It has been observed that chimps and tobacco have the same number of chromosomes - to which Bravus reponds.



- I have to think that a similar body plan would -- at least in some cases - also match with some similarity in DNA "instructions" for building that body.

Just a wild guess. Apparently not a safe one.

Does DNA tell us that monkeys or bananas are our cousins?

Note that bananas share about 50% of the human genome -- what should we "wildly guess" from that fact?

in Christ,

Bob

in Christ,

Bob

Setting up the title so that either alternative essentially supports your position is hardly evidence of discussing in good faith.

Nonetheless, let's take this thread to discuss what DNA might say about origins.

As the Milton article above points out (albeit with a fair bit of spin), there were indeed a large number of surprises when looking at the DNA. The tree of life prior to that had largely been organised using the outward and inward anatomy of the creatures. It turned out that this is not an infallible guide, since many things that look quite different were shown by the DNA to be closely related. These flying lemurs, for example, are now known to be the closest relatives to the primate family that includes monkeys, apes and humans.

1. You yourself argued for the "best guess" model of science. It is a bit odd that you would now start objecting to that as being one of the options.

Is there an agenda I am missing?

2. The lesson learned from the frogs, reptiles and as you point out "flying lemurs" is that making wild guesses about simmilarity based on DNA is another thin-line-of-guessing since there are apparently a lot of unknown variables we are still not tracking.

I would hate to throw the Bible under the bus for such an as yet - uniformed guess.

in Christ,

Bob

Heh, I think what I described was 'tested best guesses', but fair enough, all objection to the title is withdrawn.

The point is that DNA is much more definitive. It *does* allow us to go beyond stories about ancestry to actually determine ancestry (hence its use in paternity lawsuits).

I have no problem with the comparison within a species to determine parentage. But it is not as clear cut beyond the question of a close relative as you might imagine.

The fact is that from a DNA POV -- there is no way to tell if you are looking at a wolf or a poodle from DNA samples alone.

There is no way in the case of humans to tell from DNA alone - which one is from an asian or european or african.

But you CAN tell the difference between a banana and a human from the DNA even though 50% of the genes in human DNA are also in a banana.

Should we then start imagining "stories" about how humans evolved from bananas???

The act of comparing genes is science. The story telling about humans coming from bananas based on DNA is fiction.

We should be able to differentiate.

AND we should be teaching students the art of objective critical thinking such that they are not easily duped by much hand-waiving and just-so story telling trying to make them think that science is saying someting when in fact all they are really getting is a form of religion using hijacked science terminology.

Imagine a day when SDA students were the best trained - best equipped to debunk the rampant stortytelling of Darwinism -- clearly distinguishing between what actual science is showing vs the "stories easy enough to make up" of the Darwinists!

in Christ,

Bob