Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Sometimes I wonder if the jokes around here are too crude and not like what Paul tells us to do. Thoughts?

[RickD]

Sometimes I wonder if the jokes around here are too crude and not like what Paul tells us to do. Thoughts?

[BigHamster]

Sometimes I wonder if the jokes around here are too crude and not like what Paul tells us to do. Thoughts?

Hamsters ! ..........

The conclusion to the article at tasc-creationscience.org which you reference contains a major misrepresentation,.

Well, the article didn't mention the possibility of recessive genes that usually lay dormant for millions of years. These can be re-activated - scientists have managed to re-express these genes and demonstrate the common traits both in hamsters and humans under laboratory conditions. For irrefutable proof........

35364553.jpg (7.76 KiB) Viewed 5733 times

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Sometimes I wonder if the jokes around here are too crude and not like what Paul tells us to do. Thoughts?

Hamsters ! ..........

The conclusion to the article at tasc-creationscience.org which you reference contains a major misrepresentation,.

Well, the article didn't mention the possibility of recessive genes that usually lay dormant for millions of years. These can be re-activated - scientists have managed to re-express these genes and demonstrate the common traits both in hamsters and humans under laboratory conditions. For irrefutable proof........

35364553.jpg

[Mallz]

Chimp blood would be as acceptable as human blood. It is not favoured owing to the greater accessibility of volunteer humans than chimps. Some of the earliest blood transfusions were carried out with lamb's blood, and pig's blood has also been considered. I wouldn't mind any of these, or most other mammals' blood being given me, as long as the same appropriate compatibility tests regarding blood-groups and antibodies were carried out as they are with other human blood. Pig heart valves are routinely used in humans, and tissue from cows' heart muscle is also used to make replacement valves.

I really hope you are joking, Hugh. If not, you are no scientist (researcher with access to journals, perhaps). Or you really need to stay out of any field of biology and genetics. So many lies in what you just wrote... are you really comparing the rejection of blood similar to that of a pig heart valve?

P.s. Please, go get a blood transfusion from lambs or pigs blood (or any animal) and come back and tell me that again.

[hughfarey]

I really hope you are joking, Hugh. If not, you are no scientist (researcher with access to journals, perhaps). Or you really need to stay out of any field of biology and genetics. So many lies in what you just wrote... are you really comparing the rejection of blood similar to that of a pig heart valve?

I'm neither joking nor lying. Please point out one of the "so many lies" and I'll be happy to justify in it full.

[cubeus19]

Well for 1 hugefairy you are basically an atheist in disguise I wouldn't be surprised if you work closely with Richard Dawkins and with atheist think tank organizations to do everything you can to bring down Christianity and sow seeds of doubt among everyone here. You do not consider evidence at all, when bippy and others lay out the case nicely for things like the Shroud, ndes, and evidence against evolution you always try to steer the conversation to something else and avoid key pieces of evidence when others like bippy bring them up. You are so entranced with physicalism and evolution which you ironically defend so passionately, it appears so clearly that you work for the atheist opposition. I'm surprised that during your 666th post you didn't pay honor to satan since you obviously want to see Christianity eradicated and wiped off the map. You are a arrogant cowardly atheist troll, and I hope you get banned soon, there is a reason why you are listed as a "anti member" anyway. So board, don't listen to hugefairy because after all he's nothing but a hugefairy anyway!

[hughfarey]

Go Cubeus! It's always good to get things off your chest. I do hope you feel better now.

[Philip]

Cubeus: Well for 1 hugefairy you are basically an atheist in disguise I wouldn't be surprised if you work closely with Richard Dawkins and with atheist think tank organizations to do everything you can to bring down Christianity and sow seeds of doubt among everyone here. You do not consider evidence at all, when bippy and others lay out the case nicely for things like the Shroud, ndes, and evidence against evolution you always try to steer the conversation to something else and avoid key pieces of evidence when others like bippy bring them up. You are so entranced with physicalism and evolution which you ironically defend so passionately, it appears so clearly that you work for the atheist opposition. I'm surprised that during your 666th post you didn't pay honor to satan since you obviously want to see Christianity eradicated and wiped off the map. You are a arrogant cowardly atheist troll, and I hope you get banned soon, there is a reason why you are listed as a "anti member" anyway. So board, don't listen to hugefairy because after all he's nothing but a hugefairy anyway!

Cubeus, I'll tell you who is risking a ban - it's YOU! You are asserting some things about Hugh that you've not substantiated, and that are in contradiction to what HE says he believes. I have to take his own words into consideration and not just jump to conclusions. How about trying to ask him questions - don't just ACCUSE! Show some grace! If Hugh had come across as you assert, blatantly trying to bring harm to Christianity, I would be one of the first to move to shut him down. I don't always agree with his reasoning, don't understand all of his motives, some of his contradictions of his stated beliefs vs. Scripture, but he does have a right to state what he believes, as long as he is courteous - and he has been. He's not violated forum protocol. He also showed a lot of restraint by not responding nastily to your frontal assault. YOUR post is anything but showing grace or being courteous. Do BETTER unless YOU want a vacation!

[Mallz]

I'm neither joking nor lying. Please point out one of the "so many lies" and I'll be happy to justify in it full.

Great, get me on the same page then and justify the underlined please that I see as you lying about (inadvertently or not). And I apologize for my tone towards you.

hughfarey wrote:
Chimp blood would be as acceptable as human blood. It is not favoured (this isn't even a thought, don't pretend it has anything to do with population accessibility) owing to the greater accessibility of volunteer humans than chimps. Some of the earliest blood transfusions were carried out with lamb's blood, and pig's blood has also been considered (All those patients died, why are you even talking about them like it was a success?). I wouldn't mind any of these, or most other mammals' blood being given me, as long as the same appropriate compatibility tests regarding blood-groups and antibodies were carried out as they are with other human blood (it's more complex than type and screening, cmon man). Pig heart valves are routinely used in humans, and tissue from cows' heart muscle is also used to make replacement valves. (Big difference in the body rejecting tissue vs. blood so don't equate them)

[hughfarey]

1) Chimp blood would be as acceptable as human blood. Successful blood transfusions depend on quite a delicate balance of factors leading to rejection. Every individual's blood is unique, but transfusions do not require that the transfused blood is identical to that of the recipient. The principal factors leading to rejection in human-to-human transplants are neatly summed up in the ABO typing description, coupled to the Rhesus factor. This appears to work just as well with chimpanzee (and other great ape) blood, and although there are various other possible factors to be taken into account, these do not seem to be different from the same factors which occasionally prevent human-to-human transfers working, even if the same blood type is used. In an interview with 'The Focus' magazine, Jane Goodall, who is surely the most celebrated student of chimpanzee behaviour, is reported to have said: "We now know that the structure of the DNA in humans and chimpanzees differs by only just over one percent. You could even have a blood transfusion from a chimp, provided you have the same blood group."

2) It is not favoured owing to the greater accessibility of volunteer humans than chimps. I'm not sure what you mean by "this isn't even a thought". It is a thought, and the Genetic Literacy Project has thought it. See: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... sions-work.

3) Some of the earliest blood transfusions were carried out with lamb's blood, and pig's blood has also been considered. [All those patients died, why are you even talking about them like it was a success?] Not so. There were all sorts of interesting transfusions and transplants in early experiments, some of which were completely successful, and some of which may have been successful but the patient died of other things. After all, they were all quite ill before the transfusions/transplants were carried out. The very first recorded attempt was completely successful. Do read J-Y Deschamps "History of Xenotransplantation" for a fascinating account.

4) I wouldn't mind any of these, or most other mammals' blood being given me, as long as the same appropriate compatibility tests regarding blood-groups and antibodies were carried out as they are with other human blood. [It's more complex than type and screening, cmon man.]Not really. If the same screening procedures were carried out on chimp blood as on human blood, I expect more chimp blood than human blood, even of the same type, would be incompatible, but some of it would pass, and I would be perfectly happy with it.

5) Pig heart valves are routinely used in humans, and tissue from cows' heart muscle is also used to make replacement valves.[Big difference in the body rejecting tissue vs. blood so don't equate them]I don't equate them, I compare them, but the difference is medical, not philosophical, which I gather is the point of this thread. This strand began with abelcainsbrother's challenge: "Have a blood transfusion with a chimp if you believe we are 99% the same as chimps", and the general tone seemed to be that animal tissue of any kind is incompatible with humans, which is, of course, not true.

[Philip]

OK, great, even IF chimp blood is so similar, that proves nothing that a common Creator/Designer must be responsible for. Same is true for physical similarities in species, DNA, etc. Really, it proves nothing at all.

[RickD]

OK, great, even IF chimp blood is so similar, that proves nothing that a common Creator/Designer must be responsible for. Same is true for physical similarities in species, DNA, etc. Really, it proves nothing at all.

Sounds like irrefutable proof of evolution to me.

[hughfarey]

OK, great, even IF chimp blood is so similar, that proves nothing that a common Creator/Designer must be responsible for. Same is true for physical similarities in species, DNA, etc. Really, it proves nothing at all.

I completely agree!

[Philip]

Let me re-phrase my statement: OK, great, even IF chimp blood is so similar, that proves nothing that a common Creator/Designer can't easily explain. Same is true for physical similarities in species, DNA, etc. Really, such similarities prove nothing at all.