Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
gezginbekir
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 244 (254728)
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


The comprehensive analysis
of the chimpanzee genome reveals a greater genetic difference from humans.
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/widening_genetic_gap.php

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 3:09 PM gezginbekir has not replied
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 10-26-2005 4:31 AM gezginbekir has not replied
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 10-27-2005 3:55 AM gezginbekir has not replied
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2005 8:29 PM gezginbekir has not replied
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 11-02-2005 9:43 PM gezginbekir has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 244 (254753)
10-25-2005 2:59 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I've promoted it but please note that normally you supply a link AND discuss the issue in your own words.
Please follow up with some detail from that site. For example, since the difference is different from what has been bandied about before perhaps you could tell us what the new difference is and how it is calculated.
Without that the headline is meaningless.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-25-2005 03:02 PM

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 244 (254757)
10-25-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by gezginbekir
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


From the article:
The latest percentage of genetic similarity is 96% in comparison to previous ones reported about 98.5%.
So, even if we take this at face value, the difference not quite triples from 1.5% to 4%. But tripling a very small number still leaves you with...a pretty small number. 4% still seems like a pretty small difference, but I don't know -- why should this be significant?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gezginbekir, posted 10-25-2005 1:47 PM gezginbekir has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2005 3:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 244 (254762)
10-25-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
10-25-2005 3:09 PM


So, even if we take this at face value
From Harun Yahya? I wouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 3:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 4:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 244 (254774)
10-25-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
10-25-2005 3:40 PM


Just for the sake of argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2005 3:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 244 (254847)
10-26-2005 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by gezginbekir
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


A win for science then?
If the data is correct then it's a win for science; always reviewing and changing, adding new knowledge to the natural world. Horay for scientific enquiery!. The conclusions drawn in the artical:
"The theory of evolution is a deception concocted to uncover the fact of creation. Humans and chimpanzees did not evolve; they are perfect beings created by God, the Creator of all."
is utter crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gezginbekir, posted 10-25-2005 1:47 PM gezginbekir has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 7:29 PM Larni has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 244 (254937)
10-26-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Larni
10-26-2005 4:31 AM


A real win.
Before the genome project found the similarity at 96% there were other studies that placed the number at several different levels, from 94% to 98.5%. (I've been corrected on just that issue in previous posts).
Of course using the 94% number would ruin the thesis of the Harun Yahya "argument" ... but what this really means is that there was a lot of variation in the studies.
The real previous result was likely better expressed as 96% +/- 3%
What we have now is probably more like 96% +/- 1%
It's not that the real number is different but that the range of variation has been reduced by more scrutiny of the data.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 10-26-2005 4:31 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-26-2005 7:45 PM RAZD has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 244 (254940)
10-26-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
10-26-2005 7:29 PM


Percentages
It isn't that simple either.
As has been discussed somewhere here before there are a number of different things to measure.
I think the number being tossed about here is the number of base pair differences. However, one might also measure the number of whole genes that are not the same. Or one could take only the base pair differences in known coding sequences (leaving out the 'junk').
One could then argue that homologuous substitutions (do I have that right? ) don't matter. If the gene is different but codes for the same thing who cares. And so on and so forth.
Let's face it what the heckenhiemer does it matter if it is 94 % or 99 %? One way of looking at is we are very, very similar to chimps at the genetic level.
Then there would be another way which will arise as we know more. A 1% difference in the right place may count a LOT! For example we may find that sequences controlling brain or language are only 89% similar.
Of course, the site referenced forgot to note that even with millions of differences it becomes kind of hard to suggest that evolution can't get from a chimp like sequence (not even counting that they have been diverging some too) to our when it only takes a few changes per generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 7:29 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 244 (255002)
10-27-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by gezginbekir
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


Your point?
The comprehensive analysis
of the chimpanzee genome reveals a greater genetic difference from humans.
In my rush to sound off I forgot to ask: what is yout point? Are you 'fo it or 'again it?
Thanks to RAZD and Nosy for the clarification. Went off half cocked
This message has been edited by Larni, 10-27-2005 03:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gezginbekir, posted 10-25-2005 1:47 PM gezginbekir has not replied

  
Carson O'Genic
Junior Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 20
From: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 10 of 244 (255253)
10-28-2005 1:33 AM


RE: Genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry
From the original linked article:
"Actually, whatever the genetic similarity, it constitutes absolutely no contribution to the claim that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Clearly, similarity between genetic sequences does not prove common ancestry. Since chimps and humans breathe the same atmosphere, have similar organs and diets, it is of course natural for them to have similar genetic sequences - that, for example, provide them with the similar biochemistry. The existence of similar instructions in the manuals of two similar devices is no proof that these devices came into existence as a result of coincidences, neither do the genetic similarities between organisms provide any evidence for the claim that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance. Genetic information contained in the DNAs of living beings is staggeringly complex. A mathematical analysis of this complexity demolishes the materialist/evolutionist claims. The existence of genetic information and its revealing similarities between organisms constitutes a concrete evidence for the fact that living beings are created by God."
What a bunch of self contradicting baloney. First they dismiss similarity as some form of divine convergent creation. When anyone who nows anything about genetics can tell you that without common ancestry you may get similar phenotypes in response to similar environments, but at the genetic level it is going to be very different. Why, because DNA is "staggeringly complex", and there is more than one way to make a protein. So they argue that complexity is the reason that the similarity in sequences can only arise from divine creation. Clever twisting of the evidence, while ignoring the rest of teh evidence for common ancestry.
Either way, not to get off topic to badly, I have to agreee with the post above that there are many ways at looking at the similarities and differences. Each one a thesis, I'm sure. Dissecting the differences to see what make us diffrent will surely lead to many insights into our own evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 10-28-2005 12:38 PM Carson O'Genic has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 244 (255343)
10-28-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Carson O'Genic
10-28-2005 1:33 AM


RE: Genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry
It is further compounded by the fact that there are 2.3 x 1093 possible ways to create a functional cytochrome c protein. There is no reason for Chimps to have an identical one to humans but they do. Indeed a Chimp could be a Chimp and have a genetic code that looked absolutely nothing like ours.
That the owners of the website don't mention this is probably willfull ignorance since this is the one of the first things I learned about when I started learning about the evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Carson O'Genic, posted 10-28-2005 1:33 AM Carson O'Genic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 244 (255421)
10-28-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
10-28-2005 12:38 PM


RE: Genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry
It is further compounded by the fact that there are 2.3 x 1093 possible ways ...
You want to share the math behind that calculation and the assumptions that go into it?
After all 97% of people believe that 46% of statistics are made up on the spot in any argument ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 10-28-2005 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2005 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 244 (255596)
10-30-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
10-28-2005 9:37 PM


calculation
I've not seen the calculation, but it can be found in this book and has been cited numerous times. Including in the 29+ Evidences and a similar message is put forth here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 9:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 244 (255687)
10-30-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
10-30-2005 8:15 AM


Re: calculation
The closest I can get to the actual calculation is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract
The structural and folding requirements of eukaryotic cytochromes c have been investigated by determining the appropriate DNA sequences of a collection of 46 independent cyc 1 missense mutations obtained in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and by deducing the corresponding amino acid replacements that abolish function of iso-1-cytochrome c. A total of 33 different replacements at 19 amino acid positions were uncovered in this and previous studies.
Nothing about the assumptions and parameters used in the calculation.
My point here is that these need to be just as skeptically reviewed as the ID\creationist "probability" calculations.
To me this is a stronger argument:
http://www.nmsr.org/round1a.htm
In fact, there is no difference between the cytochrome c's of human and chimp. Human cytochrome c differs from a rhesus monkey's by just one amino acid, and from an erythrocebus patas monkey's by a different one (Dayhoff 1979). But, humans differ from whales at ten different cytochrome c sites, at 15 for turtles, and so on (Figure 1). There is a "Message" in these proteins: species thought to be closely related turn out to have proteins that are also closely related. If human cytochrome sequences were completely different from those of the apes, or even all other creatures, evolution would have collapsed overnight. Instead, the molecules were in perfect accord with evolutionary expectations - independent and compelling confirmation.
Enjoy.
{edited to shorten PubMed link}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*30*2005 07:27 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2005 8:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2005 6:54 AM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 244 (255755)
10-31-2005 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
10-30-2005 7:25 PM


Re: calculation
My point here is that these need to be just as skeptically reviewed as the ID\creationist "probability" calculations.
Absolutely, though I am confident that the concept is right for two reasons. One, I have seen it used several times now.
Two, I have seen no challenge to it from the creationists (who like to challenge just about everything).
To me this is a stronger argument:
http://www.nmsr.org/round1a.htm
Exactly and the large amount of combinations for cytochrome c paves the way for this argument quite neatly. In my original edit of the post in this thread I went into this but then realized that it was off topic so deleted it and just left it at the human-chimp scenario. After all, I did the full rant over at your old thread.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 31-October-2005 11:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2005 7:06 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024