EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

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

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

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

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

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

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 244 (255756)
10-31-2005 7:06 AM

Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
10-31-2005 6:54 AM

Re: calculation

One, I have seen it used several times now.

This is not corroboration, just repetition. Does not make it any more valid.

Two, I have seen no challenge to it from the creationists (who like to challenge just about everything).

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.

Exactly and the large amount of combinations for cytochrome c paves the way for this argument quite neatly.

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2005 6:54 AM		Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2005 7:51 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 244 (255861)
10-31-2005 6:19 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
10-31-2005 7:51 AM

Re: calculation

Sorry, I was reading

msg 11 writes:

It is further compounded by the fact that there are 2.3 x 10⁹³ possible ways to create a functional cytochrome c protein.

as part of a probability calculation.

Creationists would simply have to point out why a great deal of the hypothetical sequences would be non-functional.

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2005 7:51 AM		Modulous has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 244 (256575)
11-03-2005 7:03 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
11-02-2005 10:24 PM

Altruistic punishment instead?

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by GDR, posted 11-02-2005 10:24 PM		GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 24 by GDR, posted 11-03-2005 8:48 PM	RAZD has not replied
	Message 25 by GDR, posted 11-03-2005 8:52 PM	RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 28 of 244 (257008)
11-05-2005 6:46 AM

Reply to: Message 27 by Omnivorous
11-03-2005 11:35 PM

Re: What kind of chimp?

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 27 by Omnivorous, posted 11-03-2005 11:35 PM		Omnivorous has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 32 of 244 (261140)
11-18-2005 9:14 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2005 8:54 PM

old earth 5,000,000 years?

5 million years is exactly what we claim as to when the split occurred

That would be stunning, if

(a) it occured for every species on the planet. The problem is that the brances from other species in general, and apes in particular, are not so "convenient" and thus this is shown as nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument,

and

(b) the 5 million years was part of some standard creationist model. The YECs seem to have it more somewhere between 10k and 5k years, and OECs seem to adjust to modern science, so I am at a loss for who has this in a creationist model?

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 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 8:54 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0