Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

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.

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.

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). 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

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.

It's been tackled several times now, but I'm confused as to what you think this is saying. All your source is saying is that chimpanzees are less genetically similar to humans than humans are to humans. Are you trying to say that the source you posted doesn't actually agree with the conclusion you are trying to demonstrate?What you seem to be saying is that there are large genotypical distance between humans and apes. I agree, there is. The evidence of common ancestry lies in the relative distance from us compared with organisms which are morphologically less similar. The evidence comes from the astronomical number of ways that the DNA could be arranged to create any given chimpanzee, and how massively similar the two are given the number of ways they could be different. There's an absolute ton of literature on this, just hunt around for bioinformatics, the important thing lies in relative similarity - the genetic similarities confirm evolutionary pathways and relationships established through morphology and fossils. There is only one feasable and known mechanism for this - common ancestry/heridity.

Actually, that is what Kumar and Hedges paper (that I referred to in my last post) is saying, supported with a paper outlining the methodology for drawing their conclusion.Olson was not presenting evidence for the Chimp-Human split. He was actually saying that no matter how similar it is said Humans and Chimps are, it is nothing compared with how similar even the most dissimilar humans are. Read the chapter from the book you reference, I promise you that is what he is saying.On page 14 he is talking about the characteristic Bush men of Africa.On page 15 he discusses the nature of some of these differences can be seen by looking into chromosomes and says that 'banding patterns' are basically the same for all people in the world (with some exceptions)On page 16, the page you quoted, he says that because of this, we find no clues to the Bushmen in the chromosomes. He then spends all of one paragraph saying that these banding patterns can be different from species to species, example, the Chimp, which whilst very similar to human chromosomes, contains some fundamental differences. After that he starts talking about DNA.On page page 17 he continues talking about DNA and comparisons (but the context is clearly human/human comparison, though he spends one paragraph talking about inheritance from our pre-human ancestors.Finally on page 18 he finishes his point about DNA and moves back to his original topic, Africa and the beginnings of homo sapiens.The paragraph on Chimps wasn't part of a developing argument about Human/Chimp divergence, it was merely used as an example to an aside/tangent. Ask anyone on these boards and they will that there is a gap between the genome of a Chimp and a Human. Naturally, the parts that are different are not the same. However, the majority of the genome is identical - the Chimp genome does display massive similarity to humans. Its not. The similarity is clear, most of a Chimps genome is identical to a humans. There are differences. Of all tested species, Chimps are the most similar, one can look at the next most similar and the next and the next, and so on - you will find the results from this experiment seem to be strikingly similar to the conclusions scientists reached from morphology, and follow the same pattern as the fossil record. Its quite fascinating really.

He discussed the dissimilarities, nothing ground breaking there. He doesn't really say that. He just says that our lineages have been seperated for so long that the chromosome structure has diverged. He didn't at all. He simply said humans and chimps have been diverged for so long that there chromosome structure has differences. That's not presenting evidence. An example of presenting evidence would be in the Kumar-Hedges paper I linked. Compare and contrast. Human and Chimp DNA has differences. Plenty of them. Everyone on this thread 'Darwinian' or otherwise is perfectly comfortable with this concept. Olsen is not saying anything dramatic or shocking. If he did do that, then I wouldn't see the problem. He didn't say that though, and I am baffled *see subtitle* as to why you think he does. He mentions no time frame for the divergence. I'm entirely baffled. You claim that an evolutionist says that the c/h split occurred 5 mya, you say other evolutionists agree. (He doesn't say that, but that's not too important right now.) So erm, what's your point? It is a perfectly testable fact. What percentage of a chimpanzees genome is the same as humans? If it is more than 50%, then my purported fact that 'most of a Chimps genome is identical to a humans' is not dead.Tell me the identity of a species that has more a similar genome to us, if you can my purported fact that 'Of all tested species, Chimps are the most similar' would be falsified.Show me it is DOA, it is easy if you are right. If evolution occurred then the species most like us morphologically should share not only morphological dna similarities but non-morphological dna similarities too. Things which are closer related in morphology (fossil record helps here) should be closer related genetically.All primates share more similar DNA with one another than they do with other mammals, all mammals share more similar DNA with one another then they do with reptiles. Reptiles are likewise more similar to one another genetically than they are to amphibians. And so on. And one need not just look at such large groups. The same test can be done on sub groups, cetaceans, marsupials (Kangaroos DNA is closer genetically to a marsupial mouse, than the marsupila mouse is to a placental mouse) , carnivores, snakes etc. Simply not the case, the hypothesis (human/chimp divergence) leads us to a test. The conclusion of the test in this case strengthens the hypothesis. Am I mistaken in thinking this is straightforward science?

My post got hopelessly long, so I am condensing it. Message 52, Message 56, Message 76 all by WK and Pink discussing the differences. But, most damningly for your claim that WK has resisted this point is Message 89 where he provides a quote from a paper:

quote:

---

Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

---

OK, he does mention the split, but his short paragraph on page 19 is not linked in any way to his paragraph on page 16, which is what we were discussing. Not at all, anything constitutes evidence. Olsen's book itself constitutes as evidence. What it is evidence for, though, is a different matter. It does not actually present evidence for the human-chimp divergence 6million years ago. At least, not in any of the paragraphs you have referenced so far.Stating a conclusion is not presenting evidence. Similar is a relative word, agreed? Genetically, humans are more similar to one another than they are to Chimps, agreed? Likewise, Humans and Chimps are more similar to one another than Humans and Gorrilas, all primates are more similar to one another than they are to Whales, agreed?When we say that Chimps DNA is similar it means two things:1) The vast majority of the genome is identical
2) Of all species, Chimps are the most similar.To repeat. Chimp DNA is 96% identical to human DNA. I am confused as to your reasoning that 96% cannot be defined as 'similar'. How identical does something need to be? I understand your opinion. If you want to demonstrate this to be true, go for it. Damn straight! 100% agree. No, we say 'if the resolve is true then we should see x' and then go see. If we see x we then say, that the resolve is likely true. Especially after lots of such tests. Science. Not true at all. Nobody is saying Chimps and humans diverged therefore no matter what their DNA looks like it will support this claim. People are saying that we should be able to construct nested hierarchies from DNA comparisons IF the Theory of Evolution is true. We CAN construct nested hierarchies, and not only that, but they match the hierarchies constructed by fossils and morphology. This is a massive prediction made by ToE. Thank you. I haven't studied philosophy, but I have studied logic at university, so don't worry. I don't think I am more honest than any other debater, I'm just trying to understand you.

What I think you are saying

I think you might be suggesting that Olsen is 'assuming the resolve is true', which you think as evidence that evolutionists do this. Am I right? Olsen is merely stating two conclusions from the primary literature. One, that chimps and humans split about 6 million years ago (for the actual science used to reach this conclusion you could start by checking out the Kumar-Hedges paper I linked to) and the other is that chimps chromosomes have structural differences with humans.You have had (at least) two papers presented to you which discusses the science. I'd be interested to hear your conclusions about these papers.

What I am saying

The actual science is done in the primary literature, so trying to judge a science from some popular press books about it is a faulty methodology. Instead, examine how the science of evolution is done, before deciding if it is scientific or 'assuming the resolve'. If you can show me how Kumar-Hedges assume the resolve I will accept your point.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 14-December-2005 12:47 PM

I don't need to refute your earlier issues since I have a) done so in Message 84 b) the following quote gets to the heart of it: OK, so we agree that Olsen's book is not presenting evidence for h/c divergence and he took this from science papers. Excellent. If your point was 'Chimps and humans diverged 4 million years ago', it would be simple enough just to have said it. Simple, the theory predicts that this pattern of similarity should exist. It does, thus the theory has succesfully predicted something. In the scientific methodology this is an essential point and gives support to a theory. If you think the methodology of science is flawed, that's another subject. However, I would be surprised if you think that this is not the scientific methodology. OK, so from an objective point of view, you now accept that a) similarity between the chimp DNA and human DNA exists, and that b) this similarity supports the theory.However, Biblical claims are not necessarily originating from a Deity. The bible is a history text, and the information about the priesthood is straightforward human history. There are Romans in the Bible. Evidence that the Romans existed is not evidence that the God discussed in the Bible exists...surely? How? You say: That is not a logical progression. Its non sequitur. How does the latter falify the former? How does DNA evidence confirming a gap of 4 million years which agrees with radiodating falsify my resolve as absurd and wholly based on atheist needs. This is the part of your argument you need to walk through step by step before anyone is going to actually understand it.Once we understand it we can discuss it. Unfortunately, an unfalsifiable proposition. 'Common design' is not an explanation, and massively fails when we look at the DNA of mursupial mice and placental mice (the DNA is dramattically different). Indeed, it fails on many points, which evolution explains with ease. Twice now I have explained how this is not the case. Perhaps it is time you show me how my model does this? You want me to do this again?The theory predicts that our DNA is more similar to species that share a more recent common ancestor. The fossil record says that we share a recent common ancestry with the high apes. Now, a chimp COULD have a DNA that 0% similar to humans and would still be a chimp.Yet chimps DNA is almost identical to human DNA, gorrilas not far behind, other primates a little less so, other placental mammals a bit less, marsupial and monotremes less so, reptiles less,amphibians, fish , invertabrates, bacteria in that explicit order. We can construct nested hierarchies of species that match morphological reports to surprising degrees, agree with the fossil record and so on.We don't assume it is true, instead we askIf theory is true, we should see PREDICTION.
We see PREDICTION, therefore our theory might be true. Yes? 4 million years is a very short period of time in comparison to the time life has spent on earth. About 0.1% of the time in fact. 4 million years is just a sneeze. When discussing the big picture 4 million years is very close. So, you are not going to actually show it, you are just going to assume your resolve is true? We are having a debate, you cannot simply declare your position as being right, please show me some respect. No, I wouldn't. If she produced it to me, I would be skeptical, but I'd look at it. If you said she had written such a paper as part of a debate, and you said 'show me how my pastor is assuming her resolve', I would take a look and either show she is assuming her resolve or not, depending.What would you think of me as a debater if I merely said "She's a Christian? If so the resolve is assumed true - not a matter of opinion.". You would probably respond with something like 'Typical Darwinist: won't even consider the evidence, and just dismisses anything that disagrees with him." - or you would simply disregard me.You certainly wouldn't respect such a response would you? Where on earth did this come from? When have I said anything that would lead you to that conclusion? I have merely disagreed with you as to what Olsen is actually saying.All I want you to do, to settle this issue, is to apply your philosophical training and show me how this paper assumes the resolve. You will win a major victory if you do so.My prediction is that you will continue to avoid doing this.

Please, Ray, show me some respect, I am merely trying to understand your position, and explain to you mine. Lets keep this civil! It was a refutation of your claim that Olsen was building some kind of case for the c/h divergence. The resistance is nothing to do with the date of the c/h divergence, I think everyone is largely in agreement on this. A slight misunderstanding. I said it would be simple enough *just* to have said it. You said other things to, and it is these things which are being debated. No, you made other claims too. No problem. First, it was predicted that Apes share a recent common ancestor. Source: Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'. We soon discover that genes (and importantly DNA (1953) are the medium of heredity. Darwin said that the way apes and humans diverged is by descent with modification. The modification occurs to the DNA.It is a logical prediction at that point to say that if Darwin was right then we should see less DNA modification between apes and human than we do other species.This prediction was tested in 1975 by King & Wilson. So if a historical claim made by a historical text is confirmed as accurate, the supernatural claims are bolstered? I don't see how. Does this apply to other texts too? OK, so the only historical source for the enstatement of a priesthood is in religious writings. The Old Testament records history, and some of its historical claims have been corroborated. I am puzzled as to how this benefits the 'context' (by which I assume you mean the 'word of God'). So, if the Bible is the Word of God, then creationism is right.Agreed. However, an account of the history of a priesthood, embelleshed with supernatural entities, does not support the existence of said supernatural entities.We are drifting off topic here though, so anymore on the subject should probably be taken elsewhere. No it doesn't. I said the DNA dating agrees with the radiodating. The rest of your commentary regarding the validity of radiodating can be taken to the Dating forum. Descent with modification was proposed before the 4-6 million year gap. except for the obeservation of it happening. The mice DNA does not falsify the theory, and your flatly stating it does not make it so. The fossil evidence is that marsupial and placental mammals diverged a long time ago. If this is the case then marsupial mice and placental mice should be less genetically similar than placentals are to one another, despite there basic similarity.That's what theory says should be the case. That is the case. How can this falsify the theory? Darwin was an honest man like that and withdrew claims and often preceded his ideas with a disclaimer.He openly expected many of his speculations and hypothesis to prove wrong but that the structure of the theory would remain standing. I wasn't making a logical argument to be non sequitur. I was asking whether or not you were going to show your conclusion that they assume their resolve as true, or instead if you were going to simply assume your resolve is true.I then made a statement that one cannot simply declare oneself right in a debate. OK, so they assume humans evolved from the get-go. The question is whether that assumption is within the paper they presented. If you can show where this is assumed.To me the paper says, 'if evolution happened then we should be able to construct a molecular timetable which agrees with other dating methods. Here is how we made our clock, this is what it says, here is how it agrees with other dating methods.'Where's the humans have evolved assumption in that? At what point is such an assumption used as support for their conclusion?If you won't read and comment on the paper, let me provide you with the abstract:

quote:

---

A timescale is necessary for estimating rates of molecular and morphological change in organisms and for interpreting patterns of macroevolution and biogeography. Traditionally, these times have been obtained from the fossil record, where the earliest representatives of two lineages establish a minimum time of divergence of these lineages. The clock-like accumulation of sequence differences in some genes provides an alternative method by which the mean divergence time can be estimated...The molecular times agree with most early (Palaeozoic) and late (Cenozoic) fossil-based times...

---

Either
a) An enormous coincidence occurred so the two independent sets of data confirm one another.
b) The species listed do share common ancestry.
c) In his Wisdom, God/some supernatural entity deliberately set it up this wayI'm not one to ignore massive correllations and dismiss it as being coincidence, and the God did it option is problematic since the data could say the opposite and it would still be true. Yet this is true also of creationists. Indeed, moreso! Making assumptions to reach a conclusion and assuming your conclusion is true to reach your conclusion are different things. I have science training. One of the first things I had to do when solving a problem was to painstakingly list what assumptions I am making. Assume g=10, no air resistance and a frictionless pulley, the weight of the string is negligible and the weight itself is a point mass...It's almost second nature.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 17-December-2005 08:02 AM

That's silly ray. I'm not going start listing examples, that's just childish. Your tone was on the line and carried the potential to go overboard. I was just politely reminding you. Well, it was mostly about human evolution, not ape evolution so it spoke of African bushmen. It did mention c/h divergence, but it wasn't building a case or presenting evidence for it. It merely stated it. Does this have a point? I simply stated that nobody has a problem with the c/h divergence time. Ray, please carefully read what I write. I said *just* said it. You didn't *just* say that science says we split 4 million years ago, you said other things too.Are you claiming that the only thing you have said on this thread is that humans and chimps diverged 4 million years ago? Irrelevant. He used what his theory said to predict our closest related species. The prediction was tested, and passed the test. That's what you asked. Irrelevant. You asked me to demonstrate that a prediction was made. I did. The claim maker is the author of that book of the Bible. I believe that he existed and corroborated historical information can help place when he existed. It does not lend support to his supernatural claims. Not really. The conclusion that humans and chimps diverged was already thought from the morphology. That was confirmed further by DNA evidence. The corroboration is related. A historical claim made in the bible is not related to a supernatural claim in the bible.Conflating the two is not a logical progression. That makes no sense, who is talking about embelleshed opinions? I said that a historical account embellished with supernatural explanations does not support the supernatural explanations when the history is corroborated. You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it a logical statement. Yes...if God created the heavens and the Earth then creationism is true. A logical statement, but slightly obvious. However, a corroboration of a historical event recorded by people does not corroborate that peoples religious beliefs. What on earth are you talking about, Ray? Ray, you told me that I was assuming radiodating was accurate. I did no such thing. I merely said that the dating methods agree with one another. If they are both wrong then they are both wrong by the same degree in a massive array of cases. The fossil record records that marsupial mice should be more closely related to kangaroos than they are to placental mice. The DNA evidence agrees with this. You cannot just say this falsifies evo arguments, you'll have to show it. I am not even sure where you got half of your response from, it seems entirely divorced from what I was saying.Once again, turning to Darwin's The Descent of Man, we see that even in his time the observation that placentals where a divergence from marsupials had been made. This is what Darwin said, the DNA evidence arrives at the same conclusion. Is this what you would call falsification? I did. You didn't actually explain how it falsifies any theory, just just said it did. Can you now show me how it falsifies the theory? Irrelevant. OK so my prediction that you will not do this has been tested and it passed. What is Kumar and Hedges' resolve? Where is it assumed to be true? That is ALL I am asking. Its a very short paper, should only take you a few minutes.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 18-December-2005 09:51 AM

Ray, we weren't talking about transitional fossils. I said that the prediction was that apes were the closest relation to humans. The closest relation to humans should have less 'modifications' than any other species. The modifications that Darwin spoke of occurs to the DNA. The prediction should be that apes have DNA that is most similar to human. This was tested in the 1970s. You asked me to show that this prediction was made (Message 108, I did. So why bring up transtional fossils? Ray, I am trying to understand your position and I am giving you the oppurtunity to explain it to me. I am telling you ways that you can explain it to me. If you wish to hand waive away my attempts and call me closed minded, then just say so, we can stop debating since you aren't going to debate in good faith.Its interesting that when I was agreeing with your points you thought I was reasonable and honest, but when I started disagreeing with your points you suddenly thought I was closed minded.In order to keep things moving smoothly I must interpret this tactic of yours where you haven't addressed a single part of my post, instead asserting that is wrong or athiest philosophy without actually building a case You know how refutation works, Ray? It involves explaining why your opponent is wrong, or why their point doesn't actually refute your point because it is irrelevant or a bare assertion.

---

Back on topic

Let's actually try and review what we have discussed so far. I'm not going to sink to the level of insulting your ability as a debate opponent, but instead I'm going to put forward the argument you are facing in a straightforward manner. Feel free to reply with your refutation.

Science

We agree that science says that h/c split occurred some 4 million years ago.The radiodating suggests life has been around for four billion years.The fossils, combined with radiodating suggest the h/c split is 4-6 million years ago.If it is possible to calibrate a genetic clock, we should see said clock give about the same time for h/c split...Kumar and Hedges make it out to be 5.5 million years ago.We agree the word 'similar' is relative. Message 1004 million years, relative to the 4 billion years that life is purported to have existed is quite similar to 2 million years (modern human). We share 3,996,000,000 years of similarity and only 4,000,000 years of dissimilarity (in the context of years that's 99.9% closeness). In the context of years, this is easily quantifiable as similar. In the context of comparisons they are most similar species. The only time the two things might be considered dissimilar is if we compare the similarity of two humans and the similarity of humans and chimps. That is: chimp DNA is more different to humans than human DNA is to human DNA.It's a bit like saying brachiosaurus wasn't large because the blue whale is much larger.Finally, I've challenged you to demonstrate that Kumar/Hedges assume their resolve. All you have done is assert it over and over again, but you have failed to provide any logical construct which demonstrates this.

Bible

It is your opinion that if a person makes a historical claim and attributes the cause of that historical event to a supernatural entity and the historical claim is verified, that is support to the claim of a supernatural entity.You need to validate this logical step. Perhaps examples from other literature? The Iliad would be an interesting start, then perhaps the Quran which doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God, but the direct word of God dictated to a prophet word for word.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 19-December-2005 12:03 PM

I can feel an agreement in the air. Let's try and get one! But does the DNA evidence support the following conclusions, assuming all species share a common ancester:a) That chimpanzees are the closest related species to humans, and share the most recent common ancestor?b) That said recent common ancestor existed about 5 million years ago?If you agree that with our assumption, the DNA evidence gives us the above conclusions, we can then discuss the validity of the assumption. I hope you don't think that our assumption is assuming the resolve - the resolve is a) and the resolve is b), neither of which are the assumption we are making to arrive at those conclusions.

That's OK Ray, I hope you had a nice Christmas. If you are still interested in the debate then I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on some of the outstanding posts: Message 129 and Message 133If not then take care and let me also thank you for the debate!

When trying to come to conclusions one needs to assume previous work is true. When calculating how to get to the moon, we started with 'Assuming Newton's laws of motion and gravity are correct'.If you want, we can discuss the validity of the assumption later, but for the moment, can we agree, that with the assumption the conclusions I listed would naturally follow? Just for the moment, let's leave the validity of the assumption out of the debate because we both are well aware that we disagree with one another on it, so reiterating that for 300 posts is wasting both our time. Instead, it would be more constructive to find areas of common agreement. To this end, I'll repeat the question(s):

quote:

---

But does the DNA evidence support the following conclusions, assuming all species share a common ancester:

​

a) That chimpanzees are the closest related species to humans, and share the most recent common ancestor?

​

b) That said recent common ancestor existed about 5 million years ago?

---

Think about it like this: If I said:Assuming that acceleration due to gravity is constant and that it is 10ms^-2 (and air resistance is negligible etc etc), we can work out how many metres an object has fallen after a given time using the following calculation:s=(v_o)t + 1/2at²The object started at 0ms^-1 and we calculate for 10 secondss=1/2 x 10 x 10²s=1/2 x 10³s=1/2 x 1000s=500 metres.Do you agree that the distance the object falls would be 500 metres, given our assumptions? Answering 'Why would anyone assume acceleration due to gravity is constant? Answer: Because there is no evidence except by assumption' doesn't really work. Sure, the assumptions validity is highly questionable, but we can get to that once we agree that the conclusions are accurate with the assumptions...one step at a time With me?This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 08-January-2006 09:24 PM