Human and Chimpanzee Common Ancestry

USincognito · #11 7th June 2009, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

You quit when you ran out of arguments...

Liar, as anyone who reads that thread will see.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

...and started making these bizarre equivocations with the lunar landing being thought a hoax.

Liar. My premise was comparisons of other hoaxes (including Apollo and the Loch Ness "surgeons photo") with Piltdown entirely within context of the debate as anyone who reads the thread will see.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Piltdown should be cited by Creationists and my argument was simply that the Taung Child is a similar hoax. When you were confronted with it you quit the debate unconditionally and the truth of what I say is in the debate thread.

Liar. Since you seem to have such trouble remembering corrections people provide you about your genetic "arguments", I'd like to be charitable, but that's not what happened as anyone who read the thread will see.

mark kennedy · #12 7th June 2009, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by USincognito

Liar, as anyone who reads that thread will see.

You mean any of the evolutionists who post here will agree with you. I know the routine but I was there for the debate and we both know you quit when the Taung Child came up. You guys fold like a house of cards when the actual evidence is brought out and you run out of rhetoric.

Liar. My premise was comparisons of other hoaxes (including Apollo and the Loch Ness "surgeons photo") with Piltdown entirely within context of the debate as anyone who reads the thread will see.

That was satire and sarcasm, what Piltdown should be compared to is the way the current evidence is being used. Better then half the population of the US was skeptical that the Eagle had indeed landed. There were valid reasons including the fact that the USSR had faked it once. A more relevant comparison was Taung and when I described how it was discovered you bailed.

Liar. Since you seem to have such trouble remembering corrections people provide you about your genetic "arguments", I'd like to be charitable, but that's not what happened as anyone who read the thread will see.

They are quick to make semanitical corrections for my remarks but not so quick to correct the bogas statements in Time, Scientific American and the OP. You keep calling me a liar but theirs is a lie of ommission.

As far as transcript errors, a mutation is a failure of DNA repair. I had not brought this up in the other thread but transcript errors are mutations, in fact:

This prediction is based on a model of somatic hypermutation of rearranged V(D)J sequences in B lymphocytes which involves the production of reverse transcripts (cDNA), containing nucleotide substitutions from the error-prone processes of transcription and reverse transcription using the V(D)J pre-mRNA template, which then homologously recombine into chromosomal DNA.

Recombination signature of germline immunoglobulin variable genes

There are other indicators that transcription and reverse transcription errors are effected by some unknown mechanism. Since I have to pursue this on my own and get nothing but disinformation from evolutionists it takes time. The point is that saying transcript errors have nothing to do with evolution is wrong.

It's too bad you can't see what I'm into here but why would you? It's much easier to just cast aspersions and as long as you aim that at creationists your credibility is never questioned.

stachu1962 · #13 2nd November 2009, 06:17 PM

Hi,

We just had a Creationist Conference in Poland. I translated a great lecture given by a PhD microbiologist from UK. The plain conclusion is: "The 99% identity of our genome with one chips have is a TOTAL MYTH!" He brought up some good stuff!

Usually when popular media inform about alleged 99% shared genome they omit rater important detail that they are talking about just 2% of the whole DNA information - about protein-coding genes. The rest of the DNA does not look so identical!

Loudmouth · #14 3rd November 2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by stachu1962

Hi,

We just had a Creationist Conference in Poland. I translated a great lecture given by a PhD microbiologist from UK. The plain conclusion is: "The 99% identity of our genome with one chips have is a TOTAL MYTH!" He brought up some good stuff!

Usually when popular media inform about alleged 99% shared genome they omit rater important detail that they are talking about just 2% of the whole DNA information - about protein-coding genes. The rest of the DNA does not look so identical!

There are two comparisons. The first is the comparison of DNA that humans and chimps share through common ancestry. That is, DNA that has not been deleted since common ancestry. These are DNA substitutions where one base is switched for another. When that DNA is compared the identity is 98%. This number is higher in protein coding regions and lower in non-coding, non-regulatory DNA as would be expected from the process of evolution. How do the creationists explain why there are more differences in introns than in exons? In fact, how do they explain differences in introns at all? How do creationists explain divergence of LTR's in ERV's? How do the explain the fact that ERV's shared by all primates have a larger LTR divergence than the LTR's found in ERV's shared by just humans and chimps? Evolution can explain all of these facts, but I have yet to hear a creationist explain it.

The other comparison is the overall comparison. This includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry. This identity is closer to 95%. The two comparisons answer two different questions: 1) what is the substitution rate, 2) at what rate is new DNA inserted and old DNA deleted.

Agonaces of Susa · #15 10th December 2009, 02:00 AM

In order to set the scientific record straight: there is no common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

mark kennedy · #16 10th December 2009, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

There are two comparisons. The first is the comparison of DNA that humans and chimps share through common ancestry. That is, DNA that has not been deleted since common ancestry. These are DNA substitutions where one base is switched for another. When that DNA is compared the identity is 98%.

But when you add the indels another 5 million events covering 95 million base pairs the divergence triples. That is in addition to the chromosomal rearrangements and you know it.

This number is higher in protein coding regions and lower in non-coding, non-regulatory DNA as would be expected from the process of evolution. How do the creationists explain why there are more differences in introns than in exons? In fact, how do they explain differences in introns at all? How do creationists explain divergence of LTR's in ERV's? How do the explain the fact that ERV's shared by all primates have a larger LTR divergence than the LTR's found in ERV's shared by just humans and chimps? Evolution can explain all of these facts, but I have yet to hear a creationist explain it.

Baloney! I think you are suggesting that the protein coding genes have more then a 98% sequence identity but you don't support it with anything tangible. Same with the introns and exons, you make the statement and offer no particulars. Then some obscure question about LTRs in ERVs and why they are different....different in what, where...what on earth are you talking about?

Why are PtERV1-like elements present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon? Particularly when CERV1/PtERV1 with 100 members is estimated between 5 mya and 7.8 mya. Why do 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level? How do you explain the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes (1,418 of 22,000 genes) since the split from chimpanzees. How do you explain this:

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 400Myr ago (Nature 443, 167-172 14 September 2006)

Oh wait, that's right. You don't have to explain anything, just contradict creationists and it's instant credibility no matter how weak your arguments.

The other comparison is the overall comparison. This includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry. This identity is closer to 95%. The two comparisons answer two different questions: 1) what is the substitution rate, 2) at what rate is new DNA inserted and old DNA deleted.

Here's a table you can use but substitute 6% with 1.33% as the average mean and let me know how that turns out for you.

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes

4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8

Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation

Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1.

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

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans (Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella
Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

Why did you answer none of these questions in the debate?

Have a nice day

Mark

mark kennedy · #17 10th December 2009, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Agonaces of Susa

In order to set the scientific record straight: there is no common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

What is really odd is that every time an ape skull in unearthed in Africa it is automatically one of our ancestors and never a chimpanzee ancestor. This guy is even a canidate for a Gibbon ancestor except like all antideluvian creatures he is considerably bigger overall. Oh yea, and one very important thing that the article said that is not true, Lucy is not one of our ancestors. Those bones were dated at about 180,000 years old and she had a chimpanzee skull, just like Taung.

Seeing through this stuff is not difficult but don't confuse everything evolutionists say with fact.

Grace and peace,
Mark