I'm sending this to the Creation Science Museum

C

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
Molecular Clocks: Determining the Age of the Human–Chimpanzee Divergence

Key Takeaways:

The molecular clock hypothesis proposes that nucleotide changes occur at a regular rate during evolution.

Applying the molecular clock to sequence divergence among living species can provide an estimate of the time of the divergence of these species.

Estimates of the human–chimpanzee divergence using the molecular clock have ranged from less than 3 million to nearly 12 million years ago (Ma).

Most reliable estimates of the human–chimpanzee divergence range from 5 to 8 Ma.

Considering the various sources of uncertainty associated with molecular dating, in general the dates are in agreement with palaeontological data.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020813.pub2
 
guno said:
Their answer that they fall back on is, the devil planted evidence to fool humans
Click to expand...

The problem with believing that the Genesis account is literally true, an accurate account of events, is then one has to explain why there are two different versions of Creation in Genesis
 
Let's add this.... how can we see objects that are billions of light years away from us. I heard someone argue that God made the light travel faster so his special creations could see it. It's sublme.
 
Sahelanthropus might be the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Discovery Date: 2001
Where Lived: West-Central Africa (Chad)
When Lived: Sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago

Overview:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago in West-Central Africa (Chad). Walking upright may have helped this species survive in diverse habitats, including forests and grasslands. Although we have only cranial material from Sahelanthropus, studies so far show this species had a combination of ape-like and human-like features. Ape-like features included a small brain (even slightly smaller than a chimpanzee’s), sloping face, very prominent browridges, and elongated skull. Human-like features included small canine teeth, a short middle part of the face, and a spinal cord opening underneath the skull instead of towards the back as seen in non-bipedal apes.

Evolutionary Tree Information:
The first early humans, or hominins, diverged from apes sometime between 6 and 7 million years ago in Africa. Sahelanthropus tchadensis has two defining human anatomical traits: 1) small canine teeth, and 2) walking upright on two legs instead of on four legs

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/sahelanthropus-tchadensis
 
The Creation Museum couldn't care less what the science says. Creationists and YEC have their own version of science often requiring the wholesale abandonment of proper scientific process or sample prep. Just look at how Steve Austin dated the Mt. St. Helens dacite.
 
For any Chrisitan fundamentalist plotting a family summer vacation, I just realized that Graceland, Dollywood, and the Ark Experience are all located within just a few hours of each other, in the promised land of Tennessee and Kentucky.
 
Cypress said:
Molecular Clocks: Determining the Age of the Human–Chimpanzee Divergence

Key Takeaways:

The molecular clock hypothesis proposes that nucleotide changes occur at a regular rate during evolution.

Applying the molecular clock to sequence divergence among living species can provide an estimate of the time of the divergence of these species.

Estimates of the human–chimpanzee divergence using the molecular clock have ranged from less than 3 million to nearly 12 million years ago (Ma).

Most reliable estimates of the human–chimpanzee divergence range from 5 to 8 Ma.

Considering the various sources of uncertainty associated with molecular dating, in general the dates are in agreement with palaeontological data.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020813.pub2
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'molecular clock'. Omniscience fallacy. You don't know what happened 3 million years ago. Molecules are not calendars. There is no such thing as 'palaeontological data', Sybil.
 
Cypress said:
The problem with believing that the Genesis account is literally true, an accurate account of events, is then one has to explain why there are two different versions of Creation in Genesis
Click to expand...
there are three, plus a fourth in Job........only Genesis 1:1 is to be understood as literal.......its written in the imperative form of Hebrew to be exact.........I've educated you on this before......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because your need to evangelize your atheist beliefs are an overwhelming comp
Click to expand...
That's funny. The militant atheist faction call me a bible thumper.

This isn't about Christianity.
This is about stupidity. Catholic priests have made landmark discoveries in astronomy and genetics. The lead scientist of the human genome project is a practicing Christian. But exhibits of dinosaurs frolicking with cavemen is an insult to intelligence.
 
Cypress said:
That's funny. The militant atheist faction call me a bible thumper.

This isn't about Christianity.
This is about stupidity. Catholic priests have made landmark discoveries in astronomy and genetics. The lead scientist of the human genome project is a practicing Christian. But exhibits of dinosaurs frolicking with cavemen is an insult to intelligence.
Click to expand...
humans "evolving" from apes is your "creation museum"........cope with your ignorance, but please do it silently........
 
Saint Guinefort said:
The Creation Museum couldn't care less what the science says. Creationists and YEC have their own version of science often requiring the wholesale abandonment of proper scientific process or sample prep. Just look at how Steve Austin dated the Mt. St. Helens dacite.
Click to expand...
The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

Science is not a process, method, or procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top