An open reply to Mark Kennedy

Hi Professor, good to see you again

If I compare two sequences of DNA 100 bases long and 99 of the nucleotides are identical, it is a lie to claim that the DNA sequences I am looking at are 99% identical?

Really, I think the statement is crystal clear in this statement in Scientific American, just as it was in Time and the Nature Web Focus page. Here is the quote again:

A humbling truth ... (Scientific Amercian, What makes us human? by Katherine S. Pollard)

You know as well as I that it's at least 35 million based on single base differences genome wide and another 90 million bases (45 MB human, 42 MB chimp) based on indels. No where in the article does this capable and accomplished biostatistician indicate that at least since 2005 the known divergence is at least 100 million base pairs larger.

If I am looking at 2 DNA sequences 100 bases long from two specimens whose genomes are 1 billion bases long and there is 99% identity in the 100 base sequence that I am looking at, is it a lie to claim that 'the DNA' is 99% the same?

The statement is 3 billion base pairs of the human genome diverge by 15 million base pairs. This is simply wrong. Why does a Biology Professor let a statement like this stand when it is clearly erroneous?

What you are saying is that you think that:
-all of the nucleotides involved in insertions deletions and duplications must be accounted for by the overall mutation rate

I think that would be nice but unlikely since the mainstream academic and media sources are not honest about the actual level of divergence.

-the largest % difference number, whatever it is based on, is the number to go by

No sir, the actual divergence. The total number of base pairs in the respective genomes that actually are different. Total base pairs/base pairs different would be the accurate ratio translated into a percentage.

-this larger number must mean that common descent is impossible

I have never said it's impossible, I am saying the the overall divergence indicates accelerated evolution.

When you look at a gene like the HAR 1 gene we are talking about highly accelerated divergence in a highly conserved regulatory gene involved in the early development of cerebral cortex.

I'm not saying this is impossible, as skeptical as I am I realize there are a lot of things that can change in relatively short spaces of time. I'm saying that this leaves room for honest skepticism Professor and reasonable questions arise and should be addressed.

The thing is, if they are not honest about the actual divergence it becomes a credibility issue with me.

- applying the same standards to things like intraspecies comparisons and interspecies comparisons dealing with any species but human and chimp is irrelevant.

I would happily compare them to interspecies and intraspecies comparisons ...

I'm not entirely sure I understood the point you were trying to make here but I assure you my interest in purely academic. As long as evolutionists are honest and straightforward I will accept and even respect their conclusions regarding common ancestry.

However, as long as the actual evidence is being skewed and the actual divergence is being misrepresented I remain skeptical both of their conclusions and professional integrity as I feel you should be.

Your reading of the literature at one time told you that DNA is made of amino acids and that mutations were "monstrosities." Your reading comprehension - as demonstrated by your history - is nothing to boast of or be confident in.

I know the difference between an amino acid sequence in a protein coding gene and other segments.

I have often pointed out that changes in amino acid sequences are neutral at best and when they have an effect they are most often deleterious.

I wouldn't be as tenacious in my skepticism if you were as zealous to correct errors made by your cohorts and peers.

Depends on what you are comparing. Sorry.

It is ~99% generally when comparing homologous genes.

That is not a lie.

When you toss in noncoding DNA and duplicates and the like, the difference increases.

Of course they do.

Just as it would when comparing ANY two species.
Just as it would when comparing any two humans.
Why you seem to think this is so significant in terms of the human-chimp question can be answered by realizing that your religious fervor dictates a need to be correct on a seperate ancestry for apes and humans.

My religion is a separate issue

the issue here is that a glaring error is being dismissed and rationalized.

No need to engage in your ego stroking 'challenges' to 1 on 1 debates - you never write anything in them that you don't write in the regular forum and you employ the exact same dodges and antics.

I know you have no interest in a real debate and I can't say I blame you since the evidence is actually pretty difficult to reconcile to you cherished assumptions.

You are wrong here and you are wrong in 1 on 1 debates. The venue is immaterial.

If I'm so wrong then why does the statement made by Pollard contradict the finding of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium published in 2005? You don't like to talk about that and yet you are unable to convince anyone, even yourself, that I am the one in error.

You want to accuse me of error? Let's do it this way...You know it's not 99% yet you won't admit it.

I am neither surprised nor remotely impressed with the rationalizations you are making here. You would never tolerate such a glaring error made by a creationist but you ignore it when it's made in popular press. Shame on you Professor! I would expect better from a professional Biologist.

Thanks for the jousting match that reinforces my distrust of the academic and intellectual community with regards to our origins. To agree with such a blatant error is to abandon all intellectual integrity. Now you can either correct the error in the statement in the OP and the one in Scientific American or you can stop with the pretense of my errors conflating the actual evidence. My experience with evolutionists has been that you will do neither.

I just hope this gets a response that does not involve a bunch of whiners running to the mods for some trumped up reasons....

First of all I would like nothing better then to answer your statements but currently I am deployed to Afghanistan and I'm stationed at at outpost type place (it's called a FOB actually). We get internet but it's slower then the wheels of justice and I only get about a half an hour.

Any way, I will be glad to respond when I get the chance and since you saw fit to post it to my visitors message center rather then dropping it in a PM I suppose I'll have it forever. I'll get to it first realistic chance I get...by the way...the 99% the same propaganda has always smelled fishy to me. What has really burnt me up is that you guys are so all fired happy to point out creationists mistakes but won't admit them from your own.

I'll get to the thread in time and as far as what the moderators might think of your posts, if they close this one I'll start another one. Still think it's sad you won't have a formal debate with me on the topic but I guess when you are applauded in the Darwinian theater of the mind it's hard to get away from your support system.

Take care of yourself Professor, hope to have the chance to discuss this further in the near future.

Grace and peace,
Mark

First of all I would like nothing better then to answer your statements but currently I am deployed to Afghanistan and I'm stationed at at outpost type place (it's called a FOB actually). We get internet but it's slower then the wheels of justice and I only get about a half an hour.

...the 99% the same propaganda has always smelled fishy to me. What has really burnt me up is that you guys are so all fired happy to point out creationists mistakes but won't admit them from your own.

Still think it's sad you won't have a formal debate with me on the topic but I guess when you are applauded in the Darwinian theater of the mind it's hard to get away from your support system.

Be safe.

God bless Mark and thank you soo much for all you are doing for us folks back home!

I just hope this gets a response that does not involve a bunch of whiners running to the mods for some trumped up reasons...

Yeah - just like old times. In fact, it is EXACTLY like old times - I see the exact same claims, even the exact same data being used (inappropriately, in most cases)

My mistake - I thought you were referring to your same-old, same-old quotes of yore and I did not read this entire thread.

I'm not sure what she is talking about.
Reading the actual paper, I think LifeToTheFullest is onto something - the paper is referring to a collection HARs and it seems to be in reference just to those when compared to chimp, but it is not clear and the SciAm article is clearly either a mistatement or an error.

So I guess all evolutionary biologists mjust be dishonest conspirators...

So you want to condemn all evolutionary biologists on the basis of what one person said in one article?

Can I use that criterion to condemn all Christians because I've seen a few celebrating the assassination of George Tiller?

I've seen creationists claim that no speciation has ever occurred. Does that mean that all creationists believe that ALL extant species were on the ark that didn't really exist anyway?

I also know that the number of bases in an indel has nothing to do with the overall mutation rate. What of it?

What do you mean, 'let it stand'? What would you have me do? Write SciAm and complain that someone said something wrong in an article and that the erroneous statement is really irrelevant to the overall gist fo the article?
The precise number is really not that important, frankly. You are just hung up on it as a means of making what you think is a good argument. It isn't

And creationist detractors are not honest - or very well informed - when it comes to technical issues like this.

It has been explained to you proably a hundred times that the size of an indel is IRRELEVANT because it is a one-time mutational event. It counts as ONE, even if the indel is 10,000 bp long. It all gets inserted or removed in one shot. Therefore, they do not need to be included in the overall mutation
rate, which is a measure of the OCCURRENCE of mutation. In fact, doing so would be an exercise in incompetence, sort of like claiming that if we launch a new rocket and it travels 1000 miles, we have to count it as 1000 individual launches because the old rocket could only go 1 mile.

As indicated, the actual divergence is largely irrelevant since it would be comparing apples and oranges

But it doesn't necessarily, as has also been explained to you repeatedly. And even if it did, what of it?

Sometimes this happens. Sometimes it doesn't. You seem to require a uniform distribution of mutations at all loci for all time. Nature doesn't work that way, and I've seen your recycled quotes before. Not interested. Did you read the actual scientific pub, or just the SciAm bit? The actual article contains interesting information - such as most of the HARs are found close to the ends of chromosomal arms, indicating a positional effect. Hmmm....

Sure, asking questions is fine. But presenting questions as if they are evidence for something is quite another thing

You keep tossing the term 'honest' around - do you think it is honest to repeat the same claims year after year when you have had your errors explained to you repeatedly?

I think the term you are looking for is converged.

You did not understand my statement - your desire to use total raw sequence differences as the yardstick by which to judge hypotheses of descent runs into trouble if we apply the same criteria to other inter- and intraspecies comparisons. So, if we say that we must include all the nucleotides in indels in the raw count, and the human-chimp divergence goes up to 5%, then we have to use the same criterion when comparing dogs to foxes and loggerhead turtles to leatherbacks and even when comparing two individuals of the same species and guess what - the divergence goes up in ALL those cases.