if the ERV insertions were non-random, the only explanation for so many shared ERV sites is that they were passed down from common ancestor. (cont
You brought up a number of papers that directly and unequivocally show new information added to human and chimp genomes. Yet, you claim that evidence shows otherwise. The very first paper you cited listed number of instances where new information was added such as gene duplication and diversification events during human-chimp evolution. What makes you think that you have any capability or authority to interpret evidence when you can't even understand papers you cite?
@JaMoond Shut up. Noone cares. Your intelligence and opinions will go unacknowledged and will fall into the amorphous and eternal ash when you die. Just shut the fuck up. Vote apathy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
we didn't come from apes..we ARE A TYPE of ape..we didn't EVEOLVE from a monkey....we're just a type of monkey..and yes i belive god made us smarter than the reast of the snimals for a reason
Actually, its not a 2000 year old book. The New Testament is about 2000 years old but the Old Testament was completed around 400 years before Jesus was born. And no, I would not die if I saw the originals. I have never heard that. And simply put, God is our creator and can rightly expect us to worship Him the way He desires to be worshipped. Actually, the only thing that sends a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate who aid for our sins on Calvary's cross.
everything came into existence b/c some random bits of matter decided to magically spawn, squish down to almost nothing for no reason (since nothing was there to make nothing squish), and spin a lot until the stuff blew up and made everything (which violates the first LAW of thermodynamics; law = FACT) and then a while after the fairy dust clears, a blob of goop came out of the ocean and spawned everything. THAT'S SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@c4bb4g3 What you're doing here is making a rather curious comparison. On the one hand you have origin theories using known naturalistic phenomena which you derisively refer to as "magic" and on the other you have creationism (which I assume from the tone of your comment you subscribe to) in which an actual magic deity uses actual magic to create everything.
The fact that you decided that scientific law = fact suggests that you are disdainful of things that you don't understand.
@squealpiggy You can either believe a magic deity everything or you can believe matter decided to make itself from absolutely nothing at all with no physics or physical realm involved. Take your pick. Neither makes sense, so my suggestion is to go with the one that doesn't fail within its own realm of logic.
Here's a question, has evolution effectivly stopped for humanit as we have already attained sentience? Basically, I asking whether people think there is an upper limit to evolution or that it simply continues until we're all effectivly brains in jars.
Its a common misconception that evolution always higher intelligence. Its entirely possible that humans will evolve into some less intelligent animal. Evolution is adaptation to the environment, if food is scarce our brains could get smaller, so that we would need less energy. So no, there are no limits to evolution. And we have not stopped evolving, we are getting taller for example. There is btw no evidence to support humans being the only sentient species, only speculation
Surely however, micro evolution in the manner you describe, will take effect only if the speices in question continues to live in that enviroment. Humans however are far more likely to try and control or adapt their enviroment to suit their own needs, usually through technology. After all, necessity is the mother of invention. Therefore, arguably, there's no real time for an evolutionary change to take hold as we'll either attempt to change the enviroment once more or we'll leave the area totaly
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yeah, only problem is, nothing is that old. Carbon dating? It's been proven to be inaccurate after 4000 years, so idk where 'scientists' come up with "billions of years"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what I'VE never gotten is...if evolution is true...then wouldnt we be seening apes turn into pwople every day? and if nothing can live over about 120 ys. old, then how the heck could the apes of evolved?
@jesuschristrox000 No, because we didn't evolve from modern apes, we share a common ancestor that is now extinct. There are many things that can live over 120 years and like I said, we evolved from something that hasn't existed for a million years or around that. Hope that clears up any false ideas you have about the scientifically proven theory of evolution.
@Grant691 I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.... Let each man hope and believe what he can --- Charles Darwin--- one thing i don't like about youtube, If Darwin can allow unbiased views, why can you.
@Grant691 I cannot answer how it will affect you, the point of my comment was not to point out the folly of one argument over another. but people condemn simply because it is easier than understanding. people will condemn religion, but in the last 20 years violent crime have gone up over 1,000 percent per cap, we may be advancing in technology, but we are losing what makes us human, and to simply ignore our efforts to understand right and wrong is simply a travesty so called modern civilization
@armpitpuncher I do apologize, I don't have the original source material anymore, I have moved since I have written the comment on the page here, and I downsized my library, It was a book on the study of Anthropology but I cant recall the exact title off hand. Random searches online will reveal varying numbers for different countries, Europe is the worst affected lately. If you want me to I could track down a reliable source again but it will take a while for me to do so.
@Spunter11 If you want to. But my searches online for "violent crime rates" seem to consistently indicate the exact opposite of what you say. Violent crimes peeked in the early to mid 90's, and have been in steady decline since.
Dilbert didn't actually make a very good argument for evolution. There is lots of evidence to support evolution. Naturally, we don't ACTUALLY know how the world started, we can only theorize. Although our evidence regarding evolution is inconclusive, the alternative is believing a book that was written thousands of years ago. People who lived back in the time from 1 AD to around 32 AD (the time at which Christ was crucified)weren't exactly the most enlighted of thinkers.
ppl listen just becoz creater scott adams puts creative thinking into his work it doesnt mean he thinks or feels tat way,itz just to make his cartoon more interesting..think about it if u were a cartoonist or comic strip artist wud u think of a new n hilarious idea tat sparks comotion n attention or use an old n boring idea time n time again....bottomline wat he portrays in the cartoon may not b how he feels but a stunt 4 attention.....
exactly, the whole preface of the religion war, and god's debris (both books by scott adams)... state that he doesn't actually believe alot of what he writes. He just like to say it to make ppl think more.
Scott Adams isn't a Cretionist - he's just smart enough to doubt everything he reads. After all, if you blindly believe everything that's in a book, then you're as bad as a religous zealot reading his holy book. Think about it...
Best show ever!
CheshireShade 4 months ago
I like Dilbert and read it every day, but wow, that was awful! I refuse to believe the same guy who writes the daily strip had anything to do with that.
richardathome65 4 months ago
@richardathome65 Read the book The Dilbert Future; he mentions that, "The theory of evolution will be debunked in your lifetime."
OneWeirdDude 4 months ago
Does this mean that Scott Adams is a creationist? Because, as satire of creationism, this is seriously weak-a## crap. This is as weak as holding Jack Chick up as a proponent of christianity. Creationists are either anti-science or ignorant of science.
FinnMcRiangabra 5 months ago
@FinnMcRiangabra
No, he's an agnostic.
sega310982 2 months ago
this is a tv show?
randomcreator28 11 months ago
@randomcreator28 yes it is
jonlscott 10 months ago
@jonlscott what channel?
randomcreator28 10 months ago
Hi Bob
fr3k4z0id 1 year ago 11
Satire: the literary equivalent of trolling.
hlpbgh 1 year ago 27
@hlpbgh No. Trolling: The Internet equivalent of satire.
jpheitman 9 months ago 2
What is this in? I bought the complete Dilbert series, and I watched them all, and didn't see Bob the Dinosaur in any. I think I may have accidently skipped over one.
JeffZHigs1 1 year ago
@JeffZHigs1 The episode is called Little People. I'm pretty sure it's from Season 1.
AllenbysEyes 11 months ago
@JeffZHigs1 he's only in this one episode. excluding rex and dawn
eyeaboveall 9 months ago
Thumbs up if you read the comic before seeing the show and imagined bob's voice sounding like barney.
johncisney15 1 year ago
If evolution THEORY says humans evolved from chimps,then why aren't the chimps that are around today still evolving into humans as evolution theory would imply? Evolution theory,DEBUNKED!!! wow,that was easy lol!
johncisney15 1 year ago
@johncisney15 They are.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@miyamotofan How are they? Last time I checked,monkeys can't talk.
johncisney15 1 year ago
@johncisney15 Check again.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@miyamotofan They can grunt and a few have been trained to use sign language but that's about it.
johncisney15 1 year ago
@johncisney15 It's better than what they could do before. Evolution.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@miyamotofan Actually,they could always grunt and they didn't learn sign language on their own they were taught it. If a kid in school learns how to spell is that called "evolution"? I think not.
johncisney15 1 year ago
@johncisney15 No they couldn't. They only started grunting in the last 100 years.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@miyamotofan Well I know they made some sort of noise. Mostly the reason I said "grunt" is because I didn't know what else to call it. Besides,how do you know when they started grunting?
johncisney15 1 year ago
@johncisney15 I'm an Anthropologist, I have a master's degree and I can tell you that before 1900, no member of the primate family made any significant noise. They were as silent as rabbits. Now over the past century we have observed them grunting in meaningful ways and communicating ideas to each other. They are becoming men.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@miyamotofan Ah, you anthropologists never change, have you never realised why anthropology degrees are art degrees instead of science degrees? Of course primates have always had the ability to communicate, from where else did the concept of language develop? You seriously can't believe that homo sapiens were the first primates to be able to communicate with one another.
Don't even get me started on your claims that primates are currently "evolving" into humans. Evolution does not work that way
UncleCthulhu 1 year ago
@UncleCthulhu Yes it does. You spend eight years in a university learning about Anthropology and THEN you can tell me about it.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@UncleCthulhu I just want to point out something: "have you never realised why anthropology degrees are art degrees..." - Wrong... 50% of the time :P It's possible to have a bachelor of science (or art) with major in Anthropology - depend what subfield you want to work in. Anthropology is studying humanity&everything surrounding them, could it be more vague? No, so... If it's cultural resource management-art. If it's medical anthropology- science or art. If it's human variation-science ;) ...
therrydicule 10 months ago
@miyamotofan
you are really stupid. no one cares about how much time you spent in a university.
GetBackCrackerJack 1 year ago
@GetBackCrackerJack Now that's really rude. You should learn some basic manners and respect for other people before you go on the internet. You've probably forgot, but you're talking to real live people like yourself and they demand respect. How would you feel if I called you stupid? It'd hurt your feelings, so don't do it to me. i think there's a rule in some old book about this.
miyamotofan 1 year ago
@GetBackCrackerJack
@miyamotofan
For fuck's sake, keep it in your inbox. We want real comments, not a couple of idiots fighting about crap nobody cares about.
TakeBackTheWorld 1 year ago
@miyamotofan LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
durpadoo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miyamotofan ''Now over the past century we have observed them grunting in meaningful ways and communicating ideas to each other.''
That would just mean that they are learning. Not that they are evolving. Evolving would mean a physical change that allowed them to communicate. For example a change to their larynx.(I'm not sure if that is the correct word. English is a second language to me, so please excuse any mistakes in language)
evildeathmonkey1 10 months ago
did anyone else think the thumbnail was dogberts penis
Mewizkuit 1 year ago
looks like they're both wrong
dtadeo2006 1 year ago
LOL! I love it.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Guys please just enjoy the show and stop arguing about science and religion.
NotToooShabby 1 year ago
Hey, Bob... wait!
mikiroony 1 year ago
I hope these comments don't get extremely out of hand. Scott Adams is an agnostic and probably wouldn't want his videos to plunge into chaos.
sega31098 1 year ago
genetics disproves darwenist evolution theory.now somebody will react to the truth by denieng it and then insulting me according to how masonry teaches them to react.
thedukeofantioch 1 year ago
Lol on Dogbert's theory on evolution. Also, it saddens me to note that this was the only time Bob was seen in the TV series (aside from opening credits).
Julayla 1 year ago
Evolution is a fact, the theory is how it happens.
Wildzide00 1 year ago
"and we'll mock the people who hold opposing veiwpoints" LOL I myself beleive in evolution and I'm agnostic (new age agnostic) but I do really get tired of evolutionists who mock people with different views. gives us a bad name
MythicDude 2 years ago
If its a fact, then why is it a theory? :p
pokeyking123 2 years ago
I kinda knew that.
pokeyking123 2 years ago
Yeah, I am a full Buddhist kinda. :p
pokeyking123 2 years ago
Man, as a creationist, I actually found this hilarious! Dogbert is god. Well, actually, i'm more of a buddist..
pokeyking123 2 years ago
@pokeyking123 Throw away that old washed out creationist idea and be a Buddhist it's Better that way
t3rr411 2 years ago
you are an idiot because evolution is a freaking scientific fact.
killotorian 2 years ago
hilarious! a bit of an exaggeration, but then, so is every comedy sketch on a religion.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago 4
how ignorant can you be
princeofexcess 2 years ago
because god just randomly electrocutes people's chairs in their own living rooms. And it sure does rain toads a lot. And entire skeletons of creatures we've never seen before aren't real. and Bigfoot and the Lock Ness monster are real, just hiding.
what a biased load.
fordtruck600239 2 years ago
its called a therory because new evidance is alwese being found the theroy of evolution is explaning why and how it happens but it dose happen like with the h1n1 virus it evolved *mutated*
i like dogberts anser better tho
zorokid 2 years ago
Dogbert doesn't believe in evolution, because he was created perfect from the very beginning.
SammySteele 2 years ago 28
guys if you are too dummy to understand evolution, i suggest you to play SPORE ;P seriously
Golemoid 2 years ago
haha nice one
tomyo669 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Friendlyman00 3 years ago
...When you're retarded! *badum-dish!*
brainexploding 3 years ago 2
As a Christian I think all Creationists should go to concentration camps. You are all ignorant, and for the record God is not a personal God he don't care about none of you
mastablack47 3 years ago
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE DUMB ASSES
scribbles8675309 3 years ago 6
@scribbles8675309 haha caps are for dumb kids
luigibros1 1 year ago
Ya know its funny. You never hear any scientific knowledge being backed by a religious ideas. I mean the science stuff makes sense and then it doesn't. How do we evolve into something that still exist? How can electricity and a bunch of circuit boards create an entity that is humongous and yet does not physically exist(AKA internet). And why can't god be behind all the things science has discovered like the big bang and dark matter? Maybe I just me but nothing seems to completely click.
shadowhexogram 3 years ago
Electricity is energy, asking such a debilic question as how can internet exists without matter is like asking about thunder bolts creating patterns in the air. "Why can't god"? Are you thick? Why can't a giant marshmallow man? Why not the devil? What a desert myth made up by a bunch of ancient sheep shagging shepards has to do with the way universe works? Suddenly "I don't know" equals "it has to be my father figure deity from my dusty scroll of bs"?
brainexploding 3 years ago 2
Even if you'd hang at the idea there's some personified anthrocentric cosmic janitor, pulling all the strings 24/7, the only thing left for you to do would be to ignore him. What if he doesn't like to be worshipped? Or likes human sacrifices, you don't know. He doesn't manifest very often - like NEVER - so maybe he wants us to just live our lives.
I'd like to answer other of your misguided questions, but "How do we evolve into something that still exist?" is just pure babble.
brainexploding 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is bogus, there is actuly more edivance agaist it, creation is the only theary that dosn't have problems in it
nooo8oooo 3 years ago
Your BOGUS!
You probably worship SATIN
milkchat 3 years ago
Comment removed
Kintak 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kintak 2 years ago
If you are complaining that science is constantly changing, then you are seriously missing the point. The fact that science constantly changes is it's greatest strength. It is a non-dogmatic practice of acquiring understanding of this universe.
Tools that we use to gather evidence constantly improve, which means that new and better evidence will be discovered. Scientists are not afraid of changing their belief in the face of evidence, unlike religion.
JaMoond 3 years ago 12
@JaMoond
Therefore lies and stupidity are ok to believe in
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
This is coming from a person who would rather believe that you were specially created by a deity whose existence has never been demonstrated in contrary to the overwhelming evidence presented by the same science that brought you all the modern necessity for your very own survival.
Presumptuous, self-righteous, arrogant willful ignorance of science. I suppose this describes your position fairly well. Don't you think so?
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
Contrary to what overwhelming evidence? can you point out just one? You seem to assume there's evidence like Dilbert. What evidence do you speak of?
I'm very confused as to what evolutionary science has contributed to my own survival, haha! Medicine/Sanitation has nothing to do with evolution.
I think you did a fine job describing yourself actually. I look forward to your overwhelming evidence.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Atavisms, nested heirarchies, pseudogenes, ERVs, shared genetic codes, sequential layering of transitional fossils, ring species, homeobox genes, gene homologies, transposable elements, and superdominance. I could go on and on, but what's the point? You haven't even bothered to study the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
The same principles used for paternity testing is used to determine evolutionary relationship. (cont)
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont) Phylogenetic analysis of homologous genes allows researchers to determine gene function thereby allowing scientists and doctors to determine functions and causal genes in many genetic disorders. Evolutionary theory is employed to predict the most prevalent strains of virus every year to develop the most effective vaccination. It is also used to predict the development of drug-resistance in pathogenic bacteria strains. The list goes on.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
Drug resistance isn't evolution.... GASP! THE BACTERIA REMAINS BACTERIA, the virus remains a virus! They say HIV is continuously evolving, yet it's still HIV. Atavism? HAHA, OK I'll play. how is an animal losing functions evolving? Doesn't new information need to be added in order for true evolution to happen? Please don't tell me that whales have hind remnants of legs, those are anchor points for reproductive organs, something I hope you never use.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@JaMoond
I can keep going down your whole list but I don't really think you came up with it. I'm pretty sure you just Googled them in hopes it would turn me away. Instead of throwing 30 things at me Lets stick to one thing at a time. You shouldn't be afraid of the truth, I'm only talking to you in hopes that maybe one day you'll give up this faith of yours towards Evolution. You don't seem to realize you have so much faith towards Evolution it's frightening.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
If you think that evolution should predict bacteria turning into completely different thing, then you are strawmaning evolution. Evolution is a populations mechanics. It simply states that allelic variation (such as drug resistance) within a population changes over time. That's all there is to evolution.
If you want to stick to one topic at a time, why don't we talk about ERV sequences? Watch this video first: watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
then come back and talk.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
I really hope you can see how the Elitist evolutionist lie to you. I just saw the video.
It is well known (you can look this up on the innernet yerself!) that the chimpanzee genome is roughly 10-15% longer then the human genome (the chimpanzee DNA contains 10-15% more letters then the human DNA). So how do they get a 98% diffrence!?
scientists first isolated portions of the two DNA strands that were already similar. To get this lie to make our DNA seem similar.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
You can't come up with a proper response to ERV, so you have to change the subject. Firstly, ERV is the most compelling evidence that living organisms share common ancestry. Secondly, ERV cannot be explained by ID or creationism.
Humans and chimps share 98% similarities in coding regions of DNA. >80% of genome is non-coding. It means that much of our DNA can be transposed, duplicated, deleted, etc. Only the coding sequences are under selective pressure.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
your science is outdated.
fill in the W's and dot com! read this article by EVOLUTIONIST W's .nature Dot com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Post the title, author, year and publication instead of the web address. I can't find the article.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
some weird thing happens where a space is placed after "news" if you delete that the article should pop right up. I'm sending you the whole link on a private message.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
After reading the published paper cited by the news article, I can only come to a conclusion that you understand nothing about what it was talking about. I suggest you to read the paper the news article cited because the paper discusses genetic analysis underpinning the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. For instance, the researchers found lineage specific expansion of Alu repetitive elements that marked speciation event between chimps and humans (figure 4).
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
I'm not sure what you're reading
"Out of the bits that line up, 1.44% of the individual base pairs were different, settling a debate based on previous, less accurate studies."
"researchers report in Nature1that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes"."
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
I suggested you to read the actual published paper that the news article was citing. It is listed at the very bottom of the news under reference. Read through the article.
The information you quoted do not contradict theory or evolution or support your point of view. Again, read through the actual paper to see what I'm talking about.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond I did actually read it. The conclusion sums it up beautifully.
"This study shows a chromosome-wide comparison between human and chimpanzee based on high-quality sequences..." "The data presented here suggest that the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated. We hope that our work offers a framework for the design of future studies to examine differences between the two species." Complicated being the key word
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Again, the fact that data complicates our understanding doesn't contradict our understanding of evolution. You either have developed selective reading or are incapable of understanding the data presented in the paper.
For example, genes responsible for fundamental biological processes were perfectly conserved, whereas other genes have undergone significant changes as expected from evolution. Genes such as hair keratin-associated protein have undergone positive selection (cont)
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont) These changes were mainly due to indels and generation of alternate transcript isoforms. The authors concluded that these are "the major mechanisms generating protein diversity and shaping
higher primate species."
I find it ironic that you decided to paint yourself to a corner by bringing up a paper that supports evolution.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
do you even remember why I brought this up!? it's because they lied! they said we have a 98% similarity! It's a complete lie! and I just showed you why.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Projecting your faults onto me is disingenuous. This is exactly what you said 6 days ago: "(the chimpanzee DNA contains 10-15% more letters then the human DNA). So how do they get a 98% diffrence!?"
You are the one who brought up the subject. I merely took your words for granted for the sake of the argument. Now, not only are you accusing me of the error that you have made, but you also cited paper in support of evolution to support your fallacy?
Let's just end the debate here
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
wait I'm very confused? so you're not defending the 98% similarity!? then why are we even discussing this?
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@JaMoond
I Just went back and looked at our discussions. you had me watch a very stupid video that made a very stupid claim! it said humans and chimps have a 98% similarity! I'm sorry if I felt the need to be upset with a blatant lie
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
I'm not defending either. The paper you brought up doesn't disprove that humans and chimps don't share 98% similarities.
The reason why I brought up that video was not to prove that humans and chimps share similarities, but to show that ERV sequences found in humans show patterns of nested hierarchy just as evolution predicts and just as creationism/ID would contradict.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
haha what are you talking about!? the whole article talks about how they still haven't even finished comparing the two! so how could anyone come up with any percentage of similarity!? That's my point! the whole idea about both DNA being compared is ludicrous! If the video started off with a blatant lie! i will not watch the rest. it starts with a lie why would anyone come to the conclusion that the rest is true!?
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
You cited 2004 paper. That was 6 years ago. Since then, chimpanzee genome project moved much further on. Essentially, what you are saying is that because an outdated source claimed that we hadn't finished the genome sequencing in 2004, therefore we can't compare their genomes. I'm sending you the link to Chimp Genome Project.
To be frank, I'm starting to question your level of intelligence. Are you deficient in anyway (no offense)?
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
that link you sent me does not show any human comparisons of the DNA like the Nature journal I provided.
"published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes."
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Cite, exactly where in the paper states that humans and chimps don't share roughly 98% similarities.
JaMoond 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaMoond
"Cite, exactly where in the paper states that humans and chimps don't share roughly 98% similarities."
You dare insult my intelligence after you made the comment above!? HAHAHA :)
You know the Journal also does not say that sticking your hand in a blender while on is fun! so by your logic sticking your hand in a blender must be fun!!!!
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
I asked because you claimed that the paper somehow disproved the notion of 98% similarity. I rightfully insulted your intelligence because you haven't got enough intelligence to cite a relevant source instead of pointlessly wasting my time.
If you are too dumb to read the citation instead of copying and pasting off of Wiki, you better realize that not everything in Wiki is reliable. I checked the cited article myself. There was no mention of 30% total differences. (cont)
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont). In fact, there was no mention of alignment gaps, copy number variation, etc. The 30% figure is made up by whoever wrote the Wiki article.
The accompanying news articles from the National Human Genome Research Institute, which played part in the project, stated that the two genomes are "almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence."
Next time, don't waste my time and do the research.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
hmm I wouldn't be quick to insult intelligence. I wasn't tricking you or being deceitful. If I were I wouldn't have put the quotes! also look at the dates of the articles. The one we were talking about was from 2004, this one in question is from 2005. SO! I honestly tried getting the damn article but can't seem to find it. They charge to look at some you know. I seriously doubt the guys that edited Wikipedia made shit up. all I find are articles that talk about how different the DNA is
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@JaMoond
"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago."
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
hahaha, I laugh at everything it's like, ohh, evolutionist pick and choose what to compare? why can't they compare it all!? 96 percent of the sequence, really? just the "sequence"ugh, you guys drive me insane! you guys don't realize they pick what to compare.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Once again, you are an idiot. So far, we've been able to sequence virtually all euchromatic genome. They didn't pick and choose what to compare. All they are saying is that they were able to compare euchromatic genome and found them to be 96% similar.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
no my friend you fail to understand that for anyone to claim a percentage of similarity in the DNA is just straight out STUPID and DECEITFUL. I'm sorry but your brainwashing propaganda doesn't work on me. Google "chimpanzee y chromosome" come on pal it's stupid to claim 98% similarity. that video link you gave me lied the first minute it started! i will not acknowledge Frankenstein science, I'm sorry. When people make any claim of any similarity we must ask what are you comparing!?
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
The video didn't lie. I showed you that it is still 96% similarity after counting indels between two genomes.
I Googled it, and I'm sure you are referring to the 2010 Nature paper. The paper claimed that male-specific region of the Y (MSY) vastly differs b/w the two species. The portion of MSY they compared comprised of less than 0.8% of the entire genome. This means that even if the entire MSY differs, that only counts to 0.8% differences. That's just in male genome, and(cont)
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont) MSY contains very little genes to begin with. It's also not surprising considering sperms are highly susceptible to mutation, and male specific genes tend to evolve faster. However, it has very little bearing on the similarity of the entire genome as the dynamics of genomic evolution as whole differs from that of MSY.
Denial, denial, and more denial. That's what you've been doing all along. Do the proper research instead of throwing things that you have very little understanding of.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
the video you told me to watch said this "98.5% of our DNA is IDENTICAL to that of a chimp's" you say this "I showed you that it is still 96% similarity after counting indels between two genomes."
I don't know what the hell you're talking about but i'm not denying anything other than the fact that people could actually claim to have compared the entire DNA of a chimp and come up with any real %. You guys just lie through your teeth to get poor suckers to fall for this garbage.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Yeah, 2.5% difference in figures deals such a huge blow to the evolution of chimps and humans that we must start believing that a magic man from sky magically created everything out of nothing.
Once again, I get to call you an idiot. In science, we have something called margin of error. Because whole genome sequencing is relatively new area, there is bound to be errors associated with every figure. New techniques arises, and depending on methods you use, you are going to (cont)
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont) get different values. However, they should all fall into roughly the same neighborhood. 98.5% and 96% figures are highly consistent with each other, and unless that value drastically changes, the only conclusion that we can draw from 96% or 98.5% similarities is that HUMANS AND CHIMPS ARE VERY SIMILAR!
What you are doing is kicking and screaming over small differences in percent similarities to use that as an excuse to reject any evidence of evolution at hand without any consideration.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
"If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!"
so your talking about a 2.5% difference! so make that a 75,000,000 of course that's a minuscule amount to you, but not to me! yes we're so similar to chimps, so similar we need to pick and choose what we compare :)
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
4% difference resulted from changes in two separate evolutionary lineages for 6 million years. Yeah, that's how much we are close to chimpanzees. In addition, regulatory and coding sequences are what actually matters. We are virtually identical in those key sequences save for few regions that differentiates us from chimps such as genes coordinating/coding for hair, brain development, musculoskeletal system, etc.
Keep on scream and kicking. The weight of evidence is against you.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
yes, I'm kicking and screaming... oh boy, someone get this kid a bottle.
we're 50% genetically related to a banana therefor we're 50% banana! your logic is so skewed that you think, 150,000,000 DNA base pairs differences between a human and chimp are minuscule! You also assume these amount of changed happened in a few million years!? You do know that mutations are more harmful than good, right?! you're assuming changes in the DNA happened too fast, even though there's no proof of this
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Typical banana genome size is 600-800 million bps, which is ~1/4 of human genome. It can't possibly have 50% total genomic similarity.
150 million bps difference as a result of 6 million years of evolution in two separate lineages isn't anything staggering. Vast majority of mutations are neutral because vast majority of genome is none functional.
I've wasted too much time correcting your baseless assertions. You are simply doing this ad infinitum just to make me give up.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond quick question how many base pairs does a chimp have?
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
No one knows the precise base pair length. It is around 3 billion bps.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
I was looking for a more specific answer. kind of like 3.6 billion or 3.9 billion because humans are around 3.2 billion bps
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Cite your sources
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
3.2 billion figure is highly rounded off. There is 100 million base pair differences between males and females due to the fact that Y chromosome is much smaller, and rounding off a figure to 100 millionth digit gives you an error rate of ~3%.
If you are going for whatever the differences in rounded figures as a basis that humans and chimps are more different, then you are going into wrong direction. What's more important is sequence comparison of euchromatic sequence assembly.
JaMoond 1 year ago
Correction: that's 8th digit, not 100 millionth digit. I obviously meant that difference in 100 million bps will result in enormous percent differences.
Comparing euchromatic sequence gives you direct side by side comparison of the actual sequence data.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
"...the human genome size of 3, 253, 037, 807 bps."
just copy and paste that quote to find the first article on Google
I'm bummed out where the hell is the chimpanzee base pair length!? is some science censorship going on?
"Typical banana genome size is 600-800 million bps, which is ~1/4 of human genome. It can't possibly have 50% total genomic similarity."
well if you have a problem with the banana figure take it up to Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College London.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@JaMoond
"I've wasted too much time correcting your baseless assertions. You are simply doing this ad infinitum just to make me give up." it's funny because i wanted to say this to you from the beginning. Also i could have sworn in the beginning of this discussion you said we have 98% similarities with chimp and you personally dropped it down to 96%. I personally think you're wasting everyone's time.
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
Steve Jones was referring to coding sequences, not the whole genome. It isn't surprising that we share 50% coding sequence similarities considering much of the fundamental genes were evolved before eukaryotic cells emerged.
I haven't made any significant errors throughout the discussion. All you've been doing was to complain over 2% change in order to use it as a lame excuse to reject any evidence at hand.
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond
It shows that DNA is very complicated. the fact that people come up with stupid statistics shows that the evidence could sway either way. I would use the similarity of DNA as a common Creator and not a Common ancestor. The evidence we have today shows that DNA has never added new information to the genome, Why would anyone assume things happened in the past when it never even happens today!
Lacocacolaman 1 year ago
@Lacocacolaman
DNA is very complicated indeed, but how does this help your point?
The point about ERV has nothing to do with similarity or common creator. The fact that many remnants of previous ERV infection in human genome are shared by chimpanzees leave infinitesimally small probability that humans and chimpanzees were individually created. Even if the ERV insertions were non-random, the only explanation for so many shared ERV sites is that they were passed down from common ancestor. (cont
JaMoond 1 year ago
(cont)
You brought up a number of papers that directly and unequivocally show new information added to human and chimp genomes. Yet, you claim that evidence shows otherwise. The very first paper you cited listed number of instances where new information was added such as gene duplication and diversification events during human-chimp evolution. What makes you think that you have any capability or authority to interpret evidence when you can't even understand papers you cite?
JaMoond 1 year ago
@JaMoond Shut up. Noone cares. Your intelligence and opinions will go unacknowledged and will fall into the amorphous and eternal ash when you die. Just shut the fuck up. Vote apathy.
quantomintomentum 1 year ago
Doesn't anyone simply enjoy a video clip nowadays?
PopCulturPolitix 3 years ago
i don't think we came from apes. thats all im saying.
ElemiiFaze 3 years ago
Actually we did come from apes, just not modern apes. We're also still apes today. Nothing ever evolved into some fundamentally different thing.
Edbrad 3 years ago 3
of course not 'modern' apes, if we came from 'modern' apes, some of those apes would be thousands of years old. -.-
ElemiiFaze 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we didn't come from apes..we ARE A TYPE of ape..we didn't EVEOLVE from a monkey....we're just a type of monkey..and yes i belive god made us smarter than the reast of the snimals for a reason
hahahahhaahhahhahaha 3 years ago
Actually, its not a 2000 year old book. The New Testament is about 2000 years old but the Old Testament was completed around 400 years before Jesus was born. And no, I would not die if I saw the originals. I have never heard that. And simply put, God is our creator and can rightly expect us to worship Him the way He desires to be worshipped. Actually, the only thing that sends a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate who aid for our sins on Calvary's cross.
ProtoTekX01 3 years ago
oh and by the way, "worship me or be eternally tortured" has nothing to do with Christianity.
c4bb4g3 3 years ago
yeah, well put in a nutshell, you've got
everything came into existence b/c some random bits of matter decided to magically spawn, squish down to almost nothing for no reason (since nothing was there to make nothing squish), and spin a lot until the stuff blew up and made everything (which violates the first LAW of thermodynamics; law = FACT) and then a while after the fairy dust clears, a blob of goop came out of the ocean and spawned everything. THAT'S SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
c4bb4g3 3 years ago
@c4bb4g3 What you're doing here is making a rather curious comparison. On the one hand you have origin theories using known naturalistic phenomena which you derisively refer to as "magic" and on the other you have creationism (which I assume from the tone of your comment you subscribe to) in which an actual magic deity uses actual magic to create everything.
The fact that you decided that scientific law = fact suggests that you are disdainful of things that you don't understand.
squealpiggy 1 year ago
@squealpiggy You can either believe a magic deity everything or you can believe matter decided to make itself from absolutely nothing at all with no physics or physical realm involved. Take your pick. Neither makes sense, so my suggestion is to go with the one that doesn't fail within its own realm of logic.
c4bb4g3 1 year ago
Here's a question, has evolution effectivly stopped for humanit as we have already attained sentience? Basically, I asking whether people think there is an upper limit to evolution or that it simply continues until we're all effectivly brains in jars.
KingofKlubs 4 years ago
Its a common misconception that evolution always higher intelligence. Its entirely possible that humans will evolve into some less intelligent animal. Evolution is adaptation to the environment, if food is scarce our brains could get smaller, so that we would need less energy. So no, there are no limits to evolution. And we have not stopped evolving, we are getting taller for example. There is btw no evidence to support humans being the only sentient species, only speculation
MrKimm 4 years ago 6
Surely however, micro evolution in the manner you describe, will take effect only if the speices in question continues to live in that enviroment. Humans however are far more likely to try and control or adapt their enviroment to suit their own needs, usually through technology. After all, necessity is the mother of invention. Therefore, arguably, there's no real time for an evolutionary change to take hold as we'll either attempt to change the enviroment once more or we'll leave the area totaly
KingofKlubs 4 years ago 2
Genesis 1 (King James Version)
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Friendlyman00 4 years ago
evolution takes hundreds or thousands or years. each generation, only tiny changes are made. evolution doesnt happen in a day, or a lifetime.
12ampvacume 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah, only problem is, nothing is that old. Carbon dating? It's been proven to be inaccurate after 4000 years, so idk where 'scientists' come up with "billions of years"
c4bb4g3 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what I'VE never gotten is...if evolution is true...then wouldnt we be seening apes turn into pwople every day? and if nothing can live over about 120 ys. old, then how the heck could the apes of evolved?
jesuschristrox000 4 years ago
YES! thats exactly the argument intellignt design people need!
exxon101 4 years ago
@jesuschristrox000 No, because we didn't evolve from modern apes, we share a common ancestor that is now extinct. There are many things that can live over 120 years and like I said, we evolved from something that hasn't existed for a million years or around that. Hope that clears up any false ideas you have about the scientifically proven theory of evolution.
Grant691 1 year ago
@Grant691 I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.... Let each man hope and believe what he can --- Charles Darwin--- one thing i don't like about youtube, If Darwin can allow unbiased views, why can you.
Spunter11 1 year ago
@Spunter11 Then believe it, how is it going to effect me?
Grant691 1 year ago
@Grant691 I cannot answer how it will affect you, the point of my comment was not to point out the folly of one argument over another. but people condemn simply because it is easier than understanding. people will condemn religion, but in the last 20 years violent crime have gone up over 1,000 percent per cap, we may be advancing in technology, but we are losing what makes us human, and to simply ignore our efforts to understand right and wrong is simply a travesty so called modern civilization
Spunter11 1 year ago
@Spunter11 Agreed. We are killing our mother Earth.
Grant691 1 year ago
@Spunter11 "in the last 20 years violent crime have gone up over 1,000 percent per cap" Source?
armpitpuncher 1 year ago
@armpitpuncher I do apologize, I don't have the original source material anymore, I have moved since I have written the comment on the page here, and I downsized my library, It was a book on the study of Anthropology but I cant recall the exact title off hand. Random searches online will reveal varying numbers for different countries, Europe is the worst affected lately. If you want me to I could track down a reliable source again but it will take a while for me to do so.
Spunter11 1 year ago
@Spunter11 If you want to. But my searches online for "violent crime rates" seem to consistently indicate the exact opposite of what you say. Violent crimes peeked in the early to mid 90's, and have been in steady decline since.
armpitpuncher 1 year ago
Dilbert didn't actually make a very good argument for evolution. There is lots of evidence to support evolution. Naturally, we don't ACTUALLY know how the world started, we can only theorize. Although our evidence regarding evolution is inconclusive, the alternative is believing a book that was written thousands of years ago. People who lived back in the time from 1 AD to around 32 AD (the time at which Christ was crucified)weren't exactly the most enlighted of thinkers.
Starsword 4 years ago 3
GOD-JESUS-HOLY SPIRIT FOREVER!
exxon101 4 years ago
WOO HOO! yes, exactly
jesuschristrox000 4 years ago
hehehehehehe, all races that ever existed are currently hiding XD
Daswede92 4 years ago
Isn't it amazing that god created all of these organic compounds that came together in such way that it created organic life.
jetsam50000 4 years ago
wow it's verry good..and it explains that evolution is false verry vell
gullbalaban 4 years ago
ppl listen just becoz creater scott adams puts creative thinking into his work it doesnt mean he thinks or feels tat way,itz just to make his cartoon more interesting..think about it if u were a cartoonist or comic strip artist wud u think of a new n hilarious idea tat sparks comotion n attention or use an old n boring idea time n time again....bottomline wat he portrays in the cartoon may not b how he feels but a stunt 4 attention.....
KHENGKIAT 4 years ago
But if you read what Scott thinks be believes in Intelligent Design.
Edbrad 4 years ago
exactly, the whole preface of the religion war, and god's debris (both books by scott adams)... state that he doesn't actually believe alot of what he writes. He just like to say it to make ppl think more.
MattFenner23 4 years ago
Sigh. What a shame Dilbert writers are ignorent Creationists. Oh well. Still, at least they write other good stuff.
Edbrad 4 years ago
Scott Adams isn't a Cretionist - he's just smart enough to doubt everything he reads. After all, if you blindly believe everything that's in a book, then you're as bad as a religous zealot reading his holy book. Think about it...
SaberScorpion 4 years ago