Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

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

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

Why ? I agree with the basic conclusions ("disimilarity"). This is the first time you have admitted, even though, being a Darwinist, I know you already did. I do understand the argument here - I just disagree that the fact it produces somehow supports the resolve (human evolution). I alluded to this very fact a while back to which you sought support of the assertion. Now you have made it yourself. Quite flabbergasting !People haggle about the degree of similarity, that is anywhere from 95 to 97 percent, which leaves 5 to 3 percent undisputably dissimilar. These are just the current popular facts we are playing with, however. ALL of this is entirely misleading. A 5 percent differential = 5000 points of divergence. Now here comes the baloney: 1 point = 1 random mutation per every 1000 years = total bullshit. Evos expect rational persons to believe man is the product of a steady stream of random mutations - 1 for every thousand years. Dr. King, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn - email me if you want in.No amount of selection could have produced the massive difference in a chimps brain and ours. Now you know why I often refer to hominid evolution as an atheist need. I understood all along. You misunderstood the fact that I understood. I just disagree that the understanding supports the resolve.Ray

Do you believe two mutations could have occurred?:1. Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage.2. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.The first mutation drastically changed the shape of the hominid skull, resulting in an expansion of the brain.The second gave hominids the ability to use language (in fact, it occasionally mutates "back" in humans, and they lose essentially all of their language ability).So, I'll have to disagree with you that evolution could not have produced a human brain from a non-human-primate like brain, since we're two mutations apart in many "higher" brain functions. Well within the genetic dissimilarity between human and chimp.You obviously do not understand the power a single mutation can yield on a organism.

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

Are you going Goldschmidt here and advocating macromutations ? Darwin argued animal growls were the origins of language. This and what you have written above perfectly support the Biblical penalty declaration that macroevolutionary beliefs are a punishment from God for denying Him Creator status.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 12-14-2005 03:50 PM

Thats the exact question (in reverse) that I have been rhetorically making about you Darwinists. I have repeatedly conceded the similarity in a context that included the Aaronic Priesthood evidence.Objectively weighed, the AP is a stunner. The only source and context of the AP is God instituted. I have also agreed to say the degree of support for the existence of God is debateable but it DOES - not a matter of opinion unless you special plead.In this context I do not special plead the c/h DNA similarities. I seek a one on one weight assignment. The former is better explained by ONE Almighty Creator working through a common design. Tell me Dr. King how the dissimilarities are scientifically explained ?Ray

AP Evidence? You keep saying this, and each time I feel like I'm listening to Bartleby the scrivener.If you said, "The only source and context of the AP is ecclesiastically instituted," I could understand: at some point, undeniably, a priesthood became a family occupation. But there is no Aaron trademark on the genetic evidence. Even "The only source and context of the AP is OT instituted," I could understand.Your assertion is either circular or incoherent; there is no necessary link between the genetic evidence and the OT and Aaron, or, for that matter, between the OT and God, if we are discussing physical evidence and logic.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

This fact has already been established. Your assertion is thus groundless. Very predictable atheist philosophy.Ray

Oh.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

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

There are some mutations which have a drastic effect on phenotype. A skull may change shape, or a pair of limbs may disappear. These are documented examples - there is no need to "advocate" for anything. I don't call them "macromutations", just mutations.The first example I gave you involves changes in jaw-associated muscle causing changes to the shape of the skull. You might think this seems outlandish, but one can change the shape of the skull of an adult organism by changing the way the jaw muscles interact with the skull. This is a serious issue for people who have suffered damage to their jaw muscles/skull and their reconstructive surgeons - if care is not taken to properly attach jaw muscle to the skull of a patient the shape of the skull changes over time and can cause neurological problems.The only difference in the example I gave is that a mutation altered the way that the muscle associates with the skull rather than surgery. When an animal growls, is it communicating something? What is language? Wow! I didn't know that "macroevolutionary beliefs" were mentioned in the Bible!I guess you must think little of God. You must think God is too weak and stupid to have produced His Creation through the amazingingly simple, self-correcting process that is evolution.I'll take the fact that you were unable to counter my documented examples (with anything other than personal derision) as a sign that you cannot, and thus that your assertion regarding the power of mutation to diverge human and non-human primate phenotypes is refuted.It seems like when you cannot argue with one of my points, you simply add "macro-" to the front of some terms and think it is some sort of refutation.

Absolutely correct. The existence of the Aaronic Priesthood over the past 3000 years confirms the existence of God.To say otherwise would be special pleading.Additionally:The Vaidika Brahmin Priesthood has a documented existence of roughly 10,000 years, therefore confirming the existence of the array of Hindu Gods, including Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.To say otherwise would be special pleading.

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

Negative.The declared facts previous to page 19 were layed down to orient the reader with the conclusions on page 19.Hence the book title: "Mapping Human History" Then why does WK disagree ? Agreed.It declares them as settled fact. I assume Olson derived these facts, at some point, from scientific papers.Why are we going round and round on this ? I have had to pull teeth to get one Darwinist (you) to acknowledge what evolutionists claim to be general facts about their theory. I could evidence the same facts from Talk Origins or Henry Gee etc. etc. I am glad to read you agree. I have never disagreed. Where I do disagree is with the assumption that the closet similarity = support of the resolve. Objectively, I am willing to accept c/h similarity as supporting your resolve. Then I compare DNA evidence which supports major Biblical claims - claims that originate from the supernatural Deity. The latter falsifies the former by any non-prejudicial evaluation because evidencing a 4 million year gap in similarity to me falsifies your resolve as absurd and wholly based upon atheist needs.The similarity then is better explained by the Creationist model: God working from a common design. Your model assumes the resolve true. Then whatever facts are true = support of resolve = circular predetermined conclusions supporting an assumption. I know.At issue is how this supports your resolve/human evolution claims ?It only does if YOU ASSUME IT DOES. The assumption is a previously-made philosophical decision. Notice I did not say scientific decision.I am currently writing a paper that will prove the Bible accounts for ALL of your evidence in a context of God's wrath, that is what persons who deny Him Creator credit MUST believe as a punishment for the philosophical decision. Because of WHEN the Biblical text was written, and it having correspondence with reality today = falsification of your assumption/resolve; via the time differential reality correspondence that only a supernatural Being could have accomplished. I have already said this fact is very misleading since science has admitted the 4 percent disimilarity equals at least 4 million years. Kumar and Hedges: are they not Darwinists ? If so the resolve is assumed true - not a matter of opinion. If the Pastor of my church produced a paper evidencing the existence of God would you not think, she, beforehand, assumed her resolve true ? You cannot have it one way.The pop book as you call it was written by a Darwinist.Are you saying you disagree with Olson ?Ray