Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus. It has been conclusively demonstrated that this is wrong but those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts. The 98% homology rule holds since most of the differences are in non-coding regions. The truth is slowly coming out, this isn't true either:

ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there...

...The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent. Human-chimp Difference May Be Bigger

Think I'll keep a running total this time, usually the first few posts are simple ad hominem attacks. These are then followed by rhetorical questions (basically asking questions that go in circles). There will always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.

One of the mainstays of this forum is finding an error, usually by creating one through semantics or twisting statements.

Ad hominems
Rhetorical devices
Error Fabrication

Now when we get past all of that the benign scientific type will enter, inquire of the resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.

Other then that, anyone who has something substantive to contribute to the thread I'd be interested in whatever you have for me.

Have a nice day
Mark

The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus. It has been conclusively demonstrated that this is wrong but those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts. The 98% homology rule holds since most of the differences are in non-coding regions. The truth is slowly coming out, this isn't true either:

ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there...

Looks like the running total on ad homs is 4, so far. Did I miss one?


1. not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus.

2. those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts.

3. always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.

4. resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.

Bold emphasis mine. Thanks for the article, Mark. It's own content refutes your assertions, saving us the effort.

*Tweet* Quote out of context, incomplete point, replay first down.

Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there.

Just to put this in context we originally were thought to have 30,000 genes, now it's less the 20 k. At one time estimates of how many genes absent in the chimpanzee and present in the human genome was around 50, now it's in the hundreds.

That's why I keep coming back, you guys make it so easy. The first one is a sly but empty attempt at error fabrication, the second one was clearly a rhetorical device meant to dismiss the point of the OP without a hearing. Both are fallacious and so far not a single substantive response, you usually don't start getting those until at least the second page.

Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication-1

Initial Resident Bombarder - Hespera

All we are missing is the benign scientific type who comes in and reinforces your fallacious attacks.

Have a nice day
Mark

When Time and Nature Web Focus said that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, is that a true or false statement?

With that omission you managed to surgically remove the whole point, the 6% difference is in the genes. So that's one ad hominem and one rhetorical device.
It would appear that you have point on that.
So far I'm three for four and that's from the first response.

Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication

Do notice that the content of the quote, article and paper is utterly ignored and her attack is stickily ad hominem or 'to the man'.

Have a nice day
Mark

The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes)

Mr. Kennedy, you seem to have ignored atomweaver's post...

Anyway, the reason for the differences in the two measurements (98% and 94%) is because they are effectively different scales. See, the 98% measurement is in reference to each nucleotide that makes up the gene. So out of all the bases in ours and an ape's genetic code, only 2% are different.

The 96% measurement is referring to the whole genes, not the individual nucleotides. From what I've gathered, (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the differences in nucleotides are spread out across different genes. In other words: a small amount of different nucleotides can make a gene different. This gives the difference in the two measurements. They are both correct. Arguing this would be like me trying to argue that a shrub is one yard high, and you saying that is incorrect because the shrub is actually three feet high. Or if you're in Europe, 1,000 meters and not 1 kilometer.