nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: +
→Common ancestor?: Is 99% correct?
The article says "Comparison of DNA sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical, but even with these similarities there are so many gaps in the sequence that it is nigh impossible for them to have descended from a common ancestor." I don't get it. Why do you need to analyse the number of gaps in the DNA to conclude that gorillas and people have no common ancestor? Surely the number of gaps would suggest only that any common ancestor must have been ''a long time ago''. The absolute ''rejection'' of common ancestry cannot be based on this, only on a more fundamental rejection of evolutionist theory. It looks like an illogical argument. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 15 February 2008 (EST)
The article says "Comparison of DNA sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical, but even with these similarities there are so many gaps in the sequence that it is nigh impossible for them to have descended from a common ancestor." I don't get it. Why do you need to analyse the number of gaps in the DNA to conclude that gorillas and people have no common ancestor? Surely the number of gaps would suggest only that any common ancestor must have been ''a long time ago''. The absolute ''rejection'' of common ancestry cannot be based on this, only on a more fundamental rejection of evolutionist theory. It looks like an illogical argument. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 15 February 2008 (EST)
: Yup, the best that can be said for the argument is that is one from personal incredulity - a logical fallacy. Since it is no a rigorous argument against the fact we share a common ancestor I am going to delete it (again). I'm not interested in an edit war so I'd thank any would be reverter to justify the inclusion on an unsupported claim in this article on the talk page before anything else is done --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:12, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
: Yup, the best that can be said for the argument is that is one from personal incredulity - a logical fallacy. Since it is no a rigorous argument against the fact we share a common ancestor I am going to delete it (again). I'm not interested in an edit war so I'd thank any would be reverter to justify the inclusion on an unsupported claim in this article on the talk page before anything else is done --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:12, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I'll ask a different question: Is the claim of 99% DNA similarity correct? I can't find a statement on the Internet saying what it is, but what I can find is that (a) chimpanzee/human DNA similarity claims vary between about 98.8% and 95%, and (b) chimpanzees are supposed to be ''closer'' to humans than gorillas. This suggests that the 99% claim for gorillas is incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)