Patterns in DNA - what are your predictions?

DNA replication is not perfect. There are a certain number of mistakes made for each generation of humans. When mistakes occur in important parts, then genetic diseases may result and due to natural selection the mistakes get weeded out. However there are large parts of DNA for which single mistakes have no detrimental effects and so mistakes accumulate over time. The result is that we can use these mistakes to trace our ancestry and tell how closely related any two human beings are.

If humans share a common ancestor with other great apes (and also monkeys in general), then we expect to see a pattern in these regions of DNA. We would expect to see more differences between say a Baboon and Humans than between a chimpanzees and humans. If humans, baboons and chimps do not share a common ancestor then there is no reason to think such patterns would exist.

So, if you do not think we are related to chimps and baboons, and without looking at the scientific results on the matter, what do you predict will be found. Will a pattern be found that is expected if we are related, or will no pattern be found?

Originally posted by twhitehead
DNA replication is not perfect. There are a certain number of mistakes made for each generation of humans. When mistakes occur in important parts, then genetic diseases may result and due to natural selection the mistakes get weeded out. However there are large parts of DNA for which single mistakes have no detrimental effects and so mistakes accumulate o ...[text shortened]... found. Will a pattern be found that is expected if we are related, or will no pattern be found?

Patterns will be found suggesting a link to other primates. Satan put patterns there to deceive us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
DNA replication is not perfect. There are a certain number of mistakes made for each generation of humans. When mistakes occur in important parts, then genetic diseases may result and due to natural selection the mistakes get weeded out. However there are large parts of DNA for which single mistakes have no detrimental effects and so mistakes accumulate o ...[text shortened]... found. Will a pattern be found that is expected if we are related, or will no pattern be found?

That's easy even for me a non-scientifical type.

I predict that it will be found that we are related genetically, but that doesn't prove we descended from apes. Or even monkeys.

Your first paragraph notwithstanding. I wouldn't be surprised to learn man and apes share genetic coding, or whatever it is you call it. Flesh is flesh.

Everything is made from the same stuff, and stuff doesn't just pop into existence for no reason. That apes and man have some genetic similarities doesn't prove man is related as a descendent of apes.

Originally posted by JS357
Patterns will be found suggesting a link to other primates. Satan put patterns there to deceive us.

"Satan put patterns there to deceive us."

Say you're joking!

Originally posted by twhitehead
DNA replication is not perfect. There are a certain number of mistakes made for each generation of humans. When mistakes occur in important parts, then genetic diseases may result and due to natural selection the mistakes get weeded out. However there are large parts of DNA for which single mistakes have no detrimental effects and so mistakes accumulate o ...[text shortened]... found. Will a pattern be found that is expected if we are related, or will no pattern be found?

Whatever the answer, how will the answer effect the Spirituality of a person ?

Originally posted by josephw
That's easy even for me a non-scientifical type.

I predict that it will be found that we are related genetically, but that doesn't prove we descended from apes. Or even monkeys.

Your first paragraph notwithstanding. I wouldn't be surprised to learn man and apes share genetic coding, or whatever it is you call it. Flesh is flesh.

Everything is made ...[text shortened]... pes and man have some genetic similarities doesn't prove man is related as a descendent of apes.

But then, does that mean that you don't trust genetics can determine how closely related two humans are?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Satan put patterns there to deceive us."

Say you're joking![/b]

I'm not joking, but I'm also not stating my opinion. I'm just stating an opinion I have seen on line, such as at

wwwevolution.com/Documents/Spiritual_Warfare/Satan_deceives_many.htm

My point is that the "defense" of creationism against evidence-based arguments is bulletproof, since any "evidence" against it can called a Satanic deception. Debating it is ultimately pointless.

Originally posted by JS357
I'm not joking, but I'm also not stating my opinion. I'm just stating an opinion I have seen on line, such as at

wwwevolution.com/Documents/Spiritual_Warfare/Satan_deceives_many.htm

My point is that the "defense" of creationism against evidence-based arguments is bulletproof, since any "evidence" against it can called a Satanic deception. Debating it is ultimately pointless.

All creationists would use that kind of defense ?

Originally posted by sonship
All creationists would use that kind of defense ?

When they have their backs against the wall, 'many' will make such a claim.

"Dinosaurs didn't exist."
"What about the fossils?"
"Erm,..The devil put them there to deceive man."
"Taxi!"

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
When they have their backs against the wall, 'many' will make such a claim.

"Dinosaurs didn't exist."
"What about the fossils?"
"Erm,..The devil put them there to deceive man."
"Taxi!"

All creationists would not use such an argument.
Some rather more vocal ones I have heard, used it.

These are the ones who usually get more media publicity.

Originally posted by sonship
All creationists would not use such an argument.
Some rather more vocal ones I have heard, used it.

These are the ones who usually get more media publicity.

It is only yourself so far who has used the expression 'all creationists.'

I'm comfortable with 'many.'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It is only yourself so far who has used the expression 'all creationists.'

I'm comfortable with 'many.'

JS357 said

My point is that the "defense" of creationism against evidence-based arguments is bulletproof, since any "evidence" against it can called a Satanic deception. Debating it is ultimately pointless.

So I asked if all creationists were implicated in this.

Originally posted by sonship
JS357 said

My point is that the "defense" of creationism against evidence-based arguments is bulletproof, since any "evidence" against it can called a Satanic deception. Debating it is ultimately pointless.

So I asked if all creationists were implicated in this.

Atheists often speak of Christians in generalized terms, but it is a given that we do not mean that we are speaking of 'every' Christian. Likewise, Christians will often speak of 'atheists' (or atheism) but i'm sure do not believe they are referring to every atheist on the planet.

Why then should that be any different when we make statements about creationists?

Indeed, you make statements about atheists all the time, but we give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand there are differences of opinion in every categorized group.

Originally posted by sonship
All creationists would use that kind of defense ?

What in your mind are the defining characteristics of a creationist?

Originally posted by josephw
I predict that it will be found that we are related genetically, but that doesn't prove we descended from apes. Or even monkeys.

Well obviously we all have DNA. What I am talking about is patterns that directly point to common ancestry. Pattern that we would not expect to find if we were not related.
Do you think we will find them or not?