Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gorilla"

Revision as of 03:15, April 28, 2022

Why is there an evolutionist link on here? Ratso 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, because Conservapedia claims to be 'unbiased'? And because neither you not User:Conservative has deleted it yet? --BobD 18:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe he deleted it. Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 14:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not all creationists are young earth. Too many places on this site, evolution and age of the earth are assumed to be the same thing. DanH 14:31, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Common ancestor?

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. 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 --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. Philip J. Rayment 04:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Good point - I think it's actually about 97% (though it depends exactly how you measure it). So I'll correct it (once I have checked). But whether it's 99, 97 or 33% doesn't alter the illogicality of the argument! Humblpi 06:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

What Humblpi said - I think it will be around 99-97 for gorilla-human (they are very close to humans and chimps) but there is point at which you can say aha! that's too different, they couldn't have ever shared a common ancestor --Igor nz 18:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

[I think you mean "there is no point at which you can say". I will not alter your words - but if I'm right, Igor, please amend what you wrote and then delete this note of mine. Humblpi 05:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)]

Whats up you attention whores!