Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
744 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Stile, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (7 members, 737 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,095 Year: 6,207/6,534 Month: 400/650 Week: 170/278 Day: 10/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The DNA similarity of humans and chimps 96% and 99% history
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 13 (791259)
09-13-2016 2:10 PM


Has anyone noticed the trend as the percentage similarity of chimps/humans comes down? For many years it was 98 or 99%, then after a few years it comes down some more, but the rhetoric increases.

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

http://news.national...himp_genes.html

"We are apes in every way" seems to be predicated on, "long arms" and, "tailless bodies". Is that, "every way?" Oh dear, the list has ran out fast, four features and one of them he gets wrong, despite being an anatomist. Another he gets wrong is, "habits". That's just plainly bad logic, because I don't recall an ape painting an oil on canvas or playing tennis, or worshipping God, the last time I looked.

This expert doesn't seem to know that all apes have arms longer than their legs but humans don't. This guy is called a, "primate scientist", yet doesn't seem to know why a fully bipedal human would need relatively long arms, for balance. So the reason apes have longer arms is for brachiation, arboreal locomotion. Humans have arms of a certain favourable length for reasons of bipedalism;

wiki writes:

Arm swing in human bipedal walking is a natural motion that each arm swings with the motion of the opposing leg. Swinging arms in an opposing direction with respect to the lower-limb reduces the angular momentum of the body, balancing the rotational motion produced during walking. Although such pendulum-like motion of arms is not essential for walking, recent studies point that arm swing improves the stability and energy efficiency in human locomotion.
https://en.wikipedia...uman_locomotion

So it seems that we only have one thing left in common with apes, we are tailless. (but of course, apart from primate features, collar-bone, forward face, etc,..but then my argument isn't that we are not primates but I refer to the differences within the group of primate.)

It also seems the "96%" figure instead of 99% similarity, seems to make evolutionists argue that we are even MORE like apes, not less (contradictory reasoning).

Indeed, the more the percentage decreases, the more the rhetoric increases; "we are apes!! Not just descended from apes like Darwin said, but now it is 96% instead of 99% so we are in fact now classed as super-duper apes, even super duper calafragalisticapespialidocious , ape-apes, of the super duper ape category, ape, ape, ape,....just keep saying it, then say it some more. APES!!!"

What will they say when eventually the percentage comes down to 93% or less?

Here is a fictional prediction;

Reporter; "Dr B, what does this new figure mean?"
Dr B; "Well Sally, it's remarkable, I mean you just won't believe it, but this shows that before, even though we thought we were apes, and then we knew we were apes with the 96% figure, now it is 93%, then I have to tell you - this is the planet of the apes! Ape, ape, ape! I cannot tell you how ape humans are! In fact, what is a human? Ditch that term! For now I speak as all apes speak, as a thorough ape! A super-duper, fender bending, gun-toting, super-ape. I've had my costume made, I will appear in the latest musical, as super-ape."
Reporter: "That's the best science I have heard in years. Your logical prowess never ceased to amaze me, what an ape-solutely flushbunking success for evolution theory!"


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2016 2:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 09-13-2016 2:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 5 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 8:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 13 (791261)
09-13-2016 2:19 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The DNA similarity of humans and chimps 96% and 99% history thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 3 of 13 (791262)
09-13-2016 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
09-13-2016 2:10 PM


No real decrease
Different ways of measuring DNA similarity - different in what they count - give different results. Which should not be a big surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2016 2:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009


(5)
Message 4 of 13 (791263)
09-13-2016 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
09-13-2016 2:10 PM


mike the wiz writes:

Has anyone noticed the trend as the percentage similarity of chimps/humans comes down? For many years it was 98 or 99%, then after a few years it comes down some more, but the rhetoric increases.

There still is a 98% similarity between the DNA shared by chimps and humans. The 96% comes from the insertion and deletion events (i.e. indels) that adds or subtracts DNA from either genome. There are many ways to compare genomes, and the substitution rate is still a good way of comparing genomes.

At the end of the day, the number really doesn't matter. What really matters is the relative distance between genomes. As it turns out, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans. If chimps are an ape, then so too are humans since chimps are more closely related to humans than they are any other ape species.

"We are apes in every way" seems to be predicated on, "long arms" and, "tailless bodies". Is that, "every way?" Oh dear, the list has ran out fast, four features and one of them he gets wrong, despite being an anatomist. Another he gets wrong is, "habits". That's just plainly bad logic, because I don't recall an ape painting an oil on canvas or playing tennis, or worshipping God, the last time I looked.

This expert doesn't seem to know that all apes have arms longer than their legs but humans don't. This guy is called a, "primate scientist", yet doesn't seem to know why a fully bipedal human would need relatively long arms, for balance. So the reason apes have longer arms is for brachiation, arboreal locomotion. Humans have arms of a certain favourable length for reasons of bipedalism;

The anatomical similarities are unavoidable.

If you can't see the striking similarities between chimps and humans, then you are simply in denial. There are no other species groups that are more like humans than apes.

Also, there is an ape species that paints pictures on canvases and plays tennis. That ape species is Homo sapiens.

Reporter; "Dr B, what does this new figure mean?"
Dr B; "Well Sally, it's remarkable, I mean you just won't believe it, but this shows that before, even though we thought we were apes, and then we knew we were apes with the 96% figure, now it is 93%, then I have to tell you - this is the planet of the apes! Ape, ape, ape! I cannot tell you how ape humans are! In fact, what is a human? Ditch that term! For now I speak as all apes speak, as a thorough ape! A super-duper, fender bending, gun-toting, super-ape. I've had my costume made, I will appear in the latest musical, as super-ape."
Reporter: "That's the best science I have heard in years. Your logical prowess never ceased to amaze me, what an ape-solutely flushbunking success for evolution theory!"

We have sequenced greater than 95% of the chimp and human genomes, so the numbers aren't going to change much. At the end of the day, what matters is the relative distance between the ape species. As already stated, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do any other ape species. That makes humans apes.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2016 2:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 5 of 13 (798222)
02-01-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
09-13-2016 2:10 PM


The myth of 1%
The myth of 1% difference started in the 1970's using DNA hybridization on selected samples.

You might be able to find a copy of "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%", Jon Cohen, Science 29 Jun 2007. Unfortunately the original is behind a paywall.

The real difference is probably more than 10%. The changes include around 35 million base-pair changes, over 700 genes, the increase in brain mass, as well as the obvious ability to walk on two feet and talk.

Here's a podcast where Dr. Ann Gauger discusses the differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. http://www.discovery.org/...ns-are-different-pt-1-the-genome

Edited by CRR, : revised


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2016 2:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 13 (798229)
02-01-2017 8:56 AM


Warning: Trolls lurking under bridge.
signed Billy Goat Gruff #2

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Pollux, posted 02-23-2022 12:31 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 7 of 13 (892029)
02-23-2022 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
02-01-2017 8:56 AM


Human , Neandertal, and chimp dna
In Cowen's History of Life l read on page 325 humans share 95 pc of dna with chimps,and page 339 we share up to 4pc with Neandertals. The latter seems to be referring to something different from the former, for we are obviously closer to Neandertals than chimps.
Can someone elucidate for me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 02-01-2017 8:56 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2022 3:27 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 8 of 13 (892135)
02-26-2022 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Pollux
02-23-2022 12:31 AM


Re: Human , Neandertal, and chimp dna
Is no one able to help me with this? It is an honest query for if we have 96% chimp dna we must share more than 4% with Neandertals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Pollux, posted 02-23-2022 12:31 AM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2022 3:35 PM Pollux has not replied
 Message 10 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-26-2022 3:41 PM Pollux has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 9 of 13 (892136)
02-26-2022 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Pollux
02-26-2022 3:27 PM


Re: Human , Neandertal, and chimp dna
The 4% sounds right for the percentage of DNA that comes from our distant (human) ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals. So it’s literally Neanderthal DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2022 3:27 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3424
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 10 of 13 (892137)
02-26-2022 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Pollux
02-26-2022 3:27 PM


Re: Human , Neandertal, and chimp dna
I may be wrong in how I would interpret this.

The comparison with chimps is comparing all the nucleotides in the entire genome including all the non-coding portions.

The comparisons with Neanderthals and modern humans is comparing how many distinct alleles of the actual genes from Neanderthals are also found in modern humans. The numbers are increasing as more Neanderthals and humans are sequenced and more similarities are discovered.

ABE: I would bet Taq can explain this.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2022 3:27 PM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2022 9:23 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 11 of 13 (892140)
02-26-2022 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tanypteryx
02-26-2022 3:41 PM


Re: Human , Neandertal, and chimp dna
As I read PaulK having pointed out in Message 3 (13-Sep-2016 11:30 AM), the numbers you get depend on what you are comparing.

For example, only a relatively small portion of the genome encodes for proteins while the non-coding portion is rather larger (our genetics lecture series at OLLI with Eric Lander where that was covered was 3 or 4 years ago). That non-coding portion contains many copies of other sequences elsewhere in the genome (basically junk) along with regulatory sequences and more. Because of the need to retain functional proteins, the coding portion will experience a lot of selective pressure to not change and so will change very little while the non-coding has little such need and so will change more.

As a result, comparisons with the coding portion will show far greater similarity than comparisons that include the non-coding portion. In addition, the genomes are of different sizes due to insertions and deletions. As a result, the research must work to align sequences, so the manner and extent of those alignments can also have an effect on the final numbers.

 
I'll refer you to Erika, AKA "Gutsick Gibbon". She was raised a young-earth creationist but after discovering science she's now a PhD candidate in the pertinent sciences (I just heard what it is but forget, some kind of anthropology which includes primatology, hominin paleontology, genetics, etc). She's done many videos over the past couple years in which she addresses creationist videos and books, etc, all with the academic's drive and skills in thoroughly researching scientific sources (that's what she's been doing all the time as a graduate student). She can get so deeply into the topic she's discussing that her videos easily go for over an hour with several ending up two to three hours long.

She just started a new series in which she teams up with Doctor Dan and The Dapper Dinosaur to review a "hot" new anti-evolution video, Dismantled (ie, they're "dismantling" the Theory of Evolution), which is only available for sale or for rent.

Their first installment deals with the first of six "points" in Dismantled, which is on human-chimp comparisons and in which they "dismantle" the 96-99% similarity numbers though their own "research" which has several problems including using a buggy version of BLAST and violating basic high school algebra when doing the math. Along the way, the three hosts discuss the issues of genome comparisons more thoroughly than most of us would want.

Here it is:

Since I cannot get that to play in Preview mode, if you cannot play it then here is the URL: Busting "Dismantled"| The Human/Chimp Similarity

And, no, it's not just cartoon versions of them sitting around talking. They do show the part of Dismantled that they are discussing. And I think they do get a bit into Neanderthal, but I don't quite remember.

 
Share and enjoy!

 

 
ABE:

Another pertinent video of Erika's addresses the "we are 50% similar to a banana" claim, but then discusses the issues of genome comparison.

Alternative link should that also fail: Are Humans REALLY 50% Genetically Similar to Bananas?

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-26-2022 3:41 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 12 of 13 (892142)
02-27-2022 5:29 AM


There's a good answer here.

https://genetics.thetech.org/...imilarity-africans-europeans

I understand that everybody except sub-Saharan Africans has 2 to 4% Neanderthal genes. So they differ from pure Africans by this large amount. We differ from chimpanzees by 1.2%. How can this possibly be?

-A graduate student from the United Kingdom

July 23, 2014

Obviously all humans are more alike to each other than they are to chimpanzees. And we are all more similar to Neanderthals than we are to chimpanzees as well.

The confusion comes from how percentages are used in different places. What the 2-4% refers to is how much DNA from a Caucasian or Asian is 100% identical to Neanderthal DNA.

In other words, a typical European and a Neanderthal are 99.7% similar over 96-98% of their DNA and 100% similar to a Neanderthal over 2-4% of their DNA. A sub-Saharan African will be 99.7% the same as a Neanderthal over 100% of their DNA.

So the 2-4% of a non-African person’s genome that is of Neanderthal origin will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person’s genome. In terms of the whole genome, that is only 0.006% of actual difference!

People of different “races” aren’t actually very different from each other in terms of DNA. There are more differences between people of the same race than there are overall differences between different races (Click here for more on this.)

For the rest of this answer, I’ll go a little more into what the 2-4% Neanderthal ancestry number means and how scientists figured it out. Then I’ll go a little more into what the 1.2% difference between humans and chimpanzees means.

Recombination and Ancestry

When scientists compare Neanderthal DNA with various modern human DNA, they can actually see short stretches of the Neanderthal DNA in non-African DNA. They can see this because of the way in which DNA is passed down from parents to a child.

Human DNA is split into 23 long pieces called chromosomes. Every person has two copies of each chromosome. When parents have a child, the child gets one copy of each chromosome from the mom and one from the dad.

However, the copy of a chromosome that a child gets from a parent isn’t exactly the same as either copy from the parent. In the process of passing down one set of chromosomes, pieces of each copy of a chromosome get mixed together to form a chromosome that is a mixture of the original two. This mixing is called recombination and looks something like this:

You can see in the image that recombination only happens at a few spots on the DNA. This means that long stretches of a child’s DNA will have come from a particular chromosome from either mom or dad. Those entire stretches of DNA will be 100% identical to part of mom or dad’s DNA.

When that child grows up and has her own children, the DNA of the mom and dad will get mixed a bit more before being passed on to the grandchildren. That means that the grandchildren will have shorter stretches of DNA that are 100% identical to their grandparents, as you can see in this image:

Scientists can use long stretches of DNA that are 100% similar between people to estimate how related they are. If 25% of your DNA is exactly the same as someone else’s, then that other person is an aunt, uncle, half sibling or grandparent! And if only 2% is identical, then that person is a distant cousin.

For figuring out what parts of a modern human’s genome came from Neanderthals, scientists look for what stretches of DNA in the person’s genome are exactly identical to a stretch of Neanderthal genome (or at least as identical as possible after tens of thousands of years). The 2-4% figure is the total amount of DNA in a person that comes from a stretch of DNA that is exactly identical to a stretch of Neanderthal DNA.

That 2-4% won’t be the same for every non-African person. It will depend on who your Neanderthal ancestor was and exactly how their DNA got mixed up with human DNA in all of your ancestors.

DNA Similarity Between Species

Humans and chimpanzees are separated by hundreds of thousands of generations of DNA. This means that you wouldn’t expect to see any long stretches of DNA that came from a particular chimpanzee.

The 98.8% similarity number referred to in the question is how many individual DNA letters in the chimp genome are different from the DNA letters in a similar position in the human genome. So chimpanzees and humans are 98.8% similar and Neanderthals and humans are 99.7% the same at this level.

You might read some places that chimps are only 95% similar. The difference in numbers comes from whether you include big sections of DNA that are completely different between the species in the comparison. For parts of the genome that are mostly similar, 98.8% of the letters will be identical, but there are some stretches of DNA that are only present in one of the two species.

These seemingly small differences in DNA lead to big differences between chimps and humans because they’re scattered across many, many genes. Even a few changes in one gene can have big effects on an animal. Spread that out over a whole genome and you get a chimp instead of a human. (Click here for more on this idea.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Pollux, posted 02-27-2022 8:52 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 13 of 13 (892145)
02-27-2022 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tangle
02-27-2022 5:29 AM


Thank you all. I will go through it carefully to digest it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2022 5:29 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022