Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

mark kennedy · #71 19th April 2009, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Nathan45

Mark:

Ok. fine. it's 96% (or 92% or 94% or whatever) not 98%, if the 98% figure doesn't count the additions or the subtractions, or whatever. who cares?

My thing is this, whatever it is it is far more divergence then was predicted or reported for 50 years. It made such a nice and neat argument for common ancestry but then when the known divergence soared no one cared. What if it's 90% or lower because not all of the chimpanzee genome sequences were high enough in quality to be reliable. How much is too much because we already know the effect of mutations are most often neutral or deleterious and that beneficial are extremely rare and almost never without deleterious effects associated.

So what? The directly observed and demonstrated effects of major genomic change is known to be resulting in deleterious disease and disorder and you just ask, 'so what'?

Typical!

Have a nice day

Mark

Mystman · #72 19th April 2009, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

If we were comparing apples to apples and clearly we are not, the substitution, in the open reading frame of a protein coding gene, would most often result in a truncated protein. This is due to a stop codon being inserted causing a frameshift.

Naraoia already responded to this, but I'd like to quote it again.

Assuming that you actually meant to write what you wrote here (accidentally using the wrong word or something is human.), this paragraph gives me the idea that you've read a lot of wikipedia or other sources on genetics. That you've gathered a bunch of facts on the whole issue.

But that you don't actually understand it.

Whenever I've studied a certain subject, but don't truly understand it, I have the same situation. I know a bunch of facts, vaguely know the connections between some of the facts, and may be able to string together a plausible sounding story involving all the facts.

But without actually understanding the process, you're likely to make some minor errors in the story... errors that a teacher would spot, and from which the teacher could deduce that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

consol · #73 19th April 2009, 06:40 AM

Mark,
why would your god allow there to be any similarities whatsoever between us and chimps,
we are even arranged to LOOK similar to chimps, everything a chimp has we have,
we do everything a chimp does only the chimp does most things better than us,
we have only one thing going for us and that's a bigger brain. (Evolution has given us that)

You, me, all of us are APES, you can either live with that fact or fool yourself into believing there's a god,
the choice is yours, your choice will not change the facts but please feel free to choose.

PS, I thought the definition of a 'kind' was the animals that looked similar were the same 'kind' (like monkeys)

Hespera · #74 19th April 2009, 11:22 AM

Quoth mystman:

But that you don't actually understand it.

Whenever I've studied a certain subject, but don't truly understand it, I have the same situation. I know a bunch of facts, vaguely know the connections between some of the facts, and may be able to string together a plausible sounding story involving all the facts." QUOTE///

Hespera sez:

This statement about MK is what is so obvious to everyone reading his posts. All hat and no cattle, as we say out west.

It is more than a little revealing that it is always posted in an aggressive style, demeaning the researchers, with accusations of bias and fraud. Claims that no "creationist" would ever be allowed to post.

Among the things revealed is the obvious projecting of his own fatal error onto others, the unshakable a priori assumption. MK thinks people are a special creation; nothing will ever change that, no matter what. So like you said..."may be able to string together a plausible sounding story". But get at an understanding? Not so likely.

Deciding you have the answer first and then setting out to prove it, ignoring or ridiculing all that does not is sure the wrong way to do research, but who knows. If he puts enough energy into it, he may some day make some tiny contribution to science.

BananaSlug · #75 19th April 2009, 11:42 AM

MK, why can you not accept a 200cc increase from H. habilis (612) to early H. erectus (~800) but he can easily accept a 600cc increase from early H. erectus to modern H. sapiens? I would like to see your answer.

Naraoia · #76 19th April 2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hespera

Who in the group handled weapons how well would have a lot to do with who got to reproduce.

Hmm, I like the weapons idea. I've never heard of chimps using weapons against each other, though recently someone discovered that they may use weapons for hunting. Having a big, possibly sharpened stick and being able (and willing) to use it does look like a serious advantage.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

I don't know if you have a point there or not.

I did have one: that the 98% similarity came as a surprise, and people expected much less based on how different chimps and humans are phenotypically.

My point is that if it's nucleotide by nucleotide and gaps (indel) it's 96%.

Where did that come from again?

If it's gene comparisons and I do mean the actually number of genes in common, it's 96%. When you look at 3 billion base pairs and 4% of the divergence has to have happened since the split I don't see this happening by random mutations, genetic drift or any of the other normative evolutionary pathways.

Actually, it doesn't all have to happen after the split. Some (a lot?) of it could have come from pre-existing polymorphisms that were fixed independently after the split.

Then you have to take into account that 2 million years ago the lineage leading up to humans has to have a genetic basis for a threefold expansion.

For Pete's sake, don't harp on that expansion again until you've shown me what's implausible about achieving it by a small relative increase every generation.

Let's work it out together. Assume, as you suggest, an increase from 500 to 1500 cm³ in 2 million years, and the same relative increase each generation (which fits nicely with an exponential increase). Stay with the 20-year generation time for simplicity. That means we have 100 000 generations for a threefold increase.

There's a handy compound interest calculator here (so I don't have to worry about miscalculation). Try the following parameters:

500 for starting deposit
0.0011 for annual interest rate
100000 years

And mentally substitute "average brain volume" for "deposit", "increase" for "interest" and "generation" for "year".

The result is 1502.07.

0.0011% is the constant rate of increase you need to triple a starting number in 100000 generations. One thousandth of one per cent, or 0.015 cm³ for a 1500 cm³ brain. Is this really so unbelievable under strong, possibly runaway selection? When existing variation within our species is much larger than that?

This is perhaps the most conserved of the human organs with no known effects from genetic changes except disease and disorder.

Is synaesthesia a disorder? Tone deafness? Not-exactly-average intelligence? A unique personality?

I highly doubt all the genetic variation in the human brain is pathological. The fact that we can't always pinpoint specific genes behind perfectly normal variation doesn't mean no genetic influence is involved, only that these are complex polygenic traits.

This would include on HAR1f regulatory gene that has not been substantially altered since the Cambrian allowing on two substitutions since the split between primate ancestors and chicken ancestors.

I think I've mentioned Odysseus to you? Odysseus the homeobox gene that's accumulated more amino acid substitutions in the past 0.5 million years than in hundreds of millions of years (the 700 My they suggest is probably too much, but 600 wouldn't be too far-fetched) before?

<aside>

HAR1f and HAR1 haven't been around since the Cambrian. From the paper reporting its discovery:

Originally Posted by Pollard et al. 2006

No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago17.

, and

In addition to the primates, the dog and cow genomes also contain HAR1F orthologues, whereas only the HAR1 region, and not the entire transcript, can be aligned to other available amniote genomes.

So HAR1 seems amniote-specific, and the HAR1f gene mammal-specific. Maybe it was an innocent mistake on your part, but suggesting that HAR1 or HAR1f has been conserved since the Cambrian adds at least 100 million years (the Cambrian was over 505 Mya) to the awe factor of your claim...

It would seem that there's something of a mess in your brain, and that hardly helps discussion. If I hadn't decided to look into this HAR1f thing in more detail, I'd never have known that HAR1f isn't even the accelerated region but one of the two genes that overlap it.

</aside>

Pardon my incredulity but I can't even get a straight answer what the mutation rate would be. Maybe you would like to try:

Let's see that paper, then.

In a word, it would have had to be mutations, primarily indels (aka length mutations). It is well known that length mutations have the lowest mutation rate at 2.3 x 10^-9. They are 10 times less common then single substitutions and yet they account for almost three times more divergence. This is the table based on 1.33% divergence:

Make sure you differentiate your own comments from stuff you quote. I first thought that the paper said it's well known that indels occur at that rate, but it says no such thing. The rate you quote is their empirical estimate. (And so is the divergence!!!)

They also don't say, as far as I can tell from a quick read and a search of the text, that indels account for three times the divergence compared to substitutions. They could hardly have said that, since they estimated the mutation rate from the divergence, they didn't take a known estimate of indel rates and apply it to a divergence estimate.

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years

(Which I highly doubt is reasonable, since humans have much longer generation times than all other apes, so presumably, early hominins would've started with a shorter generation time.*)

and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%

Which they previously estimated from the same data. (And it's only the divergence for autosomal pseudogenes, but that's just a quibble)

Care to give it a try?

As you can see above, I decided to read the mutation rate paper, just to make sure I understand what you're talking about.

The paper is about estimating background mutation rates in humans based on the divergence between orthologous human and chimp pseudogenes.

Can you tell me what your point was with citing it? Sorry, but I honestly can't figure out why this paper is relevant to anything, or what I should "give a try".

*Although it appears that H. sapiens generation times are considerably longer than 20 years, on the other hand...

mark kennedy · #77 20th April 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mystman

Naraoia already responded to this, but I'd like to quote it again.

Assuming that you actually meant to write what you wrote here (accidentally using the wrong word or something is human.), this paragraph gives me the idea that you've read a lot of Wikipedia or other sources on genetics. That you've gathered a bunch of facts on the whole issue.

First of all Wikipedia is a source like Creationist websites or Talk Origins, good starting point but hardly primary source documentation. You have no idea what I have read or what I know because all you need to know about me is that I'm a YEC and you are immediately considering yourself my intellectual superior. Naraoia has not adequately responding but then again he is not required to do so unless it interests him.

But that you don't actually understand it.

Again, you would not have the slightest idea what I understand and what I don't. This is typical of the two a priori assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics. First, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes (naturalistic assumptions). If you refuse to make the first assumption then the second one is that you are arguing from incredulity (ignorance).

I have studied the scientific literature regarding human evolution both in genetics and paleontology. Unlike the typical poster on here I don't rely on Talk Origins, Creationist websites, Wikipedia and pedantic satire for the substance of my arguments.

Whenever I've studied a certain subject, but don't truly understand it, I have the same situation. I know a bunch of facts, vaguely know the connections between some of the facts, and may be able to string together a plausible sounding story involving all the facts.

But without actually understanding the process, you're likely to make some minor errors in the story... errors that a teacher would spot, and from which the teacher could deduce that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

That's not the case and the rationalization you are using as a characterature is more of a performance then a valid criticism. This is how it works, responding to the OP is generally a string of ad hominem attacks undermining any visage of credibility on the part of the creationist. This is usually followed by a series of pedantic and circular questions chosen for the dramatic effect rather then their substantive content. Then enters the scientific type who will cherry pick a few points and if pressed will even make a few substantive points. This individual will be limited to the point made previously by the evolutionists who make the initial contact which is Naraoia's primary difficulty except he is probably not aware of it.

Naraoia seems genuinely curious but has picked up on a fallacious thesis that 'chimpanzees and humans are 98% the same in their DNA'. It's simply not true and the more recent genetics research has proven conclusively that this is false. It was still upheld that even though we are only 96% the same in our DNA we are still 98% the same in our genes. As it turns out this is not true either.

When the paper discussed in the OP says that the 98% still holds true depending on the comparison you have to understand what they mean by that:

To understand the genetic basis of the unique features of humans, a number of pilot studies comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes have been conducted. Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis, whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account. (Nature 429, 382-388 27 May 2004)

Do note that this comparison indicated that 20% of the protein coding sequences show gross structural changes, which is nothing more then major structural differences.

Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins, as listed in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5). In addition, 87 genes in the catalogue show mutations in at least one of the splice sites. (Nature 2004)

That's a brief look at one of a dozen primary source documents that has fueled my skepticism with regards to chimpanzee/human common ancestry. The other thing has nothing much to do with scientific literature per se, it is the general attitude of evolutionists like yourself. I have enjoyed a great deal of success isolating their arguments and refuting them on the facts from their cherished scientific literature. Exposing the myth of universal common ancestry is no big trick but don't ask evolutionists their opinion. You have to go to the peer reviewed literature itself, they will get it right there no matter how much they conflate and distort the actual evidence elsewhere.

Have a nice day

Mark

mark kennedy · #78 20th April 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Naraoia

Hmm, I like the weapons idea. I've never heard of chimps using weapons against each other, though recently someone discovered that they may use weapons for hunting. Having a big, possibly sharpened stick and being able (and willing) to use it does look like a serious advantage.

From the article:

Primatologist Craig Stanford, who was not involved in the research, called the 22 observed instances of spearmaking "good evidence."

But the observation of only "one actual kill—and no visual evidence of the spear being used as a spear—weakens it," the University of Southern California (USC) professor said in an email.

I did see an amusing article with a picture of an orangutan trying to spear a fish. He didn't have any success but did manage to catch a fish that had been trapped in a net.

I did have one: that the 98% similarity came as a surprise, and people expected much less based on how different chimps and humans are phenotypically.

Where did that come from again?

Primary Sources:

Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels.

Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002

Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level.

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, Nature 2004

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.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome Nature 2005

Actually, it doesn't all have to happen after the split. Some (a lot?) of it could have come from pre-existing polymorphisms that were fixed independently after the split.

Sounds speculative to me and the major morphological changes would have had to start about 2 mya. Oh by the way, there is still the matter of ERVs that are found in African Apes but virtually absent in the human genome.

For Pete's sake, don't harp on that expansion again until you've shown me what's implausible about achieving it by a small relative increase every generation.

We can do that and also look at some of the other comparisons. I'll probably need to start another tread but it's really no problem. This should help to prime the pump while I get the rest of the detailed specifics together:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(See Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5–1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

Let's work it out together. Assume, as you suggest, an increase from 500 to 1500 cm³ in 2 million years, and the same relative increase each generation (which fits nicely with an exponential increase). Stay with the 20-year generation time for simplicity. That means we have 100 000 generations for a threefold increase.

Interesting scenario but two major problems with it, first of all the Australopithecines were more like apes then humans and humans are not evolving on that scale. It's not 2 million years really, it's closer to half a million years from the rise of Homo habilis to Homo erectus.

There's a handy compound interest calculator here (so I don't have to worry about miscalculation). Try the following parameters:

500 for starting deposit
0.0011 for annual interest rate
100000 years

And mentally substitute "average brain volume" for "deposit", "increase" for "interest" and "generation" for "year".

The result is 1502.07.

You are assuming a smooth linear progression and a successive line, this assumption has hopelessly complicated what is being seen in the fossil record:

It was once thought that the evolution of the genus Homo was an example of anagenesis, the continual and gradual change of one parent species into its daughter species in a linear fashion. As the fossil record began to expand and more early human fossils were found dating to the period between 2 million and 1 million years ago, some questions as to the validity of this hypothesis were raised. The Homo habilis Debate

0.0011% is the constant rate of increase you need to triple a starting number in 100000 generations. One thousandth of one per cent, or 0.015 cm³ for a 1500 cm³ brain. Is this really so unbelievable under strong, possibly runaway selection? When existing variation within our species is much larger than that?

You are assuming that it is cumulative without deleterious effects. Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same. More importantly, with brain related genes I have yet to see one that had a beneficial effect. These are the effects most often seen:

Charcot–Marie–Tooth (CMT) sensorimotor neuropathy
Infantile spasms, dystonia, and other X-linked phenotypes
Schizophrenia
Brain tumors
Alzheimer's disease
Parkinson's disease

Is synaesthesia a disorder? Tone deafness? Not-exactly-average intelligence? A unique personality?

No but Schizophrenia, Brain tumors, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease are devastating disorders.

I highly doubt all the genetic variation in the human brain is pathological. The fact that we can't always pinpoint specific genes behind perfectly normal variation doesn't mean no genetic influence is involved, only that these are complex polygenic traits.

In Regional Patterns of Gene Expression in Human and Chimpanzee Brains 22% of the genes that showed differences between humans and chimpanzees where due to differences between individuals within their respective species. Gene expression and other normative molecular mechanisms can account for human variation nicely but when it comes to chimpanzee/human divergence it gets more complicated since the differences can be staggering:

The cerebral cortex in involved in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, "thinking", language and consciousness.

"In the cerebral cortex, the biggest difference in gene expression is between the primary visual cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex in both humans and chimpanzees, where 193 and 227 genes differ in expression in humans and chimpanzees, respectively."

The primary visual cortex has been observed to have distinct differences between chimpanzees and other primates considered to be related to humans. The human nonphosphorylated neurofilaments (NPNF) is denser with embedded cell bodies, were intermingled with lightly stained territories, giving the layer a mesh-like appearance. (Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 12, No. 7, 671-691, July 2002)

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

I think I've mentioned Odysseus to you? Odysseus the homeobox gene that's accumulated more amino acid substitutions in the past 0.5 million years than in hundreds of millions of years (the 700 My they suggest is probably too much, but 600 wouldn't be too far-fetched) before?

HAR1f and HAR1 haven't been around since the Cambrian. From the paper reporting its discovery:
, and

So HAR1 seems amniote-specific, and the HAR1f gene mammal-specific. Maybe it was an innocent mistake on your part, but suggesting that HAR1 or HAR1f has been conserved since the Cambrian adds at least 100 million years (the Cambrian was over 505 Mya) to the awe factor of your claim...

I think we need to take another look at the actual paper:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago. An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 2006

Point taken, it has allowed only two substitutions since it's origination 400 mya. That's probably not a substantial or significant point but ok.

It would seem that there's something of a mess in your brain, and that hardly helps discussion. If I hadn't decided to look into this HAR1f thing in more detail, I'd never have known that HAR1f isn't even the accelerated region but one of the two genes that overlap it.

It shows accelerated evolutionary changes in the human lineage, one of the most dramatic anyone has seen so far.

Let's see that paper, then.

Make sure you differentiate your own comments from stuff you quote. I first thought that the paper said it's well known that indels occur at that rate, but it says no such thing. The rate you quote is their empirical estimate. (And so is the divergence!!!)

They also don't say, as far as I can tell from a quick read and a search of the text, that indels account for three times the divergence compared to substitutions. They could hardly have said that, since they estimated the mutation rate from the divergence, they didn't take a known estimate of indel rates and apply it to a divergence estimate.

(Which I highly doubt is reasonable, since humans have much longer generation times than all other apes, so presumably, early hominins would've started with a shorter generation time.*)

Which they previously estimated from the same data. (And it's only the divergence for autosomal pseudogenes, but that's just a quibble)...

...Can you tell me what your point was with citing it? Sorry, but I honestly can't figure out why this paper is relevant to anything, or what I should "give a try".

I take it you are referring to this paper:

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

You seem to have missed the point, if the calculations are based on 1.33% then how do the calculations change is it changes to 5% divergence?

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%

Have a nice day

,
Mark

Hespera · #79 20th April 2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

First of all Wikipedia is a source like Creationist websites or Talk Origins, good starting point but hardly primary source documentation. You have no idea what I have read or what I know because all you need to know about me is that I'm a YEC and you are immediately considering yourself my intellectual superior. Naraoia has not adequately responding but then again he is not required to do so unless it interests him.

Again, you would not have the slightest idea what I understand and what I don't. This is typical of the two a priori assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics. First, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes (naturalistic assumptions). If you refuse to make the first assumption then the second one is that you are arguing from incredulity (ignorance).

I have studied the scientific literature regarding human evolution both in genetics and paleontology. Unlike the typical poster on here I don't rely on Talk Origins, Creationist websites, Wikipedia and pedantic satire for the substance of my arguments.

That's not the case and the rationalization you are using as a characterature is more of a performance then a valid criticism. This is how it works, responding to the OP is generally a string of ad hominem attacks undermining any visage of credibility on the part of the creationist. This is usually followed by a series of pedantic and circular questions chosen for the dramatic effect rather then their substantive content. Then enters the scientific type who will cherry pick a few points and if pressed will even make a few substantive points. This individual will be limited to the point made previously by the evolutionists who make the initial contact which is Naraoia's primary difficulty except he is probably not aware of it.

Naraoia seems genuinely curious but has picked up on a fallacious thesis that 'chimpanzees and humans are 98% the same in their DNA'. It's simply not true and the more recent genetics research has proven conclusively that this is false. It was still upheld that even though we are only 96% the same in our DNA we are still 98% the same in our genes. As it turns out this is not true either.

When the paper discussed in the OP says that the 98% still holds true depending on the comparison you have to understand what they mean by that:
To understand the genetic basis of the unique features of humans, a number of pilot studies comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes have been conducted. Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis, whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account. (Nature 429, 382-388 27 May 2004)
Do note that this comparison indicated that 20% of the protein coding sequences show gross structural changes, which is nothing more then major structural differences.
Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins, as listed in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5). In addition, 87 genes in the catalogue show mutations in at least one of the splice sites. (Nature 2004)
That's a brief look at one of a dozen primary source documents that has fueled my skepticism with regards to chimpanzee/human common ancestry. The other thing has nothing much to do with scientific literature per se, it is the general attitude of evolutionists like yourself. I have enjoyed a great deal of success isolating their arguments and refuting them on the facts from their cherished scientific literature. Exposing the myth of universal common ancestry is no big trick but don't ask evolutionists their opinion. You have to go to the peer reviewed literature itself, they will get it right there no matter how much they conflate and distort the actual evidence elsewhere.

Have a nice day
Mark

Still keeping track of the ad homs and personal remarks?

"You have no idea what I have read or what I know because all you need to know about me is that I'm a YEC and you are immediately considering yourself my intellectual superior

Again, you would not have the slightest idea what I understand and what I don't

This is typical of the two a priori assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics.

First, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes

If you refuse to make the first assumption then the second one is that you are arguing from incredulity (ignorance).

That's not the case and the rationalization you are using as a characterature (sic) is more of a performance then a valid criticism. This is how it works, responding to the OP is generally a string of ad hominem attacks undermining any visage of credibility on the part of the creationist. This is usually followed by a series of pedantic and circular questions chosen for the dramatic effect rather then their substantive content. Then enters the scientific type who will cherry pick a few points and if pressed will even make a few substantive points. This individual will be limited to the point made previously by the evolutionists who make the initial contact which is Naraoia's primary difficulty except he is probably not aware of it

Naraoia seems genuinely curious but has picked up on a fallacious thesis

the general attitude of evolutionists like yourself."

.......................................................................................................

Oh never mind. Its practically the whole post other than the cut and
paste.

In the dept of undermining credibility, nobody can do that like a person can do it for himself.

Going on and on about other people rather than sticking to facts and data is one way to lost credibility

Another is to start out with an unshakable assumption like, say, that common descent between people and other apes is impossible.

But the best one employed so far in this case is to have made a completely false statement about how every time a chimp skull is dug up its immediately classified as human (ancestor).

After that... why pay attention to the rest of what someone has to say? Not unless they are willing to admit an error, and admit that is was at best a gross exaggeration.

The reasons that yec and creos are not taken seriously include
a) Zero data
b) unalterable assumptions
c) unwillingness to ever concede error

They tend to take care of their own credibility problem.

mark kennedy · #80 20th April 2009, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Hespera

Still keeping track of the ad homs and personal remarks?

Sure but there are so many I can't possibly track them all, yours for instance are off the chart. Here is another string of quotes you cut and paste with very little to say about them:

"You have no idea what I have read or what I know because all you need to know about me is that I'm a YEC and you are immediately considering yourself my intellectual superior

Again, you would not have the slightest idea what I understand and what I don't

This is typical of the two a priori assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics.

First, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes

If you refuse to make the first assumption then the second one is that you are arguing from incredulity (ignorance).

These statements reflect an observed pattern in evolutionist remarks and while they apply to many they are certainly not restricted to a certain individual.

That's not the case and the rationalization you are using as a characterature (sic) is more of a performance then a valid criticism. This is how it works, responding to the OP is generally a string of ad hominem attacks undermining any visage of credibility on the part of the creationist. This is usually followed by a series of pedantic and circular questions chosen for the dramatic effect rather then their substantive content. Then enters the scientific type who will cherry pick a few points and if pressed will even make a few substantive points. This individual will be limited to the point made previously by the evolutionists who make the initial contact which is Naraoia's primary difficulty except he is probably not aware of it

Naraoia seems genuinely curious but has picked up on a fallacious thesis

the general attitude of evolutionists like yourself."

Not a substantive remark regarding a single quote made out of context and offering no real argument contradicting the statements. Her response to them:

Oh never mind. Its practically the whole post other than the cut and
paste.

Close encounters of the pedantic one liners.

In the dept of undermining credibility, nobody can do that like a person can do it for himself.

Going on and on about other people rather than sticking to facts and data is one way to lost credibility

Another is to start out with an unshakable assumption like, say, that common descent between people and other apes is impossible.

I made no such assumption, that was a conclusion based largely on the genetic divergence and fossil evidence.

But the best one employed so far in this case is to have made a completely false statement about how every time a chimp skull is dug up its immediately classified as human (ancestor).

You have completely missed the point (or ignored it) that chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors are probably represented in the dozens if not hundreds of fossils uncovered in Africa. Only three teeth represent the chimpanzee ancestors while the Australopithecus and other fossils tend to be better candidates for chimpanzee ancestors then human.

After that... why pay attention to the rest of what someone has to say? Not unless they are willing to admit an error, and admit that is was at best a gross exaggeration.

No it's not but since no one every contradicts the ad hominem agitator you can just keep making these rationalizations at random.

The reasons that yec and creos are not taken seriously include
a) Zero data

You have neither addressed nor seriously examined the many peer reviewed scientific papers that I use as primary source material. Not a single substantive response to them and now you act as if they did not exist in my posts. The data is extensive and user friendly for my purposes since evolutionists never admit a problem for the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry.

b) unalterable assumptions

My only assumptions are that God is revealed in nature and you are well aware of this whether you admit it or not:

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:19-23 New International Version)

This is what I expect Johnathan Wells was referring to by the expression, Icons of Evolution

c) unwillingness to ever concede error

It's not an error to say that every time an ape skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically considered one of our ancestors. For one thing they never consider the possibility that they may well be ancestors of living apes other then humans.

They tend to take care of their own credibility problem.

Why you are so self assured of your own credibility speaks volumes for how evolutionists encourage anyone willing to both accept their a priori assumptions and attack creationists.