Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Why not actually post that hard DNA evidence rather than merely boasting that you can?The genomes of chimps and humans are both freely available online, at the moment the only thing we have about the Cohen lineage is your word.TTFN,WK

We don't assume that they are similar, this is demonstrably the case. If you so wished you could download the relevant data onto your computer and do all of the comparisons yourself. As to whether it is supportive of claims about human evolution; the degree of similarity comparative to other organisms whose genomes have been sequenced, or comparisons of more limited sets of data, certainly agrees with the hypothesis that chimps are very closely related to us compared to other members of the animal kingdom. This one contains a whole lot of assumptions, many of them pretty huge. The Y-chromosomal markers observed among the Kohanim certainly show that there has been a well maintained patrilineal lineage amongst the priesthood, apart from the old testament there is no evidence that god was involved in its establishment however. As others have suggestes there are a number of other contexts in which patrilineal lineages can be associated with specific positions which would lead to a subsequent conservation of their Y-chromosome.Lets put that aside and assume that both of these are true. Neither, if both are true then they have just as much weight. These are not mutually exclusive facts, they do not compete. God can just as easily make a lineage of Kohanim priests among the human descendants of a common ancestor of chimps and humans as he can of humans descended from Jacob. This is absolutely wrong. We know the degree to which they are similar and the complementary degree to which they are not similar, we do not know that they are simply 'not similar'. This seems to be a total non sequitur. Why does the fact that the descendants of a lineage established within the last few thousand years are more closely related than members of a lineal population seperated by several milion years have any impact at all on observations about geological formation.Its like arguing that because Elvis came before The Beatles therefore Mozart was better than Beethoven.The only way in which the Cohen lineage 'outwieghs' that between humans and chimps is in the noted degree of similarity, which is perfectly consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis. lineages with a mor recent comman ancestore, i.e. Arron, are going to be more closely related genetically than more distant common ancestors, i.e. that of chimps and humans.You are setting up a false dichotomy and using it to try and prove something completely unrelated.TTFN,WK

Wow, like..wow!!! Can you really never have come across the human genome project? Are you completely unaware of genomics? Both the chimp and human genomes have been sequenced and been put through extensive comparisons (Mikkelsen, et al., 2005). You can download the entire genomes of both and do all of the comparisons yourself if you have the time and inclination. The open post of this thread is actually based on the sequencing of the chimp genome, how can you miss the point so completely?I have no idea where you got the idea that I was talking about a visual assay.You then go on to discuss this completely irrelevant reference of yours which is not even from the primary literature. Well I guess I'm lucky that I have a Ph.D., not that I expect you to take my word for it. I always figured it was the ones who had the actual evidence on their side who's opinions counted. In this case thats me, because not only do you not have any evidence but you are looking at completely the wrong topic. You mean like the reference to the primary literature I have just provided, rather than a reference to a book written by a science journalist? Do you have some evidence to suggest that Steve Olson has a Ph.D? The blurb from his publisher states he has a BA in physics, so much for your much vaunted 'Darwinian source'. No, you have not. You have posted one that says that the level of similarity suggests that humans and chimps diverged around 5 million years ago. They are still highly similar. Absolute tosh, I very clearly made my language as cicumspect as possible. I not only refer to claims about human evolution but I put forward ideas about relationships between humans and other great apes as hypotheses.You seem to have no grasp of any of the science involved in establishing phylogenies or even any familiarity with current thinking on human origins. All you have is a popular science book predating the sequencing of the chimp genome and your bible, and you only seem to have understood what you read in one of those books.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-Dec-2005 05:32 PM

Thats funny, I would have thought that you actually having some evidence might have shown your rightness. I see that your reading comprehension of my work is as poor as I suspect your comprehension of Olson was. I don't know anything about Steve Olson's book outwith what you yourself have relayed to me.My objections were based on you petty claim that one needed a Ph.D. in order to 'count', compounded with your repeated pushing of quotes from Steve Olson as the be all and end all of Darwinism, when he doesn't have a Ph.D. and indeed his degree is in physics.I haven't 'abandoned' Mr. Olson, I know nothing about him, I have no reason to doubt that his book is an enjoyable popular science book on human origins. I also have no reason to doubt his understanding of evolutionary theory.All I have objected to is your presenting him as some sort of ultimate authority and claiming that you know what he is stating, even though it doesn't accord with the quotes you present. Please provide references from the primary literature to support your claim that this is the methodology used. Naturalism's conclusions can also be seen to support the divine, just not the demented.Where can we expect to see your paper published?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-Dec-2005 11:09 PM

What? You disposed of me without using any evidence? Using only the power of your repetition of baseless assertions?You wouldn't rather actually come up with some evidence to support some of your claims?If you just plan to insult and evade everybody on the forum your stay here might be a short one.TTFN,WK

So now we have a baseless claim that a completely irrelevant reference you provide, which you don't even seem to understand, is evidence in support of your previous baseless claim.I don't claim that reference might not be evidence, I don't disagree with what Olson says, it just isn't evidence relevant to any of the things we were discussing. you might recall that you brought that reference up on the, completely irrational, basis that it was the data I was talking about when discussing comparisons of human and chimp genomes, which it clearly wasn't.This entire bizarre arabesque riff about Steve Olson is completely irrelevant, all it is evidence for is your complete incomprehension of what we are actually discussing and your need for digression onto side avenues you think you can win some point over. No, it is a suggestion that common courtesy might be a better method to employ than confrontational bigotry, if having a productive debate rather than mere shit-kicking is your intended goal.I wasn't calling to the mods to rescue me, if I wanted to do such a thing I could do it in private by e-mail or on the Admin boards since I am a mod myself. I just know that you have been banned before and I think it would be better if you could self-moderate your approach to a level where productive debate might actually be possible. Are you suggesting that I personally did this to Salty? I don't recall our discussions going like that. I was always keen to engage Salty on the literature relevant to his hypothesis and to sugst to him papers which migh compliment or raise problems for his hypothesis, the only problem I ever had was that no matter what the papers said Salty always decided that they were supportive of his theories and that he became very reluctant to discuss how papers he refereenced as relevant recent research were suportive of his theories or to give us some idea of the other extensive current research whcih supported the PEH.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-Dec-2005 12:31 AM

I was aware of that reference, it just isn't a reference which refers to anything in the discussion.Herepton just assumed that reference, or the data upon which it drew, was the basis for my claims of available data on the similarity of chimp and human genomes, which of course they weren't.TTFN,WK

In message #59 I provided a link to the full text of a paper from the Chimp Genome issue of Nature which discussed a number of different genetic comparisons extensively.In fact I'll give him a sentence from the abstract to replace his feeble Olson reference. I think that is a much more dramatic demonstration of the differences between humans and chimps than his measly karyotypic data and his '5000 points'. One more nugget for the quote mines. Its a very impressive number of differences, provided you know absolutely nothing about the sort of scales of genetic divergence expected according to evolutionary theory and observed in comparison to other organisms whose genomes have been sequenced.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-Dec-2005 01:05 AM

Not me, you must be thinking of some other guy. Certainly Mammuthus is the man when it comes to ERV's.These reference show very nicely however that the sources of genetic distance within the human species are exactly the same sort as those between humans and chimps, they only differ in degree.TTFN,WK

Because you can't read properly? I have stated several times that ther are dissimilarities, I have provided you a proper reference to the primary literature which gives a detailed account of the actual differences at the genetic level. Why not strain yourself a little and look at the actual research done by biologists rather than a pre comparative genomic popular account written by a physicist.Can you really be so phenomenally obtuse that you still can't understand that something with dissimilarities can still be more similar than anything else.Yes the Chimp and Human Genomes are dissimilar, they are also similar. In fact the comparative genomic data suggests that they are about 95% similar and 5% dissimilar based solely on the genetic sequence. If you had a calculation incorporating a value representative of chromosomal rearrangements then you would probably find a slightly higher degree of dissimilarity.Do you understand this yet? Distinct dissimilarities do not mean that the genomes are completely dissimilar. You obviously have a highly unique concept of the word accurate. 4 Million years apart is not a measure of genetic distance, the figure of 4 million years apart is derived from the observed dissimilarities. It is the extent of those dissimilarities which should be used to categorise the genomes as similar or dissimilar, not figures derived from that data.TTFN,WK

Why even bother discussing the data if you have already made up your mind that no matter what it shows you will not consider it support.What level of similarity would you consider neccessary to support the 'resolve'. You are right this is both baloney and total bullshit, but unless you can provide a reference to the primary literature showing where evolutionists actually use such a ridiculous calculation then it is your bullshit and baloney.So essentially your argument is that you have no argument, but that you ain't related to no stinking monkey?TTFN,WK

Except we are all willing to discuss the data, you just want to make the same weak claims over and over again.Is there some reason why you didn't actually answer my question? Or is your answer, the level of the 'Aaronic pristhood' and no other? Lets go in order, you show me the reference in the primary literature that you got your calculations from.TTFN,WK

Actually, even if you just looked back at the segment I quoted previously from the abstract of the paper detailing the genetic dissimilarities we can see it is total bullshit. How can either 35 million single nucleotide changes or 5 million indels be in any way consistent with your claim of a purported rate of 1 random mutation every 1000 years being put forward by 'Evos' and coming out with a divergence 5 million years ago.According to you a single 'random mutation', however you are choosing to define that, will consistently encompass 0.001% of the genome , best present data on the human genome is 3,272,187,692 base pairs in length. So we have 0.001% of the genome being one 'random mutation'. This means that a single 'random mutation' by your reckoning encompasses ~32,000 base pairs.Can you tell us how any of this actually reconciles with published data and analyses of the levels of similarity between the human and chimp genomes?TTFN,WK

Isn't this heresy?TTFN,WK

Does that count for me as well?TTFN,WK