Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

This is not corroboration, just repetition. Does not make it any more valid. Heh. Bit of a two edged sword here. One side says they might not have a clue how to challenge the calculation (based on the mathematical {ability\understanding} displayed by calculations they push), the other side says that if they do understand {how\why} to challenge it, that they would have to - in the process - acknowledge that the creationist\ID calculations are faulty and incorrect. And this is established without reference to the probability calculation.I would rather use the cytochrome c data as part of a refutation of the creationist\ID probability calculations by showing how a more complete knowledge of the possibilities affects the outcome - calculate the {creationist\ID} value and then a more realistic one based on the known varieties and a proprer mathematical methodology.But I am not convinced that even this calculation covers all the possibilities (how short can the protein be? how long?)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.

I'm not suggesting repition is corroboration, but repeated independent uses from expert sources does add weight to a conclusion. Not really. The calculation is not a probability argument like the creationists. Creationists would simply have to point out why a great deal of the hypothetical sequences would be non-functional. There is no probability calculation. It seems to be a combinatorics calculation based on the properties of a specific protien.Still, this is getting about as off topic as it can do.

Sorry, I was reading as part of a probability calculation. Or just claim that all ones not currently in use are just hypothetical. Why deal with facts when innuendo can do the job eh?Certainly this can be used as a counter argument for the creationist\ID probability calculation, if you can also put together a total number of possible molecules.

---

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.

http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0618091572/104-3891083-2303158Steve Olson, "Mapping Human History" (2002)Page 16: "We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and
some of the banding patterns are subtly different.

​

On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
onto both ends, or some is missing."We also know DNA comparisons are a "tricky task." But since the above evidence is from a Darwinian source the matter is moot.Ray

It was in the news paper recently that scientist have found out that only .1% of our genetic code makes you distinct from me. That is where scientist think they can cure certain diseased. They could just change little parts in that code they think, which I agree with to an extent.99.9% of our genetic code, I think, is what actually makes us HUMAN. So of course, there are going to be big gaps between us and chimapanzees.Do I believe we evolved from them? No.

It seems that no matter how similar our genomes are, chimpanzees don't share our humaness when it comes to altruistic behaviour. It seems that the chimps are completely indifferent to the welfare of other chimps when there is no self interest involved.Not Found | UCLA

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Ray, what exactly is moot?Regarding the difference in the number of chromosomes, have a look at this. Somewhere in our past, two of our chromosomes fused into one, and we've recently managed to find the exact place that this happened. Here's a comparison of(from left to right) humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans:
Click to enlargeImho, this picture truly does speak a thousand words.

Several factors come into play here that were not controlled for: was the other chimp perceived as perfectly capable of getting it's own food? Or was it sick or infirm?If the other chimp was perceived as perfectly capable of getting it's own food, but was freeloading, then what you may have been seeing was "altruistic punishment" in action rather than the absence of "altruistic cooperation" -- and this certainly clouds the results.See The evolution of altruistic punishment (click) for more.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.

As I read this account and others that was all taken into account. The bottom line was that the chimpanzees exhibited zero altruism.

As I read this account and others that was all taken into account. The bottom line was that the chimpanzees exhibited zero altruism.

"It was in the news paper recently that scientist have found out that only .1% of our genetic code makes you distinct from me. That is where scientist think they can cure certain diseased. They could just change little parts in that code they think, which I agree with to an extent.
99.9% of our genetic code, I think, is what actually makes us HUMAN. So of course, there are going to be big gaps between us and chimapanzees.Do I believe we evolved from them? No."The 0.1% sifferences also make us human, not just the 99.9% similarities. Also, the human Haplotype Map doesn't say anything about our common origins with apes, unless one actually compares sequences between the species, which is not what your doing.

Seriously:Where did these chimps originate? Chimps in the wild have culture--were these chimps born in captivity? Captured from disparate groups?Also, the authors note that the chimps delivered food to an empty adjoining chamber as often as they did to an occupied one, then take that as evidence for zero altruism. There is, of course, another perfectly reasonable explanation. It may occur to you the next time you drop a treat on a coworker's unattended desk.Also, I'm not sure how the authors demonstrated to the chimps that the food supply was infinite, and thus the altruism sacrifice-free. All caged animals know that food is doled out in a measured way--they never get to eat all they want.Further, much human altruism is in response to need, not want: was there any reason for the lever-controlling chimp to believe the other chimp would go hungry without their help?In the face of considerable evidence of chimp sharing and empathy, I lean toward a flawed experimental model, but I'm sure there will be further work to clarify the issue.(Only) a little less seriously:OTOH, even if the chimps were completely unaltruistic, it bears keeping in mind that there are places where you could collect 18 people who would act this way. Say, Washington, D.C., in a peculiarly whitewashed house, a ranch in Texas, FEMA HQ...Even if the experiment's results are valid, it doesn't demonstrate that all chimps are less altruistic than all people.

Did you see the article on The evolution of altruistic punishment (click)?It seemed to me to cover a lot of this issue as well. Is it apparent from the point of view of the chimp being studied whether the other one has access to the same controls on the food? That would alter the behavior as well, I would think.

---

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.

Sorry for the long absence - I've been very busy writing my soon to be posted Internet article about Darwin and why the Emperor has no clothes. Whether chimp DNA and human DNA support ancestry claims.My Darwinian source has confirmed the alignments are at least 5 million years apart in difference. IOW, there is no match, unless of course you ignore the massive gap and assert it supports your claims anyway.Concerning your image:It is useless.Mine or your opinion concerning genetic and DNA issues and evidence is utterly worthless since the only views that count are men and women who have Ph.D.'s or are academicians qualified to speak and establish facts.Darwinist Steve Olson admits chimp and human DNA are as far apart as we are from 5 million years ago. Which begs the question: how far must the gap go until Darwinists consider the gap falsification of the claim ?Ray

Herepton, The chromosome number difference in & of itself doesn't matter, two Ape chromosomes fused, the information before & after was the same. Does the banding patterns mean more, less, or different genes? Impossible to tell. That segments are flipped is also irrelevant, the same imformation is there after the flip as was there before. Is the material tacked on & missing coding genes?This quote doesn't really inform you of what you would like it to inform you of. Er, stating the obvious, non? How much percentile genetic difference does Steve Olsen "admit" occurred between humans & chimps in 5 million years? After all, he's the one with the phD, right?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-17-2005 03:13 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't